Re-New
the Love of virtue
Reciprocity
and Justice
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,
July 13, 2012, 12:45:36
PM
We have to re-new the Love of virtue in our American Society. Love of virtue has been too closely and
erroneously associate with Communism and too little associated with Montesquieu’s republican
government’s essential ingredient, the willingness to put the interests
of the community ahead of private interests. American’s feel too emotionally repulsed by
the love
of virtue because of its erroneously asserted though non-controlling
link to the fall of communism.
Love of virtue is the
underlying aspiration that gives civilization its authority, contrary to GOP’s
current assertions of laissez-faire capitalist
free-enterprise and law and order, without regard to justice,[4] policy.
Love of virtue,
economically speaking, is what fuels the development of the next new
thing. Ask any entrepreneur from Edison to Gates and they will tell you yes, their
ultimate goal was to make money, but the acknowledged essential prerequisite goal
was and had to be to build a better mouse trap than the competition was
selling. Building a better mouse trap is
synonymous with the love of virtue the willingness to put the interests
of the community, a better mouse trap for the community, ahead of
private interests, to make money.
Neither Edison nor Gates would have been successful if they had NOT
provided a better mouse trap for the community.
An economy/civilization can
not exist for long based solely on the self-centered interests of unregulated
free-markets devoid of the Love of virtue. One need only look at the corruption of the
unregulated trusts, cartels, monopolies and labor unions at the turn of the 19th Century and into the first
half of the 20th century in the American economy. The Sherman
Love of virtue is what
makes people stop at stop signs and keeps our banks safe from robbers. Self-centered interests and fear of Law and
Order deterrents alone can not do it; there has to be an intrinsic reason for people
to obey the law. Deterrents are a
necessary evil, to reinforce and support the love of virtue at the fringes of
society. Society at large obeys the law
because it is the virtuous thing to do. For law and order to succeed the people
have to buy into the intrinsic need for a law, the love of virtue, for it to
succeed. If the law is not based in a
common good it will either be ignored or repealed. There has to be an intrinsic and self evident
love of the virtue of the law. For
example The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419,
enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) currently in
dispute in our Federal courts, the president refuses to enforce it on constitutional
grounds, that it embarrasses[7] the intrinsic love of virtue, equal protection[8] our constitutional system is based on.
Do we live as animals,
survival of the fittest, or are We the
People civilized by our assertion of the democratically derived and
sustained supreme law of the land, the Constitution for the United States of America
The Civilization of humanity has been trying
to extricate itself from its animalistic nature since its inception. One need only read the creeds/bible of any of
our religions:
“Thou
shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but
thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”[9]
“For this is the message that ye
heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.”[10]
“In all that we do, we must
be guided by that simple command that binds all great religions together: Love thy neighbor as thyself.”[11]
We the People sought to further
separate ourselves from the survival of the fittest with our Constitution for
the United States of America United States of America
“Justice is the end of government. It is the
end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be
obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the
forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker,
anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker
individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the
latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of
their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well
as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or
parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which
will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.”
We the People have lost
the requisite common purpose to put the interests of the community ahead of
private interests i.e., Justice. We
the People have been mislead by the erroneously asserted superiority of
laissez-faire capitalism over
communism’s asserted failed common purpose to put the interests of the
community ahead of private interests.
It is JUST COMMON SENSE!!!!
No one is ever safe unless
Justice for all is the goal. Anyone that
has ever been in combat can tell you that surprise can overtake strength of
numbers anytime. Any motivated minority
can wreak havoc, via terrorism, in any civilized society. We the People have to eliminate the
minority’s motivation to wreak havoc, via terrorism. We the People have to work for FULL
inclusion. We the People can not
exclude anyone, Justice for all! To
maintain peace We the People have to be constantly vigilant in pursuit of Justice
for all. Unless We
the People are vigilant, We the People will be taken over by
an oligarchy professing safety and freedom but delivering totalitarianism.
Those that assert we should
do nothing about the injustice of poverty, because whatever we do we will
always have lazy people living off the dole, have never really considered the issues
of poverty. Poverty yes can be an inbred
tendency, but as a rich man unjustly leaves his, potentially unworthy, heirs
money, maybe talented and a hard work ethic; the incompetent man unjustly leaves
his heirs his incompetence. We have to
struggle to break the cycle[12] and maximize the utilization of equity, talent and effort with a
sustainable system of education and inheritance.
