How
can "rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
States of America" and “absolute immunity” for the
"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."
You ask why we have MASS INCARCERATION IN AMERICA? Judges,
Prosecutors,
Police and All
Persons 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 turn a
blind eye to “malicious or dishonest” unconstitutional
persecutions via a prosecutors withholding
of “evidence favorable to
an accused” with “knowingly false testimony by police
officers,”
“under color of law.” IT HAPPENS EVER SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA!!!!
Judges,
Prosecutors
and Police
Malicious or corrupt judges
turn a blind eye to “malicious or dishonest”
prosecutions via the withholding of “evidence favorable to an accused”
with “knowingly false testimony by police
officers.”
THINK!!!!!!!!!!!
PLEASE!!!!!! THINK!!!!!!!!!
I
recently read an article in the New York Times “An Ode to Obamacare” By Gail
Collins - FEB. 12, 2015. Now I admit the
article was unabashedly in favor of the President’s healthcare program. And I
admit I am too.
What
I am writing about is not HEALTHCARE, let us be clear on that! My issue is with our malicious, corrupt,
dishonest, sincerely ignorant, conscientiously stupid and Incompetent JUSTICE
system that will even entertain a suit such as King v.
Burwell.
I have been to the
FEDERAL District to the Circuit to the Supreme Court five times. I am through the District (MOED Case #:
4:14-cv-2009) and into the Circuit (U. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
Case# 15-1057) for me SIXTH time.
I have been at this
for 11 years, with undisputed evidence of malice, corruption, dishonesty,
sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence on the part of the Police, Prosecutors and Judges. The Police with their malice, corruption,
dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and incompetence
unimpaired by our justice system offered, what should have been, knowingly
false testimony. The Prosecutors refused
me exculpable evidence that would have proved the false testimony the police
offered perjury. The Judge acting with a
complete lack of JURISDICTION e.g., Subject matter jurisdiction a complete lack
of Personal Jurisdiction and Complete lack of Geographic Jurisdiction offered a
court order that was NOT “a facially valid court order.”
THINK!!!!!!!!!!!
PLEASE!!!!!! THINK!!!!!!!!!
Stop the ongoing WAR ON CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!!
THINK!!!!!!!!!!!
PLEASE!!!!!! THINK!!!!!!!!!
It is not about race relations,
sexuality, police brutality or campaign finance, it is about corruption in our justice system.
Everybody acting under color of law HAS
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY” FOR THE “THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS,
privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution and laws.” It is not about the
“thin blue line” among our police. IT IS ABOUT THE MALICIOUS AND CORRUPT GUILD OF “BLACK
ROBED” ROYALIST “ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE” ARTICLE III JUDICIARY. Police have absolute immunity to provide
“knowingly false testimony” on the stand under oath. Prosecutors have “absolute immunity” for
“malicious or dishonest” actions.
THINK!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!! THINK!!!!!!!!!
“Absolutely immune” Dishonest,
malicious, corrupt, “knowingly false testimony” and the withholding of
exculpable evidence does more damage to “We
the People” every day in our so called Article III attempt to “establish
justice” than a squad of police officers could do with automatic weapons in a shopping
mall without remorse!!!
IT IS NECESSARILY ABOUT JUSTICE.
TODAY, “We the People” are ruled by the unwritten absolutely immune
self-serving MARTIAL LAW of JUDICIAL RULE in the “Jane Crow Era,” the World War
on Drugs and the malicious and corrupt prerogative of the MALICIOUS AND
CORRUPT GUILD OF “BLACK ROBED” ROYALIST “ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE” ARTICLE III
JUDICIARY that NEGATES all our supposedly inalienable
constitutional rights.
I realize it sounds almost
ridiculous but "We the People"
“to establish Justice” need a Constitutional Amendment:
“Malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere
ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence ARE NOT and never have been
covered by ANY grant of immunity, under color of CONSTITUTIONAL law.”
You don’t believe me READ their
precedent.
To hear the supreme court sophistry tell
us, via their unrestricted absolutely immune power, “We the People,” all
evidence to the contrary, “sub silentio” traded the “King can do no WRONG” for the
of 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)), the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor
(Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)), the “knowingly false testimony by
police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)), corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely
ignorant and conscientiously stupid
actions 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)
and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and
conscientiously stupid actions of “all
persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of
the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)) acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE
CORRUPTION of INALIENABLE RIGHTS under
color of law.
We need a constitutional amendment to END the judicial sanction of
Malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and
Incompetence
"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."
