"The Earth and everything that's in it": May 26, 2013

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Who goes berserk firsts? The Federal Government has already PROVED my competency with their illegal incarceration!!!!!

Clerk of Court - James G. Woodward

111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300

St. Louis, MO 63102-1123

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

Dear Mr. Woodard,

The original court order at the center and inception of this issue, in 2003, was NOT "a facially valid court order"[1] the issuing Judicial Officer did not have "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation."[2] for the stated charge[3] and thus it was "taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction."[4] In the 9.58 years since there has never been any mention of "exigent circumstances" nor "good faith" mistakes there for the order stands on its own as NOT "a facially valid court order."[5] Since the civil domestic issue has been on going for 9.58 years it is as it was for Bivens, "damages or nothing."[6] Since 2003 the Commissioner Jones and the original petitioner Sharon G. Jeep both contradicted their original assertions, although neither took RESPONSIBILITY!!! If you deny this petition you are again putting the rule of corrupt judges in front of the reckonable rule of We the People's law. You have done it before[7] and you probably will again unless We the People raise up in rebellion.

There are none so blind as those that REFUSE to SEE. Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003) has no bearing on the issue. The instigating criminally fraudulent petitioner, the original State Judges, the original local police officers, the Federal Judiciary, the FBI, the USMS and the Government of the United States of America[8] have deprived, the undersigned petitioner, his constitutional Due Process inalienable right and upheld the FRAUDULENT[9]

- NOT "facially valid court order"[10] -

"shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."

If you disallow this petition your are then affirming that the rule of facially reckonable rule of law is without binding authority.

Judicial independence has become corrupt, malicious and incompetent blind obedience to their self-serving corruption of We the People's constitutional intent to "establish justice" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" with the Supreme Court's quashing of rights with the corrupt assertion of absolute immunity for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[11] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [12] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[13] and any and all malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[14] actions by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [15] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[16]

Who will BREAK down first, the openly corrupt, malicious and incompetent Third Branch or its victim, the petitioner? They took EVERYTHING, my son, my home, my EVERYTHING. It has been nearly 10 years, I have been homeless for 5 ½ years, I have suffered through 411 day of illegal incarceration and two psychological exams would anybody think ill of me for going berserk??

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

cc: District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig

District Judge E. Richard Webber

My Blog - Thursday, May 30, 2013, 12:08:19 PM

[1] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[2] The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[3] 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.

[4] Mireles v. Waco,502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam)

[5] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[6] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971) " Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing."

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

[8] "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))[8]

[9] It should be noted that subsequently since 2003 the Commissioner Jones and the original petitioner Sharon G. Jeep both contradicted their original assertions, although neither took RESPONSIBILITY!!!

[10] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[11] 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.

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

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

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

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

[16] "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.

--
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

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

The misandry of the VAWA is sexually based corruption and discrimination

Senator Claire McCaskill

5850 Delmar Blvd, Ste. A

St. Louis, Missouri 63112-2346

Re: A petition for congressional response regarding Judicial Oversight on a Not "facially valid court order"[1] - issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction."[2] Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals cases 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, and 12-2435

Dear Ms. McCaskill,

I realize you are an unashamed bigoted misandrist,[3] but for the record, I again submit to you a petition for congressional oversight and control of the Judiciary's ongoing historical MASSIVE UNCHECKED REPEATED criminal conspiracy against RIGHTS. You may or may not like the Ku Klux Klan, I do not like the Ku Klux Klan, but in the United States of America they have RIGHTS! Expediency and the assertion of the possibility of vexatious[4] or calumnious[5] actions does not defeat the Constitution for the United States of America's Article III's raison d'être[6] - to "establish Justice" [7] and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" [8] "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" [9] i.e., equal protection and due process of Law.

In the Jim Crow era there were those that purported "We must keep the niggers in their place, via lynching, the denial of equal protection and due process of Law lest they abuse our white women." That premise empowered slavery, Jim Crow lynching, racial discrimination and now, as a result, race based affirmative action in the corrupt, malicious and incompetent courts of the United States of America.

Your misandry, in the Jane Crow Era,[10] now wants to premise "We must keep all men in their place, via lynching, the denial of equal protection and due process of Law lest they abuse women." This ignorantly premises that all of human history to date, prior to the VAWA,[11] was built on a corrupt misogynistic male oriented world. That is criminally naïve and unwarranted.

