"To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process"
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
Wednesday, June 05, 2013, 1:01:26 PM
Jane Crow and Jim Crow are both
based on the conviction via infamous allegation rather than due Process of law
as REQUIRED by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the
Constitution for the United States of America.
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. In both Jim Crow and the Jane Crow era the infamous accusation alone defeated Due Process Law and Equal Protection of the law.
If the Sheriff Tate had investigated the accusations of Mayella Ewel, he would have seen them for the inconsistent racially motivated vexatious[4] or calumnious[5] accusations against a crippled African American citizen of good character that they were. How could the crippled Tom Robinson been able to do the things he was accused of?
If Horace Gilmer the prosecuting attorney had actually looked at the
evidence Atticus presented instead of blindly pushing the perjured
racially biased testimony of the Ewels he would have offered to dismiss
the charges to the Ends of Justice.[6] If Judge Taylor had any of the altruistic courage that our judiciary[7] is based on, he would have dismissed the charge as vexatious[8] or calumnious[9] so as not to offend the Ends of Justice[10] that should have been his soul motivation. Again, the Ends of Justice[11] should have been his soul motivation.
Tom Robinson was convicted because of the deliberate indifference to his right to justice under fair Due Process of law as stated in the preamble to establish justice, Article III, §1 & 2 and Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph of the Constitution and the 14th
Amendment. Atticus should not have had to say a word, just present
the evidence of a crippled, since childhood, man of good character.
The Sherriff, the Prosecutor and the Judge are all representatives not
of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose
obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to
govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution
is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As
such, the Sherriff, the Prosecutor and the Judge are in a peculiar and
very definite sense the servants of the law, the two-fold aim of which
is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. The Sherriff and the
Prosecutor may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, they
should do so. But, while they may strike hard blows, they are not at
liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much they're duty to refrain from
improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is
to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one. (paraphrased slightly from Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 88 (1935))
Judges by definition in our system are there to altruistically enforce
fair Due Process of law on the Sherriff, the Prosecutor and the
defendant as necessary to the Ends of Justice.[12]
You would like to believe that this kind of denial of Due Process is not possible in our racially sensitive world. Jim Crow has been replaced by Jane Crow. In Jane Crow[13]
America, a man in a divorce can be stripped of his children, his home…
his EVERYTHING and there is not a Dam thing he can do about it. I
have been fighting this fight for 9.67 years, 3,531 calendar days,
56,490 waking hours, 3,389,392 waking minutes, 203,363,546 waking
seconds as of Monday January 14, 2013 03:48:38.59 PM. I have filed 5
civil rights appeals to the Federal Eighth District Court in St. Louis,
MO. I have filed 5 petitions for writ of certiorari to the Supreme
Court of the United States based on 5 8th Circuit Court of
Appeals cases, 07-2614 David Jeep vs. Philip Jones, Sr.; Jeep,
David, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 David Jeep vs. Government
of the United States of America. I have legal standing of an abuse
victim; I have OVER ripeness of the issue. The Federal Courts refuse
to do their job and enforce the 14th Amendment on the States. "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."
Admittedly
racism has become untenable in today's America. But racism is only one
of the symptoms of the malice, the corruption and the incompetence
that would have convicted the fictional character Tom Robinson.
Atticus issues a challenge of a sort to Scout, his daughter, and Jem,
his son. I quote:
"I
wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea
that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know
you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it
through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do."
~Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird, Chapter 11, spoken by the character
Atticus
Do We the People have the courage to the Ends of Justice:
"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." The Federalist #51
The original court order at the center and inception of this issue, in 2003, was NOT "a facially valid court order"[14] the issuing Judicial Officer did not have "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation"[15] for the stated charge[16] and thus it was "taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction."[17] Clearly too any facially[18] reckonable[19] reading of Due Process rights, reasonable probable cause is a prerequisite for government action/jurisdiction. There are "absolutes" in our Bill of Rights, and they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be "absolutes."[20]
In the 9.58 years[21] since there has never been any mention of "exigent circumstances" nor "good faith" mistakes there for the order stands on its own as brazenly NOT "a facially valid court order."[22] Since the civil domestic issue has been ongoing for 9.58 years it is, as it was for Bivens, "damages or nothing."[23] Since 2003 the Commissioner Jones and the original petitioner Sharon G. Jeep both contradicted their original assertions, although neither took the "Good Faith" requisite of RESPONSIBILITY!!! If you deny this petition you are again putting the rule of corrupt judges in front of the facially[24] reckonable[25] rule of We the People's law. You have done it before[26] and you probably will again unless We the People rise up in rebellion.
