If there is only one
thing you read,
PLEASE READ
MR.
JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 1883
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 Clothes”
AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE
IT??
“A country in which nobody is ever really responsible
is
Thursday, December 05, 2013, 12:28:29 PM
I BEG
YOU READ the full text of MR.
JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 109
U.S. 26 (1883), I quote just the introduction here:
“The opinion in these cases proceeds, it seems to me, upon grounds entirely too narrow and artificial. I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.
"It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul."
Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted.
The purpose of the first section of the act of Congress of March 1, 1875, 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.”
And then imagine where we would be 130 years later if SEGREGATION had been defeated
DEMOCRATICALLY as the result of the 646,392 deaths in the Civil War, the 11th, 13th,
14th and 15th Amendments and the Constitutionally authorized
ex industria statute laws
of our representative democratically elected LAW MAKERS intended March 1, 1875!!!!!!
Instead
of the PROMOTION and MAINTENANCE of SEGREGATION BY a malicious,
corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant
and conscientiously stupid[7]
SUPREME COURT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please… PLEASE… PLEASE
Please do not let “supreme court”
RULE!!!! The Supreme Court has no
authority to defeat the “necessary
and proper” thus constitutionally authorized “sense and reason” of the ex industria statute laws of We the People!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The
Judicial sophistry [8]
of “absolute immunity” creates “absolute power” to the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION [9]
of We
the People’s unalienable rights under color of law... a “fantastic
or delusional”[10] scenario.
“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 are SLAVES to the Black Robed, Royalist,
Article III, Supreme Court’s assertion of “absolute immunity for all!!!! I am
not the crazy one!!!!
The Black Robed Royalist Article
III Judiciary on the Supreme Court since the civil war in 1868 and 1871 (and
again in 1967 by repeated reference) has cited Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber
1607)[11] to
construct[12]
an “excess of power”[13]
to quash the “sense and reason”[14]
for the “raison d'être”[15] of We
the People’s Constitution, Amendments, and the enactment of the constitutionally authorized ex
industria[16]
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. We the People have been
suffering from the Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary’s criminal[17] deprivation
of rights under color of law EVER SINCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anybody that doubts this, just look at history. Justice Harlan's Dissent in Civil Rights
Cases 109 U.S. 26 (1883) is the most eloquent of examples. 130 years of Jim Crow, Jane Crow, victimless
crimes, plea bargain, exclusionary rule and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest,
sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[18]
“absolutely immune” judge constructed[19]
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.
In 1868 the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court
first CONSTRUCTED[20]
“absolute immunity” in Randall v. Brigham, 74
U. S. 536 (1868) asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607). Randall v. Brigham
(1868) was Judicial sophistry[21] 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
Likewise the judicial sophistry[22]
of 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 civil liability 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, [23]
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 allowing a potential thief
into your house because his father a known thief, a convicted thief asserted
that he would not steal before he was 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!!!!!!
As
examples of the Judicial sophistry,[24] that
has corrupted We the People’s
unalienable rights under color of law, I submit, Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7
(1868)[25] the origin of judicial
criminal sophisticated[26] “absolute immunity,” Bradley v. Fisher,
13 Wall. 335 (1872)[27] origin of sophisticated[28] Judicial civil
“absolute immunity,” Blyew v. United States, 80
U.S. 581 (1871) sophisticated[29]
“absolute immunity” for racially motivate mass murder, United States v. Reese, 92
U.S. 214 (1875) sophisticated[30]
deprivation of the 15th Amendment’s Voting Rights protection with the subterfuges
of poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses, United States v. Cruikshank,
92 U.S. 542 (1875) sophisticated[31]
“absolute immunity” for racially motivated massacre (Colfax Riot/pogrom), United States v. Harris, 106
U.S. 629 (1883) sophisticated[32]
“absolute immunity” for the state’s sanctioned kidnapping, assault and murder
without regard to the 14th Amendment’s security, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) creating sophisticated[33]
racial segregation and the
ongoing Jim Crow discrimination over the “necessary and proper” “Act to protect
all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March
1, 1875, Plessy v. Ferguson ,
163 U.S. 537 (1896) separate and UNEQUAL, clarifying sophisticated[34] segregation over the necessary and proper
"Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18
Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, Pierson
v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) reaffirmed Judicial sophisticated[35] “absolute immunity,” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976)
prosecutorial sophisticated[36] “absolute immunity,”
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S.