How
could our constitutional government, and / oR government actors “under color of
law,” AVOID strict absolute liability for inalienable Supreme Court certified
constitutional rights?
Connick,
based on the ADMITTED facts, Mr. Thompson had been UNCONSTITUTIONALLY held 15
years on Death Row. This was due to the
ADMITTED fact that Mr. Connick, the Prosecuting attorney, had REPEATEDLY, as a
government actor under color of law, failed to provide Mr. Thompson and others
ex-culpable evidence that would have proven Mr. Thompson and others innocence.
How
could our constitutional government, and / oR government actors “under color of
law,” AVOID strict absolute liability for inalienable Supreme Court certified
constitutional rights?
We the People have fallen under the despotic spell
of the self-servingly constructed “excess
of power”
in the Supreme Court that has constructed ABSOLUTE POWER
from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for
denial of inalienable constitutional
rights (Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 ) by “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)), the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.
S. 428 (1976)), the “knowingly false testimony by police
officers" (Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)), the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely
ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions 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) and
the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely
ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions
of “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were
integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S.
345 (1983))
acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of
inalienable rights under color of law.
Article
III Judicial Power is defined and limited by an act of “We the People’s”
Congress. It does not require a
CONSTITUTIONAL amendment. It is time
that “We the People” assert our control, via an act of congress, of
the Supreme Court: “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the
Congress shall make" (Article III, Section. 2, § 2)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If
there is only one thing you read this YEAR, please, PLEASE read MR. JUSTICE
HARLAN dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 1883… AND THEN CONSIDER WHERE “We
the People” would be had “WE THE PEOPLE” prevailed in 1883
with constitutionally authorized “necessary and proper” ex industria statute
law the 1875 Civil Rights Act!!!!!!!
To hear the Supreme Court tell us, via their unrestricted absolutely
immune power, We the People, all evidence to the contrary, traded the “King
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)), the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.
S. 428 (1976),
the “knowingly false testimony by police
officers" (Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)), corrupt, malicious, dishonest,
sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions 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) and
the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely
ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions
of “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were
integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S.
345 (1983))
acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of inalienable rights under color
of law.
The Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary on the Supreme Court
since the civil war in 1868 and 1871 (and again in 1967 by repeated reference)
has cited Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607) to
construct an “excess
of power”
to quash the “sense and reason” for the
“raison d'être” of We the People’s Constitution,
Amendments, and the enactment of the constitutionally authorized ex industria 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 Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary’s criminal
deprivation of rights under color of law EVER SINCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anybody that doubts
this, just look at history. Justice
Harlan's Dissent in Civil Rights Cases 109 U.S. 26 (1883) is the most eloquent
of examples. 130 years of Jim Crow, Jane
Crow, victimless crimes, plea bargain, exclusionary rule and the malicious,
corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid
“absolutely immune” judge constructed law
later… the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court can STILL reach into
their “black bag of tricks” to pull
out anything they want to justify their malicious, corrupt, dishonest,
sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid “absolutely immune” actions.
In 1868 the Black
Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court first CONSTRUCTED
“absolute immunity” in Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S.
536 (1868) asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607). Randall v. Brigham (1868) was Judicial
sophistry at its finest, a judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary
immunity from the recently enacted Civil
Rights Act of 1866.
The Civil
Rights Act of 1866 made it a CRIME for “Whoever, under color of any law…, 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.”
Judicial liability for the crime was brought up extensively in the
congressional debates and EXPRESSLY made part of President Johnson's Veto
(March 27, 1866), noted as "assailing the
independence of the judiciary,"
which was then congressionally over ridden into statute two weeks later. The Civil
Rights Act of 1866 was enacted into LAW over the expressed objection
of the President, overridden by the Senate on April 6, 1866 (33 - 15) and then
overridden by the House and became law on April 9, 1866 (122 - 41).
Likewise the
judicial sophistry of Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), also asserting Floyd
& Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was a subterfuge to
give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the civil liability enacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Passed by the House on
April 19, 1871 (93–74) and by the Senate on April 19, 1871 (36–13) and then it
was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871.
What
neither Randall v. Brigham (1868) nor Bradley v. Fisher (1871) like to admit is
they both were basically CONTRIVED issue drawn from administration issues of
the court, in both cases an attorney sued the sitting judge, questioning the
judge’s administerial discretion “striking the name of an attorney from its roll.” I liken this to questioning an umpire after a
called strike it was not constitutional issue and to infer that ANY Judge is
exempt from liability in a civil or criminal action for their judicial acts
done within their jurisdiction, and judges of superior or general authority are
exempt from such liability even when their judicial acts are in excess of their
jurisdiction, unless perhaps where the acts in excess of their jurisdiction are
done maliciously or corruptly.”
