"The Earth and everything that's in it": April 14, 2013

Saturday, April 20, 2013

The Federal Judiciary is, for self serving criminal[1] REASONS, ignorant of the “sense and reason”[2] of a reckonable[3] Rule of Law and the Constitution of the United States.

E. Richard Webber

c/o Clerk of Court – J. G. Woodward

St. Louis - Eastern Division

Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse

111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300

St. Louis, MO 63102-1123

Re: Motion for reconsideration - David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs. Government of the United States of America, et al, 4:13-cv-00360-ERW

Dear Mr. Webber,

I apologize for my prior motion dated April 19, 2013. Please disregard it. I was too hasty in my submission. Emotions had driven me to forget that the Federal Judiciary is, for self serving criminal[1] REASONS, ignorant of the "sense and reason"[2] of a reckonable[3] Rule of Law and the Constitution of the United States. [4] This malicious ignorance is in spite of their professional responsibility and sworn oath, "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for title of nobility[5] i.e., absolute immunity, the "sense and reason"[6] of the prohibition. Yet somehow? Your ilk illogically and criminally asserts ABSOLUTE POWER using ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt"[7] judges, the "malicious or dishonest"[8] prosecutor, the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[9] and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[10] actions by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[11] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[12] Your ilk clearly criminally disregards the idea of professional and constitutional obligations

When I became homeless, 5 years ago, I wrote out my first Will and Testament. At that time, even as about to become homeless, I thought that I had assets worthy of note. Now as I approach the end of this 9 year criminal JUDICIAL[13] action, I have nothing of note except this action that I now bequeath to my soul heir, Patrick Brandon Jeep. I will not be the first to have been pilloried and lynched by this criminal[14] conspiracy on their gallows trap door of absolute immunity. Suffering inconsequential persons have been at the discretion of the absolutely immune for 10,000 years. Now "We the People" have been sold your corrupt, malicious, and incompetent bill of goods. And it may take another generation to see that absolute immunity quashes the idea of reckonable inalienable rights and a constitutionally limited Government… a reckonable Supreme Law of the Land.

Your reference, for my heir's sake, to a fixed dollar amount of damages is in error, it is an escalating amount e.g., as of Friday April 19, 2013 - 12:12 PM the amount is $208,114,000.00.[15] As to your assertion that the admittedly large list of respondents is delusional, I would ask, if you deny this motion, please add your name as an additional CRIMINAL respondent. Everyone on the complaint as listed respondents has, at one time or another had the issue's criminally unashamed "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" presented to them and per statute as government actors tasked with Justice and or enforcement of rights under color of law they "shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."

People have been, since at least 1871, and continue to be pilloried and lynched by the CRIMINAL[16] judicial assertion of absolute immunity. "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, Sunday, April 21, 2013!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.[17] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[18].

I take exception to your attempt to discredit my complaint by saying that I am "a frequent litigant before this court." I would describe myself as an unfortunate frequent repeated VICTIM before this corrupt, malicious, dishonest, incompetent and CRIMINAL[19] court as I clearly and UNASHAMEDLY assert in the listed respondents to this complaint. From the very beginning, I have had the uncontested PROOF of the criminal[20] judicial officer's criminal denial of rights, this court and others have REPEATEDLY conspired to refuse to see it. Now additionally I list all the Local, State and Federal Governments as liable also. We the People, as individual person incorporated with each other to establish Justice and secure the Blessings of liberty. My government as a corporate entity has clearly had a hand in this deprivation facilitated at the hands of the individual persons listed as government actors and respondents.

I RESTATE for the RECORD:

Neither Judge Goeke, nor Commissioner Jones had Jurisdiction. The essential requirement for any Government action is reasonable "probable cause." On its face the original petition,[21] from the now respondent, did not have REASONABLE constitutional probable cause for the asserted violation of the Missouri Revised Statutes Protective Orders Section 455.035[22] thus the two Judicial Officers had a "complete absence of jurisdiction" and Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8^th Cir. 2003) does not preclude this complaint. Constitutionally and statutorily Jurisdiction requires reasonable probable cause; see 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States and Missouri Revised Statutes Protective Orders Section 455.035.[23] I was held to answer a warrant that lacked reasonable probable cause shown on its face in the petition. Not only was the original petition, a violation statutorily and constitutionally, it defies logic to ask someone to answer a charge without specific reasonable probable cause. How do you logically answer a charge without probable cause? I did not do what I am not accused of? This is, WAS and has been a violation of my constitutional right and the protection of the Law, see 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States and Missouri Revised Statutes Protective Orders Section 455.035.[24] This ongoing violation creates ever escalating damages.