Men and women have always had issues, and I for one hope they always do. The problems of violence is not and never has been the all-consuming issue that the Jane Crow era now wants to impose on all men. It would, in my opinion, be a boring place indeed if EVERYONE, innocent, misogynist or misandrist, was as easily manipulated as your DENIAL Due Process of Law and Equal Protection of the law asserts as its raison d'être. Yes men have to a certain degree, ON THE SURFACE, had the upper hand in making decisions. But I state, We the People are not now nor will We the People ever be completely dominated by gender. Women have and will for the foreseeable future have personal control of the tit. Women thus have NATURAL and almost complete control of the world from conception through weaning. And this initial inherent advantage HAS NEVER and will never be overcome, period. No amount of affirmative or hostile action will ever overcome this inherent inalienable natural advantage.

What you, and other proponents of your misandry, now want to do is repeal the Constitution's, 5^th and 14^th Amendment, assurance of Due Process of Law and Equal Protection of the law. There is an ongoing history of this corrupt, malicious and incompetent repeal. This was how the Supreme Court, post-Civil War maintains the manifest evil[12] of their corrupt, malicious, racist, sexist and incompetent precedent[13] on "We the People.

We the People had invested 600,000 lives in the Civil War to assert the Union over state's rights, the jurisdiction of Due Process of Law, the Equal Protection of the law and abolish slavery. We the People had with the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments Constitutionally to assert the Union over state's rights, the jurisdiction of Due Process of Law, the Equal Protection of the law and abolish slavery. We the People using the ex industria power expressly granted to Congress with the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments passed into federal statute law § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242), the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985) and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil Rights Act of 1964) to further assert the Union over state's rights, the jurisdiction of Due Process of Law, the Equal Protection of the law and abolish slavery. But the Supreme Court over ruled of We the People's "sense and reason of the law"[14] with the unchecked ABSOLUTE POWER of their corrupt, malicious and incompetent assertion of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY of their malevolently assertedly unassailable precedents. [15]

Now again with the unchecked unwarranted ABSOLUTE POWER of the VAWA you are utilizing the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of We the People's constitutional intent of ABSOLUTE,[16] universal, inalienable, and federally assured rights to Due Process of Law, Equal Protection of the law and abolition of slavery. I quote Justice Hugo Black, "It is my belief that there are "absolutes" in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be "absolutes." The corrupt, malicious and incompetent Judiciary criminally refuses to acknowledge, the Constitutional Law, statute Law, and their own precedent's facial requirements:

1. 4^th Amendment to the Constitution for the united states of America.[17]

2. Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035[18] statute law

3. "a facially valid court order,"[19]

Now through some self-serving contrivances, the 1^st Amendment Right of Petition has been lowered exclusively to petitions to the Congress. Actually no matter what happened just pre[20] Civil War the right to petition was considered by the founding fathers[21] in colonial times as expressed by John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803):

"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court."

i.e., a means to sue the sovereign. The RECIPROCITY of the right to JUSTIFIABLY under Article III and the 7^th Amendment sue the sovereign for a redress of grievances is lawfully un-bridge-able per the 1^st Amendment.

To any reckonable[22] reading of the immediate and instigating fraudulent[23] petition, dated November 3, 2003 as attached,[24] the Statute[25] and the Constitution,[26] the facially IN-valid warrant/order issued by Judge Goeke and ordered heard by Commissioner Jones was not "a facially valid court order"[27] thus ANY and all acts taken pursuant to the fraudulent[28] facially IN-valid court order resulted in a deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. This fraudulent[29] facially IN-valid court order had its desired effect in the subsequent contested divorce, by devastating its victim, financially, physically and EMOTINALLY.[30] I have been SCREAMING this at the top of my lungs and in writing since day one. No one, to whom this issue has been exposed, can deny this from the instigating judicial officers, Goeke and Jones to the Supreme Court of the United States. Any and all the acting parties knowingly or unknowingly asserting the facially IN-valid court order are actors in the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, fraudulent,[31] or incompetent "deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, and shall be criminally and civilly liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."[32]

The Supreme Court has consistently, maliciously, corruptly, fraudulently[33] and incompetently asserted absolute immunity for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[34] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [35] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[36] and malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[37] actions of "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [38] acting under color of law thus creating ABSOLUTE POWER leading to ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[39]

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. "The hand written SWORN affidavit (2 pages) dated November 3, 2003 that was the instigation and attached integral part of the, as SERVED, facially IN-valid court order "

cc: My Blog - Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 3:25:16 PM

[1] "Consequently, it can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003). The facially invalid Court Order had a "clear absence of all jurisdiction." The issue evidentiary probable cause was a hearsay account where the alleged victim was not even present. The hearsay account of the asserted bad act was of a different subject matter jurisdiction from the thus facially invalid stated charge, a different geographical jurisdiction, in the asserted jurisdiction of another District court and under another Judicial Officer's asserted personal jurisdiction. It should be noted that the Judicial Officer under who's asserted personal jurisdiction it was, later recused himself for his thus admitted bad act.

