"The Earth and everything that's in it": I do not care about the minutia.

Monday, June 24, 2013

I do not care about the minutia.

I do not care about the minutia.

I saw 60 Minutes' story ""Evidence of Innocence: The case of Michael Morton" again last night and we are way past you!!!!!!!!

The 11^th Amendment has no bearing on homogeneous suits. It bears only on "foreign and state diversity suits." REREAD the AMENDMENT!!! You are reading too much of the legalese and too little of the reckonable LAW. The Constitution, as amended, provides for access to petition/sue We the People's government for a justifiable lawfully un-abridge-able right to a "redress of grievances"in both law and equity per the 7th Amendment.

"You cannot see the forest for the trees."

I do not care about the minutia. The reason We the People incorporated ourselves with a written constitution was to establish "rights." "(T)there are "absolutes" in our (reckonable) Bill of Rights, and they were put then on purpose by men who knew what words meant, and meant their prohibitions to be "absolutes." The whole history and background of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as I understand it, belies the assumption or conclusion that our ultimate constitutional freedoms are no more than our English ancestors had when they came to this new land to get new freedoms. The historical and practical purposes of a Bill of Rights, the very use of a written constitution, indigenous to America"[1]

Our Constitution our Bill of Rights express superseded the "common law" of the nobility's "absolute immunity/power." The Founding Fathers, the Authors of the constitution, had lived for too long at the discretion of the Nobility's[2] absolute immunity with "no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right" and sought to establish a reckonable[3] Rule of Law to replace the Rule of the Nobility's absolute immune prerogative. The Constitution/Rule of Law is meaningless if the ubiquitous absolute immunity[4] that empowered the Rule of the Nobility in pre-revolutionary times is allowed to circumvent the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is therefore, by definition, irreconcilably opposed to absolute immunity. There can be no Rule of Law if the law can be circumvented by absolute immunity. "Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility,[5] both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter."[6] "Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. 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."[7]

Article III, §1 & 2 of the Constitution

We the People's Justice and Liberty

Article III, §1 & 2 of the Constitution, The Supreme Court of the United States of America, is and has been an abysmal failure as the supposed altruistic defender of Justice and Liberty within our constitutional system of government. The original purpose for having an appointed for life independent judiciary, free from political or economic corruption, was to empower it to altruistically defend Justice and Liberty for ALL. Now it HAS VERY RARELY if ever done that.[8] In fact most of the Supreme Court's rulings tend to oppose Justice and Liberty rather than altruistically or independently support it.

The assertion that the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution for the United States of America, and "We the People," as represented by BOTH houses of congress, enacted into law the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866[9] and The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, enacted April 20, 1871,[10] over the specific expressed objections to judicial, legislative and ministerial officer's liability of President Johnson's Veto,[11] as the reckonable[12] supreme Law of the Land,[13] "intended sub silentio to exempt"[14] under color of law "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[15] especially those entrusted with judicial,[16] prosecutorial[17] and enforcement[18] power, all evidence to the contrary, from the federal Constitution's paramount binding authority[19] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice[20] is an incredible,[21] fantastic or delusional scenario.[22]

"With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[23] PROVES "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!! "Six million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.—more than were in Stalin's gulags,"[24] proves there is rampant denial of Justice and Liberty in We the People's Police State today

Justice, without equity consideration, is unsustainable. The pursuit of Justice and Liberty without equity consideration impoverishes the victim at the expense of the injustice and denial of liberty that has overwhelmed them. Most of the victims of injustice are in prison if not impoverished. How do you instigate a defense of your innocence from POVERTY if not incarceration?

Our forefathers knew this would be the case and provided a remedy with the 1^st Amendment's lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition/sue[25] the government for redress of grievances with the jury based reciprocity of the 7^th Amendment's security "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." In 1803 there was no such thing as common law sovereign immunity per Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison - 5 U.S. 163 (1803), "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court."

