Absolute FAILURE - The
Third Branch
Internationally
Asserted Basic Human Rights,
The
Constitution for the United States
of America
and
Statute Law
are IGNORED
I sometimes feel like the waif
in “The Emperor’s New Cloths”
AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE
IT??
“A country in which nobody is ever really responsible
is
a country in which nobody is ever truly safe.”
Saturday, April 13, 2013, 12:17:03 PM
The Third Branch, the Judiciary, of We the People’s
government has been an Absolute Failure.
By definition, The Third Branch was to “establish Justice” and “secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” in “all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under their Authority.”
The Third Branch has repeatedly usurped power not enumerated in the
Constitution.
The Third Branch has been an ABSOLUTE FAILURE in defense of Justice
and
Liberty under
the color of law. With unchecked ABSOLUTE
POWER based on its self-serving assertion of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY with Supreme Court
precedent
quashing “the sense and reason of” BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS,
Constitutional Law, Statute Law and Common Law.
With The Third Branch’s ABSOLUTE FAILURE, The Third Branch has become ABSOLUTE
CORRUPTION.
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 truth finding 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 creates ABSOLUTE
POWER 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)
No one can be held accountable
for We the People’s inalienable RIGHTS…
ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION!!
Before we get distracted with 234 years of corrupt,
malicious, incompetent, self-serving and doctrinaire interpretations of the Third
Branch I want to quote, the now universally vindicated, Mr. Justice Harlan dissent
in the seminal
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S.
26 (1883) that
created and
enforced 100 years of the FAILED Third Branch’s malicious and corrupt Jim Crow:
“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 obscenity of the Supreme Court’s precedent,
Blyew v. United States, 80
U.S. 581 (1871), sanctioning of the murder of Lucy Armstrong’s
family before her eyes, by allowing the State of Kentucky to hold that Lucy
Armstrong was “
then and there denied the
right to testify against the said Blyew and Kennard, or either of them,
concerning the said killing and murder in the courts and judicial tribunals of
the State of Kentucky solely on account of their race and color.”
The obscenity of the Supreme
Court’s,
United States v. Cruikshank,
92 U.S. 542 (1875), sanctioning the pogrom of the Colfax
massacre. Where 150 African Americans
were massacred for attempting to utilize their recently Constitutionally
Assured Inalienable Civil Rights.
“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” Civil Rights Cases, 109
U.S. 27 (1883).
To anybody that is not SELF-SERVINGLY being criminally empowered by
the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION
of the “
sense
and reason of the law” it is unavoidably obvious, as confirmed by The Federalist No.
78, prior to the ratification of the constitution “The Judiciary Department” Independent
Journal, by Alexander Hamilton:
“There is no position which depends on clearer
principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor
of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No ______ act, therefore,
contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy
is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives
of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of
powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
“The sense and reason of the
law” goes further than just
voiding actions.
“The sense and reason of the law,” the Constitution, provides
remedies,
a redress of grievances,
with 1
st and 7
th Amendment
Justice,
Alexander Hamilton, again, prior to the ratification
of the Constitution for the United States of America with, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections
to the Constitution Considered and Answered" from McLEAN's Edition,
confirmed this timely clarification of the “sense and reason” for the Constitution for the United States of America, the supreme law
of the land:
"Nothing
need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility
(“the sense and reason of the law” 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."
Constitutional Law clearly asserts TWO enumerated constitutional prohibitions for the grant of "Absolute Immunity” with the “sense and reason” prohibitions for the grant of any titles of nobility:
1.
Article
1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by
the
United States"
and
“To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction
directed against state judicial officials, intended
sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil
counterpart approaches the incredible. Sheriffs and marshals, while performing a quintessentially
judicial function such as serving process, were clearly liable under the 1866 Act,
notwithstanding President Johnson's objections. Because, as Representative Shellabarger
stated, § 1 of the 1871 Act provided a civil remedy "in identically the same
case" or "on the same state of facts" as § 2 of the 1866 Act, it
obviously overrode whatever immunity may have existed at common law for these participants
in the judicial process in 1871.”
