Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Solicitor General - Re: Do you REMEMBER what moral agency is?

Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001

(202) 514-2217


Re: Do you REMEMBER what moral agency is?

Dear Mr. Verrilli,

The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, established the dimensions of the right of redress:

 “If we, our chief justice(judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.” 

Every subsequent establishment of any contract, common law, charter or constitution in this country, and most of the modern English speaking world, was based on The Magna Carta in 1215, as its foundation.  The ENFORCEMENT of any and ALL contracts between persons requires a right of redress for its violation or it is quite literally UNENFORCEABLE

The assertion in virtually all of the precedents revolving around “absolute immunity” are basically two fold:

1.    Other Remedies - “Against the consequences of their erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort.”[1]  

a.    “I had thought that, for the truly aggrieved person, other quite adequate remedies have always been available.”[2]

b.    In American law “absolute immunity” has never been unanimous Supreme Court precedent e.g., “But I dissent from the rule laid down by the majority of the Court that a judge is exempt from liability in a case like the present, where it is alleged not only that his proceeding was in excess of jurisdiction, but that he acted maliciously and corruptly. If he did so, he is, in my opinion, subject to suit the same as a private person would be under like circumstances.”[3]

c.    Bivens is the rare exception - “The "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For (innocent) people…, it is damages or nothing.” [4]

2.    Too much work, TOO Inexpedient - “The courts of the United States, as well as those of the States, are choked with lawsuits. The number of cases on the docket of this Court have reached an unprecedented volume in recent years. A majority of these cases are brought by citizens with substantial complaints -- persons who are physically or economically injured by torts or frauds or governmental infringement of their rights; persons who have been unjustly deprived of their liberty or their property; and persons who have not yet received the equal opportunity in education, employment, and pursuit of happiness that was the dream of our forefathers.”[5]

a.    “The Court of Appeals ordered dismissal of the common law count on the theory that the police officers were not required to predict our decision in Thomas v. Mississippi, 380 U. S. 524.”[6]  This sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid assertion assumes we need the Supreme Court to tell a jury what is right and wrong in EVERY CASE. 

To both of those I answer, TOUGH NOOGIES!

No matter how many times you falsely assert it, THERE ARE NO OTHER REMEDIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!  “For (innocent) people…, it is damages or nothing.” [7]

And secondly, and most importantly, YOUR RAISON D'ÊTRE IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN TO JUSTIFIABLY REMEDY VIOLATIONS OF SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.  If the laws we ask you to enforce are NOT enforceable under Due Process of Law, then they are unconstitutional.  For example, drug laws are currently clogging 80% of our justice system, they are all violations of our basic liberty[8] and they are unequally enforced against the African Americans and the poor.  We needed a constitutional amendment to PROHIBIT alcohol; we should have been required, by our asserted constitutional watch dogs, the Supreme Court, to pass a constitutional amendment for controlled substances.  One of the main reasons the UNCONSTITUTIONAL war on drugs is ongoing is because we export our prohibition-gang-land-violence south of the border, creating the current humanitarian crisis at the border.[9] 

You think a government of the people, by the people and FOR THE PEOPLE would pay Judges to just do as you please without regard to our rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws?  No, we pay Judges to be our MORAL AGENTS, to act with moral agency on our behalf as regards disputes between equal persons and between individuals and the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

We the People admittedly, via our election of President Barack Hussein Obama, have commissioned you - our moral agent to defend the Constitution.  Moral agency requires moral judgments based on some commonly held notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions, i.e., to be constitutionally checked by a jury trial[10] of one’s peers.[11]  I would hope that the man, President Barack Hussein Obama, I voted for, and help elect, would hold you DIRECTLY accountable for our commonly held MORAL notion of right and wrong, without forcing the issue to a jury trial.[12]

The Judiciary asserts they NEVER were and cannot now expediently[13] be held culpable.  The unconstitutional Black Robed Royalists assert their independence from any all culpability is an expedient “benefit of the public.”  That is a FANTASTIC or DELUSIONAL[14] scenario. 
Why would We the People have fought wars invested lives for our reckonable[15] rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws if it were EVER our intent to give those acting under color of those VERY SAME laws a pass?

Without justifiable[16] culpability, both criminal[17] and civil,[18] via a commonly held notion, a jury trial,[19] of right and wrong as regards the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws -- We the People’s CONSTITUTIONAL intent to “establish Justice” is “reduced to "a form of words."”[20]  The asserted need for expediency by the Black Robed Royalist Unconstitutional Article III Judiciary does not defeat the constitution’s raison d'être to “establish Justice” based on the due process of law, jury trial, protection of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.