Democracy’s purpose at the
birth of our nation was very socialistic, Marxist if you will,[13] to take the wealth out of the hand of the nobility and put it
within reach of everyone. And the United States of America United States of America
The Love of virtue is an
ESSENTIAL component of a republic just as Montesquieu in 1748
originally asserted in “The Spirit of the Laws” (French: De l'esprit des lois). There
has to be a common goal, a larger goal for the group to supersede the
individual’s singular capacity.
Are we a group of individuals are We the People a country?
The Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is not socialism it is JUSTICE. Affordable healthcare is about
JUSTICE!!! Prior to the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 health care universal
healthcare for America was inefficiently, inadequately and unjustly provided
via the Emergency
Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) of 1986. Anyone needing healthcare, that could not
afford or did not have access to health care insurance, had to demand emergency
healthcare treatment in the emergency room.
There were no reimbursement provisions for hospitals for this treatment. This was an injustice to both the hospital
required to FOR FREE provide service and an injustice to the welfare of those
that could not afford or did not have access to Health Insurance, forcing them
into emergency room and denying them life prolonging well-care. The Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is not about socialism it is
about JUSTICE. The Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) provides justice in the form of
reimbursement to the hospitals. The Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) provides access to well-care
for those with preexisting conditions that could not get health care in the
past. The Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) provides access to well-care
for those that could not get affordable healthcare because their employer could
not afford it. AND YES the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) provides access to well-care
EVEN for those that can not or will not pay for it via taxation!!!!!!
The Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) as enacted in 2010 is an
attempt to establish Justice by providing a means of reimbursement for the
hospital and universally establishing the availability of well-care and emergency
care for all persons!!!!!!
“Republicans (GOP) say they trust the people. If that’s true,
then they won’t waste another futile breath bashing the court for upholding
Obamacare. They’ll explicitly tell the country how they would replace it. Democracy is a contest between alternatives,
not a deus ex machina stroke from the (unconstitutional absolutely immune) lords in black robes.”[18]
If we truly want to maintain a democratic
republic it is essential that We the People uphold the Love of
virtue: “
Political
candidates will have to spend less time trying to exploit class divisions and
more time trying to remedy them — less time calling their opponents out of
touch elitists, and more time coming up with agendas that comprehensively
address the problem. It’s politically tough to do that, but the alternative is
national suicide.”[19]
We the People have become
the largest most corrupt, malicious and incompetent[20] police state in the developed world by giving absolute immunity to
an oligarchy. “With
5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's
reported prisoners.”[21] Our system of Justice, via the Supreme Court (an
oligarchy) Precedent condones malice corruption, dishonesty and incompetence. [22]
How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and
incompetence[23] condoned
and supported by Supreme Court precedent be constitutional in a SANE government
of the people, by the people and for the people?
This is a massive malicious, corrupt,
dishonest and incompetent[24] self-serving conspiracy
against rights!!!
Historically, the
claim of precedent and / or consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it
is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Absolute Immunity even in the supreme Court has
NEVER been established without, in most cases, multiple dissenting opinions.
To assume that
the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution of the United States of
America as the supreme Law of the Land, intended sub silentio to exempt[25]
ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[26] prosecutorial[27]and
enforcement[28] power from its paramount binding
authority is an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[29]
There are no royal absolutely immune ruling
persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.
[32] We
the People incorporated ourselves, in 1788, into a government of the
people, by the people and for the people to secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity with a lawfully un-abridge-able right of the people
to justifiably petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[33]
How can the Supreme
Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others “absolute
immunity”[34] from said constitutional commission to “do not only what their
powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”[35] i.e.,
the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America
We the People
have fallen under the despotic[38] spell
of the concentrated power[39]
in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[40]
from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the “malicious or corrupt”
judges,[41] the “malicious or
dishonest” prosecutor, [42]
the “knowingly
false testimony by police officers"[43]
and “all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[44])
persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial
process” [45]
acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[46]
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,[47] 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[48] grant of “Absolute
Immunity,”[49]
by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial,
unconstitutional and “unlawful Conspiracy”[50]
“before
out of Court”[51]
to obfuscate “false
and malicious Persecutions.”[52]
“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, Friday, July 13, 2012!!! Justice
William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.
[53] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and
congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[57] 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,[58]" denying the establishment of justice and
abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right
to a redress of grievances,[59] with their deprivation of substantive 7th
Amendment[60] 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!!!
