Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
(202) 514-2217
Re: Judicial "absolute immunity, makes inalienable rights unsecured!
The Solicitor General can REFUSE to DEFEND "absolute immunity" in Petition for
Writ of Certiorari 13-7030 Jeep v. United States!
Dear People,
I realize I am NOBODY, an individual citizen who has been denied his inalienable "property in rights."[1] Individual[2] citizens cannot overcome the judicial sophistry[3] of the "difficult problems of proof," asserted in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011. The individual has no rights that the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court "are bond to respect,"[4] much less the constitutionally secured 1st and 7th Amendment justifiable right of redress. We the People, as individual persons, are just fodder for the judiciary's corrupt, malicious, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid self-aggrandizement at the expense of We the People's "property in rights"[5] and our constitutional assertion to equally "establish Justice" under color of law. The Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary is never bound by ANYTHING, least of all the constitutional COMMON SENSE to equally "establish Justice" for all INDIVIDUALS.
The Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court has self-constructed[6] "absolute power" [7] from "absolute immunity" to render "absolute corruption" [8] of the "sense and reason" of an individual's "property in rights,"[9] the "raison d'être"[10] for our revolution, constitution, Bill of Rights, Civil War and the subsequent constitutionally authorized ex industria [11] statute laws, now codified into the U.S. Code as 18 USC §241-§242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law and 42 USC §1983-§1985 Civil action for deprivation of rights.
Anybody that doubts this needs just look at history. Justice Harlan's defense of We the People's "sense and reason" in his dissent in the Civil Rights Cases 109 U.S. 26 (1883) is the most eloquent of examples. 160 years of Jim Crow, Jane Crow, victimless crimes, plea bargain, exclusionary rule and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[12] "absolutely immune" judge constructed[13] law later… the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court can STILL reach into their "black bag of tricks" to pull out anything they want to justify their malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid "absolutely immune" actions.
Prior to the Civil Rights Cases in 1868 the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court first CONSTRUCTED[14] "absolute immunity" in Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607). Randall v. Brigham (1868) was judicial sophistry[15] at its finest, a judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary immunity from the recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 made it a CRIME for "Whoever, under color of any law…, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Judicial liability for the crime was brought up extensively in the congressional debates and EXPRESSLY made part of President Johnson's Veto (March 27, 1866), noted as "assailing the independence of the judiciary," which was then congressionally over ridden into statute two weeks later. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted into LAW over the expressed objection of the President, overridden by the Senate on April 6, 1866 (33 - 15) and then overridden by the House and became law on April 9, 1866 (122 - 41).
Likewise Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), also asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was a subterfuge to give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the UNQUALIFIED civil liability for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" enacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Passed by the House on April 19, 1871 (93–74) and by the Senate on April 19, 1871 (36–13) and then it was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871.
The KICKER IS, wait for it… BOTH Randall v. Brigham (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher (1871) were based on the corrupt "black bag of tricks" assertion of Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607) as precedent. What Randall and Bradley fail to tell you is that the "Star Chamber" was abolished for CAUSE, I quote from the Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber" July 5, 1641 "the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void."
The causes were MANY, but one of particular note to anyone that has suffered at the hands of "absolute immunity" was, and again I quote, "the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments than by any law is warranted."
So our sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court constructed, [16] and has since pulled the wool over We the Peoples eyes, a precedent from a court that asserted "absolute immunity" but who's power was, by Act of Parliament, ultimately "clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away and determined," for cause, abusing said "absolute immunity." That would be like trusting a potential thief in your house because a known thief, a convicted thief, asserted that they would not steal before they were caught stealing. If there is anything to be learned from Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607) it is the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court CANNOT BE "ABSOLUTELY" TRUSTED!!!!!!!!!! It is INSANITY to think any other way!!!!!!