Now I have no issue with the need for extraordinary Judicial Power in exigent or emotionally charged situations.  The ex parte order of protection is designed around, and for, such exigent situations.  But when the protection of “due process of law” is IGNORED within the reckonable ex parte construction, it is goes against the commonly held, reckonable, notion of right and wrong and the bad actors need to be held accountable for these actions, both criminally[21] and civilly.[22]

I do not even have any issue, in the extraordinary case, with a directed verdict, subject to appeal.  In the fictional case from “To Kill a Mocking Bird” if Judge Taylor had REVERSED the jury’s decision based on his personal finding of facts and law I would see no problem.  Judge Taylor would then have to defend the order before “the lawful judgement of (his) their equals.”  That is the kind of judicial courage that would give credibility to an asserted need for judicial independence.  That is the kind of judicial protection that our system assumes and the kind protection that Socrates[23] needed.
But that kind of judicial courage is not what we have been able to expect from our judiciary.  The Supreme Court has LEAD the way in the opposite direction with unjust and unequal prosecution of our current Drug Laws and historically with 150+ years of Jim Crow and 50+ years of Jane Crow discrimination e.g., Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871), sophisticated[24] “absolute immunity” for racially motivate mass murder, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) sophisticated[25] “absolute immunity” for racially motivated massacre (Colfax Riot/pogrom), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) sophisticated[26] “absolute immunity” for forced sterilization, sophisticated[27] “absolute immunity,” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) prosecutorial sophisticated[28] “absolute immunity,” to ultimately Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) sophisticated[29] “absolute immunity” for “knowingly false testimony by police officers… all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process.”  The UNRESTRAINED “absolutely immune” Judiciary has created “absolute power” [30] for itself that has rendered “absolute corruption” [31] “of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature” and enumerated in Constitution and Laws of this country!

As Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting, said in Olmstead v. United States,277 U. S. 438, 277 U. S. 485 (1928):

"Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. . . . If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 659 (1961))

The Black Robed Royalist Unconstitutional Article III Judiciary self-defeating fiat legislation, of “absolute immunity,” is and always has been a FANTASTIC or DELUSIONAL[32] scenario.  I quote it here:

“This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences." (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)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  The Constitution raison d'être was to create a jury trial[33] “cause of action” for constitutional violations.  Any assertion otherwise is a Frivolous,[34] FANTASTIC or DELUSIONAL[35] scenario.

The Founding Fathers were very much aware of history.  They had studied the Platos’s “The Republic” regarding the Greek Republics, they were aware of what I call the “Socrates effect”[36] i.e., the possibility of a popular majority despotically DICTATING to the minority.  James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, expressed the generic need for checks and balances succinctly in 1791:

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite cause.”[37]

That is why James Madison and Alexander Hamilton asserted in the Federalist Papers respectively as regards “titles of nobility” and subsequent “absolute immunity” that conflicted with a “republican government... of the people”:

Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter.”[38] 

Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. 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.”[39]

If “We the People” accept the premise a “benefit of the public” as the result of judicial “independence and without fear of consequences,” we are saying the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws are “reduced to "a form of words."”[40]

That was and always has been UNACCEPTABLE!  Any Judicial Independence that steps outside the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws is a violation of the Constitution, Article. VI. §2[41] and more specifically the Laws, 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 and 42 U.S.C. §1983 - §1985[42]

How[43] did strict scrutiny[44] for inalienable reckonable[45] rights[46] ever result[47] in anything less than STRICT LIABILITY?[48]

We have gone PAST Thomas Jefferson’s assertions of destruction to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION[49] of inalienable rights under color of law:

The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." --Thomas Jefferson[50]

To hear the Supreme Court tell us, via their unrestricted absolutely immune power,  We the People, all evidence to the contrary, “intended sub silentio”[51] to traded the “King[52] can do no WRONG” for the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the “malicious or corrupt” judges (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) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)),[53] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976), [54] the “knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),[55] corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[56] actions[57] of federal, state, local, and regional legislators (Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138)[58] and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[59] actions of “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)) [60] acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of inalienable rights under color of law.

In this 11.17 year effort, 411 days[61] incarcerated, 6.70 years homeless, and 5 trips[62] to the Supreme Court of the United States I have left no proverbial or real life “stone unturned.”  Leave this petition undefended and the CORRUPTION leaves only one means to establish Justice in a country supposedly based on reasonable “due process of law.”

