Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: Petition for Writ of
Certiorari 14-10088 - USAP8 15-1057, David Gerard Jeep, v. United
States – counter to “absolute immunity” for the deprivation of rights
Dear People,
I realize that all your quixotic
polemics are not even worth a “parchment guarantee,” in the REAL-EVERYDAY-WORLD, for “any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States of America…
male, female, gay, straight, white, black, red, yellow, pink, or purple.
Both of your assertions in King v.
Burwell and Obergefell v.
Hodges are without any real consistent basis, other
than self-aggrandizingly rhetorical. You
both want to look like you are defending the “rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States of America but you
both know that is a lie. Your support is
without any real consistent resoluteness.
Before the South won, pre-Civil-War, “We
the People” could rely on our rights. It was, at least judicially, "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.
163 (1803)).
As pseudo students of history I would
hope you know that “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws”[1] of the United States of America lost all their gravitas with the despotic southern
judicial victory post-Civil-War. But
alas I realize, as M. L. King, Jr. said, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous
than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”[2]
I see people fashionably upset by the
glorification of the Southern Victories with Rebel Flags and rebel heroes,
glorified with street names and public statuary. If they only knew the true facts, they would
be crying as I do.
The Black Robed
Royalist Article III oligarchy on the Supreme Court starting after the Civil War
in 1868[3]
and 1871[4]
has quashed the “sense and reason”[5] of
the “raison d'être”[6] of We the People’s Constitution,
Amendments, and the enactment of the constitutionally authorized ex industria[7] statute laws, now codified into the U.S. Code as 18 USC §241
- §242 Criminal
Deprivation of rights under color of law and 42 USC §1983 - §1985 Civil action for deprivation
of rights. We the People have been
suffering from the despotic southern Black Robed Royalist Article III
oligarchy’s criminal[8]
deprivation of rights “under color of law” EVER SINCE!
Now I realize that Ginsburg’s recent assertions might appear on the surface
to be more consistent with “rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States of
America. But she has turned a blind eye
at least 5 times,[9] I am personally aware of, to the 147 year issue of “absolute immunity” for the "the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States of America."
I have to ask, where would “We
the People” be today had the judicial constitutional “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.
163 (1803)) HELD
post-Civil-War for ALL PERSONS as “We the People” “desired to accomplish, which they attempted
to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in
their fundamental law”[10]?
With Scalia’s
recent yammerings in Obergefell v. Hodges and King
v. Burwell, he clearly does not
have the slightest clue as to what rights are all about or how statues are read. But I restate just so he cannot deny them -
the Constitutional Judicial Rule prior to the South winning the Civil War was "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.
163 (1803)). Post-Civil-War
it was REITERATED into ex industria
constitutionally authorized statute law, the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and
1871:
“Every person who, under color of
any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or
Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to
the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at
law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any
action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a
declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the
purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the
District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of
Columbia.”[11]
and
“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.”[12]
There is no grey-area as to the interpretations of the pre-Civil War
constitutional judicial rule and post-Civil-War statutes. Constitutionally Judges were bound[13]
prior to the Civil War and then post-Civil-War “Every person” or “Whoever,”
without exclusion, were constitutionally
and knowingly prohibited from the “the deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States” “under color of any law…” by the constitution and ex industria constitutionally authorized
statute law.
The Article III
life-time-appointment was never meant to be a cover up for “sincere ignorance
or conscientious stupidity.” There is an
enforceable “sense and reason,”[14] of
the “raison d'être” if you will, [15] to every law that may conflict with a
hypothetically EXTRACTED biased interpretation of a phrase isolated from the
whole as the court agreed in King v. Burwell.
The Article III life-time-appointment was meant to establish Justice
based on the “sense and reason,”[16]
the “raison d'être” [17]
if you will, for minorities
(LGBT and men in the “Jane Crow” era – see PWCert 14-10088) against
entrenched pejorative majorities to vindicate “any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” for ALL
PERSONS.