[2] "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted). Stump explained that "the scope of the judge's jurisdiction must be construed broadly where the issue is the immunity of the judge." Id.

[I]f a probate judge (a judge of a criminal court asserting jurisdiction over family matters with UNRELATED hearsay probable cause or a family commissioner asserting jurisdiction over family matters with UNRELATED hearsay probable cause from another subject matter jurisdiction (misdemeanor traffic court), in a different geographical jurisdiction, under a different District court's asserted jurisdiction and within another Judicial officer's asserted personal jurisdiction, said Judicial officer with asserted personal jurisdiction was in the process of recusing himself for the alleged hearsay bad act), with jurisdiction over only wills and estates (family matters), should try a (family issue) criminal case, he would be acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction and would not be immune from liability for his action; on the other hand, if a judge of a criminal court should convict a defendant of a nonexistent crime, he would merely be acting in excess of his jurisdiction and would be immune. Id. at 357 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 1099.

[4] 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,

[5] 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,

[6] "Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 656 (1980)

[7] Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America

[8] Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America

[9] Constitution for the United States of America, Article III., Section. 1.

[10] The "Jane Crow" Era, http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/1974/12/jane-crow-era.html

[11] The "Jane Crow" Era started with, "The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is one of the key pieces of legislation that guides child protection. CAPTA, in its original inception, was signed into law in 1974 (P.L. 93-247). That was followed up by "The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law. It was passed as Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 HR 3355 and signed as Public Law 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. The VAWA was recently renewed in 2013.

[12] Precedent can make manifest evil look benign and inevitable.

[13] Bradley v. Fisher (1871), supra, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.) Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967), Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871), United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)

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

[15] Bradley v. Fisher (1871), supra, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.) Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967), Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871), United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)

[16] James Madison Lecture at the New York University School of Law (February 17, 1960).

[17] Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[18] 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.

[19] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[20] John Quincy Adams: Gag Rule Controversy, Petition Purporting to Come from Slaves, House of Representatives,

Monday, February 6, 1837, Petitions, Memorial, etc.,

Mr. Adams presented a great number of petitions praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, both from citizens of his own State and from those of other States; while proceeding in the latter,

[21]In 1788, Marshall was selected as a delegate to the Virginia convention responsible for ratifying or rejecting the United States Constitution, which had been proposed by the Philadelphia Convention a year earlier. Together with James Madison and Edmund Randolph, Marshall led the fight for ratification. He was especially active in defense of Article III, which provides for the Federal judiciary.

[22] "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)

[23] fraus omnia corrumpit Fraud unravels it all. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.

[24] As presented to the Supreme Court on 5 Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari.

[25] 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.

[26] Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[27] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[28] fraus omnia corrumpit Fraud unravels it all. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.

[29] fraus omnia corrumpit Fraud unravels it all. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.

[30] 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.

[31] fraus omnia corrumpit Fraud unravels it all. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.

[32] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 After nine years, good faith and the absence of EXPRESSED exigent circumstances should be noted.

[33] fraus omnia corrumpit Fraud unravels it all. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.

[34] 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.

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

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

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

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

[39] "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.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

The right to SUE the sovereign in Civil Court with a Jury Trial for the denial of rights, i.e., The establishment of rights being the government’s raison d’être.

The right to SUE the sovereign in Civil Court with a Jury Trial for the denial of rights, i.e., The establishment of rights being the government's raison d'être.[1]

The facially[2] understood, reckonable[3] Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI. § 2, 1^st, 4^th, 5^th, 7^th and 14^th Amendments to the United States Constitution, treaties made "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights " (PART II, Article 2, Section 3), federal statute law § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242), the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985), the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil Rights Act of 1964) and Blackstone's English Common Law (1765–1769) as quoted into Supreme Court precedent in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshal in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803).

"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))[4]

Therefor the combination of the 1^st Amendment[5] right to petition/sue the government for a civil redress of grievances supported by the 7^th Amendment's[6] jury trial and the 5^th and 14^th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees:

The establishment of rights being the government's raison d'être,[7] the Individual has a right to sue the Sovereign/Government for Civil Redress of justifiable grievances i.e., "deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, and shall be criminally and civilly liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."[8]

[1] "Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 656 (1980)

[2] "a facially valid court order" PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[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] The oath office requires that if sued in the respectful form of a petition (1^st Amendment right to petition), never fail to comply with the judgment of a 7^th Amendment civil court.

[5] 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."

[6] 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.

[7] "Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 656 (1980)

[8] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 After nine years, good faith and the absence of EXPRESSED exigent circumstances should be noted.