Sovereign Immunity and its progeny absolute immunity were figments of the Supreme Courts unchecked imagination to maliciously, corruptly and incompetently institutionalize the Jim Crow cast system in We the People's society post Civil War over our constitutionally and statutorily expressed intent to establish Justice and Liberty for ALL. The Supreme Court knew exactly how corrupt, malicious and incompetent they were. One needs only to read John Marshal Harlan's dissent in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883) that struck down the clear intent of We the People with our 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments establish Justice and Liberty for ALL in the United States of America:

"The opinion in these cases proceeds, it seems to me, upon grounds entirely too narrow and artificial. I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.

"It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul."

Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation,[26] if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted.

The purpose of the first section of the act of Congress of March 1, 1875,[27] was to prevent race discrimination in respect of the accommodations and facilities of inns, public conveyances, and places of public amusement. It does not assume to define the general conditions and limitations under which inns, public conveyances, and places of public amusement may be conducted, but only declares that such conditions and limitations, whatever they may be, shall not be applied so as to work a discrimination solely because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The second section provides a penalty against anyone denying, or aiding or inciting the denial, of any citizen, of that equality of right given by the first section except for reasons by law applicable to citizens of every race or color and regardless of any previous condition of servitude."

The Supreme Court's confirmation bias of absolute immunity, as precedent, has for too long made manifest evil look accepted benign and inevitable e.g., mass murder (Blyew v. United States - 80 U.S. 581 (1871)), massacre/pogrom (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)), Jim Crow Lynching Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), "malicious or corrupt Judges" Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967), "prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976), forced sterilization (Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)), "knowingly false testimony by police officers" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983), an innocent man on death row for 15 years (Connick v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011), "fraud upon the court" (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011), "Jane Crow" Lynching (8^th Circuit Court of Appeals case #07-2614, 08-1823, 09-2848, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435, 13-2200 David Jeep vs. Government of the USA and Kahn v. Kahn 21 F.3d 859, 861) and absolute immunity for any malicious, corrupt or incompetent actions "for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)

The Supreme Court does this in spite of the sense and reason of our Constitutional Law and We the People can do nothing. The Supreme Court has self-servingly awarded themselves absolute immunity. The Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[28] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[29] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[30] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1^st and 7^th Amendment Justice, law and equity[31] as defined in We the People's constitution.

How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[32] 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[33] 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[34] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[35] prosecutorial[36]and enforcement[37] power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[38] "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[39]

This embarrasses the future and the past[40] There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[41] 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.[42]

How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[43] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[44] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[45] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1^st and 7^th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[46]

We the People have fallen under the despotic[47] spell of the concentrated power[48] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[49] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[50] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [51] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[52] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[53]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [54] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[55] See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211 Jeep v. Obama

and

#12-2435 Jeep v Government of the United States of America 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,[56] 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[57] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[58] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional an "unlawful Conspiracy"[59] "before out of Court"[60] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[61]

"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, Monday, June 24, 2013!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [62] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[63].

Impeach[64] the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[65]

for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[66] 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,[67]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[68] with their deprivation of substantive 7^th Amendment[69] 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.

Anyone that questions this should read "INHERENTLY UNEQUAL, The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court, 1865-1903" by Lawrence Goldstone and / or The shifting wind : the Supreme Court and civil rights from Reconstruction to Brown by John R. Howard. "Six million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.—more than were in Stalin's gulags."[70]

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"[71]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[72] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[73] "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.[74] 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 8^th 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."[75] We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. [76] We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. [77] We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. [78] We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. [79] 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)" [80] 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),[81] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [82] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[83] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[84] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[85] PROVES "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!! Evidence as posted on this blog
Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211 DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)

Monday, June 24, 2013, 9:26:09 AM, 2012 06-26-12 Who makes the law REV 01 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

a country in which nobody[86] is ever truly safe."[87]

Monday, June 24, 2013, 9:26:09 AM

"The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't"[88]

Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 David G. Jeep

c/o The Bridge, 1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred) www.DGJeep.blogspot.com

(314) 514-5228

[1] Hugo Black is Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. This article was delivered as the first James Madison Lecture at the New York University School of Law on February 17, 1960. Reprinted from NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Vol. 35, April, 1960

[2] 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. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 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.

