"The Earth and everything that's in it": July 7, 2013

Friday, July 12, 2013

President Barack Hussein Obama , forma securitatis, in both law and equity for RIGHTS

Label Number: 7012 3460 0003 6637 6996

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

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

Delivered---- WASHINGTON, DC 20500- July 17, 2013 3:07 am

Available for Pickup---------- WASHINGTON, DC 20500- July 16, 2013 12:29 pm

Arrival at Unit-------------------- WASHINGTON, DC 20018- July 16, 2013 12:09 pm

Depart USPS Sort Facility--- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155--------- July 11, 2013

Processed at USPS Origin Sort Facility-- ------------------------------------

----------------------------------- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155-- July 11, 2013 7:11 pm

Acceptance----------------------- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155-- July 11, 2013 11:46 am

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

Expected Delivery By:

July 15, 2013

First-Class Mail^®

Certified Mail^™

President Barack Hussein Obama

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500-0001

Re:Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193, Jeep v. Obama/Government U.S.
forma securitatis,[1] in both law and equity for RIGHTS

Dear Mr. Obama,

Why would anyone commit to a contract much less a Constitution without a specified ex industria power to reciprocal forma securitatis for its enforcement? It is transparently axiomatic that any agreement among men imposes an ex industria power to enforce the forma securitatis. The chosen pacific forma securitatis under We the People's constitutional agreement is Due Process in both law and equity. The default forma securitatis is war. Absolute immunity for the forma securitatis, in both law and equity, QUASHES basic inalienable human rights.

I doubt I am the first supporter to petition/sue you while you have been in office. I would assert that I am the only supporter to suffer through 10 years of deprivation, 5 years homeless, 411 days in jail, 2 psychological competency exams and been through the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals seven times (case #07-2614, 08-1823, 09-2848, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200), with two prior docketed and denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court (07-1115 and 11-8211) while you have been in office. I further admit that even though I have, several times, written to you on this issue you may, for bureaucratic reasons, not be aware of the specifics of the issue. Nonetheless you are the executive of the government and thus have the executive duty for the Constitution's forma securitatis. Specifically I refer to the duty as specified under the Constitution for the United States of America, Article. II., Section. 3., to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

If you have studied the evolution of Constitutional legal precedent, I am sure you are aware of the two seminal Supreme Court precedents regarding "absolute immunity" and their timely proximity to the ex industria statute law specifically called out in the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments.[2] They were criminal "absolute immunity," Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7 (1868) suspiciously subsequent to § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) and civil "absolute immunity," Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 (1871) suspiciously subsequent to the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985). As an example of the "absolute immune" confirmation bias of precedent that makes manifest evil look accepted benign and inevitable, I would site 100 plus years of Jim Crow Lynching (1864-present), Jane Crow Lynching (1974-present) and John Marshall Harlan's (1833 – 1911) Dissent in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883) defending the "sense and reason" of the amended Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil Rights Act of 1964).

I supported your recent refusal to defend DOMA.[3] The defeat of DOMA at the Supreme Court was roundly applauded. That affected maybe 4% of the population. When the ex industria statute law for the forma securitatis for rights was passed by Congress and then defeated by the Supreme Court post-Civil War that affected 12.7% of the total population, nearly 50% in the more critical states of Louisiana and Mississippi. That was a bad THING. Now I ask you to NOT defend the grant of absolute immunity. This will affect 100% of the population. I doubt there ever was or even could be a more incredible,[4] fantastic or delusional scenario[5] than the malicious, corrupt, dishonest or incompetent grant of "absolute immunity."[6]

Why would anyone commit to a contract much less a Constitution without a specified ex industria power to reciprocal forma securitatis for its enforcement? Just imagine how different post-Civil War America would have been if the freed slaves could have actually gotten the ex industria power to reciprocal forma securitatis for rights. And I do not care what REVISIONIST HISTORY says We the People invested over a half million lives to rid our Constitution and our Country of slavery, "the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law."[7]

The Supreme Court, a lawfully delegated authority, acting under a sworn to lawful constitutional commission has unlawfully awarded themselves and others "absolute immunity"[8] from the forma securitatis, in both law and equity for RIGHTS i.e., their "facially"[9] "reasonable"[10] reckonable[11] constitutionally commissioned raison d'être[12]. It would be an incredible,[13] fantastic or delusional scenario[14] to assert that anyone could have "absolute immunity" from forma securitatis for the Constitution. It is axiomatic as Alexander Hamilton articulated:

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative[15] act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[16] (i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[17]).