The only listed probable cause on the original handwritten petition for an ex parte order of protection was a misdemeanor traffic violation from a different geographic jurisdiction and a different subject matter jurisdiction, at that time prior, under the asserted UNRELATED judicial officer's jurisdiction (it should be noted that the Judicial officer in question on misdemeanor recused himself for his bad act) . That two geographic and subject matter jurisdictionally unrelated issues are linked together as one goes further to establish the over all UNREASONABLENESS and thus its jurisdictional criminal constitutional violation.

Now if you could somehow get past the constitutional requirement for REASONABLE probable cause, which you can not. The 8^th Amendment's requirement that "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" for an alleged, later disproven, misdemeanor traffic violation precludes the imposed punishment, the deprivation of my home, my son, my paternity and my liberty.

The Rule of Law, as described by Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, the seminal Supreme Court case said, "The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."[25] The Founding Fathers, the Authors of the constitution, had lived for too long at the discretion of the Nobility's absolute immunity with "no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right" and sought to establish a reckonable[26] 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[27] 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 again humbly ask you to reconsider your error, We the People incorporated ourselves into a government 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."

Post Civil War we backed that up with the more explicit Federal Statute Law that deliberately nullified any prior common law assertions with first Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 and then Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985. To assert absolute immunity for the "malicious or corrupt"[28] judges, the "malicious or dishonest"[29] prosecutor, the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[30] and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[31] actions by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[32] acting under color of law is completely without reason.

As regards your assertion Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8^th Cir. 1994) I have to ask who in their RIGHT mind would give up their Constitutional Civil Rights in any case, but much more importantly when the dispute revolves around not only your own life, liberty or property but that of your heir's life, liberty or property. Kahn v. Kahn is an open example of your disregard for the intrinsic requirement of your oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Clearly to any reckonable[33] reading of the 14^th Amendment requirement "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," Kahn v. Kahn can not hold when there is a deprivation of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and "equal protection of the laws."

As to your assertion that I am only complaining because I did not like the outcome, I agree 100%. If you had violated my rights and I had been awarded all that I seek, I would NOT be here right now. That is a little too obvious for serious consideration as an argument against my complaint.

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

"Time is of the essence"

David G. Jeep

enclosure

a. "Spreadsheet of escalating damages dated Friday April 19, 2013 - 12:12 PM the amount is $208,114,000.00"

b. "Copy handwritten ORIGINAL petition dated November 3, 2003"

cc: My Blog- Sunday, April 21, 2013, 2:50:50 PM

[1] 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." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 362 (1983)

[2] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 27 (1883)

[3] "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)

[4] "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." Article. VI. 2nd Paragraph

[5] 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 somehow 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 assert "the prohibition of titles of nobility' was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute 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 Nat "King" Cole violate the constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[6] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 27 (1883)

[7] 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.

[8] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[9] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[10] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!

[11] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"

[12] "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.

[13]To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials… ibid.

[14] To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials… ibid.

[15] See the enclosed spreadsheet.

[16] To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials… ibid.

[17] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967)

[18] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394

[19] To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials… ibid.

[20] To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials… ibid.

[21] See the ATTACHED copy of the handwritten petition dated November 3, 2003

[22] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, where he is tasked by statute to "for good cause shown in the petition", issued a warrant without any probable cause. A Judges' power is necessarily limited by the Constitution and statute. A Judge can not issue a warrant without probable cause. Not only did the petition for an Ex-Parte Order of protection not list any abuse, what it did list was third party description of an incident in traffic court that was being handled by another geographical JURISDICTION, 150 miles away and different subject matter jurisdiction by a judicial officer that subsequently recused himself for his bad act.

For Judge Goeke to even list it as a probable cause violated the respondents right to the elementary principles of procedural due process.

[23] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455… ibid..

[24] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455… ibid.

[25] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803)

[26] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia, ibid.

[27] After NINE years of Good Faith appeals, the issues of undeclared exigent circumstances and or Good Faith immunity are no longer available.

[28] 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.

[29] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[30] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[31] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!

[32] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"

[33] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia, ibid.

--
Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

Friday, April 19, 2013

THE DEADBEAT - Supreme Court of the United States

Label Number: 7012 1010 0001 1575 2557

Shipment Activity--------------------------- Location--------------------- Date & Time

Posted Friday January 04, 2013 4:52pm

-- ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------

Delivered------------------------- WASHINGTON DC 20543---- 04/24/13 10:48am

Arrival at Unit-------------------- WASHINGTON DC 20018----- 04/24/13 10:35am

Dispatched to Sort-------------- SAINT LOUIS MO 63101------ 04/19/13 4:52pm

Facility

Acceptance----------------------- SAINT LOUIS MO 63101------ 04/19/13 4:29pm

---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------

Expected Delivery By:

April 22, 2013

First-Class Mail^®

Certified Mail^™

Andrew Downs, Clerk of the Court

THE DEADBEAT - Supreme Court of the United States

One First Street N.E.

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Re: 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals Case 12-2435 David Jeep vs. Barack Obama (a.k.a. David Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America)

Revised "A humble pro se EMERGENCY PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 9.34 years of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 27 pages, dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012" – A FAILURE to COMMUNICATE!!!!!

Dear Mr. Downs,

I regret to inform you that you have WORK to do!

Neither the "Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States" (effective February 16, 2010) or Office of the Clerk's "GUIDE FOR PROSPECTIVE INDIGENT PETITIONERS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI" (dated October 2012) are at issue here. I complied with those rules, as I have SEVERAL times before with my original submission and revised petition as referenced above. I admit on the original submission there was a typographical error as to the properly brought case from the lower court, Eight Circuit Court of Appeals Case 12-2435. I corrected that with the revised petition dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012 First-Class Mail® Delivered October 02, 2012, 10:51 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20543 Certified Mail™ (#70121010000144212589) and never acknowledged by the Clerk's Office. It is available as submitted on my blog (at http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012/09/revised-humble-pro-se-emergency.html). I would resend it here, but alas I am indigent and without the basic necessities of life i.e., food and clothing and thus unable to afford the added postage.

Beyond that I assert the "sense and reason"[1] of Gideon[2] v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) and my repeatedly confirmed indigent Pro-Se status; I am as the DIRECT result of the corruption, malice and incompetence ubiquitous within this issue unable to financially acquire Professional Representation. You and your corrupt, malicious dishonest and incompetent co-conspirators know the proverbial deck has been stacked against the constitutional intent, "sense and reason"[3] 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" and statute law Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 by the Supreme Court's malicious, corrupt, incompetent and ubiquitous grant of ABSOLUTE POWER using ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt"[4] judges, the "malicious or dishonest"[5] prosecutor, the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[6] and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[7] actions by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[8] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[9]

Now the Supreme Court's self-serving assertions have been allowed to stand as law. But precedent does not make law. There is a difference! The Constitution REQUIRES that ALL civil disputes be submitted to a 7^th Amendment Jury.

I include by reference here my letters dated Friday, January 4, 2013 to Gail Johnson, Clerk of the Court[10] and Monday, March 18, 2013 to Andrew Downs, Clerk of the Court,[11] both delivered First-Class Mail® Certified Mail™.

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

"Time is of the essence"

David G. Jeep

cc: My Blog - Friday, April 19, 2013, 3:08:04 PM

[1] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

[2] Gideon's ORIGINAL handwritten pro-se indigent petition was not in compliance with the "Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States." Regardless of the Courts decision, the courts consideration of Gideon's issue set precedent for the blanket unimpeachable requirements of the "Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States."

[3] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

[4] 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.

[5] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[6] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[7] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!

[8] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"

[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.