I again quote Justice Hugo Black:
"The Fourth Amendment provides:
The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The use of the word "unreasonable" in this Amendment means, of course, that not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Only those which are unreasonable are unlawful. There may be much difference of opinion about whether a particular search or seizure is unreasonable and therefore forbidden by this Amendment. But if it is unreasonable, it is absolutely prohibited.
Likewise,
the provision which forbids warrants for arrest, search or seizure
without "probable cause" is itself an absolute prohibition." [27]
The warrant/Order issues by Judge Goeke and order heard by Commissioner on its face was unreasonable because it lacked "probable cause" for the stated charge.[28]
The Rule of Law, as described by Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, the seminal Supreme Court case said, "The
Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a
government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve
this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."[29]
Now if you could somehow get past the constitutional requirement for REASONABLE probable cause, which you can not. The 8th Amendment's requirement that "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" for an alleged, later disproven, misdemeanor traffic violation precludes the imposed punishment, the deprivation of my home, my son, my paternity and my liberty.
Of
course the 1st Amendment's lawfully un-bridge-able right "to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances" is the right to sue the
sovereign/government for a justifiable grievance under Article III and
the 7th Amendment as timely and explicitly made precedent by Mr. Chief
Justice 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."
In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.
"In all other cases," he says,
"it
is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right,
there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that
right is invaded."
And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he says,
"I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the Courts of common law.[30]
And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible
injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of
either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for
that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of
justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of
England that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every
injury its proper redress."
The Founding Fathers, the Authors of the constitution, had lived for too long at the discretion of the Nobility's[31] absolute immunity with "no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right" and sought to establish a reckonable[32] Rule of Law to replace the Rule of the Nobility's absolute immune prerogative. The Rule of Law is meaningless if the ubiquitous absolute immunity[33] 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.
I can prove my competency; I dare say the Judiciary's asserted unimpeachable incorporated competency could not sustain the Judiciary's unreasonable absolute immunity in a common law 7th Amendment controversy before a jury of OUR peers.
The
immediate issue for the writer revolves around the Jane Crow era in
Family Law, where a man's rights are secondary to the rights of any
woman that can feign tears:
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.
Admittedly
the Jane Crow era of rampant deprivation of RIGHTS is relatively new
as compared to its predecessor the Jim Crow era. Jane Crow and Jim Crow are both based on the conviction/lynching by infamous accusation without access to 5th and 14th Amendment's access to Justice with the equal protection of Due Process of Law.
Judges by definition in We the People's
system are there to independently and altruistically enforce fair Due
Process of law on the Sherriff, the Prosecutor and the defendant as
necessary to the ends of justice.[34]
How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[35] 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[36] 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[37] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[38] prosecutorial[39]and enforcement[40] power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[41]
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[42]
This embarrasses the future and the past[43]
There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[44] 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.[45]
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[46] from their constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[47] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[48] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[49]
We the People have fallen under the despotic[50] spell of the concentrated power[51] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[52] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[53] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [54] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[55] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[56]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [57] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[58]
See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211 Jeep v. Obama
and
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,[59] 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[60] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[61] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional an "unlawful Conspiracy"[62] "before out of Court"[63] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[64]
"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, Wednesday, June 05, 2013!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [65] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[66].
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[69] 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,[70]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[71] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[72] justice between the government and the people, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011, "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011, and denial of Due Process sin the Jane Crow era, 5each 8th Circuit Court of Appeals cases, 07-2614 David Jeep vs. Philip Jones, Sr.; Jeep, David, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 David Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America. !!!
