Re: The Supreme Law of the Land and Absolute Immunity sub silentio?
Jeep v. The Government of the United States of America (4:12-cv-703-CEJ)
Dear People,
Why would We the People have enacted the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land[1] to replace the divine right of the King, if it was our intent to give absolute immunitysub silentio[2] i.e., to exempt "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)), especially those tasked with judicial,[3] prosecutorial[4] and enforcement[5] power, all evidence to the contrary, from its binding authority[6] and consequence[7]?
In essence that unconstitutional, corrupt, malicious and insane action by the Supreme Court has now taken absolute immunity away from one, the King, and given it to MANY!!!! It is an incredible, fantastic and/or delusional scenario![8]
In the Jane Crow,[12] plea bargain era, how does one fight the corrupt and malicious actions of a judge, the dishonesty and denial of exculpable evidence by prosecutors and the "knowingly false testimony bypolice officers" under color of law when the deal is controlled and slanted in favor of the largest malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[13] police state in the modern world. Plea out now before trial to X years or we go for the maximum X plus 10 years, if not life in prison. That is not a negotiation; that is an offer you can't refuse.
[1] "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[2] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert an incredible, INSANE, fantastic and/or delusional scenario!!!!!
[3] ""It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges (Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound tby those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? )and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
[4]Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
[5]Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony bypolice officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[6] "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[7]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.
[9] "Slippery-Slope Logic, Applied to Health Care" By RICHARD H. THALER, May 12, 2012 New York Times, as regards absolute immunity the slippery slope of is open ended overwhelming and otherwise unavoidable "vexatious" or calumnious actions
[10]As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
[12]The "Jane Crow" Era, the courts preference for a mother's/ woman's rights over a father's/man's rights in Domestic Relation Law
The "Jane Crow" Era, "It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house."
A fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order." "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08
[13]As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
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
Why would We the People have enacted the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land[6] to replace the divine right of the King, if it was our intent to give absolute immunitysub silentio[7] i.e., to exempt "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)), especially those tasked with judicial,[8] prosecutorial[9] and enforcement[10] power, all evidence to the contrary, from its binding authority and consequence?
In essence that unconstitutional corrupt and malicious action by the Supreme Court has now taken absolute immunity away from one, the King, and given it to MANY!!!! It is an incredible, fantastic and/or delusional scenario![11]We the People are paying the price, falling down the slippery slope head over heels into the largest malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[12] police state in the modern world, "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners."[13]
Contrary to some popular assertions it is not necessarily about Drug Laws; beyond the issue that Drug Laws are victimless crimes where, devoid of a victim, evidence is often necessarily fabricated to assert blameworthiness. Every other modern developed country has the same controlled substances, the same victimless crimes and they do not even come close to our malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[14] incarceration rate - 5 times that of the rest of the world. It is about a CORRUPT American Judiciary / Supreme Court that has enacted unconstitutional JUDGE MADE LAW by precedent; uncheck by the impeachment authority[15] of our dysfunctional legislature.[16]
Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or corrupt" judges by saying, "This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly" (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra,80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.) Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony bypolice officers"[17] by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
Supreme Court precedent empowers all malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[18] persons by saying "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. 335 (1983), acting under color of law in the furtherance of "false and malicious Persecutions"[19]
How is a victim of a Judge "acting maliciously and corruptly," or a prosecutor's "malicious or dishonest action," or the "false testimony by police officers," or the "false and malicious Persecutions"[20] of any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[21] "persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" acting under the apparent color of law suppose to over come the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[22] from the restrictions of a conviction in most cases a prison cell without extraordinary financing?
The Supreme Court FRAUDULENTLY asserts in its precedent "Against the consequences of their erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort" (Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 354 (1871)). As the Supreme Court is fully aware all of those remedies, if they are even available, require upfront financing. It is a FRAUD on the COURT, there are no viable remedies available for injustice within the restrictions of a conviction / prison cell without extra-ordinary financing or the viable potential for punitive damages. I have been attempting that a remedy for NINE years, with the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, fraudulent and uncontested court record in hand to no avail.[23] The Judiciary asserts absolute immunity "before out of Court"[24] an"unlawful Conspiracy"[25] to deny rights[26] a victim can not even get the issue into court.