[10] See http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-failure-to-communicate.html

[11] http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-deadbeat-supreme-court-of-united.html

E. Richard Webber

c/o Clerk of Court - James G. Woodward

St. Louis - Eastern Division

Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse

111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300

St. Louis, MO 63102-1123

Re: Motion for reconsideration - David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs. Government of the United States of America, et al, 4:13-cv-00360-ERW

Dear Mr. Webber,

There are not constitutionally sanctioned titles of nobility in this country and while it seems trivial even to me, somehow your ilk has derived ABSOLUTE POWER using ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt"[1] judges, the "malicious or dishonest"[2] prosecutor, the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[3] and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[4] actions by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[5] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[6]

Your reference, for my heir's sake, to the dollar amount of damages is an escalating amount e.g., as of Friday April 19 2013 12:12 PM the amount is $208,114,000.00. And if you deny this motion, please add your name as a respondent.

I ask you to reconsider your error, We the People incorporated ourselves into a government 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." Just Post Civil War we backed that up with the more explicit Federal Statute Law that expressly nullified any prior common law assertions with Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242. To assert absolute immunity for the "malicious or corrupt"[7] judges, the "malicious or dishonest"[8] prosecutor, the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[9] and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[10] actions by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[11] acting under color of law is completely without reason.

As regards your assertion Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8^th Cir. 1994) I have to ask who in their RIGHT mind would give up their Constitutional Civil Rights in any case, but much more importantly when the dispute revolves around not only your own life, liberty or property but that or your heirs life, liberty or property. Kahn v. Kahn is an open example of your disregard for the intrinsic requirement of your oath "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Clearly to any reckonable[12] reading of the 14^th Amendment requirement "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," Kahn v. Kahn can not hold when there is a deprivation of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and "equal protection of the laws."

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

"Time is of the essence"

David G. Jeep

cc: My Blog - Friday, April 19, 2013, 3:24:41 PM

[1] 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.

[2] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[3] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[4] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!

[5] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"

[6] "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.

[8] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[9] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[10] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!

[11] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"

[12] "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)

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

The Boston Bombings & The Fear Mongers

The Boston Bombings

The Fear Mongers

Internationally Asserted Basic Human Rights,[1]

The Constitution for the United States of America[2]

and Statute Law[3] are IGNORED

I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Cloths"

AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??

"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is

a country in which nobody[4] is ever truly safe."[5]

Tuesday, April 16, 2013, 3:28:14 PM

"The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't"[6]

Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

I very much appreciate the administration's NOT blaming anyone for the bombing. To put a face on the terror is to give it to much authority. I would prefer to let the TERRORIST go free rather than be forced by the omini-present fear of another Al-Qaeda further into a prison of irrational FEAR!!!!!!!

The terrorist win when they force us to live in FEAR.

I just finished reading Jared Diamond's "The World until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies?" He asserts and I agree, we need to rethink how we judge fear. We are toooo afraid of inconsequential things and to unaware of the TRUE dangers. Traditional people that actually live with REAL fear are much better actuarials than those of us that rely on the so called NEWS MEDIA. Terrorist in today's modern world may account for 100 deaths a year world wide, to counter that fear we unreasonably give up our civil rights to privacy, We give up our rights to enter our public buildings without having to open purses and back pack, we give up the right to get on a plane without invasive x-rays and taking off our STINKY shoes. It is insanity.

We are sacrificing our hard won CIVIL RIGHTS for unreasonable FEARS!!!!!

We do not need more erosion of our CIVIL RIGHTS. An inept "shoe bomber" incompetently merely attempts to blow himself up on an air plane and NOW everybody getting on an airplane has to take off their shoes!!!! It is insanity. If Al-Qaeda had actually wanted to blow somebody up, if Al-Qaeda had actually had suicide bombers, they would have been boarding air planes after having swallowed the packets of explosive, just like drug smugglers do. No Al-Qaeda wanted to scare us into TAKING off our shoes, upsetting our lives with irrational FEAR.

We have take control of the war on TERROR by not giving into the TERRORIST FEAR MONGERS.

We have take control of the war on TERROR by not giving into the TERRORIST FEAR MONGERS. We have to stand up for SANITY in the face of irrationalism. If you walk around St. Louis, I would think like most American cities, you are metal detected, wanded or x-rayed at every TURN!!!!! You can't go anywhere with a back pack and not be asked to disorder everything in it for the sake of a warrantless SEARCH for the right to enter virtually any public building!! To my knowledge there has never been any bombing in St. Louis, MO. As sure as I say that someone is going to attempt a bombing in St. Louis.

That still DOES not mean we have to all walk in FEAR.

