What Can and Can't a Judge do?
I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Cloths"
AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
Friday, March 30, 2012, 1:29:06 PM
The Judiciary is responsible to "establish Justice"[4] exclusively by way of the fair and unbiased administration of "Due Process of Law."[5] A Judge has no AUTHORITY outside of Due Process of Law. Due Process of Law is a recognized comprehensive procedural and substantive protection for rights.
The first and most important function of any judge is to be judicial and defend We the People's rights against the obvious "cases of imaginary evils,"[6] vexatious[7] and calumnious[8] actions. A judge's first and most important JOB is to determine CREDIBLE probable cause and if a Judge can be swayed by personal bias, "cases of imaginary evils,"[9] "vexatious"[10] or calumnious[11] actions the constitutional protection of IV, V and XIV Amendments[12] are of NO VALUE.
Due Process of Law is a recognized comprehensive procedural and substantive protection for rights. Due Process finds it earliest modern formal reference in clause 39 of the Magna Carta (1215), promised as follows: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals[13] or by the law of the land."
The first and most important function of any judge is to be judicial and defend We the People's rights and liberties against personal bias, "cases of imaginary evils"[14] vexatious[15] and calumnious[16] actions. A judge's JOB is to determine probable cause and if a Judge can be swayed by personal bias, "cases of imaginary evils,"[17] "vexatious"[18] or calumnious[19] actions the constitutional protection of IV, V and XIV Amendments[20] are of no value.
When and IF probable cause is established it is then the Judiciary's responsibility to, with highest personal integrity, oversee the unbiased administration of the Jury System phase of Due Process to settle ALL DISPUTES.[21]
In my case, "The Wrong," first the judges had me held on an assertion of probable cause legally unrelated to the declared charge. With absence of probable cause already on RECORD, the Judicial officer then proceded to find:
"The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced. The Court does find the allegations of the amended petition to be true."[22]
With the undisputed record of the facts, in four 8th circuit court of appeals case 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425, in this case it is obvious, to any sane "person of ordinary intelligence,"[23] a Judge's finding can not amend the pleading during a hearing on that pleading or the Due Process of law that proceeded it is meaningless.
This was devastating[24] and a flagrant denial of Due Process rights in the original cause No. 03FC-010670 that becomethe root of Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211.
This was a clearly a criminal[26] DENIAL of Justice as defined by Due Process of law as GUARANTEED and SECURED by the V and XIV Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America. I seek REDRESS per the Declaration if Independence, The Constitution for the United States of America, The Bill of Rights,[27] Statute Law[28] and Treaties[29] made as "the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."[30]
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[31] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[32] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[33]
We the People have fallen under the despotic[34] spell of the concentrated power[35] in the Supreme Court that created ABSOLUTE POWER from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[36] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [37] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[38] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[39]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [40] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.
See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211 Jeep v. Obama
I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Cloths." AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity,[41] in a government of free and equal persons on THIS PLANET!!!!!
ANY assertion of governmental ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, acknowledging un-avoidable human fallibility, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity, in a government of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!
The ministerial[42] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[43] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[44] "before out of Court"[45] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[46]
"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." I say it NOW, 2011!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [47] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[48].
Impeach the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[49]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[50] and
"fraud upon the court."
Before they have a chance to screw-up Healthcare for
100 years!!!!!!
Impeach the current Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[51]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[52] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[53] justice between the government and the people, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011!!!
The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people. We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"[54]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[55] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[56] "The Exclusionary Rule," "Grounds for Impeachment."
Most of the 99% of Americans have not had the pleasure and are silently intimidated by the prospect of being dragged through our corrupt COURTS kicking and screaming!!!!!! I have been kicking and screaming for nearly 8 years. I have suffered through 411 days of illegal incarceration, 4 years of homelessness and two psychological examinations. I ask you to review Jeep v Obama 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case #11-2425, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947," Jeep v Bennett 08-1823, "Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and the most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115."
I have referenced "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process," in several of my papers, I do so only because the facts of the case in "To Kill a Mocking Bird" are generally known. The abuses are happening EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE Mr. Thompson (No. 09–571),[57] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [58] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[59] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[60] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[61] PROVES IT !!!!!!!!!!!!
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Friday, March 30, 2012, 1:29:06 PM, 2012 03-29-12 What can and can't aJudge do REV 02
[1] "And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun." 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM e.g., George Bush's false representations of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi - Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis.
[2] "Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
[3] Mr. Thompson in the New York Times in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
[4] Preamble to the the Constitution for the United States of America "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
[5] XIV Amendment "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
[6] "many cases of imaginary evils have been suggested if the contrary doctrine should prevail. Among these are a supposed seizure of vessels of war, invasions of forts and arsenals of the United States. Hypothetical cases of great evils may be suggested by a particularly fruitful imagination in regard to almost every law upon which depends the rights of the individual or of the government, and if the existence of laws is to depend upon their capacity to withstand such criticism, the whole fabric of the law must fail." United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 217 (1882)
[7] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[10] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871) "prevent them (our judges and justice system) being harassed by vexatious actions," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
[11] Floyd and Barker (1607) "And those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual Calumniations," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
[12] IV Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Amendment V "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Amendment XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment. Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
[13] "the lawful judgment of his equals" is the embodiment of "The Golden Rule" or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim, ethical code, or morality that essentially states:
· One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
This concept describes a "reciprocal" or "two-way" relationship between one's self and others that involves both sides equally and in a mutual fashion. This has is the elemental foundation of virtually EVERY major religion on this planet.
