Internationally Asserted Basic Human Rights,[1]
The Constitution for the United States of America[2]
and Statute Law[3] are IGNORED
I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Clothes"
AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
a country in which nobody[4] is ever truly safe."[5]
Tuesday, July 05, 2016, 4:38:08 PM
"The Department of State (Department) policy and Federal regulations have explicitly stated that emails may qualify as Federal records…" "OIG determined that email usage and preservation practices varied across the tenures of the five most recent Secretaries and that, accordingly, compliance with statutory, regulatory, and internal requirements varied as well…
"OIG also examined Department cybersecurity regulations and policies that apply to the use of non-Departmental systems to conduct official business. Although there were few such requirements 20 years ago, over time the Department has implemented numerous policies directing the use of authorized systems for day-to-day operations. In assessing these policies, OIG examined the facts and circumstances surrounding three cases where individuals exclusively used non-Departmental systems to conduct official business." (emphasis and underlining added)
Three points critical to the issue of Hillary Clinton's e-mail are
1. "emails may qualify as Federal records"
2. "practices varied across the tenures of the five most recent Secretaries"
3. "the Department has implemented numerous policies directing the use of authorized systems for day-to-day operation
First "emails may qualify as Federal records" as Hillary has said form day one "The Federal Records Act puts the obligation on the government official to determine what is and is not a federal record. The State Department Foreign Affairs Manual outlines guidance "designed to help employees determine which of their e-mail messages must be preserved as federal records and which may be deleted without further authorization because they are not Federal record materials." [5 FAM 443.1(c)]."
Especially so with a Department heads, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who have personal discretion to classify and declassify records
Now as regards the politically charged issue of Hillary Clinton's e-mail, the Republican/GOP/Tea Party says anything and everything Hillary Clinton wrote while in the Secretary of State office is a government record. They are most interested in the personal e-mails that she deleted, they need to know how much she spent on her daughter's wedding cake and how much alcohol was consumed at the reception. THAT IS RIDICULOUS, but be assured if the Republican / GOP / Tea Party could they would have it and they would use it to discredit Hilary Clinton.
As regards, the:
"110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were "up-classified" to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."[1]
mentioned by FBI Director James B. Comey let us put those in perspective.
What we have to REALIZE, as the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) report makes clear communication in the digital age is rapidly changing, changing so fast the doctrines have yet to CATCH HOLD. The recurring recommendation in the OIG report is:
"continue to issue guidance, including periodic, regular notices, to Department employees to remind them that the use of personal email accounts to conduct official business is discouraged in most circumstances."
The OIG report makes clear that it is going to be a struggle to bring the service into compliance with the Freedom of Information Acts.
I say stop let us think about this. We use e-mail in today's digital world very much like we use to use the phone for verbal communications in the past. Should we make non-email users record and deliver every conversation they ever have while in office? Has not that kind of intrusion ALWAYS been considered too intrusive? Just imagine what kind of stuff we could have gotten fom JFK or FDR. Verbal Communications, except in the Nixon Oval Office, were assumed to be perishable and never retained.
Has the Freedom of Information Act's requirements now created a monster, that is trying to capture more than Is
now or was ever necessary in the past, just because, WE THINK, we can???
I say in the past, before the Freedom of Information Act MONSTER, that over four years in office, in daily contact with TOP SECRET information, that any Secretary of State's TOP SECRET un-recorder verbal indiscretions with authorized staff were limited to:
"110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were "up-classified" to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
they should be rewarded for a job well done. Now I realize perfection is what we seek but perfection is impossible achieve! Especially in the day to day operations of any NORMAL office!
On to another issue…
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,[7] Prosecutors,[8] Police[9] and All Persons[10] 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[11] turn a blind eye to "malicious or dishonest"[12] unconstitutional persecutions via a prosecutors[13] withholding of "evidence favorable to an accused"[14] with "knowingly false testimony by police officers,"[15] "under color of law." IT HAPPENS EVER SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA!!!!
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. The four individuals, in King v. Burwell, who live in Virginia, were suing because they did not want the tax credits offered to assist them in finding affordable healthcare. And we cannot hold our Article III Justice system accountable for "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[16] It is insanity of the first order!!!!
