"The Earth and everything that's in it": August 4, 2013

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Obama “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”

President Barack Hussein Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20500-0001

Re: Your "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" [1]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193, Jeep v. Obama/Government U.S.

forma securitatis,[2] in both law and equity for RIGHTS

Dear Mr. Obama,

I realize the only "civil rights" issues you can visualize revolve around young hooded African Americans. But I assert your obligation under the Constitution for the United States of America, Article. II., Section. 3., to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed" i.e., "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,"[3] § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) and the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985).

"Immunity is given to crime,[4] 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."[5]

Neither yours nor the Supreme Court's "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" [6] can be allowed to prevail.

When I came to your campaign in 2008, I had already been denied my Civil Rights for nearly five years. I had my first Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 before the Supreme Court. I naïvely thought that you the first credible African American presidential nominee might actual stand up against the "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" [7] of the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[8] I mean by your own recent assertions you had been subjected to the mortal sin of profiling.

Now I realize that the deprivation of rights that men and women of all colors are subjected to in the Jane Crow, Plea Bargain and Exclusionary Rule Eras is trivial as compared to the drinking fountain, public restrooms, lunch counter and profiling remnants of Jim Crow.

There are people that have said to my face that my issues are trivial, that they are of no consequence to anyone but me. But the Constitution of the United States' 14^th Amendment indemnifies "All persons" rights.

"With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners. We currently incarcerate 756 inmates per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the average worldwide of 158 for every 100,000."[9] I refuse to believe our Justice System is FIVE times better than the rest of the developed world. If my experience is representative I would assert our Justice System is FIVE times worse. You want to promote Civil Rights and prosecute the crimes[10] for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States?"[11]

In the Jane Crow Era[12] prosecute the "malicious or corrupt" [13] Judge that EVERYDAY authorizes "facially" [14] fraudulent[15] invalid court orders/warrants that can strip any man… white, brown, pink or purple of their children, their homes, their property and throw them on the street. Force them into a court system that has quite literally stacked the deck against men in family relation matters. A "malicious or corrupt" [16] Judge can do anything without probable cause, without any hope of Justice. The "malicious or corrupt" [17] Judge has absolute immunity in Domestic relation issues, criminal issues and civil issues.

In the Plea Bargain Era[18] prosecute the "facially" "malicious or dishonest"[19] Government Attorneys that everyday knowingly[20] "withhold exculpable evidence"[21] from their innocent victims during negotiations and then put forward "knowingly[22] false testimony by police officers"[23] to ice the cake of their criminal malice and corruption.

And if by some rare act of altruism the malice corruption and incompetence is defeated the best one can hope for is the Exclusionary Rule.[24] The Exclusionary Rule does nothing for the innocent victim. The Exclusionary Rule does nothing to punish the criminal perpetrator of the "deprivation of rights." In the Exclusionary Rule Era[25] prosecute whenever and where ever there is "facially" malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[26] deprivations of rights by any "persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." [27] The Exclusionary Rule punishes the ends of justice. The Ends of Justice is punished and forced to let both criminals go free, the initiating criminal and the criminal perpetrator of the "deprivation of rights." The Exclusionary Rule goes beyond "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" [28] and into the realm of INSANITY!!!

I remind you of what Martin Luther King, Jr. and others[29] have said:

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

We have to get through the "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" [30] that is defeating Justice EVERYWHERE. We can not let the Supreme Court reach back into their trick bag to assert a "pre-existing right"[31] that is in conflict with common sense!!!! If you read, and I mean READ Supreme Court Opinions:

1. 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 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) creating an "absolute immune" royalist Judiciary by reaching back 260 years for a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT royalist court, the Star Chamber for a pre-existing right.

2. John Marshal Harlan's dissents in Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883) and Plessy v. Ferguson - 163 U.S. 552 (1896) a REFRESHER COURSE in common sense. The Supreme Court created Judge made law to DEFEAT the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law.

"Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted." Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

"We have seen that the power of Congress, by legislation, to enforce the master's right to have his slave delivered up on claim was implied from the recognition of that right in the national Constitution. But the power conferred by the Thirteenth Amendment does not rest upon implication or inference. Those who framed it were not ignorant of the discussion, covering many years of our country's history, as to the constitutional power of Congress to enact the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 and 1850. When, therefore, it was determined, by a change in the fundamental law, to uproot the institution of slavery wherever it existed in the land and to establish universal freedom, there was a fixed purpose to place the authority of Congress in the premises beyond the possibility of a doubt. Therefore, ex industria, power to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment by appropriate legislation was expressly granted. Legislation for that purpose, my brethren concede, may be direct and primary. But to what specific ends may it be directed? This court has uniformly held that the national government has the power, whether expressly given or not, to secure and protect rights conferred or guaranteed by the Constitution. United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303. That doctrine ought not now to be abandoned when the inquiry is not as to an implied power to protect the master's rights, but what may Congress, under powers expressly granted, do for the protection of freedom and the rights necessarily inhering in a state of freedom."Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 33 (1883)

There was no pre-existing right right to refuse service or demand separate facilities:

"In Rex v. Ivens, 7 Carrington & Payne 213, 32 E.C.L. 49, the court, speaking by Mr. Justice Coleridge, said:

"An indictment lies against an innkeeper who refuses to receive a guest, he having at the time room in his house and either the price of the guest's entertainment being tendered to him or such circumstances occurring as will dispense with that tender. This law is founded in good sense. The innkeeper is not to select his guest. He has no right to say to one, you shall come to my inn, and to another, you shall not, as everyone coming and conducting himself in a proper manner has a right to be received, and, for this purpose innkeepers are a sort of public servants, they having, in return a kind of privilege of entertaining travelers and supplying them with what they want." Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 40 (1883)

3. In District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) the Supreme Court reaches back to near prehistoric times to call upon a pre-existing right to self defense to defeat at least 2,000 of civilization COMMON SENSE attempt to pacify itself by regulating private use of lethal weapons. I quote from STEVENS, J., DISSENTING, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER 554 U. S. ____ (2008)

"The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.[Footnote 1] Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, "[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature's power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment's text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.

Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there;[Footnote 2] we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55, 65–66, n. 8 (1980).[Footnote 3] No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses."

For nearly 2,000 years the trend in civilization as a whole has been to disarm itself in support of the Rule of Law in the face if individual volition. But now, because of the Supreme Court FIVE[32] has been seduced by emotionally charged fantasy movies, "Red Dawn."[33] We the People have to endure Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman's fatal anarchy.

The fatal anarchy of the Martin/Zimmerman issue is what CIVILIZATION is designed to abate, if not eliminate. But We the People cannot do what is reasonable and necessary, We the People cannot do what makes common sense because we have FIVE[34] idiots on the Supreme Court that cannot see that civility and the Rule of Law is in direct conflict with the unencumbered right to conceal and carry lethal weapons.

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

cc: Donald B. Verrilli Jr., (via e-mail SupremeCtBriefs@USDOL.gov)

My Blog - Wednesday, August 07, 2013, 3:53:04 PM

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

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.

[2] "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]

[3] AMENDMENT XIV Section 1. Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

[4] § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242):

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[5] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193, Jeep v. Obama/Government U.S. proves it, Monday, June 10, 2013! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.[5] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in Congress (1871)[5] at the inception of the Jim Crow Era and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871

[6] "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).

[7] "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).

[8] 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.

[9] "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

[10] § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242):

[11] 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law

[12] Jane Crow @ www.DGJeep.blogspot.com

[13] 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.

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

[15] 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)

[16] 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.

[17] 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.

[18] In the Plea Bargain Era, where 95% of case never come to trial, exculpable evidence is all too easily concealed.

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

[20] Ibid. United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals seven times – two prior Petitions for Writ of Certiorari

[21] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

[22] Ibid. United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals seven times – two prior Petitions for Writ of Certiorari

[23] 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."

[24] The Exclusionary Rule does nothing to punish the criminal perpetrator of the "deprivation of rights." And for Innocent People, "the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For Innocent People, "it is damages or nothing." Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971)

[25] The Exclusionary Rule does nothing to punish the criminal perpetrator of the "deprivation of rights." And for Innocent People, "the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For Innocent People, "it is damages or nothing." Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971)

[26] 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).

[27] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)

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

[29] "Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both." Eleanor Roosevelt "We win justice quickest by rendering justice to the other party." Mahatma Gandhi

[30] 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).

[31] District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008)

[32] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[33] Red Dawn (1984) "It is the dawn of World War III. In mid-western America, a group of teenagers bands together to defend their town, and their country, from invading Soviet forces."

[34] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

--
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

GENERAL DELIVERY

Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999

Monday, August 5, 2013

The defeat of "common sense" in America

The defeat of "common sense"

in America

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, August 05, 2013, 9:37:24 AM

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

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

The defeat of "common sense" in America is the result of the self-serving judge made law of "absolute immunity" for themselves and others. It use to be that common sense made the invasion of liberty for a victimless crime "so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation." But then along came the Judge made law that can and DOES EVERYDAY make manifest evil look accepted benign and inevitable.

Common sense was defeated. One of the more recent and most glaring examples was prohibition, the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Why did we need a constitutional amendment for prohibition of alcohol but not for other controlled substances? Why because nine men on the Supreme Court with "absolute immunity" said we did not.

Today with "5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's reported prisoners. We currently incarcerate 756 inmates per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the average worldwide of 158 for every 100,000."[7] "Victimless Crime Constitutes 86% of The Federal Prison Population (Drugs 50.7%, Public-order 35.0% {85.7%}, Violent 7.9%, Property 5.8% and Other .7% {14.3%})."[8] Now we have ubiquitous victimless crimes where we try to treat medical issues, addiction, with incarceration. You could as easily cure cancer with incarceration.

