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]
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]
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.
“Time is of the essence”
David G. Jeep
enclosure
cc: My Blog -
[2] MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, dissenting,.Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed.
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 430 (1971)
[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)
[5] MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting, Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed.
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 427 (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
the War on
Drugs.” Redlich, Warren (2005-02-05). "A
Substantive Due Process Challenge to the War on Drugs"
[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
[55] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
Police 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 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
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment