The Supreme Court’s
Confirmation Bias
Internationally
Asserted Basic Human Rights,[1]
The
Constitution for the United States
of America
and
Statute Law[3]
are IGNORED
I sometimes feel like the waif
in “The Emperor’s New Cloths”
AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE
IT??
“A country in which nobody is ever really responsible
is
Wednesday, June 19, 2013, 11:41:08 AM
The Supreme Court’s confirmation
bias of absolute immunity, as precedent, has for too long made manifest evil
look accepted benign and inevitable e.g., mass
murder (Blyew v. United States - 80 U.S. 581 (1871)), massacre/pogrom (United States
v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)), Jim Crow Lynching Civil
Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), "malicious or corrupt Judges"
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554
(1967), “prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of
liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976), forced sterilization (Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)), "knowingly false testimony by
police officers" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345
(1983), an innocent
man on death row for 15 years (Connick v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided
March 29, 2011), "fraud upon the court"
(Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No.
10–98 Decided May 31, 2011), “Jane
Crow” Lynching (8th Circuit Court of Appeals case
#07-2614, 08-1823, 09-2848, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435, 13-2200 David Jeep vs.
Government of the USA and Kahn v. Kahn 21 F.3d 859, 861) and absolute
immunity for any malicious, corrupt or incompetent actions “for all persons --
governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process.”
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S.
325 (1983)
These do not even begin to describe the results of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission for DEMOCRACY in the United States of America.
The Supreme Court does this in spite of the sense and reason of our Constitutional Law and We the People can do nothing. The Supreme Court has self-servingly awarded themselves absolute immunity. The Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others “absolute immunity”[7] from said constitutional commission to “do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”[8] i.e., the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?”[9] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity[10] as defined in We the People’s constitution.
These do not even begin to describe the results of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission for DEMOCRACY in the United States of America.
The Supreme Court does this in spite of the sense and reason of our Constitutional Law and We the People can do nothing. The Supreme Court has self-servingly awarded themselves absolute immunity. The Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others “absolute immunity”[7] from said constitutional commission to “do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”[8] i.e., the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?”[9] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity[10] as defined in We the People’s constitution.
The original court order at the center and inception of this issue, in 2003, was NOT “a facially valid court order”[11] the issuing Judicial Officer did not have “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation”[12] for the stated charge[13] and thus it was "taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction."[14] Clearly to any facially[15] reckonable[16] reading of Due Process rights, reasonable probable cause is a prerequisite for Judicial/government action/jurisdiction. There are "absolutes" in our Bill of Rights, and they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be "absolutes."[17]
In the 9.58 years[18] since there has never been any mention of “exigent circumstances” nor “good faith” mistakes there for the order stands on its own as brazenly NOT “a facially valid court order.”[19] Since the civil domestic issue has been ongoing for 9.58 years it is, as it was for Bivens, “damages or nothing.”[20] Since 2003 the Commissioner Jones and the original petitioner Sharon G. Jeep both contradicted their original assertions, although neither took the “Good Faith” requisite of RESPONSIBILITY!!! If you deny this petition you are again putting the rule of corrupt judges in front of the facially[21] reckonable[22] rule of We the People’s law. You have done it before[23] and you probably will again unless We the People rise up in rebellion.
I again quote Justice Hugo Black:
“The Fourth Amendment provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The use of the word "unreasonable" in this Amendment means, of course, that not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Only those which are unreasonable are unlawful. There may be much difference of opinion about whether a particular search or seizure is unreasonable and therefore forbidden by this Amendment. But if it is unreasonable, it is absolutely prohibited.
Likewise, the provision which forbids warrants for arrest, search or seizure without "probable cause" is itself an absolute prohibition.” [24]
The warrant/Order issues by Judge Goeke and order heard by Commissioner on its face was unreasonable because it lacked "probable cause" for the stated charge.[25]
Now if you could somehow get past the constitutional requirement for REASONABLE probable cause, which you can not. The 8th 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.
“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
In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.
"In all other cases," he says,
"it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded."
And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he says,
"I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the Courts of common law.[27] And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress."
The Founding Fathers, the Authors of the constitution, had lived
for too long at the discretion of the Nobility’s[28] absolute immunity with “no remedy for the violation of a
vested legal right” and sought to establish a reckonable[29] 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[30] that empowered the Rule of
the Nobility in pre-revolutionary times is allowed to circumvent the Rule
of Law. The Rule of Law is therefore, by
definition, irreconcilably opposed to absolute immunity. There can be no Rule of Law if the law can be circumvented by absolute immunity.
