I refuse to believe
President Obama’s Son
Internationally
Asserted Basic Human Rights,[1]
The
Constitution for the United States
of America
and
Statute Law[3]
are IGNORED
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
Saturday, July 20, 2013, 10:27:03 AM
Amended Sunday July 21, 2013 -
Saturday, July 20, 2013, 10:27:03 AM
Luckily I was not on the jury, I DID NOT HAVE to pass judgment on Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman. I offer my thanks and sincere best wishes to those 6 members of the jury that did. But I am a member of this society and I can not avoid the responsibility for my part of it.
I accept Barack’s clarification, “You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.” Barack has grown, Barack like every other man in the world has learned from his experience. Barack’s son or his daughters have started out on his shoulders. He is not the would be hater, that both Zimmerman and Trayvon typified with their assertions, aggressive overly broad use of the terms “These assholes, they always get away” or “Creepy-Ass Cracker.”
We need to get past, I gain quote Mr. Obama “African American community... it's inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.”
I refuse to believe President Obama’s Son could have been Trayvon Martin.Admittedly Barack 35 years ago could have been Trayvon, but he has evolved and his children will start on his shoulders. I refuse to believe Barack's son, if he had one would have the hate in his heart that Trayvon expressed in his conversation with his girlfriend, thus....
Saturday, July 20, 2013, 10:27:03 AM
Luckily I was not on the jury, I DID NOT HAVE to pass judgment on Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman. I offer my thanks and sincere best wishes to those 6 members of the jury that did. But I am a member of this society and I can not avoid the responsibility for my part of it.
A jury of our peers decided Zimmerman innocent. To second guess the Jury without additional
evidence is unreasonably undemocratic.
The inherent reciprocity of the Jury system is the BED ROCK of our legal
system in both law and equity.
To any sane reasonable look at the issue it was, want-a-be cop v.
want-a-be tough guy, young insecure boy v. older insecure man and there appears
some racially motivated this color v. that color. It had nothing to do with residual “Jim Crow”
issues. This was at worst a non-black v.
a black.[7] And even though our president would
like to suggest otherwise; I refuse to believe his son would ever be wandering
around asserting the confrontation that Trayvon’s girlfriend described in her
testimony. Mr. and Mrs. Obama
would have instilled in their son the essential respect for non-violence that
SOCIETY needs to sustain itself. We have
to teach our sons and daughters that unreasonable aggression has no place in
civilized society. The aggressive overly
broad use of the terms “These assholes, they always get away” or “Creepy-Ass
Cracker” are both EQUALLY wrong. The reason Trayvon Martin is dead and George Zimmerman is alive is not because one was black
and one was not black. Trayvon Martin is
dead for one reason and one reason alone!
We have unleashed a heavily armed unregulated minority of
want-a-be haters on each other and on an unsuspecting
peaceful populace that will unnecessarily escalate unreasonable bravado
into random unreasonable violence.
I am against an unreasonable unregulated heavily armed populace instead of
as CONSTITUTIONALLY premised a “well regulated militia.” Unregulated GUNS concealed
and carried by a potentially unreasonable populace at large is going to result
in too many Trayvon Martin v. George Zimmerman conflicts. It is INSANITY to think more guns is going to
reduce gun violence. It is going to
produce the fatal anarchy of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman!!!!!
Nobody wants to take guns away from law abiding citizens. What any sane person wants is REASONABLE
regulation. We have been whipped up into
a state of fear, one of another by those seeking to manipulate us. “We will not walk in fear, one of
another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep
in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from
fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to
defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular” (Edward R. Murrow).
“A well regulated Militia” DOES
NOT EQUAL an unregulated heavily armed populace???
If you want to stand up for something stand up for Constitutional Civil
Rights in the face of “absolute immunity,” that QUASHES civil rights EVERYDAY,
by way of "malicious or
corrupt" Judges, "malicious
or dishonest" prosecutors, "knowingly
false testimony by police officers" and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest or incompetent[8] actions by any “persons
-- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process.”
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)
And then read how in the United States of America, Absolute Immunity QUASHES
Basic Human Rights, The Constitution for the United States of America and Statute
Law. http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012/10/in-united-states-of-america-absolute.html
The original fraudulent[9] court order at the inception and center of MY issue, in 2003,
was NOT “a facially valid court order.”[10] The issuing Judicial Officer did not have “probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation”[11] for the stated charge[12] and thus it was "taken in
a complete absence of all jurisdiction."[13] Clearly too any facially[14] reckonable[15] 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."[16]
In the 9.58 years[17] 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.”[18]
Since the civil domestic issue has been ongoing for 9.58 years “the "exclusionary rule"[19] is simply
irrelevant… it is damages or nothing.”[20]
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!!!
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.” [21]
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.[22]
Now if you could somehow get
past the constitutional requirement for REASONABLE probable cause and
prohibition of a “general warrant,” which you can not. The 8th Amendment’s requirement
that “nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted” for an alleged, later disproven,[23] misdemeanor traffic
violation precludes the imposed punishment, the deprivation of my home,
my son, my paternity and my liberty.