To any reasonable
interpretation the “sense and reason”[18]
of the “raison d'être”[19]
of both post-Civil-War statutes
was the
statutory reassertion of the constitutional pre-Civil War judicial rule i.e., "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.
163 (1803)).
Clearly the rights to have the government endorse your
“paternity rights,” your “property rights,” your right to assert next of kin”
on a death certificate and “marital commitments” (and associated joint paternity
and property rights) are “fundamental right(s) inherent in the liberty of the person”
i.e., “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws” and subject to the constitutional protection of “due process of law”
and “equal protection of the laws.”[20] As the Court’s opinion
makes clear quoting Cicero, “The first bond of society is marriage; next, children;
and then the family.”[21]
All of that is defeated today by
“absolute immunity” for the “the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United
States,” see Petition for Writ of
Certiorari 14-10088.
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”
cc: My Blog - Monday, July 06, 2015, 3:40:46 PM
[1] See the XIV Amendment, Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985
[2] 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.
[4] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349
(1978) and Mireles v. Waco 502 U.S. 9 (1991), Not to mention their progeny Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[5] "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." MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26
(1883)
[6] “To criticize section 1983
liability because it leads decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of
constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre.” Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 656
(1980)
“"Whatever other concerns
should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be
the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions.
To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decisionmakers to avoid
the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's
raisons d'etre.” [Footnote 41] Note,
Developments in the Law: Section 1983 and Federalism, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 1133, 1224
(1977). See also Johnson v. State, 69 Cal.2d 782, 792-793, 447 P.2d 352, 359-360
(1968): “As a threshold matter, we consider it unlikely that the possibility of
government liability will be a serious deterrent to the fearless exercise of
judgment by the employee. In any event, however, to the extent that such
deterrent effect takes hold, it may be wholesome. An employee in a private
enterprise naturally gives some consideration to the potential liability of his
employer, and this attention unquestionably promotes careful work; the
potential liability of a governmental entity, to the extent that it affects
primary conduct at all, will similarly influence public employees.” Owen v.
City of Independence - 445 U.S. 656 (1980)
[8] 18 USC §241 - §242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law
[9] Docketed and denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030 & 14-5551
[10] “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.” MR.
JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883)
[11] As currently codified into
US Statute law as Criminal 18 U.S. Code § 242
[12] As currently codified into
US Statute law as Civil 42 U.S. Code § 1983
[13] Article VI. § 2 “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.”
[14] "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." MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26
(1883)
[15] “To criticize section 1983
liability because it leads decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of
constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre.” Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 656
(1980)
[16] "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." MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26
(1883)
[17] “To criticize section 1983
liability because it leads decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of
constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre.” Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 656
(1980)
[18] "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." MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26
(1883)
[19] “To criticize section 1983
liability because it leads decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of
constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre.” Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 656
(1980)
“"Whatever other
concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them
should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his
actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decisionmakers to
avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the
statute's raisons d'etre.” [Footnote 41]
Note, Developments in the Law: Section 1983 and Federalism, 90 Harv.L.Rev.
1133, 1224 (1977). See also Johnson v. State, 69 Cal.2d 782, 792-793, 447 P.2d
352, 359-360 (1968): “As a threshold matter, we consider it unlikely that the
possibility of government liability will be a serious deterrent to the fearless
exercise of judgment by the employee. In any event, however, to the extent that
such deterrent effect takes hold, it may be wholesome. An employee in a private
enterprise naturally gives some consideration to the potential liability of his
employer, and this attention unquestionably promotes careful work; the
potential liability of a governmental entity, to the extent that it affects
primary conduct at all, will similarly influence public employees.” Owen v.
City of Independence - 445 U.S. 656 (1980)
[20] Article. IV - Section. 2. “The Citizens of each State
shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several
States.” And XIV Amendment Section 1. “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. ”
[21] 3 576 U. S. ____ (2015)
No comments:
Post a Comment