The judiciary has done this by unlawfully denying the constitutional forma securitatis of governmental accountability, 1^st and 7^th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[18]

We the People have fallen under the despotic[19] spell of the concentrated power in the Supreme Court[20] that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[21] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[22] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [23] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[24] and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[25] by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [26] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[27]

The undisputed, undisputable FACTS of my case concern a fraudulent [28] NOT "a facially valid court order."[29] The issuing Judicial Officer did not facially have "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation"[30] for the stated charge[31] and thus it was "taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction."[32] Clearly too any facially[33] reckonable[34] reading of Due Process rights, reasonable probable cause is a prerequisite for government action/jurisdiction. There are "absolutes" in our Bill of Rights, and they were put there on purpose by "men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be "absolutes."[35]

In the 9.58 years[36] since, there has never been any mention of "exigent circumstances" nor "good faith" mistakes. The order stands on its own, brazenly, NOT a "facially valid court order."[37] Since this is a civil domestic issue and has been ongoing for 9.58 years, "the "exclusionary rule"[38] is simply irrelevant... it is damages or nothing."[39] 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!!!

Now if you could somehow get past the constitutional security of REASONABLE probable cause and thus the prohibition of a "general warrant," which you cannot. The 8th Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments" for an alleged, later disproven,[40] misdemeanor traffic violation precludes the imposed punishment, the ongoing deprivation of my home, my son, my paternity, my liberty… my everything.

Do we live under a reckonable facially reasonable rule of law or under the despotic dictatorial prerogative of the Black Robed Royalist Judiciary???

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. "Supreme Court docketed Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193"

b. "SupremeCourt.gov search results for Jeep's petitions 07-11115, 11-8211 and 13-5193"

cc: Donald B. Verrilli Jr., (via e-mail SupremeCtBriefs@USDOL.gov)
My Blog - Friday, July 12, 2013, 9:06:00 AM

[1] "A radical solution was thus proposed in clause 61 of the charter, known as the security clause (forma securitatis)." Matthew Strickland, 'Enforcers of Magna Carta (act. 1215–1216)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press. [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/theme/93691, accessed 10 July 2013]

[2] "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The grant of ex industria power by the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments

[3] The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C)

[4] JUSTICE MARSHALL dissenting, Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)

[5] "fantastic or delusional scenarios" Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)

[6] "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

[7] CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U. S. 26 (1883) MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting.

[8] "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

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

[10] Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

[11] "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)

[12] "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)

[13] Justice Thurgood Marshal dissenting, Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!

[14] "fantastic or delusional scenarios" Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)

[15] Based on the Constitution's Article I section 7&8 it was mistakenly and naively assumed that only the Legislature could enact Law. I would assert it is axiomatic that all "delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void" the legislative (Article I), executive (Article II) and judiciary (Article III).

[16] 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"

[17] 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.

[18] 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.

[19] 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 currently have a despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!

[20] "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

[21] "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.

[22] 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.

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

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

[25] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. Martin Luther King said it better, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).

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

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

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

[27] "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.

[28] The fraud exception to rei publicae, ut sit finis litium, and nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadam causa is self evident, the "sense and reason" of a Supreme Law of The Land. You assert judicial interpretation. Here we agree as noted in United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65 (1878) is applicable here "But there is an admitted exception to this general rule in cases where, by reason of something done by the successful party to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial or decision of the issue in the case. Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court."
Not only was the petitioner, the unsuccessful party, never given a chance to defend himself, he was never even given the specifics of the cause for the finding under which his son, his life and all his belongs were taken.

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

[30] The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution

[31] 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.

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

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

[34] "reckonability" Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)

[35] Hugo Black is Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. This article was delivered as the first James Madison Lecture at the New York University School of Law on February 17, 1960. Reprinted from NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Vol. 35, April, 1960.

[36] As of Saturday June 01, 2013 12:05.68 PM

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

[38] In criminal case the "exclusionary rule" is an obfuscation of the Government's Article III vicarious liability for due Process rights.

[39] 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."

[40] United States v. Agurs - 427 U.S. 103 (1976) "typified by Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury. [Footnote 7] In a series of subsequent cases, the Court has consistently held that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, [Footnote 8] and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury."

--
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

Monday, July 8, 2013

Revisionist History And Confirmation Bias of Precedent

Revisionist History

And

Confirmation Bias of Precedent

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]

Monday, July 08, 2013, 9:56:15 AM

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

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

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson wrote those words. Thomas Jefferson was a slave holder. Thomas Jefferson not only owned slaves, he fathered slaves. Thomas Jefferson was civilized for "his" time maybe? But he is not civilized for our TIME!!!

Andrew Jackson (1767 – 1845), the seventh President of the United States (1829–1837), was a genocidal maniac, but yet we venerate him on our $20 bill. General Andrew Jackson virtually annihilated the Cherokee, Creek and Seminole Indians in what would become the state of Florida. President Andrew Jackson was largely responsible for the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the pogrom of the "Trail of Tears."[7]

Imagine if Germany wanted to put Adolph Hitler on their 20 Deutsche Mark. We have to be willing to confront our PAST!!!! The United States did not have the divinely inspired VIRGIN birth that it claims. We made mistakes and WE hopefully learned from them. Revisionist history creates "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" while defeating lessons learned for our prosperity.