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" by saying, "There
is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding
safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be
unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police
officers." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
Supreme Court precedent empowers by saying "In short, the common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process. It is equally clear that § 1983 does not authorize a damages claim against private witnesses, on the one hand, or against judges or prosecutors in the performance of their respective duties, on the other." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983)
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. "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners."[73] "Six million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.—more than were in Stalin's gulags."[74]
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"[75]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[76] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[77] "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.[78] I have suffered through 411 days of illegal incarceration, 5 years of homelessness and two psychological examinations. I ask you to review 8th Circuit Court of Appeals cases, 07-2614 David Jeep vs. Philip Jones, Sr.; Jeep, David, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 David Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America. and the humble Petitions for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211."
We hold a "4-Year-Old Can Be Sued."[79] We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. [80] We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. [81] We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. [82] We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. [83] 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)" [84] and compensate the victims?
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The abuses are happening EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE Mr. Thompson (No. 09–571),[85] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [86] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[87] and myself (USCA8 No. 12-2435, 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614).[88] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[89] PROVES "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!!
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Wednesday, June 05, 2013, 1:01:26 PM, 2013 06-05-13 "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process" REV 00.doc
[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]
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871) "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," in all cases it is
the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious
actions to the best of their ability not concede to their
inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any
human endeavor,
[5]
Floyd and Barker (1607) "And those who are the most sincere, would not
be free from continual Calumniations," in all cases it is the
judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions
to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability.
"Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
[6]
"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." The Federalist #51
[7]
Our Federal Judiciary, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior
Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at
stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall
not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." so as to empower
them to answer to Justice ALONE.
[8]
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871) "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," in all cases it is
the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious
actions to the best of their ability not concede to their
inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any
human endeavor,
[9]
Floyd and Barker (1607) "And those who are the most sincere, would not
be free from continual Calumniations," in all cases it is the
judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions
to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability.
"Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
[10]
"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." The Federalist #51
[11]
"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." The Federalist #51
[12] "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." The Federalist #51
[13] 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.
[14] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[15] The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
[16]
Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and
Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, where he is
tasked by statute to "for good cause shown in the petition",
issued a warrant without any probable cause. A Judges' power is
necessarily limited by the Constitution and statute. A Judge can not
issue a warrant without probable cause. Not only did the petition for
an Ex-Parte Order of protection not list any abuse, what it did list
was third party description of an incident in traffic court that was
being handled by another geographical JURISDICTION, 150 miles away and
different subject matter jurisdiction by a judicial officer that
subsequently recused himself for his bad act.
For
Judge Goeke to even list it as a probable cause violated the
respondents right to the elementary principles of procedural due
process.
[17] Mireles v. Waco,502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam)
[18] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[19] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[20]
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.
[21] As of Saturday June 01, 2013 12:05.68 PM
[22] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[23]
Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971) "
Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the
"exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes,
it is damages or nothing."
[24] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[25] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[26] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)
"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.""
[27]
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.
[28]
Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and
Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, where he is
tasked by statute to "for good cause shown in the petition",
issued a warrant without any probable cause. A Judges' power is
necessarily limited by the Constitution and statute. A Judge can not
issue a warrant without probable cause. Not only did the petition for
an Ex-Parte Order of protection not list any abuse, what it did list
was third party description of an incident in traffic court that was
being handled by another geographical JURISDICTION, 150 miles away and
different subject matter jurisdiction by a judicial officer that
subsequently recused himself for his bad act.
For
Judge Goeke to even list it as a probable cause violated the
respondents right to the elementary principles of procedural due
process.
[30] 7th Amendment "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."
[31]
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.
[32] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia, ibid.
[33] After NINE years of Good Faith appeals, the issues of undeclared exigent circumstances and or Good Faith immunity are no longer available.
[34]
"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."
[35] 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.
[36] 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.
[37]
"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!!!!!
[38]
""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)
[39] 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)
[40] 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)
[42] Aldous Huxley
[43] "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)
[44] 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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[45] 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.
[46] "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
[47]
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"
[48] 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.
[49]
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.
[50]
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!!!!!!!!!!
[51]
"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
[52] "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.
[53] 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.
[54] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[55] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[56] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[57] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[58] "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.
[59]
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.
[60]
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.
[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
[62] 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."
[67] "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"
[69] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[70]
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
[71]
1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the
people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[72]
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.
[73] "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
[74] The Caging of America, Why do we lock up so many people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012
[75] "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
[77]
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.
[78]
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
[79] "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
[80] "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."
[81] 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.
[82] "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.
[83] "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
[88] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211
[89] "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