[14] "In this connection, many cases of imaginary evils have been suggested if the contrary doctrine should prevail… Hypothetical cases of great evils may be suggested by a particularly fruitful imagination in regard to almost every law upon which depends the rights of the individual or of the government, and if the existence of laws is to depend upon their capacity to withstand such criticism, the whole fabric of the law must fail." United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 217 (1882)
[15] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 349
[18] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871) "prevent them (our judges and justice system) being harassed by vexatious actions," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
[19] Floyd and Barker (1607) "And those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual Calumniations," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
[20] IV Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." "Probable cause" is the REQUIREMENT in advance of Due Process of Law as required by V and XIV Amendments.
[21] "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury…" Constitution for the United States of America Article III., Section. 2., 3rd paragraph, "In (civil) Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment VII
[22] IN THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DIVISION 65, Commissioner Phillip Jones, Presiding, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003, Cause No. 03FC-010670. The petitioner had two weeks plus (11/03/03/ - 11/20/03) prior to the hearing to amend the pleading. Petitioner, Sharon G. Jeep, denied any physical or verbal abuse at the subsequent divorce hearing in addition to the denials at the abuse hearing. It should be noted that if exigent circumstances were involved, they weren't, they should have STILL BEEN noted at the hearing or in the two weeks prior to the hearing and respondent given a subsequent chance to be heard on the exigent/infamous charge as assured by constitutional Due Process right.
[23] SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting) United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 "It is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. 453 (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct (probable casue) is forbidden." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954). See Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391-393 (1926); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 405 U. S. 162 (1972); Dunn v. United States, ante at 442 U. S. 112-113. (Underlining and emphasis added)
[24] I was left a damaged man, my life… my son was thus taken from me, I was left penniless, homeless, everything in the world I cared about was taken from me and I had no access to appeal from my reduced circumstances. I could barely keep my psychological and physical necessities of life together.
[25] Probable cause was QUESTIONABLE for the hypothetical "petty theft"
[27] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for FOUR YEARS! The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 7th Amendment secures the right to settle all suits: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law" assures justice as regards equity.
[28] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 The absence of exigent circumstances should be noted.
[29] "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights " PART II, Article 2, Section 3)
[30] The Constitutuion for the United states of America, Article. VI., 2nd paragraph.
[31] "In short, the common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335 (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[32] Alexander Hamilton June of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, The Federalist Papers No. 78, "The Judiciary Department"
[33] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 The absence of exigent circumstances should be noted.
[34] Montesquieu in his "De l'Espirit des Lois" (1748) (The Spirit of the Law) defines three main kinds of political systems: republican, monarchical, and despotic. Driving each classification of political system, according to Montesquieu, must be what he calls a "principle". This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior on the part of the citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make it function smoothly. For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics), this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. For monarchies, the spring is the love of honor -- the desire to attain greater rank and privilege. Finally, for despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler. We the People have currently despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
[35] "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton, John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston: Beacon Press, p. 364
[36] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[37] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[38] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[39] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[40] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[41] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into homelessness for FOUR YEARS! The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 7th Amendment's secures the right to settle all disputes/suits: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law" assures justice as regards equity.
[42] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law. For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[43] "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[44] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) "Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy."
[48] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[50] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[51] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" Yes it is spelled wrong in the Constitution
[52] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[53] Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
[54] "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[56] Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts stated: "Now, it is an effectual denial by a State of the equal protection of the laws when any class of officers charged under the laws with their administration permanently, and as a rule, refuse to extend that protection. If every sheriff in South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) refuses to serve a writ for a colored man, and those sheriffs are kept in office year after year by the people of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), and no verdict against them for their failure of duty can be obtained before a South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) jury, the State of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), through the class of officers who are its representatives to afford the equal protection of the laws to that class of citizens, has denied that protection. If the jurors of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) constantly and as a rule refuse to do justice between man and man where the rights of a particular class of its citizens are concerned, and that State affords by its legislation no remedy, that is as much a denial to that class of citizens of the equal protection of the laws as if the State itself put on its statute book a statute enacting that no verdict should be rendered in the courts of that State in favor of this class of citizens. " Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 334.( Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 177) Senator Pratt of Indiana spoke of the discrimination against Union sympathizers and Negroes in the actual enforcement of the laws: "Plausibly and sophistically, it is said the laws of North Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) do not discriminate against them; that the provisions in favor of rights and liberties are general; that the courts are open to all; that juries, grand and petit, are commanded to hear and redress without distinction as to color, race, or political sentiment." "But it is a fact, asserted in the report, that of the hundreds of outrages committed upon loyal people through the agency of this Ku Klux organization, not one has been punished. This defect in the administration of the laws does not extend to other cases. Vigorously enough are the laws enforced against Union people. They only fail in efficiency when a man of known Union sentiments, white or black, invokes their aid. Then Justice closes the door of her temples." Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 505. (Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 178) non italic parenthetical text added fro clarity.
[60] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211
[61] "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners" and you have the moronic audacity to ask why???? "Why We Must Fix Our Prisons", By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009, U.S. Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: February 29, 2008, Our Real Prison Problem. Why are we so worried about Gitmo? Newsweek by Dahlia Lithwick Published June 5, 2009
Thanks in advance
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