[3] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia, ibid.

[4] After NINE years of Good Faith appeals, the issues of undeclared exigent circumstances and or Good Faith immunity are no longer available.

[5] 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."

There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law? Did Nat "King" Cole violate the constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[6] FEDERALIST No. 39, "The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles" For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, January 16, 1788, James Madison

[7] FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 by Alexander Hamilton

[8] See African American Civil Rights in Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871), United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) and Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). See the paradoxical assertion of Liberty of Contract that denied We the People the Liberty to organize and pass Statute Law to promote the general Welfare with Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). See the DENIAL of any accountability with the CRIMINAL assertion of absolute immunity in Judicial (Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)), Prosecutorial (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)) and all persons (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)).

[9] Now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Whoever" criminally liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.

[10] Now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Every person" civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.

[11] It is malicious, corrupt and incompetent to assert ANY, much less absolute, immunity when both The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and The Civil Rights Act of 1871 were passed with the full knowledge of President Andrew Johnson's Veto of the Civil Rights Bill, Washington, D.C., March 27, 1866, To the Senate of the United States:

"This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary, as adequate judicial remedies could be adopted to secure the desired end without invading the immunities of legislators, always important to be preserved in the interest of public liberty; without assailing the independence of the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order. The remedy proposed by this section seems to be in this respect not only anomalous, but unconstitutional; for the Constitution guarantees nothing with certainty if it does not insure to the several States the right of making and executing laws in regard to all matters arising within their jurisdiction, subject only to the restriction that in cases of conflict with the Constitution and constitutional laws of the United States the latter should be held to be the supreme law of the land.…"

[12] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)

[13] 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.

[14] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!

[15] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)

[16] "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).

The Supreme Court precedent has empowered itself and the rest of the judiciary by saying ""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 by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"

-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)

[17] 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)

[18] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police 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)

[19] "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).

"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

[20] 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 4.75 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.

[21] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!

[22] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)

[23] "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

[24] The Caging of America, Why do we lock up so many people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012

[25] The colonial link between the right to petition and suit was confirmed by the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshal, "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))

[26] "The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Was included as the last section of Amendments 13, 14 and 15.

[27] The Civil Rights Act of March 1, 1875

"Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore,

Be it enacted, That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude."

[28] "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

[29] 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"

[30] 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.

[31] 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 1^st 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 7^th 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.

[32] 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: 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.

[33] 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."

[34] "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!!!!!

[35] ""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 potential denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence (HOW do the judges justify the denial of the Supreme Law land there WERE TO BE BOND BY?) 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)

[36] 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)

[37] 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)

[38] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)

[39] Aldous Huxley

[40] "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)

[41] 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. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 as further timely clarification of the supreme law of the land:

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[42] 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.

[43] "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

[44] 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"

[45] 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.

[46] 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 1^st 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 7^th 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.

[47] 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!!!!!!!!!!

[48] "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

[49] "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.

[50] 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.

[51] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[52] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[53] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!

[54] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"

[55] "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.

[56] 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 1^st 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 7^th 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.

[57] 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.

[58] "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

[59] 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."

[60] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

[61] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

[62] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967)

[63] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394

[64] "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"

[65] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

[66] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity

[67] 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

[68] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[69] 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.

[70] The Caging of America, Why do we lock up so many people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012

[71] "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

[72] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[73] 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.

[74] 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

[75] "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

[76] "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."

[77] Cost of War in Iraq $804,350,051,831, Cost of War in Afghanistan $537,364,138,152 Total Cost of Wars Since 2001$1,341,714,189,983

Please enable Javascript for the counter to update.

[78] "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.

[79] "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

[80] Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61)

[81] Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

[82] Smith v. Cain, No. 10-8145

[83] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011

[84] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211

[85] "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

[86] "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.

[87] "Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added

[88] 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

--
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