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

“Time is of the essence”
David G. Jeep

enclosure

cc:  My Blog -




[3] MR. JUSTICE DAVIS, with whom concurred Mr. Justice CLIFFORD, dissenting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 358(1871)
[4] MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring in the judgment. Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S 398 (1971)
[6] MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 557 (1967)
[7] MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring in the judgment. Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S 398 (1971)
[8] “Constitutional protection of individual rights exists for that very purpose.249 We face coercive 31
government action, carried out in a corrupt and racist manner, with military and paramilitary
assaults on our homes, leading to mass incarceration and innocent deaths. We can never forget
the tyranny of a government unrestrained by an independent judiciary.250 Our courts must end
[9] The Real Death Valley: The Untold Story of Mass Graves and Migrant Deaths in South Texas, The Weather Channel, Telemundo, and The Investigative Fund., Produced by Solly Granatstein and Shawn Efran http://stories.weather.com/realdeathvalley
[10] The primary CHECK on the Judiciary and ALL government actor is and has been the JURY trial as regards rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, see the Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, § 3 and 7th Amendment.
[11] The Magna Carta gave this as “the lawful judgement of their equals”
[12] The CHECK on the Judiciary and ALL government actor is and has been the JURY trial as regards rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, see the Constitution for the United States of America, Article 3, Section 2, § 3 and 7th Amendment.
[13] “And those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual Calumniations, for which reason the Orator said well, invigilandum est semper, multae insidiae sunt bonis.” [Ed.: one must always be on one’s guard, for in good things there are many snares.] Floyd and Barker.(1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber (a court discredited for abuse of discretion see an Act of Parliament Abolition of the Star Chamber July 5, 1641).  “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 -- and the leave was refused. (Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Law Reports Exchequer 220)"  Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871).  “This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it
"is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences." (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)
[15] "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)
[16] Justice without regard to both CIVIL and criminal liability impoverishes the victim in pursuit of justice.
[19] Constitution for the United States of America, Article 3, Section 2, § 3 and 7th Amendment
[20] “This Court has ever since required of federal law officers a strict adherence to that command which this Court has held to be a clear, specific, and constitutionally required -- even if judicially implied -- deterrent safeguard without insistence upon which the Fourth Amendment would have been reduced to "a form of words."”Holmes, J., Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States,251 U. S. 385, 251 U. S. 392 (1920)” supra Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 648 (1961)
[23] Socrates was forced (?) to assist in his suicide by swallowing “hemlock” at the insistence of the UNRESTRAINED majority.
[24] Judicial sophistry is the ABSOLUTE WORST kind of sophistication, “We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions 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” (Thomas Jefferson, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)
[25] Judicial sophistry is the ABSOLUTE WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[26] Judicial sophistry is the ABSOLUTE WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[27] Judicial sophistry is the ABSOLUTE WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[28] Judicial sophistry is the ABSOLUTE WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[29] Judicial sophistry is the ABSOLUTE WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[30]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.
[31]Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton (1887) ibid.
[33] Constitution for the United States of America, Article 3, Section 2, § 3 and 7th Amendment
[36] Socrates was forced (?) to assist in his suicide by swallowing “hemlock” at the insistence of the UNRESTRAINED majority.
[37] “Property” James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792, 27 March 1792
[38] FEDERALIST No. 39 “The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles” For the Independent Journal, Wednesday, January 16, 1788 James Madison
[39] FEDERALIST No. 84 “Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered” From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788, Alexander Hamilton
[40] “This Court has ever since required of federal law officers a strict adherence to that command which this Court has held to be a clear, specific, and constitutionally required -- even if judicially implied -- deterrent safeguard without insistence upon which the Fourth Amendment would have been reduced to "a form of words."”Holmes, J., Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States,251 U. S. 385, 251 U. S. 392 (1920)” supra Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 648 (1961)
[41] “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.”
[42] It should be noted that in the congressional debate over the passage of Civil rights Act of 1866 (18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) there was considerable debate as to the impact the UNIVERSAL reference might have on Judicial Independence and the UNIVERSAL reference to “Whoever, under color of any law” was left unchanged. 
Additionally at the passage of Civil rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. §1983 - §1985) five years later the author of the bill represented that its UNIVERSAL reference to “Every person who, under color of any statute…” stood on the same ground as its 1866 predecessor
[43] “We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions 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.” (The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS" To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)
[44] United States v. Carolene Products (1938), Korematsu v. United States (1944), and Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)
[45] "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)
[46] Due Process of Law under the 5th and 14th amendments
[47] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971) In a civil issue “the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant…, it is damages or nothing.”
[48] “As our precedent makes clear, proving that a municipality itself actually caused a constitutional violation by failing to train the offending employee presents “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, Certiorari to the Supreme Court, No. 09–571. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 29, 2011
"The essence of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected, and any individual who is denied by a common carrier, under authority of the state, a facility or convenience which is furnished to another under substantially the same circumstances may properly complain that his constitutional privilege has been invaded." McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914)
[49]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.
[50] As quoted into the Congressional Record Senate Vol. 152, Pt. 1 page 80-81, Mr. Santorum and Bergh, 15:331. 1821.
[51]  “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!!!!!
[52] Judges e.g., “the Law will not suppose any unindifferent, when he is sworn to serve the King”
[53] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[54] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[56] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King “Strength to Love” 1963
[57] The recent Government Shut Down comes to mind, but the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court had already handed our legislators absolute immunity for their legislative actions, Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997).  --- See also David Gerard Jeep Appellant v. The Tea Party/GOP/Republicans, et al. Appellees U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis Case #: 13CV2089-DDN, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit No: 14-1344
[58] Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138
[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). 
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.
[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] U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP, Habeas Cases 4:09-CV-831 CAS, 4:09-MJ-1052 TIA, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit 09-2848  David Jeep  vs.  United States
[62] Docketed and denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193 & 13-7030 and NOW 14-5551 











Post a Comment