Absolute immunity
for government officials as
regards common
law tort immunities I again refer to Mr. Justice
Marshal declarations of “
the sense
and reason of the law” in
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 346
(1983):
“The extension of absolute immunity conflicts fundamentally
with the language and purpose of the statute. I would therefore be reluctant in
any case to conclude that § 1983 incorporates common law tort immunities that may have existed when Congress enacted
the statute in 1871. But in this case, the conclusion is especially unjustified.
First, absolute immunity for witnesses was by no means a settled legal proposition
in 1871. Most notably, in 1845, this Court had cast serious doubt on the existence
of absolute immunity for testimony given in judicial proceedings. Second, the origins
and history of § 1983 strongly suggest that Congress meant to abrogate any absolute
immunity for government officials involved in the judicial process, including police
officers. Finally, considerations of public policy deemed necessary to justify absolute
immunity in our past cases do not support an absolute immunity for officer-witnesses.”
If this extreme
incredible, fantastic or delusional scenario i.e., ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY to ABSOLUTE POWER to ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION, could be deemed to be well taken,
it is manifest that the "malicious
or corrupt" judges, the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, the
"knowingly false testimony by police officers" or the corrupt, malicious
or incompetent actions of “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were
integral parts of the judicial process”
and not the Constitution of the United States,
would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the federal Constitution
upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases. To such a case the federal judicial power extends
(Article III, § 2), and, so extending, the Court has all the authority appropriate
to its exercise. (paraphrased from
Sterling v. Constantin, 287
U.S. 397 (1932))
But again the corrupt, malicious
and incompetent FAILED Third Branch REFUSES TO ACT!!!!
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. Admittedly the Jane Crow
era of rampant deprivation of RIGHTS is relatively new as compared to its predecessor
the Jim Crow era. 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. If the Sheriff Tate had investigated
the accusations of Mayella Ewel, he would have seen them for the racially motivated
baseless accusation against a crippled man of good character that they were.
How could
the crippled Tom Robinson
been able to do the things he was accused of? If Horace
Gilmer the prosecuting attorney had actually looked at the evidence Atticus presented
instead of blindly pushing the perjured racially biased testimony of the Ewels he
would have offered to dismiss the charges.
If Judge Taylor had any of the altruistic, supposedly independent, courage
that our judiciary
is based on, he would
have dismissed the charge as vexatious
or calumnious
so as not to offend
the
Ends of Justice that should have been
his PRIMARY motivation.
Tom Robinson was convicted because of 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 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.
How can the malice, corruption,
dishonesty and incompetence condoned and supported by Supreme Court precedent be constitutional in a
SANE government of the people, by the people and for the people?
This is a massive malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent self-serving conspiracy against
rights!!!
Historically,
the claim of precedent and / or consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels;
it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Absolute Immunity even in the supreme Court has
NEVER been established without, in most cases, multiple dissenting opinions.
To assume
that the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution of the United States
of America as the supreme Law of the Land, intended
sub silentio to exempt ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially
those tasked with judicial,
prosecutorial
and enforcement
power from its paramount binding authority is
an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they
are ignored."
This embarrasses the future and the past
There are
no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles
of nobility.
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.
How can the Supreme Court,
a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission
award themselves and others “
absolute
immunity” from their constitutional commission to “
do not only what their powers
do not authorize, but what they forbid”
i.e.,
the “
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws
of the United States of America?”
by DENYING the constitutional
assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th
Amendment Justice,
We the
People have fallen under
the
despotic spell of the concentrated power
in the Supreme Court that has created
ABSOLUTE
POWER from
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the “
malicious
or corrupt” judges,
the “
malicious or dishonest” prosecutor, the “
knowingly
false testimony by police officers"
and “
all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest
and
incompetent)
persons -- governmental or otherwise --
who were integral parts of the judicial process” acting
under color of law to wit,
ABSOLUTE
CORRUPTION.
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, 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, in a government
of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!
The ministerial grant
of by
and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional
an “unlawful
Conspiracy” “before out of Court” to
obfuscate “false
and malicious Persecutions.”
Impeach the current Black
Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally
un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."
Before
they have a chance to screw-up Healthcare for
100
years!!!!!!
Supreme
Court precedent empowers the "
malicious or corrupt" judges by saying,
"
This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously
and corruptly" (
Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in
Bradley
v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 349, note,
at
80 U. S. 350.)
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554
(1967)
Supreme
Court precedent empowers the "
malicious or dishonest" prosecutor
by saying, "
To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant
without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives
him of liberty."