I can prove my competency; I dare say the Judiciary’s asserted unimpeachable incorporated competency could not sustain the Judiciary’s unreasonable absolute immunity in a common law 7th Amendment controversy before a Jury of OUR piers.
The immediate issue for the writer revolves around the Jane Crow era in Family Law, where a man’s rights are secondary to the rights of any woman that can feign tears:
The "Jane Crow" Era, “It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house.”
A fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order." “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08.
Admittedly the Jane Crow era of rampant
deprivation of RIGHTS is relatively new as compared to its predecessor the Jim Crow
era. Jane Crow and Jim Crow are both based on the conviction/lynching by
infamous accusation without access to 5th and 14th
Amendment’s access to Justice with the equal
protection of Due Process of Law.
I have referenced “To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,” in several of my papers. I do so only because the admittedly fictionalized facts of the case in “To Kill a Mocking Bird” are generally known but not without standing Jane Crow era. If the Sheriff Tate had investigated the accusations of Mayella Ewel, he would have seen them for the racially motivated baseless vexatious[31] or calumnious[32] 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[33] is based on, he would have dismissed the charge as vexatious[34] or calumnious[35] so as not to offend the Ends of Justice that should have been his PRIMARY motivation.
Tom Robinson was convicted because of the deliberate indifference to his right to justice under fair Due Process of law as required and asserted in the Constitution for the United States of America – the preamble to establish justice, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, Article III, §1 & 2, Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph and the 14th Amendment.
Atticus should not have had to say a word, just present the evidence of a crippled since childhood man. The Sherriff, the Prosecutor and the Judge are all representatives not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, the Sherriff, the Prosecutor and the Judge are in a peculiar and very definite sense the servants of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. The Sherriff and the Prosecutor may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, they should do so. But, while they may strike hard blows, they are not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much they’re duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
It is fair to say that the average jury (MOST everyday people), in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the judiciary, prosecuting attorney, and sheriff will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused, when they should properly carry none. (paraphrased slightly from Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 88 (1935))
Judges by definition in We the People’s system are there to independently and altruistically enforce fair Due Process of law on the Sherriff, the Prosecutor and the defendant as necessary to the ends of justice.[36]
How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[37] 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[38] 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[39] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[40] prosecutorial[41]and enforcement[42] power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[43]
"Facts do not cease to exist because they
are ignored."[44]
This embarrasses the future and the past[45]
There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country
i.e., no titles of nobility.[46] 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.[47]
We the People have
fallen under the despotic[48] spell of the concentrated power[49] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE
POWER[50] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the “malicious
or corrupt” judges,[51] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor, [52] the “knowingly
false testimony by police officers"[53] and “all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest
and incompetent[54]) persons -- governmental or otherwise --
who were integral parts of the judicial process”
[55] acting under color of law to wit,
ABSOLUTE
CORRUPTION.[56]
See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
11-8211 Jeep v. Obama
and
I sometimes feel like the waif
in “The Emperor’s New Cloths.” AM I THE
ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity,[57] 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!!!!!
“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, Wednesday, June 19, 2013!!! Justice William O.
Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.
[63] Mr. Lowe of Kansas
and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally
un-abridge-able right to justice[67] 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,[68]" denying the establishment of justice and
abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to
a redress of grievances,[69] with their deprivation of substantive 7th
Amendment[70] 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.”[71] “Six
million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.
The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government
and the people. We do not have any individually
enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has
"ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"[73]" for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws
of the United States of America”[74] e.g., “To Kill a Mocking Bird, The
Denial of Due Process,”[75] “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.[76] 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.”[77]
We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion.
[78]
We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in
Iraq and Afghanistan .
[79]
We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion.
[80]
We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion.
[81]
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)” [82]
and compensate the victims?
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The abuses are happening EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE
Mr. Thompson
(No. 09–571),[83] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145),
[84] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[85] and
myself (USCA8 No. 12-2435, 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614).[86] The
fact that “With 5% of the world's population,
our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners”[87] PROVES “We
the People” have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's
in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Wednesday,
June 19, 2013, 11:41:08 AM, 2013 04-11-13 Absolute FAILURE - The Third Branch REV 02
[1] "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"
adopted by the United Nations on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 - PART II, Article 2, Section
3. "Each State Party to the present
Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that
any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall
have an effective remedy, notwithstanding
that the violation has been
committed by persons acting in an official
capacity;
(b) To ensure
that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined
by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any
other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to
develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent
authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted."