349 (1978) sophisticated[37]
“absolute immunity” for forced sterilization, and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) sophisticated[38] “absolute immunity”
for “knowingly false
testimony by police officers," and “all persons that were integral in the
Judicial Process.” If
that is not ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION
of We the People’s intent to establish
justice, I can not imagine what is.
Only 1.6% of U.S. Citizens in 1860 owned slaves, when
slavery was at its peak.
I would venture to say that 98% of the “free state’s”
citizen in 1860 had never seen an African American beyond those, dressed in their
finest, that the abolitionist brought by
to show corruption of and to abolish slavery.
98% of the “free state’s” citizen in 1860 had no knowledge of or prejudice
against African American Slaves.
We have been sold a bill of goods, by the revisionist
history perpetrated by the oligarchy on the Supreme Court. Our Congressmen and president REPRESENTING
"We the People" never wanted segregation or Jim Crow. They passed a law in
1875 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.”
The oligarchy of the Supreme Court FORCED IT UPON "We
the People" their sovereign!!!!!!!
THAT IS AUDACIOUS
INSANITY!!!!
My
QUESTION is how did the UNQUALIFIED
governmental liability for RIGHTS i.e., the “property in rights” as asserted by James Madison (1792)[39]
and the Revolutionary War, Civil War, Constitution, World War I, World War II
and the “statute’s (§1983) raisons d'etre”[40] get reduced???
Do we have to invest more lives to again establish an Individual’s
property in RIGHTS???
What
good are rights if the “property in
rights,” as confirmed by James Madison (1792), is not “under color of law” protected UNQUALIFIED by any government
authority??
Why
have a constitution, much less statute law; if it can be disregarded as
disposable property in the hands of those who are commissioned to provide
UNQUALIFIED protection of the “property
in rights”???
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice
John G. Roberts, for violation of
their constitutional commission and CONDUCT UNBECOMING an
Article III Judge.
The Article III,
Black Robed Royalist, Supreme Court FIVE, Antonin Scalia,
Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice
John G. Roberts, delegated authorities, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission have awarded themselves and others “absolute immunity”[41] from their
constitutional commission to “do not only
what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”[42] i.e., the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws of the United States of America?”[43] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of
governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice,
law and equity?[44]
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice
John G. Roberts, for violation of
their constitutional commission and CONDUCT UNBECOMING an
Article III Judge.
We
the People have fallen
under the despotic[45] spell of the constructed[46] “excess of power”[47] in the Supreme Court that has constructed[48] ABSOLUTE POWER[49] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the “malicious
or corrupt” judges,[50] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor, [51] the “knowingly
false testimony by police officers,"[52] corrupt,
malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously
stupid[53]
actions[54] of federal, state, local, and regional legislators are entitled to
absolute immunity”[55] and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[56] actions of “all persons --
governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”
[57] acting under color of law to render
ABSOLUTE
CORRUPTION[58] of inalienable rights under color of law.
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice
John G. Roberts, for violation of
their constitutional commission and CONDUCT UNBECOMING an
Article III Judge.
We the
People have forgotten the “property in rights” asserted by James Madison in
1792. We the People have to “equally
respect the rights of property
and the property in rights:
they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by
repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern
to that and all other governments.” (“Property” James Madison Essays for the
National Gazette 1791- 1792)
Absolute Immunity, as a “constructive power,”[59] has and will
continue to QUASH the “raison d'être”[60] for the
Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Constitution, Statute Law and thus
Inalienable RIGHTS/Justice.
I submit the indisputable and undisputed facts in SEVEN United
States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case #07-2614, 08-1823, 09-2848,
10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200
and THREE docketed and two denied Petitions for Writ
of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115, 11-8211 and 13-5193.
No one in a free country
under a constitutional Government can be above the Law. No one in a country of FREE and EQUAL persons
is more powerful than an innocent man.
Family Court is the place
where Fathers systematically lose all right to their own children, but remain
financially responsible for them. This
happens to 90% of fathers that go through the court, and it happens to hundreds
of families every day. This has crippled
hundreds of millions of men across western democracies both emotionally and
financially and has resulted in a 1500% higher suicide rate than regular unaffected
men.
