Monday, June 15, 2015

Obama, Roberts, Clay, McCaskill and Blunt In all-fairness, how can "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”

 

Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001

 
Congressman Wm. Lacy Clay
111 S. 10th Street, Suite 24.344
St. Louis, MO  63102-1125


Senator Claire McCaskill
5850 Delmar Blvd., Ste. A
St. Louis, MO 63112-2346

 
Senator Roy Blunt
7700 Bonhomme, #315
Clayton, MO 63105-0032
 

       The CELEBRATION of Sincere Ignorance and Conscientious Stupidity

Dear People,

Do not insult OUR collective intelligence by saying that the Supreme Court is anything more than a political branch that has the power of a life-tenured oligarchy.  The Rule of Law was a victim of the Southern Victory in the Civil War.

I realize you are all corrupted and thus are no longer capable of seeing the “Sincere Ignorance and Conscientious Stupidity.”  In spite of that “We the People” need to RE-ESTABLISH justice either with you, over you or around you.

If the MASS incarceration of America does not show it, the Supreme Court’s corrupt stare decisis is irrefutable.  Justice requires fairness.  Justice is no longer available to “We the People” because of the unrestrained self-serving assertion of “absolute immunity” for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."  I restate the “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” as a question for the RECORD:

In all-fairness, how can "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America” AND “absolute immunity” for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America” BOTH BE CONSTITUTIONAL? 

Martin Luther King, Jr. knew when he said… "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."”

Do we need a constitutional amendment to END the blind judicial sanction of malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence?  Try and keep kidding yourselves that the current Mass Incarceration trends that America is experiencing and the rest of the world is not, is the result of the criminal laws that both America and the rest of the world have in common.  The rest of the world has left America in the Ayn Rand cultural dust of the wild-wild-west.  They have matured and America has not.  They still have a justice system and Americas justice system was the victim of the Southern victory in our so called Civil War. [1]

I HAVE SAID BEFORE AND I WILL KEEP SAYING IT UNTIL YOU HEAR ME!!!!![2]  There is no effective check on the ruling oligarchy of the Supreme Court. 

Judges,[3] Prosecutors,[4] Police[5] and All Persons[6] have “absolute immunity” for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."

Malicious or corrupt OR INCOMPETENT judges[7] turn a blind eye to “malicious or dishonest[8] persecutions via prosecutors[9] withholding of “evidence favorable to an accused[10] with “knowingly false testimony by police officers,[11] IT HAPPENS EVER SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA!!!!

THINK!!!!!!!!!!!  PLEASE!!!!!! THINK!!!!!!!!!

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:  My BlogMonday, June 15, 2015, 3:59:13 PM





[3] “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."”  Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
[4] “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. But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor's immunity would disserve the broader public interest. It would prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor's duty that is essential to the proper functioning (Page 424 U. S. 428) of the criminal justice system.”Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
[5] 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)
[6] “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.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983)
[8] Ibid., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
[9] Ibid., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
[10] 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 “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” (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 167 (1803)) 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. 164 (1803))
[11] Ibid., Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)