Just after the Civil War We the People had done the "necessary and proper"[17] thing to establish "rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship… The purpose of the first section of the act of Congress of March 1, 1875, was to prevent race discrimination in respect of the accommodations and facilities of inns, public conveyances, and places of public amusement. It does not assume to define the general conditions and limitations under which inns, public conveyances, and places of public amusement may be conducted, but only declares that such conditions and limitations, whatever they may be, shall not be applied so as to work a discrimination solely because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The second section provides a penalty against anyone denying, or aiding or inciting the denial, of any citizen, of that equality of right given by the first section except for reasons by law applicable to citizens of every race or color and regardless of any previous condition of servitude."[18] But We the People were not allowed to do what We the People believed to be and proved[19] to be "necessary and proper."[20]
We the People could not do what We the People, via our constitutionally elected representatives,[21] thought "necessary and proper"[22] because the Supreme Court reaching into their "black bag of tricks" ruled against We the People in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883). We the People are STILL TODAY suffering from this CORRUPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court reached back into their "black bag of tricks" to FEAR MONGER and assert that We the People needed loaded weapons, ready at any emotionally driven moment, potentially concealed and carried for our own protection. This unreasonable FEAR MONGERING just adds to the gun violence. If Zimmerman/Martin issue proves anything it proves that the unregulated freedom to "bear Arms" leads to unnecessary LETHAL violence. I cannot imagine that unregulated weapon toting has ever been accepted in any civilization. Any foreign or domestically grown barbarian is and has ALWAYS been forced to relinquish his weapons to be accepted into an everyday indigenous society. Society can not function on CIVILIZED terms without the inherently essential regulation of weapons and violence. That is why the Founders prefaced the 2nd Amendment with a "well regulated militia" as opposed to a heavily armed unregulated populace, "being necessary to the security of a free State."
Gun violence, via undisputed FBI statistics, in the last 20 years has gone down by 50%, but we need more guns on the street. 95% of Police Officers trained and authorized to use deadly force in the same 20 years never even discharge their weapon in an entire CAREER, but we need more guns on the street! We have more accidental Gun Deaths in the United States, "tripping over our guns" than Japan has total Gun Deaths, but we need more guns on the street!!!! The Supreme Court says we need to be recklessly tripping over our too many guns at a MORE lethal rate, why BECAUSE they are mongering fear to manipulate We the People.
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court reached into their "black bag of tricks" to assert that Campaign Finance Reform that We the People thought "necessary and proper"[23] infringed on We the People's free speech. Free
I mean WHY pay taxes, why fight to defend a country that will NOT take UNQUALIFIED liability, under color of law, for CONSTITUTIONAL BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS as constitutionally secured by ex industria[25] statute laws (18 USC §241-§242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law and 42 USC §1983-§1985 Civil action for deprivation of rights)????????
I could go on and on with similar malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions[26] of our Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court but you would just get bored if not driven to TEARS!!!!
It is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am not the CRAZY one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE ARE SLAVES to the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court 's assertion of "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY" FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!! I am not the CRAZY one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/10/we-are-slaves-absolute-immunity-i-am.html "As long as rulers are above the law, citizens have the same type of freedom that slaves had on days when their masters chose not to beat them."
We need to see that the malicious corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[27] use of precedent by the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court be "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void"[28] for the same cause as the original "Star Chamber." The cause being "the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments than by any law is warranted." [29] We the People need to REASSERT the "reckonablilty"[30] of our constitution and eliminate any claims to "absolute immunity."
We need to GO back to the constitutional reliance on the Jury Trial for all controversies in Law and Equity.
Judicial "absolute immunity, makes inalienable rights unsecured!!!!!!
What can the Solicitor General, United States Department of Justice do? The Solicitor General can REFUSE to DEFEND "absolute immunity" in Petition for Writ of Certiorari 13-7030!!!!!!!!!
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
[1] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792, 27 March 1792
[2] Not that I am alone in the "Jane Crow Era" of misandry in the Family Courts. www.DGJeep.BlogSpot.com
[3] "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice" (Thomas Jefferson, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)
[4] "They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit" "On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race (The Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court), and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them." Dred Scott v. Sandford - 60 U.S. 405 (1856)
[5] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792, 27 March 1792
[6] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[7] "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.
[8] "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton 1887.
[9] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792, 27 March 1792
[10] MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. "To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 656 (1980)
[12] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[13] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[14] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[15] "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice" (Thomas Jefferson, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)
[16] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[17] Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof".
[18] MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883)
[19] See the Civil Rights Act of 1964
[20] Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof".
[21] The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335-337) was passed the House on February 4, 1875 (162 - 99), passed the Senate on February 27, 1875 (38 - 26) and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on March 1, 1875
[22] Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof".
[23] Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof".
[24] Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof".
[26] The recent Government Shut Down comes to mind, but the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court had already handed our legislators absolute immunity for their legislative actions, Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997).
[27] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[30] "Predictability, or as Llewellyn put it, "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)
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
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