Judicial
modesty is one of the best possible qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice,
a position that offers so much untrammeled power and brings so much temptation
along with it.
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"[61]" for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws of the United States of America”[62] e.g., “To Kill a Mocking Bird,
The Denial of Due Process,”[63] “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 9 years.[64] I have suffered through 411 days of illegal
incarceration, 5 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 and 11-8211.”
We hold a “4-Year-Old Can
Be Sued.”[65]
We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. [66]
We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building
in Iraq and Afghanistan . [67]
We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. [68]
We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. [69]
But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence,
malice and corruption of “our chief justice (judges), our officials
(prosecutors), or any of our servants (law enforcement)” [70]
and compensate the victims?
That is
INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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),[71] Mr.
Smith (No. 10-8145), [72]
Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[73] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[74] The
fact that “With
5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's
reported prisoners”[75]
PROVES “We the People”
have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Friday, July 13,
2012, 12:45:36 PM, 2012 07-01-12 Love of virtue REV 00
[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]
Justice can not be administered by an “absolute immune” authority without
regard to upfront assertions of inalienable right to Due Process of Law e.g.,
if judges are “absolute immune” what incentive or deterrent do they have to
provide Due Process of Law? One would
hope that the love of virtue would be the guiding light for the
judiciary and in the overwhelming majority of cases it is but there are in
individual cases and in discrimination based case Jim Crow/Jane Crow, where the
Love of Virtue is not sufficient their needs to be some case, .
[5] The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act, July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15
U.S.C. §§ 1–7)
is a landmark federal statute on competition law passed by Congress in 1890. It
prohibits certain business activities that reduce competition in the
marketplace, and requires the United States federal government to
investigate and pursue trusts,
companies, and organizations suspected of being in violation. It was the first
Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis
for most antitrust litigation
by the United States
To promote the
full flow of commerce, to prescribe the legitimate rights of both employees and
employers in their relations affecting commerce, to provide orderly and
peaceful procedures for preventing the interference by either with the
legitimate rights of the other, to protect the rights of individual employees in
their relations with labor organizations whose activities affect commerce, to
define and proscribe practices on the part of labor and management which affect
commerce and are inimical to the general welfare, and to protect the rights of
the public in connection with labor disputes affecting commerce.
[7] “embarrass the future” ALBERT
W. FLORENCE, PETITIONER v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF
BURLINGTON ET ALCite as: 566 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 ROBERTS, C. J., concurring
‘Embarrass the Future’? By LINDA GREENHOUSE New York Times, Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Minnesota, 322 U.S. 300 (1944)
[8] Amendment 14th , assed by Congress
June 13, 18 66.
Ratified July 9, 18 68. “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.”
[12] John Bordley Rawls (February 21, 1921 - November 24, 2002 )
His magnum opus, A Theory of Justice (1971), was hailed at the time of its
publication as "the most important work in moral philosophy since the end
of World War II," and is now
regarded as "one of the primary texts in political philosophy." His work in political philosophy, dubbed
Rawlsianism, takes as its starting point
the argument that "most reasonable principles of justice are those
everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position." Rawls employs a number of thought experiments
— including the famous veil of ignorance — to determine what
constitutes a fair agreement in which "everyone is impartially situated as
equals," in order to determine principles of social justice.
[13] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - "to
regulate the national economy in the interest of those who labor to sustain it." NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. No. 11–393.
Argued March 26, 27 ,
28, 2012—Decided June
28, 2012
[14] “Take,
for instance, article 1st, section 2d, to wit: "Representatives and direct
taxes shall be apportioned among several States which may be included within
this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by
adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service
for a term of years, and including Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other
persons."
A diversity of persons are here described —
persons bound to service for a term of years, Indians not taxed, and
three-fifths of all other persons. Now, we ask, in the name of common sense,
can there be an honest doubt that, in States where there are slaves, that they
are included in this basis of representation? To us, it is as plain as the sun
in the heavens that this clause does, and was intended to mean, that the slave
States should enjoy a representation of their human chattels under this
Constitution. Beside, the term free, which is generally, though not always,
used as the correlative of slave, "all other persons," settles the
question forever that slaves are here included.” Frederick
Douglass, March 16, 1849 The North Star
[15] 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
[16] In the Jane Crow plea bargain era, how does one fight
the corrupt and malicious actions of a judge, the dishonesty and denial of
exculpable evidence by prosecutors, the "knowingly false testimony by
police officers" or "a frivolous exparte order of protection"
in the Jane Crow family courts under color of law when the deal is controlled and
slanted in favor of the largest malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent
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.