The original fraudulent[61] court order at the inception and center of this issue, in 2003,
was NOT “a facially valid court order.”[62] The issuing Judicial Officer did not have “probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation”[63] for the stated charge[64] and thus it was "taken in
a complete absence of all jurisdiction."[65] Clearly to any facially[66] reckonable[67] 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."[68]
In the 10.41 years[69] 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.”[70]
Since the civil domestic issue has been ongoing for 10.41 years[71] “the
"exclusionary rule"[72] is simply
irrelevant… it is damages or nothing.”[73]
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.” [74]
The warrant/Order issued by
Judge Goeke and ordered heard by Commissioner on its face was
unreasonable because it lacked "probable
cause" for the stated charge.[75]
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,[76] 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.[78] 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[79] absolute immunity with “no remedy for the violation of a
vested legal right” and sought to establish a reckonable[80] 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[81] 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 have TWO government certified
competency exams to my credit: I dare say the Judiciary’s asserted
unimpeachable incorporated competency could not credibly 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[82] accusation without access to 5th and 14th
Amendment’s 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[83] or calumnious[84] accusation against a crippled man
of good character that they were.
How could the crippled,
a man of good character, 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[85] is based on, he would
have dismissed the charge as racially based “vexatious”[86] or “calumnious”[87] 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.[88]
How can the malice,
corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[89] condoned[90] 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[91] 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.”[92] 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”[93] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially
those tasked with judicial,[94] prosecutorial[95]and enforcement[96] power from its paramount binding authority is
an incredible “fantastic or delusional scenario.”[97]
"Facts do not cease to exist because they
are ignored."[98]
This embarrasses the future and the past[99]
There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country
i.e., no titles of nobility.[100] 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.[101]
How can the Supreme
Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission awarded themselves and others “absolute
immunity”[102] from their constitutional commission to “do not only what their powers
do not authorize, but what they forbid”[103] i.e., the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws
of the United States of America?”[104] by DENYING the constitutional
assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th
Amendment Justice, law and equity?[105]
See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
07-11115, 11-8211 and
13-5193 Jeep v. Government of the United States of America
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,[106] 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[107] grant
of “Absolute
Immunity,”[108] by
and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional
an “unlawful
Conspiracy”[109] “before out of Court”[110] to
obfuscate “false
and malicious Persecutions.”[111]
“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,
Thursday, December 05, 2013!!! Justice William O.
Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.
[112] Mr. Lowe of Kansas
and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said respectively said it originally
in 1871[113] 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[116] and "fraud
upon the court."
Impeach the current Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[117]" denying the establishment of justice and
abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[118] with their deprivation of substantive 7th
Amendment[119] 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 any and all malice, corruption, “sincere
ignorance and conscientious stupidity”[120] 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.”[121] “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"[123]" for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws
of the United States of America”[124] e.g., “To Kill a Mocking Bird, The
Denial of Due Process,”[125] “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.[126] 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 #07-2614, 08-1823, 09-2848, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200,
and the most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115, 11-8211 and 13-5193.”
We hold a “4-Year-Old Can Be Sued.”[127]
We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion.
[128]
We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in
Iraq and Afghanistan .
[129]
We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion.
[130]
We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion.
[131]
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)” [132]
and compensate the victims?
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The abuses are happening EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE
Mr. Thompson
(No. 09–571),[133] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145),
[134] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[135] and
myself (USCA8 No. 07-2614, 08-1823, 09-2848, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435
and 13-2200).[136] The
fact that “With 5% of the world's population,
our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners”[137] PROVES “We
the People” have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America
It
is TIME…
“simply
because it is right.”
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's
in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Thursday,
December 05, 2013, 12:28:29 PM
GENERAL DELIVERY,
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred) www.DGJeep.blogspot.com
(314) 514-5228
[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] 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.
[8] “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)
[9] “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.
[11] “Floyd and Barker, reported by Coke, in
1608” Bradley v. Fisher -
80 U.S. 347 (1871), Pierson v. Ray - 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
[12] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of
“constructive power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[13] James Madison (1751–1836), the 4th President
of the United States (1809 – 1817), often referred to as the “Father of the
Constitution,” in his essay “Property” for the National Gazette March 27, 1792
[14] "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." MR.
JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883) and “"Whatever
other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of
them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by
his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads
decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to
criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre.”