The
KICKER IS, wait for it… BOTH Randall v. Brigham (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher
(1871) were based on the corrupt “black bag of tricks” assertion of Floyd
& Barker (Star Chamber 1607) as precedent. What Randall and Bradley fail to tell you is
that the “Star Chamber” was abolished
for CAUSE, I quote from the Act of Parliament “Abolition
of the Star Chamber” July 5, 1641 “the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said
first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void.”
The causes were
MANY, but one of particular note to anyone that has suffered at the hands of
“absolute immunity” was, and again I quote, “the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by
the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and
to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier
punishments than by any law is warranted.”
So our sincerely
ignorant and conscientiously stupid Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme
Court constructed, and has
since pulled the wool over We the Peoples
eyes, a precedent from a court that asserted “absolute immunity” but who’s
power was, by Act of Parliament, ultimately “clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away and determined,”
for cause, abusing said
“absolute immunity.” That would be like
allowing a potential thief into your house because his father a known thief, a
convicted thief asserted that he would not steal before he was caught stealing. If there is anything to be learned from Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607)
it is the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court CANNOT BE “ABSOLUTELY”
TRUSTED!!!!!!!!!! It is INSANITY to
think any other way!!!!!!
As
examples of the Judicial sophistry, that
has corrupted We the People’s unalienable rights under color of law, I submit, Randall v. Brigham, 74
U.S. 7 (1868) the origin of judicial criminal sophisticated “absolute immunity,” Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335
(1872) origin of sophisticated Judicial civil “absolute immunity,” Blyew v. United States, 80
U.S. 581 (1871) sophisticated “absolute immunity” for racially
motivate mass murder, United States v. Reese, 92
U.S. 214 (1875) sophisticated deprivation of the 15th
Amendment’s Voting Rights protection with the subterfuges of poll taxes, literacy tests,
and grandfather clauses, United States v. Cruikshank,
92 U.S. 542 (1875) sophisticated “absolute immunity” for racially
motivated massacre (Colfax Riot/pogrom), United States v. Harris, 106
U.S. 629 (1883) sophisticated “absolute immunity” for the
state’s sanctioned kidnapping, assault and murder without regard to the 14th
Amendment’s security, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) creating sophisticated racial segregation and
the ongoing Jim Crow discrimination over the “necessary and proper” “Act to
protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335,
enacted March 1, 1875, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) separate and
UNEQUAL, clarifying sophisticated segregation over the
necessary and proper "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal
rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) reaffirmed Judicial
sophisticated “absolute immunity,”Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976)
prosecutorial sophisticated “absolute
immunity,” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S.
349 (1978) sophisticated
“absolute immunity” for forced sterilization, and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) sophisticated “absolute
immunity” for “knowingly false
testimony by police officers," and “all persons that were integral in the
Judicial Process.” If that is
not ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of We the People’s intent to establish
justice, I cannot imagine what is.
THAT IS AUDACIOUS INSANITY!!!!
My
QUESTION is how did the UNQUALIFIED
governmental liability for RIGHTS “under color of law” i.e., the “property in rights” as asserted by James
Madison (1792)[73] and the
Revolutionary War, Civil War, Constitution, World War I, World War II and the
“statute’s (§1983) raisons d'etre” get reduced???
Do we have to invest more lives to again establish an Individual’s
property in RIGHTS???
What
good are rights if the “property in
rights,” as confirmed by James Madison (1792), is not “under color of law” protected UNQUALIFIED by any government
authority??
Why
have a constitution, much less statute law; if it can be disregarded as
disposable property in the hands of those who are commissioned to provide
UNQUALIFIED protection of the “property
in rights”???
The Article III,
Black Robed Royalist, , Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John
G. Roberts, delegated
authorities, acting under a sworn to constitutional
commission have awarded
themselves and others “absolute immunity” from their
constitutional commission to “do not only
what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid” i.e.,
the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?” by DENYING the constitutional assurance of
governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice,
We
the People have
forgotten the “property in rights” asserted by James Madison in 1792. We the People have to “equally
respect the rights of property
and the property in rights:
they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by
repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern
to that and all other governments.” (“Property” James Madison Essays for the
National Gazette 1791- 1792)
Absolute Immunity, as a “constructive power,” has and
will continue to QUASH the “raison d'être” for the
Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Constitution, Statute Law and thus
Inalienable RIGHTS/Justice.
