The Supreme Court is at War with the Constitution
The Guild of Judges is a Criminal Conspiracy at war with the Constitution. We cannot continue to allow the Guild of Judges to rule with absolute authority empowered by their unconstitutional assertion of "absolute immunity."
At the start of the 21st century, in the United States of America, two hundred years after our revolution, in a country founded on "The Declaration of Independence" (1776) by Thomas Jefferson and the "Common Sense" (1776) of Thomas Paine it defies logic that there is any dispute as to the oft quoted passage from "Common Sense" "In America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.[1]"
But there are absolute rulers, the law does not rule in the United States of America, the Constitution does not rule in the United States of America, Citizens do not have unalienable Rights in the United States of America.
The Guild of Judges rules with absolute power in the United States of America. The Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[2] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[3] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[4] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[5]
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 by police officers"[15] 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)
They wield their power freely and dispense their favor and their immunity to others unconstitutionally and illegally under color of law they are sworn to uphold. I quote from the recent United States 8th District Court of Appeals decision "After careful review, we conclude that the orders were proper for the reasons stated by the district court and that an extended discussion is not warranted. See Maness v. Dist. Court, 495 F.3d 943, 943-44 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (de novo review of dismissals based on immunity); Rouse v. Benson, 193 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 1999) (district court's grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo)."
Neither the politics nor the economics of law practice permits lawyers to pursue Judges on constitutional grounds. The criminal unconstitutional Guild of Judges holds all the cards. Their power is absolute as is their immunity, both illegally and unconstitutionally asserted.
I paraphrase "I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge "the Guild of Judges" unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power (immunity), increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. 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 authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."[6]
I say again "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We are asked to believe that the Guild of Judges cannot do their job, within the law. That is self-serving vulgar fallacy of the highest order.
We can not continue to allow the Guild of Judges to rule with absolute authority empowered by their unconstitutional assertion of "absolute immunity". I pray that it will not result in violence. Violence is WRONG. But to be honest, I must declare as Thomas Jefferson did 217 years ago….
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these (Defendants) Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present (Guild of Judges) King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.[7]
Government can be above the Law. No one in a free country is more powerful than an innocent man.
The abuses are happening EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE Mr. Thompson (No. 09–571),[8] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [9] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[10] and myself (USCA8 No. 12-2435, 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614).[11] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[12] PROVES "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!!
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Saturday, February 09, 2013, 1:20:35 PM, 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc
[2] "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
[3] 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"
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] Dalberg-Acton, John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston:The Becon Press, p. 364 I supstituted "the Guild of Judges" for the phrase "Pope and King"
[11] See also Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & 11-8211
[12] "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