What have we gained? Is our crime rate commensurately reduced, NO. Our crime rates are among the highest in the developed world. Supposedly we have avoided the slippery-slope of overwhelming and otherwise unavoidable "vexatious"[29] or calumnious[30] actions. The rest of the world that does not even come close to our conviction rate is not overwhelmed by "vexatious"[31] or calumnious.[32] Avoiding "vexatious"[33] or calumnious[34] actions is the unavoidable responsibility of We the People's Justice System, the Judges, the prosecutors, and the police. That is their job whether it revolves around my neighbor's corrupt, malicious, dishonest, incompetent, eccentric actions as regard my backyard or if it revolves around a convicted felon's fraudulent, corrupt, malicious, dishonest and incompetent actions as regards his civil rights.
"The Judiciary has been allowed to foist an incredible, fantastic and/or delusional scenario[35] onWe the People, by allowing its "chief circuit judges to dismiss systematically 99.82% of the complaints filed against judges in the 12-year period, Tuesday October 01, 1996 thru Tuesday September 30, 2008. In that period, its judicial councils –the circuits all judge disciplinary bodies– denied up to 100% of the petitions to review those dismissals. Up to 9 of every 10 appeals are disposed of ad-hoc through no-reason summary orders or opinions so "perfunctory" that they are neither published nor precedential, mere fiats of raw judicial power"[36]talk about an incredible, fantastic and/or delusional scenario[37]to support ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY the self-serving judiciary's seizure of ABSOLUTE POWER
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn[38] to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[39] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[40] i.e.,the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[41] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[42]
We the People have fallen under the despotic[43] spell of the concentrated power[44] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[45] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor,[46]the "knowingly false testimony bypolice officers"[47] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[48]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[49] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.
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,[50] 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[51] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[52] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[53] "before out of Court"[54] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[55]
"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.[56] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[57].
Impeach[58] the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[59]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[60] and
"fraud upon the court."
Before they have a chance to screw-up Healthcare for
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"[64]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[65] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[66] "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 LIFEMr. Thompson (No. 09–571),[67] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [68] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[69] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[70] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[71]PROVES "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!!
[1] "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[2] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it an incredible, fantastic and/or delusional scenario!!!!!
[3] "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.
[6] "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[7] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert an incredible, fantastic and/or delusional scenario!!!!!
[8] ""It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
[9]Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
[10]Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony bypolice officers"[10] by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[12] As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
[14] As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
[15] "And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments… upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations." Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 81, "The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 stated that impeachment was to be used as an integral check for "Judicial Authority"
[16] The dysfunction in our Legislature that has been sustained through earmarks, secret holds and the filibuster, our Legislature cannot even do its primary job, passing effective legislation; much less effectively assert their power of impeachment. The delays caused by earmarks, secret holds and the filibuster has put us decades behind the rest of the world as relates to Judicial Administration, Civil Rights and Health Care.
[18] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!! "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." BySpencer S. Hsu,The Washington Postpublished: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[21] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!! "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." BySpencer S. Hsu,The Washington Postpublished: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[22] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!! "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." BySpencer S. Hsu,The Washington Postpublished: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[23] See US District Court 4:07-cv-0506-SOW, 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 4:10-CV-101-TCM/CAS, 4:11-cv-00931-FRB/CAS and 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, 8th Circuit court of Appeals Filings in 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States 07-11115 and 11-8211
[25]Lord CokeFloyd 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."
[27] As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
[29] 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,
[30] 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,
[31] 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,
[32] 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,
[33] 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,
[34] 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,
[38] 5 U.S.C. 3331 Oath of office: "I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
[39] "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)
[40] 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"
[42] 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.
[43] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[44] "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
[45] 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.
[50] 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.
[51] 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.
[52] "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
[53]Lord CokeFloyd 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."
[58] "And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments… upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations." Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 81, "The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 stated that impeachment was to be used as an integral check for "Judicial Authority"
[60] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[61] 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
[62] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[63] 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.
[64] "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
[66] 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.