The Rule of Law, the “mere operation 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
“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
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.[25] 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[26] absolute immunity with “no remedy for the violation of a
vested legal right” and sought to establish a reckonable[27] 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[28] 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[29] accusation without access to 5th and 14th
Amendment’s access to Justice with the equal
protection of Due Process of Law.
I have referenced “To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,”
in several of my papers. I do so only because
the admittedly fictionalized facts of the case in “To Kill a Mocking Bird” are generally
known but not without standing Jane Crow era.
If the Sheriff Tate had investigated the accusations of Mayella Ewel, he
would have seen them for the racially motivated baseless vexatious[30] or calumnious[31] accusation against a crippled man
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. If Judge Taylor had any of the altruistic, supposedly
independent, courage that our judiciary[32] is based on, he would
have dismissed the charge as vexatious[33] or calumnious[34] so as not to offend
the Ends of Justice that should have been
his PRIMARY motivation.
Tom Robinson was convicted because of the infamy of
the charge and the deliberate indifference to his right to justice under fair Due Process of
law as required and asserted in the Constitution for the United States of America
– the preamble to establish justice,
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, Article III, §1 &
2,
Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph and the 4th, 5th and 14th
Amendment.
Atticus should not have had to say a word, just present the evidence of a
crippled since childhood man. 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.
It is fair to say that the average jury (MOST everyday people), in a greater
or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon
the judiciary, prosecuting attorney, and sheriff will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations,
and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against
the accused, when they should properly carry none. (paraphrased slightly from Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 88 (1935))
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.[35]
How can the malice, corruption,
dishonesty and incompetence[36] 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[37] 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[38] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially
those tasked with judicial,[39] prosecutorial[40]and enforcement[41] power from its paramount binding authority is
an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[42]
"Facts do not cease to exist because they
are ignored."[43]
This embarrasses the future and the past[44]
There are
no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles
of nobility.[45] 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.[46]
How can the Supreme Court,
a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others “absolute
immunity”[47] from their constitutional commission to “do not only what their powers
do not authorize, but what they forbid”[48] i.e., the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws
of the United States of America?”[49] by DENYING the constitutional
assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th
Amendment Justice, law and equity?[50]
We
the People have fallen under
the despotic[51] spell of the concentrated power[52] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE
POWER[53] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the “malicious
or corrupt” judges,[54] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor, [55] the “knowingly
false testimony by police officers"[56] and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[57] actions of “all persons -- governmental
or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”
[58] acting under color of law to wit,
ABSOLUTE
CORRUPTION.[59]
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,[60] 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[61] grant
of “Absolute
Immunity,”[62] by
and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional
an “unlawful
Conspiracy”[63] “before out of Court”[64] to
obfuscate “false
and malicious Persecutions.”[65]
“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, Saturday, July 20, 2013!!! Justice William O.
Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.
[66] Mr. Lowe of Kansas
and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said respectively said it originally
in 1871[67] at the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871
(now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985).
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally
un-abridge-able right to justice[70] 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,[71]" denying the establishment of justice and
abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to
a redress of grievances,[72] with their deprivation of substantive 7th
Amendment[73] 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!!!
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.”[74] “Six
million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.
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"[76]" for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws
of the United States of America”[77] e.g., “To Kill a Mocking Bird, The
Denial of Due Process,”[78] “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.[79] 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 case
Jeep v Government of the United States of America 12-2435, Jeep v
Obama 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.”[80]
We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion.
[81]
We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in
Iraq and Afghanistan .
[82]
We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion.
[83]
We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion.
[84]
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)” [85]
and compensate the victims?
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The abuses are happening EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE
Mr. Thompson
(No. 09–571),[86] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145),
[87] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[88] and
myself (USCA8 No. 12-2435, 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614).[89] The
fact that “With 5% of the world's population,
our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners”[90] PROVES “We
the People” have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Saturday,
July 20, 2013, 10:27:03 AM, 2013 04-11-13 Absolute FAILURE - The Third Branch REV 02
[1] "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"
adopted by the United Nations on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 - PART II, Article 2, Section
3. "Each State Party to the present
Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that
any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall
have an effective remedy, notwithstanding
that the violation has been
committed by persons acting in an official
capacity;
(b) To ensure
that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined
by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any
other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to
develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent
authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted."
[2] The Supremacy clause, Article VI § 2 of the
Constitution for the United States of America, “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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of
any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
[3]
Congress passed the § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights
Act (Title Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 18 66. An excerpt from his remarks attached to his
veto "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without
invading the immunities 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." "It is, therefore,
assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with
its terms, and that marshals and
sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by
State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be
brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment,
for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose."
[4] “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.
[5] “Damages” By Dahlia
Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug.
8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
[6] 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
[7]
“No outrage when blacks shoot blacks” “If George Zimmerman were black, none of
us would even know Trayvon Martin’s name. Blacks shoot blacks in American
cities every day. Where is the outrage and protests for that? Is Martin’s death
more tragic because it involved a non-black shooter? I don’t think so” July 18,
2013 © Copyright 2013, stltoday.com, 900
N. Tucker Blvd. St. Louis , MO
[8] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered
up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. Martin Luther King said it better, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous
than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” (MLK Jr., Strength to
Love, 1963).