I refuse to believe our Justice System is FIVE times better than the rest of the developed world. If my experience is representative I would assert it is FIVE times worse.

The Supreme Court has with "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"[9] been maliciously, corruptly and incompetently defeating common sense since the Civil War. Anybody that has never read Justice John Marshall Harlan's (1833 – 1911) dissents in the Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883) and Plessy v. Ferguson - 163 U.S. 552 (1896) needs to take his REFRESHER COURSE in common sense.

The Supreme Court has since the Civil war (1861-1865) been condoning manifest evil, making it look accepted benign and inevitable.

The Supreme Courts sophistry[10] has for too long been defeating common sense. Justice Harlan said better than I could hope to in his dissent:

"I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.

"It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul."

Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted.

The purpose of the first section of the act of Congress of March 1, 1875, was to prevent race discrimination in respect of the accommodations and facilities of inns, public conveyances, and places of public amusement. It does not assume to define the general conditions and limitations under which inns, public conveyances, and places of public amusement may be conducted, but only declares that such conditions and limitations, whatever they may be, shall not be applied so as to work a discrimination solely because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The second section provides a penalty against anyone denying, or aiding or inciting the denial, of any citizen, of that equality of right given by the first section except for reasons by law applicable to citizens of every race or color and regardless of any previous condition of servitude." Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

On to my issue. The original fraudulent[11] court order at the inception and center of this issue, in 2003, was NOT "a facially valid court order."[12] The issuing Judicial Officer did not have "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation"[13] for the stated charge[14] and thus it was "taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction."[15] Clearly to any facially[16] reckonable[17] 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."[18]

In the 9.58 years[19] 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."[20] Since the civil domestic issue has been ongoing for 9.58 years "the "exclusionary rule"[21] is simply irrelevant… it is damages or nothing."[22] 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." [23]

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.[24]

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,[25] 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."[26] Of course the 1st Amendment's lawfully un-bridge-able right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" and 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.[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 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[31] 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[32] or calumnious[33] 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[34] is based on, he would have dismissed the charge as vexatious[35] or calumnious[36] 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.[37]

How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[38] 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[39] 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[40] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[41] prosecutorial[42]and enforcement[43] power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[44]

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[45]

This embarrasses the future and the past[46]

There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[47] 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.[48]

How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[49] from their constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[50] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[51] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1^st and 7^th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[52]

We the People have fallen under the despotic[53] spell of the concentrated power[54] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[55] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[56] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [57] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[58] and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[59] actions of "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [60] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[61]

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

and

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

I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Cloths." AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??

ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity,[62] 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[63] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[64] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional an "unlawful Conspiracy"[65] "before out of Court"[66] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[67]

"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, August 05, 2013!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [68] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said respectively said it originally in 1871[69] 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).

Impeach[70] the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[71]

for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[72] 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,[73]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[74] with their deprivation of substantive 7^th Amendment[75] 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."[76] "Six million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.—more than were in Stalin's gulags."[77]

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"[78]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[79] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[80] "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.[81] 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."[82] We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. [83] We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. [84] We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. [85] We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. [86] 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)" [87] and compensate the victims?

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

The abuses are happening EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE Mr. Thompson (No. 09–571),[88] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [89] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[90] and myself (USCA8 No. 12-2435, 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614).[91] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[92] 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, August 05, 2013, 9:37:24 AM

David G. Jeep

GENERAL DELIVERY,

Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999

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] "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

[9] "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).

[10] "We have long suffered under the base prostitution of the law to party passion in one judge and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice." May 26, 1810 a letter Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From "The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)

[11] 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.

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

[13] 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."

[14] 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.

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

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

[17] "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)

[18] 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.

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

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

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

[22] 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."

[23] 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.

[24] 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.

[25] 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."

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

[27] 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."

[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] 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)

[32] 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,

[33] 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,

[34] 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.

[35] 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,

[36] 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,

[37] "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."

[38] 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).

[39] 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).

[40] "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!!!!!

[41] ""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)

[42] 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)

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

[45] Aldous Huxley

[46] "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)

[47] 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[48] 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.

[49] "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

[50] 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"

[51] 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.

[52] 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 5.69 years!!!! (as of Saturday July 13 2013 02:30 PM) 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.

[53] 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!!!!!!!!!!

[54] "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

[55] "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.

[56] 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.

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

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

[59] 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).

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

[61] "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.

[62] 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.

[63] 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.

[64] "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

[65] 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."

[66] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

[67] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

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

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

[70] "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"

[71] 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

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

[73] 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

[74] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[75] 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.

[76] "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

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

[78] "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

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

[80] 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.

[81] 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

[82] "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

[83] "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."

[84] 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.

[85] "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.

[86] "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

[87] Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61)

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

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

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

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

[92] "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