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." M.L.King

The WORST utilization of revisionist history… is the institutionalized use of "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" with the confirmation bias of Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court of the United States' unchecked confirmation bias of absolute immunity, as precedent, has for too long made manifest evil[8] look accepted benign and inevitable. Our ABSOLUTLY immune Supreme Court has made mass murder,[9] racially inspired pogrom/massacre,[10] Jim Crow Lynching,[11] separate and UNEQUAL segregation,[12] forced sterilization,[13] false arrest without arraignment or charge,[14] false imprisonment for 15 years on death row,[15] breaking and entering, "fraud upon the court,"[16] Jane Crow Domestic/Family Law discrimination[17] and absolute immunity for any malicious, corrupt or incompetent actions "for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[18] look accepted benign and inevitable. The Supreme Court is at War with the Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The confirmation bias of absolute immunity works against our ability to learn from both current and historical mistakes. We allow our existence and our history to be despoiled by the assertion of divine absolute immunity. Until we hold ourselves responsible for the bad acts we are destine to REPEAT them! Those that do not study history to learn from it, are destine to repeat it.

We the People have fallen under the despotic[19] spell of the concentrated power[20] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[21] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[22] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [23] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[24] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[25]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [26] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[27]

ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity,[28] 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[29] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[30] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional an "unlawful Conspiracy"[31] "before out of Court"[32] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[33]

"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, Monday, July 08, 2013!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [34] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[35] at the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985). The original fraudulent [36] court order at the inception and center of this issue, in 2003, was NOT "a facially valid court order"[37] the issuing Judicial Officer did not have "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation"[38] for the stated charge[39] and thus it was "taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction."[40] Clearly to any facially[41] reckonable[42] reading of Due Process rights, reasonable probable cause is a prerequisite for government action/jurisdiction. There are "absolutes" in our Bill of Rights, and they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be "absolutes."[43]

In the 9.58 years[44] 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."[45] Since the civil domestic issue has been ongoing for 9.58 years it is, as it was for Bivens, "damages or nothing."[46] Since 2003 the Commissioner Jones and the original petitioner Sharon G. Jeep both contradicted their original assertions, although neither took the "Good Faith" requisite of RESPONSIBILITY!!!

I again quote Justice Hugo Black:

"The Fourth Amendment provides:

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

The use of the word "unreasonable" in this Amendment means, of course, that not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Only those which are unreasonable are unlawful. There may be much difference of opinion about whether a particular search or seizure is unreasonable and therefore forbidden by this Amendment. But if it is unreasonable, it is absolutely prohibited.

Likewise, the provision which forbids warrants for arrest, search or seizure without "probable cause" is itself an absolute prohibition." [47]

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.[48]

Now if you could somehow get past the constitutional requirement for REASONABLE probable cause and prohibition of a "general warrant," which you can not. The 8^th Amendment's requirement that "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" for an alleged, later disproven,[49] misdemeanor traffic violation precludes the imposed punishment, the deprivation of my home, my son, my paternity and my liberty.

The Rule of Law, the "mere operation of law" as described by Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, the seminal Supreme Court case said, "The Government of the United States 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."[50] Of course the 1st Amendment's lawfully un-bridge-able right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" the right to sue the sovereign/government for a justifiable grievance under Article III and the 7th Amendment as timely and explicitly made precedent by Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL 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."

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.[51] 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[52] absolute immunity with "no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right" and sought to establish a reckonable[53] 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[54] 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 7^th Amendment controversy before a Jury of OUR peers.

The immediate issue for the writer revolves around the Jane Crow era in Family Law, where a man's rights are secondary to the rights of any woman that can feign tears:

The "Jane Crow" Era, "It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house."

A fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order." "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08.

Admittedly the Jane Crow era of rampant deprivation of RIGHTS is relatively new as compared to its predecessor the Jim Crow era. Jane Crow and Jim Crow are both based on the conviction/lynching by infamous[55] accusation without access to 5^th and 14^th 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[56] or calumnious[57] 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[58] is based on, he would have dismissed the charge as vexatious[59] or calumnious[60] so as not to offend the Ends of Justice that should have been his PRIMARY motivation.

Tom Robinson was convicted because of the infamy of the charge and the deliberate indifference to his right to justice under fair Due Process of law as required and asserted in the Constitution for the United States of America – the preamble to establish justice, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, Article III, §1 & 2, Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph and the 4^th, 5^th and 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.[61]

How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[62] 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[63] 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[64] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[65] prosecutorial[66]and enforcement[67] power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[68]

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[69]

This embarrasses the future and the past[70]

There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[71] 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.[72]

How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[73] from their constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[74] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[75] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1^st and 7^th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[76]

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??