We need to remember Edward R. Murrow's assertions,

"No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices."
"We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men…"

The FEAR MONGERS in this country, that hold PUBLIC OFFICE; want us afraid, they want us to be wiling to go to war at the drop of their proverbial "hat" for their power, personal enrichment and vendetta. We need to stop the fear.

Martin Luther King said it first and best,

"True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice."

We need to reach out to those that would be our enemies with Justice. A justice that will prosecute the perpetrators to full extent of the law but not PERSECUTE anyone!!!!!

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. 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 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[7] is based on, he would have dismissed the charge as vexatious[8] or calumnious[9] so as not to offend the Ends of Justice 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 14^th 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.[10]

How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[11] 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[12] 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[13] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[14] prosecutorial[15]and enforcement[16] power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[17]

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[18]

This embarrasses the future and the past[19]

There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[20] 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.[21]

How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[22] from their constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[23] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[24] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1^st and 7^th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[25]

We the People have fallen under the despotic[26] spell of the concentrated power[27] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[28] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[29] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [30] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[31] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[32]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [33] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[34]

See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211 Jeep v. Obama

and

#12-2435 Jeep v Government of the United States of America

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,[35] 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[36] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[37] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional an "unlawful Conspiracy"[38] "before out of Court"[39] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[40]

"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, Tuesday, April 16, 2013!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [41] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[42].

Impeach[43] the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[44]

for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[45] and

"fraud upon the court."

Before they have a chance to screw-up Healthcare for

100 years!!!!!!

Impeach the current Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[46]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[47] with their deprivation of substantive 7^th Amendment[48] justice between the government and the people, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011!!!

Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or corrupt" judges by saying, "This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly" (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.) Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967)

Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)

Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)

Supreme Court precedent empowers by saying "In short, the common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process. It is equally clear that § 1983 does not authorize a damages claim against private witnesses, on the one hand, or against judges or prosecutors in the performance of their respective duties, on the other." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983)

Judicial modesty is one of the best possible qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice, a position that offers so much untrammeled power and brings so much temptation along with it.

Anyone that questions this should read "INHERENTLY UNEQUAL, The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court, 1865-1903" by Lawrence Goldstone and / or The shifting wind : the Supreme Court and civil rights from Reconstruction to Brown by John R. Howard. "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners."[49] "Six million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.—more than were in Stalin's gulags."[50]

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"[51]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[52] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[53] "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.[54] 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."[55] We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. [56] We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. [57] We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. [58] We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. [59] 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)" [60] and compensate the victims?

That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The abuses are happening EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE Mr. Thompson (No. 09–571),[61] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [62] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[63] and myself (USCA8 No. 12-2435, 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614).[64] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[65] PROVES "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evidence as posted on this blog
Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)

Tuesday, April 16, 2013, 3:28:14 PM, 2013 04-16-13 The Boston Bombings & The Fear Mongers REV 00.doc

David G. Jeep

c/o The Bridge, 1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

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, 1866. 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] Our Federal Judiciary, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." so as to empower them to answer to Justice ALONE.

[8] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871) "The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,

[9] Floyd and Barker (1607) "And those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual Calumniations," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,

[10] "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."

[11] Incompetence is the most insidiuos and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishoesty, malice andcorruption. As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."

As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, 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.

[12] 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."

[13] "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!!!!!

[14] ""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)

[15] 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)

[16] 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)

[17] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)

[18] Aldous Huxley

[19] "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)

[20] 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[21] 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.

[22] "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

[23] 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"

[24] 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.

[25] 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 1^st 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 7^th 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.

[26] 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!!!!!!!!!!

[27] "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

[28] "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.

[29] 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.

[30] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[31] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[32] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!

[33] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"

[34] "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.

[35] 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 1^st 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 7^th 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.

[36] 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.

[37] "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

[38] 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."

[39] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

[40] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

[41] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967)

[42] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394

[43] "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"

[44] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

[45] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity

[46] 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

[47] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[48] 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.

[49] "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

[50] The Caging of America, Why do we lock up so many people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012

[51] "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

[52] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[53] 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.

[54] 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

[55] "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

[56] "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."

[57] 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.

[58] "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.

[59] "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

[60] Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61)

[61] Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

[62] Smith v. Cain, No. 10-8145

[63] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011

[64] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211

[65] "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