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S.
428 (1976)
Supreme
Court precedent empowers the "
knowingly false testimony by police
officers"
by saying, "
There
is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the
judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis
of knowingly false testimony by police officers."
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345
(1983)
Supreme
Court precedent empowers by saying “
In short,
the common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for
all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial
process. It is equally clear that § 1983 does not authorize a damages claim against
private witnesses, on the one hand, or against judges or prosecutors in the performance
of their respective duties, on the other.”
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335
(1983)
Judicial
modesty is one of the best possible qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice,
a position that offers so much untrammeled power and brings so much temptation along
with it.
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"
" for the “
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws
of the United States of America”
e.g., “To Kill a Mocking Bird, The
Denial of Due Process,”
“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. I have suffered
through 411 days of illegal incarceration, 5 years of homelessness and two psychological
examinations. I ask you to review 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case
Jeep v Government of the United States of America 12-2435, Jeep v
Obama 11-2425 , Jeep v
United
States of America 10-1947,” Jeep v Bennett 08-1823,
“Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and the most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to
the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211.”
We hold a “
4-Year-Old Can Be Sued.”
We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion.
We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in
Iraq and
Afghanistan.
We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion.
We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion.
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)”
and compensate the victims?
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Saturday,
April 13, 2013, 12:17:03 PM, 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc
“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.
“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.
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 FIVE YEARS! The 1st
Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able
justifiable redress of grievance from the government: “Congress shall make no law abridging the right
of the people to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.” The 7th Amendment secures the
right to settle all suits: “In Suits at common law, where the value in
controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall
be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of
the common law” assures justice as regards equity.
Incompetence is the most insidiuos and it is covered up by the
gratuitous grants of dishoesty, malice andcorruption. As regards state Prosecutors, "States
can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath &
Kevin McCoy ("Federal
prosecutors series").
The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out,"
said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers. "The public, the defense
attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to
police themselves."
Incompetence is the most
insidiuos and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishoesty, malice
andcorruption. As regards state
Prosecutors, "States
can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath &
Kevin McCoy ("Federal
prosecutors series").
The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out,"
said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers. "The public, the defense
attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to
police themselves."
“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!!!!!
""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"
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)
There are TWO
constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity," Article
1, Section 9, 7th
paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United
States" and Article
1, Section 10,
1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility."
Additionally I cite Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections
to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition,
New York.
Wednesday, May 28,
1788 as further timely clarification of the supreme law of the land:
"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of
titles of nobility(i.e., absolute immunity). This may truly be denominated the
corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there
can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of
the people."
You some how want to argue that “the grant of Nobility”
was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue
that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of
Nobility? That would undermine
Free-Enterprise.
Anyone that wants to assertion “the prohibition of
titles of nobility’ was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of
theabsolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only read the
Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted
immunity of the nobility.
There is not now and there was not then any titular
value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law? Did NatKing Cole violate the
constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE-THING
of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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”
Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the
victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into poverty, homelessness
for FOUR YEARS! The 1st
Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able
justifiable redress of grievance from the government: “Congress shall make no law abridging the right
of the people to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.” The 7th Amendment secures the
right to settle all suits: “In Suits at common law, where the value in
controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall
be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of
the common law” assures justice as regards equity.
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!!!!!!!!!!
"All power tends to corrupt and absolute power
corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they
exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency
or certainty of corruption by full authority.
There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of
it." Lord Acton, John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston: Beacon Press, p.
364
“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.
Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered
up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
“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.
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.
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.
“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
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.”
“And the inference is greatly fortified by the
consideration of the important
constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments… upon
the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security.
There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate
usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united
resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the
means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations.”
Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 81, “The Judiciary Continued, and the
Distribution of the Judicial Authority” From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788
stated that impeachment was to be used as an integral check for “Judicial
Authority”
The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a
remedy in BOTH law and equity
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
1st Amendment, “Congress
shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.”
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.
“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
The Caging of America, Why do we lock up so many
people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012
“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
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.
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
“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
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.
Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61)
See also USCA8
07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court
07-11115&11-8211
“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