Impeach[77] the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[78]

for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[79] 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,[80]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[81] with their deprivation of substantive 7^th Amendment[82] 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."[83] "Six million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.—more than were in Stalin's gulags."[84]

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"[85]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[86] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[87] "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.[88] 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."[89] We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. [90] We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. [91] We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. [92] We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. [93] 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)" [94] and compensate the victims?

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

The abuses are happening EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE Mr. Thompson (No. 09–571),[95] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [96] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[97] and myself (USCA8 No. 12-2435, 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614).[98] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[99] 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)

Monday, July 08, 2013, 9:56:15 AM, 2013 04-11-13 Absolute FAILURE - The Third Branch REV 02

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] The Trail of Tears is a name given to the forced relocation and movement of Native American nations from southeastern parts of the United States following the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The removal included many members of the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations, among others in the United States, from their homelands to Indian Territory in eastern sections of the present-day state of Oklahoma. The phrase originated from a description of the removal of the Choctaw Nation in 1831.

In the winter of 1838 the Cherokee began the thousand-mile march with scant clothing and most on foot without shoes or moccasins. The forced relocations have sometimes been referred to as a "death march", in particular with reference to the Cherokee march across the Midwest in 1838, which occurred on a predominantly land route.

Now granted The Trail of Tears, Andrew Jackson's genocide, did not have access to the mechanizations that facilitated later genocides and thus did not rack up the big numbers.

[8] mass murder Blyew v. United States - 80 U.S. 581 (1871), massacre/pogrom United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), forced sterilization Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) 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)

[9] mass murder Blyew v. United States - 80 U.S. 581 (1871),

[10] massacre/pogrom United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

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

[12] Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

[13] forced sterilization Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)

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

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

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

[17] 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."

[18] 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)

[19] 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!!!!!!!!!!

[20] "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

[21] "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.

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

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

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

[27] "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.

[28] 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.

[29] 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.

[30] "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

[31] 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."

[32] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

[33] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

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

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

[36] The fraud exception to rei publicae, ut sit finis litium, and nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadam causa is self evident to me, but alas I believe in the "sense and reason" of a Supreme Law of The Land. You assert judicial interpretation. Here we agree as noted in United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65 (1878) is applicable here "But there is an admitted exception to this general rule in cases where, by reason of something done by the successful party to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial or decision of the issue in the case. Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court."

Not only was the petitioner, the unsuccessful party, never given a chance to defend himself, he was never even given the specifics of the cause for the finding under which his son, his life and all his belongs were taken.

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

[38] 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."

[39] 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.

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

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

[42] "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)

[43] Hugo Black is Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. This article was delivered as the first James Madison Lecture at the New York University School of Law on February 17, 1960. Reprinted from NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Vol. 35, April, 1960.

[44] As of Saturday June 01, 2013 12:05.68 PM

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

[46] 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."

[47] Hugo Black is Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. This article was delivered as the first James Madison Lecture at the New York University School of Law on February 17, 1960. Reprinted from NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Vol. 35, April, 1960.

[48] 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.

[49] United States v. Agurs - 427 U.S. 103 (1976) "typified by Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury. [Footnote 7] In a series of subsequent cases, the Court has consistently held that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, [Footnote 8] and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury."

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

[51] 7^th 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."

[52] 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.

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

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

[55] The issue of a infamous was made pertinent in the Bill of rights, the 5^th Amendment "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" And unlike the confirmation bias of Supreme Court precedent the 5^th Amendment secured to the "person" a right and thus a remedy. The Bill of Rights does not require "'difficult problems of proof,' and we must adhere to a "stringent standard of fault," lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.12 Bryan County, 520 U. S., at 406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392."(CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON) Any violation of rights secures for the INDIVIDUAL person "But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy" and "it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

[56] 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,

[57] 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,

[58] 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.

[59] 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,

[60] 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,

[61] "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."

[62] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. Martin Luther King said it better, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).

[63] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. Martin Luther King said it better, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).

[64] "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!!!!!

[65] ""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)

[66] 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)

[67] 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)

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

[69] Aldous Huxley

[70] "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)

[71] 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:

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[72] 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.

[73] "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

[74] 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"

[75] 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.

[76] 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.

[77] "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"

[78] 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

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

[80] 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

[81] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[82] 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.

[83] "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

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

[85] "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

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

[87] 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.

[88] 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

[89] "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

[90] "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."

[91] 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.

[92] "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.

[93] "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

[94] Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61)

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

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

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

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

[99] "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