[Footnote 41] Note, Developments in the Law: Section 1983 and
Federalism, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 1133, 1224 (1977). See also Johnson v. State, 69
Cal.2d 782, 792-793, 447 P.2d 352, 359-360 (1968): “As a threshold matter, we
consider it unlikely that the possibility of government liability will be a
serious deterrent to the fearless exercise of judgment by the employee. In any
event, however, to the extent that such deterrent effect takes hold, it may be
wholesome. An employee in a private enterprise naturally gives some
consideration to the potential liability of his employer, and this attention
unquestionably promotes careful work; the potential liability of a governmental
entity, to the extent that it affects primary conduct at all, will similarly
influence public employees.” Owen v. City of Independence - 445 U.S. 656 (1980)
[15] “To criticize section 1983 liability because
it leads decisionmakers 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)
[17] 18 USC §241 - §242 Criminal
Deprivation of rights under color of law
[18] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than
sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King “Strength to
Love” 1963
[19] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of
“constructive power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[20] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of
“constructive power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[21] “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)
[22] “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)
[23] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of
“constructive power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[24] “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)
[25] Randall v.
Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) , asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber
1607), was judicial sophistry at its finest, a judicial subterfuge to give the
judiciary immunity from the UNQUALIFIED recently enacted Civil Rights Act of
1866 (18 USC §241-§242).
[26] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
[27] 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 (42 USC §1983-§1985).
[28] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
[29] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
[30] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
[31] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
[32] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
[33] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
[34] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
[35] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
[36] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
[37] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
[38] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
[39] “Property” James Madison Essays for the
National Gazette 1791- 1792 “equally respect the rights of property and the property
in rights”
[40] BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the
Court in OWEN V. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, 444 U. S. 622 (1980)
[41] “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
[42] 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”
[43] 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.
[44] 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.
[45] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[46] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of
“constructive power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[47] James Madison (1751–1836), the 4th President
of the United States (1809 – 1817), often referred to as the “Father of the
Constitution,” in his essay “Property” for the National Gazette March 27, 1792
[48] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of
“constructive power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[49] “Power tends
to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are
almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority,
still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by
authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder
of it.” Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell
Creighton, dated April 1887.
[50]
Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349,
note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57
(1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates,
of Lord
Coke, Floyd
and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the
Star Chamber.
[51] Imbler
v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[52] Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[53] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than
sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King “Strength to
Love” 1963
[54] 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).
[55] Bogan
v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367,
372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138
[56] 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.
[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] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of
“constructive power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[60] “To criticize section 1983 liability because
it leads decisionmakers 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)
[61] 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.
[62] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[63] 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.”
[64] 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.
[65] Mireles v. Waco,502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112
S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam)
[66] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[67]
"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)
[68] 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.
[69] 10.41 years, 3,799 days, hours 91,184, minutes
5,471,053 or seconds 328,263,202 based on Thursday October 10 2013 09:13:21.82
AM
[70] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[71] 10.41 years, 3,799 days, hours 91,184, minutes
5,471,053 or seconds 328,263,202 based on Thursday October 10 2013 09:13:21.82
AM
[72] In criminal case the “exclusionary rule” is
an obfuscation of the Government’s Article III vicarious liability for due Process
rights.
[73] 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.”
[74] 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.
[75] 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.
[76] 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.”
[78] 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.”
[79] 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.
[80]
"reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the
name." Antonin Scalia, ibid.
[81] After NINE years of Good Faith
appeals, the issues of undeclared exigent circumstances and or Good Faith
immunity are no longer available.
[82] 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)
[83] 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,
[84] 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,
[85] 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.
[86] 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,
[87] 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,
[88] “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.”
[89] 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.
[90] “It is
difficult to conceive how, in society where rights and duties are relative and
mutual, there can be tolerated those who are privileged to do injury legibus
soluti, and still more difficult to imagine how such a privilege could be
instituted or tolerated upon the principles of social good” (White v. Nicholls,
44 U.S. (3 How) 287 (1845)).
[91] 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.
[93] “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!!!!!
[94] ""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)
[95] 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)
[96] 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)
[98] Aldous Huxley
[99] “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)
[100] 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, 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[101] 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.
[102] “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
[103] 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”
[104] 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.
[105] 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.
[106] 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.
[107] 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.
[108] “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
[109] 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.”
[112] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S.
559 (1967)
[113] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 &
394
[114] “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,
17 88 stated that impeachment was to be used as an integral check
for “Judicial Authority”
[116] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a
remedy in BOTH law and equity
[117] 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
[118] 1st Amendment, “Congress
shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.”
[119] 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.
[120] “Nothing
in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious
stupidity” (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
[121] “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
[122] The Caging of America, Why do we lock up so many
people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012
[123] “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
[125] 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.
[126] 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
[127] “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
[128] “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.”
[129] 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.
[130] “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.
[131] “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
[136] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425
and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115, 11-8211
and 13-5193
[137] “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