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.
[9]
The fraud exception to rei publicae, ut sit finis litium, and nemo debet bis
vexari pro una et eadam causa is self evident to me, but alas I believe in the
"sense and reason" of a Supreme Law of The Land. You assert judicial interpretation. Here we agree as noted in United States v.
Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65 (1878) is applicable here "But there is an admitted
exception to this general rule in cases where, by reason of something done by
the successful party to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial or
decision of the issue in the case. Where the unsuccessful party has been
prevented from exhibiting fully his case by fraud or deception practiced on him
by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court."
Not only was the petitioner, the unsuccessful party,
never given a chance to defend himself, he was never even given the specifics
of the cause for the finding under which his son, his life and all his belongs
were taken.
“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.”
[12] 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.
[15]
"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)
[16] 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
[19]
In criminal case the “exclusionary rule” is an obfuscation of the Government’s
Article III vicarious liability for due Process rights.
[20] 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.”
[21] 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
[22] 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.
[23]
United States v. Agurs - 427
U.S. 103 (1976) “typified by Mooney
v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103,
the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes
perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the
perjury. [Footnote 7] In a
series of subsequent cases, the Court has consistently held that a conviction
obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, [Footnote 8] and
must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false
testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.”
[25] 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.”
[26]
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.
[27]
"reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the
name." Antonin Scalia, ibid.
[28] After NINE years of Good Faith
appeals, the issues of undeclared exigent circumstances and or Good Faith
immunity are no longer available.
[29]
The issue of a infamous was made pertinent in the Bill of rights, the 5th
Amendment “No person shall be
held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law…”
And unlike the confirmation bias of Supreme Court precedent the 5th
Amendment secured to the “person”
a right and thus a remedy. The Bill of
Rights does not require “’difficult problems of proof,’ and we must adhere to a
“stringent standard of fault,” lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse
into respondeat superior.12 Bryan County , 520 U. S. ,
at 406, 410; see Canton , 489 U. S. , at 391–392.”(CONNICK,
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON)
Any violation of rights secures for the INDIVIDUAL person “But where a
specific duty is assigned by law, and individual
rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear
that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the
laws of his country for a remedy” and "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." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.
137 (1803)
[30] 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,
[31] 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,
[32] 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.
[33] 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,
[34] Floyd and Barker (1607) "And those who
are the most sincere, would not be free from continual Calumniations," in
all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious"
or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their
inevitability. "Vexatious" or
calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
[35] “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.”
[36] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered
up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. Martin Luther King said it better, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous
than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” (MLK Jr., Strength to
Love, 1963).
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] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered
up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. Martin Luther King said it better, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous
than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” (MLK Jr., Strength to
Love, 1963).
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.
[38] “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!!!!!
[39] ""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)
[40] 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)
[41] 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)
[43] Aldous Huxley
[44] “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)
[45] There are TWO
constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity," Article
1, Section 9, 7th
paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United
States" and Article
1, Section 10,
1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility."
Additionally I cite Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections
to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition,
New York May 28,
17 88 as further timely clarification of the supreme law of the land:
"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of
titles of nobility(i.e., absolute immunity). This may truly be denominated the
corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there
can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of
the people."
You some how want to argue that “the grant of Nobility”
was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue
that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of
Nobility? That would undermine
Free-Enterprise.
Anyone that wants to assertion “the prohibition of
titles of nobility’ was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of
theabsolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only read the
Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted
immunity of the nobility.
There is not now and there was not then any titular
value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law? Did NatKing Cole violate the
constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE -THING
of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[46] 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.
[47] “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
[48] 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”
[49] 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.
[50] 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 5.69 years!!!! (as of Saturday July 13 2013 02:30 PM) 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.
[51] 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
[52] "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
[53] “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.
[54]
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.
[55] Imbler
v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[56] Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[57] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered
up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. Martin Luther King said it better, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous
than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” (MLK Jr., Strength to
Love, 1963).
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.
[58] Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for “all persons -- governmental or otherwise --
who were integral parts of the judicial process”
[59] “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.
[60] 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.
[61] 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.
[62] “absolute immunity… for all persons --
governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”
for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page
460 U. S. 335
[63] 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.”
[68] “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 May 28,
17 88 stated that impeachment was to be used as an integral check
for “Judicial Authority”
[70] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a
remedy in BOTH law and equity
[71] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America
[72] 1st Amendment, “Congress
shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for
a redress of grievances.”
[73] 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
[74] “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
[75] The Caging of America, Why do we lock up so many
people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012
[76] “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
[78] Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts
[79] 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
[80] “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 October
28, 2010 , A version of this article appeared in print on October 29, 2010 ,
on page A24 By Alan Feuer
[81] “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.”
[82] Cost of War in Iraq
$804,350,051,831, Cost of War in Afghanistan
Please enable Javascript for the counter to update.
[83] “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
[84] “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
[89] See also USCA8
07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court
07-11115&11-8211
[90] “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