[2] The Supremacy clause, Article VI § 2 of the
Constitution for the United States of America, “This Constitution,
and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and
all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State
shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
[3]
Congress passed the § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights
Act (Title Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 18 66. An excerpt from his remarks attached to his
veto "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without
invading the immunities of… the judiciary, always essential to the
preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary
for the maintenance of public peace and order." "It is, therefore,
assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with
its terms, and that marshals and
sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by
State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be
brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment,
for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose."
[4] “And if you think that is a national problem,
consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not
accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power
flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a
nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable
person fears a child with a gun.” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV .
( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM e.g., George Bush’s false representations
of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for
Murder” by Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi -
Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis.
[5] “Damages” By Dahlia
Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug.
8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
[6] Mr. Thompson in
the New York Times in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Connick, District Attorney,
et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
[7] “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
[8] 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”
[9] 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.
[10] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the
victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into poverty, homelessness
for FOUR YEARS! The 1st
Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able
justifiable redress of grievance from the government: “Congress shall make no law abridging the right
of the people to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.” The 7th Amendment secures the
right to settle all suits: “In Suits at common law, where the value in
controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall
be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of
the common law” assures justice as regards equity.
“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.”
[13] 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.
[16]
"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)
[17] Hugo Black is Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court. This article was delivered as the first James Madison Lecture at
the New York University School of Law on February 17, 1960. Reprinted from NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
[20] 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.”
[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] 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."”
[24] Hugo Black is Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court. This article was delivered as the first James Madison Lecture at
the New York University School of Law on February 17, 1960. Reprinted from NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
[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.
[27] 7th Amendment
“In Suits at common law, where
the value
in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,
the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court
of the United States, than according to the rules of the common
law.”
[28]
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.
[29]
"reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the
name." Antonin Scalia, ibid.
[30] After NINE years of Good Faith
appeals, the issues of undeclared exigent circumstances and or Good Faith
immunity are no longer available.
[31] 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,
[32] 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,
[33] 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.
[34] 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,
[35] 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,
[36] “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.”
[37] 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 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.
[38] 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 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.
[39] “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!!!!!
[40] ""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)
[41] 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)
[42] 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)
[44] Aldous Huxley
[45] “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)
[46] 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 May 28,
17 88 as further timely clarification of the supreme law of the land:
"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of
titles of nobility(i.e., absolute immunity). This may truly be denominated the
corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there
can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of
the people."
You some how want to argue that “the grant of Nobility”
was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue
that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of
Nobility? That would undermine
Free-Enterprise.
Anyone that wants to assertion “the prohibition of
titles of nobility’ was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of
theabsolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only read the
Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted
immunity of the nobility.
There is not now and there was not then any titular
value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law? Did NatKing Cole violate the
constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE -THING
of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[47] 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.
[48] 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
[49] "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
[50] “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.
[51]
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.
[54] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered
up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[55] Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for “all persons -- governmental or otherwise --
who were integral parts of the judicial process”
[56] “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.
[57] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the
victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into homelessness for FIVE
YEARS! The 1st Amendment
secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of
grievance from the government: “Congress shall
make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.” The 7th Amendment’s secures the
right to settle all disputes/suits: “In Suits at common law, where the value in
controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any
Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law”
assures justice as regards equity.
[58] 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.
[59] “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
[60] 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.”
[65] “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 May 28, 17 88 stated that
impeachment was to be used as an integral check for “Judicial Authority”
[67] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a
remedy in BOTH law and equity
[68] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America
[69] 1st Amendment, “Congress
shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.”
[70] 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
[71] “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
[72] The Caging of America, Why do we lock up so many
people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012
[73] “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
[75] Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts
[76] 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
[77] “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 October
28, 2010 , A version of this article appeared in print on October 29, 2010 ,
on page A24 By Alan Feuer
[78] “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.”
[79] Cost of War in Iraq
$804,350,051,831, Cost of War in Afghanistan
Please enable Javascript for the counter to update.
[80] “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
[81] “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
[86] See also USCA8
07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court
07-11115&11-8211
[87] “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
--
Thanks in advanceTo 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