I submit the indisputable and undisputed facts in SEVEN United States Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals case #07-2614, 08-1823, 09-2848, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and
13-2200 and THREE docketed and two denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the
Supreme Court 07-11115, 11-8211,
13-5193 and 13-7030.
No one in a free country
under a constitutional Government can be above the Law. No one in a country of FREE and EQUAL persons
is more powerful than an innocent man.
Family Court is the place where Fathers systematically lose all right to
their own children, but remain financially responsible for them. This happens to 90% of fathers that go
through the court, and it happens to hundreds of families every day. This has crippled hundreds of millions of men
across western democracies both emotionally and financially and has resulted in
a 1500% higher suicide rate than regular unaffected men.
The original fraudulent court order at the
inception and center of this issue, in 2003, was NOT “a facially
valid court order.” The issuing
Judicial Officer did not have “probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation”
for the stated charge and thus it was "taken in a complete absence of all
jurisdiction." Clearly to any facially reckonable 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."
In the 10.41 years 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.” Since the civil
domestic issue has been ongoing for 10.41 years “the "exclusionary
rule"
is simply irrelevant… it is damages
or nothing.” 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.”
The warrant/Order issued by
Judge Goeke and ordered heard by Commissioner on its face was
unreasonable because it lacked "probable
cause" for the stated charge.
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 8th Amendment’s requirement that “nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted” for an alleged, later disproven, 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.” Of course the 1st Amendment’s lawfully
un-abridge-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. 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 absolute immunity with
“no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right” and
sought to establish a reckonable 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 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 have TWO government certified
competency exams to my credit: I dare say the Judiciary’s asserted
unimpeachable incorporated competency could not credibly sustain the
Judiciary’s unreasonable absolute immunity in a common law 7th
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 fete de complete, "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 accusation without access to 5th and 14th
Amendment’s 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 or calumnious accusation against a crippled
man of good character that they were.
How could the
crippled, a man of good character, 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 is based on, he
would have dismissed the charge as racially based “vexatious” or “calumnious” 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 4th, 5th and 14th
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.
How can the
malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence
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 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”
ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial, prosecutorialand
enforcement power from its paramount binding authority
is an incredible “fantastic or delusional scenario.”
"Facts do not cease to exist because
they are ignored."
This embarrasses the future and the past
There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this
country i.e., no titles of nobility. 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.
How can the Supreme
Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission awarded themselves and others “absolute
immunity” from their constitutional commission to “do not only what their
powers do not authorize, but what they forbid” i.e.,
the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?” by DENYING the
constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and
7th Amendment Justice,
and
I sometimes feel like the waif
in “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” 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,
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, in a government of the
people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!
The ministerial grant
of
by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional
an “unlawful Conspiracy” “before out of Court” to
obfuscate “false and
malicious Persecutions.”
Impeach the current
Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally
un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."
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 any and all malice, corruption,
“sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” 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.
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""
for the “deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America” e.g., “To Kill a Mocking Bird,
The Denial of Due Process,” “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. 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 #07-2614, 08-1823, 09-2848, 10-1947,
11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200, and the most humble Petition for a Wirt
of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115, 11-8211,
13-5193 and 13-7030.”
We hold a “4-Year-Old Can Be Sued.”
We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion.
We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion.
We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion.
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)”
and compensate the victims?
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It
is TIME…
“simply
because it is right.”
Sunday,
October 04, 2015, 4:11:39 PM
GENERAL DELIVERY,
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
(314) 514-5228
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!!!!!!!!!!
“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.
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).
“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.
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).
“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.
“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)
“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)
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
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!!!!!!!!!!
“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.
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).
“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.
10.41 years, 3,799 days,
hours 91,184, minutes 5,471,053 or seconds 328,263,202 based on Thursday
October 10 2013 09:13:21.82 AM
10.41 years, 3,799 days,
hours 91,184, minutes 5,471,053 or seconds 328,263,202 based on Thursday
October 10 2013 09:13:21.82 AM
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).
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).
“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!!!!!
""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"
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)
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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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”
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 1st 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 7th 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.
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 1st
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 7th 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.
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.
“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
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.”
“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”
The redress of a
justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
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
1st Amendment, “Congress shall make no law abridging the
right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
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.
“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
The Caging of America, Why
do we lock up so many people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012
“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
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.
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
“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
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.
Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61)
“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