[17] “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
[20] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is
covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishoesty, malice andcorruption. 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."
As regards law enforcement
"Convicted
defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept."
By Spencer
S. Hsu, The Washington
Post published 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] “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
[22] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is
covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishoesty, malice andcorruption. 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."
As regards law enforcement
"Convicted
defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept."
By Spencer
S. Hsu, The Washington
Post published 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] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is
covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishoesty, malice andcorruption. 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."
As regards law enforcement
"Convicted
defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept."
By Spencer
S. Hsu, The Washington Post published 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.
[24] Incompetence is the most insidiuos and it is
covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishoesty, malice andcorruption. 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."
As regards law enforcement
"Convicted
defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept."
By Spencer
S. Hsu, The Washington
Post published 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.
[25] “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 a
fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[26] ""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"
-- and the leave was refused" (Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Law Reports
Exchequer 220) Bradley v. Fisher, 80
U.S. 349 (1871)
[27] 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)
[28] Supreme Court precedent empowers the
"knowingly false testimony by police officers"[8] 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)
[30] Aldous Huxley
[31] “embarrass the future” ALBERT
W. FLORENCE, PETITIONER v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF
BURLINGTON ET ALCite as: 566 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 ROBERTS, C. J., concurring
‘Embarrass the Future’? By LINDA GREENHOUSE New York Times, Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Minnesota, 322 U.S. 300 (1944)
[32] There
are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute
Immunity," Article
1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be
granted by the United States" and Article
1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of
Nobility." Additionally I cite Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No.
84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution
Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York May 28, 17 88 as further
timely clarification of the supreme
law of the land:
"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance
of the prohibition of titles of nobility(i.e., absolute immunity). This may truly be denominated
the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded,
there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than
that of the people."
You some how want to argue that “the grant of Nobility” was about
something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue that
hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of
Nobility? That would undermine
Free-Enterprise.
Anyone that wants to assertion “the prohibition of titles of nobility’
was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of theabsolute immunity of the
nobility had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note
the consistent aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.
There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than
Royal status as immunity - being above the law?
Did NatKing Cole violate the constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE -THING
of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[33] Amendment I Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
[34] “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
[35] 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”
[36] 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.
[37] 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.
[38] 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
[39] "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
[40] “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 the certainty of
corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office
sanctifies the holder of it.” Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar
and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.
[41] 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.
[44] Incompetence is
the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice,
corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[45] Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for “all persons
-- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”
[46] “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 the certainty of
corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office
sanctifies the holder of it.” Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar
and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.
[47] Justice without
regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have
suffered. I have been forced into
homelessness for FIVE 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.
[48] 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.
[49] “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
[50] 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.”
[55] “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, 17 88
stated that impeachment was to be used as an integral check for “Judicial
Authority”
[57] The redress of a
justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[58] 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
[59] 1st Amendment, “Congress
shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.”
[60] 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.
[61] “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
[63] Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts
[64] 9.12 years, 3,330 calendar days, 53,287
waking hours, 3,197,196 waking minutes, 191,831,788 waking waking seconds, as of Thursday June 28, 2012 10:54:41.35 AM
[65] “4-Year-Old Can
Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case” “Citing cases dating back as far as
1928, a New York State Supreme Court Justice has ruled that a young girl
accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training
wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence.” Justice Paul Wooten of the New York State
Supreme Court in Manhattan , New
York Times, New York
edition, published: October
28, 2010 , A version of this article appeared in print on October 29, 2010 ,
on page A24 By Alan Feuer
[66] “Mark Zandi the
chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “Dr. Zandi’s analysis found that the
cost of rescuing the industry, across all aid programs would be at minimum $75 billion, and maybe
go as high as $120 billion or more.”
[67] Cost of War in Iraq $804,350,051,831, Cost of War in Afghanistan
Please
enable Javascript for the counter to update.
[68] “Recovery
Bill Gets Final Approval” The New York Times, A version of
this article appeared in print on February 14, 2009 , on page A15 of the New York edition.
[69] “Bailout Plan: $2.5
Trillion and a Strong U.S. Hand” The New York
Times, By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and STEPHEN LABATON published: February 10, 2009
[74] See also USCA8 7-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari
to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211
[75] “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