I have been to the FEDERAL District to the Circuit to the Supreme Court six times.[17] I am through the District (MOED Case #: 4:15CV1533HEA) and into the Circuit (U. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit Case# 15-3403) for me SEVENTH time.[18]
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,[19] 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."[20]
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[21] tell us, via their unrestricted absolutely immune power, "We the People," all evidence to the contrary, "sub silentio"[22] 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
What the Supreme Court has done and I quote the 2011, CONNICK v. THOMPSON, decision:
"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[23] spell of the self-servingly constructed[24] "excess of power"[25] in the Supreme Court that has constructed[26] ABSOLUTE POWER[27] 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)),[28] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)), [29] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),[30] the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[31] actions[32] 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)[33] and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[34] actions of "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)) [35] acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION[36] 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)),[37] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976), [38] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),[39] corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[40] actions[41] 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)[42] and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[43] actions of "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)) [44] acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION[45] 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)[46] to construct[47] an "excess of power"[48] to quash the "sense and reason"[49] for the "raison d'être"[50] of We the People's Constitution, Amendments, and the enactment of the constitutionally authorized ex industria[51] 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[52] 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[53] "absolutely immune" judge constructed[54] 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[55] "absolute immunity" in Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607). Randall v. Brigham (1868) was Judicial sophistry[56] 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[57] 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, [58] 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,[59] that has corrupted We the People's unalienable rights under color of law, I submit, Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7 (1868)[60] the origin of judicial criminal sophisticated[61] "absolute immunity," Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872)[62] origin of sophisticated[63] Judicial civil "absolute immunity," Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871) sophisticated[64] "absolute immunity" for racially motivate mass murder, United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875) sophisticated[65] 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[66] "absolute immunity" for racially motivated massacre (Colfax Riot/pogrom), United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883) sophisticated[67] "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[68] 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[69] 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[70] "absolute immunity," Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) prosecutorial sophisticated[71] "absolute immunity," Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) sophisticated[72] "absolute immunity" for forced sterilization, and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) sophisticated[73] "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)[74] and the Revolutionary War, Civil War, Constitution, World War I, World War II and the "statute's (§1983) raisons d'etre"[75] 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, Supreme Court FIVE, 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"[76] from their constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[77] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[78] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[79]
We the People have fallen under the despotic[80] spell of the constructed[81] "excess of power"[82] in the Supreme Court that has constructed[83] ABSOLUTE POWER[84] 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,[85] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [86] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers,"[87] corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[88] actions[89] of federal, state, local, and regional legislators are entitled to absolute immunity"[90] and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[91] actions of "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [92] acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION[93] of inalienable rights under color of law.
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,"[94] has and will continue to QUASH the "raison d'être"[95] 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[96] court order at the inception and center of this issue, in 2003, was NOT "a facially valid court order."[97] The issuing Judicial Officer did not have "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation"[98] for the stated charge[99] and thus it was "taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction."[100] Clearly to any facially[101] reckonable[102] 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."[103]
In the 10.41 years[104] 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."[105] Since the civil domestic issue has been ongoing for 10.41 years[106] "the "exclusionary rule"[107] is simply irrelevant… it is damages or nothing."[108] 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." [109]
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.[110]
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,[111] 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."[112] 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.[113] 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[114] absolute immunity with "no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right" and sought to establish a reckonable[115] 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[116] 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[117] 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[118] or calumnious[119] 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[120] is based on, he would have dismissed the charge as racially based "vexatious"[121] or "calumnious"[122] 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.[123]
How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[124] condoned[125] 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[126] 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."[127] 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"[128] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[129] prosecutorial[130]and enforcement[131] power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible "fantastic or delusional scenario."[132]
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[133]
This embarrasses the future and the past[134]
There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[135] 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.[136]
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission awarded themselves and others "absolute immunity"[137] from their constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[138] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[139] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[140]
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, law and equity,[141] 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, law and equity, in a government of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!
The ministerial[142] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[143] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional an "unlawful Conspiracy"[144] "before out of Court"[145] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[146]
"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." I say it NOW, Tuesday, July 05, 2016!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [147] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said respectively said it originally in 1871[148] at the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985).
Impeach[149] the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[150]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[151] 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"[155] 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"[158]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[159] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[160] "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.[161] 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."[162] We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. [163] We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. [164] We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. [165] We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. [166] 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)" [167] and compensate the victims?
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is TIME…
"simply because it is right."
Tuesday, July 05, 2016, 4:38:08 PM
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY,
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
(314) 514-5228
[1] Note this does not include Director Comey's reference - "With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level."
[1] "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" adopted by the United Nations on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 - PART II, Article 2, Section 3. "Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted."
[2] The Supremacy clause, Article VI § 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America, "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."
[3] Congress passed the § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (Title Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866. An excerpt from his remarks attached to his veto "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without invading the immunities of… the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order." "It is, therefore, assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment, for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose."
[4] "And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun." 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM e.g., George Bush's false representations of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi - Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis.
[7] "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)
[8] "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)
[9] 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)
[10] "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)
[12] Ibid., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
[13] Ibid., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
[14] 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))
[15] Ibid., Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[17] Petition for a writ of certiorari Docket for 07-11115, Title: David G. Jeep, Petitioner v. Philip E. Jones, Sr., et al., Petition for a writ of certiorari Docket for 11-8211, Title: David G. Jeep, Petitioner v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al., Petition for a writ of certiorari and Party name: David G. Jeep, Docket for 13-5193, Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al., Petition for a writ of certiorari Docket for 13-7030, Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. United States, David Gerard Jeep, Petition for a writ of certiorari Docket for 14-5551, Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. United States
[18] List of Docketed and DENIED Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States With links to the verbiage for same at DGJeep.Blogspot.com
[19] 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)
[20] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[21] "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)
[23] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[24] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[25] James Madison (1751–1836), the 4th President of the United States (1809 – 1817), often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," in his essay "Property" for the National Gazette March 27, 1792
[26] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[27] "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.
[28] 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.
[31] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[32] 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).
[33] 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
[34] 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).
[36] "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.
[37] 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.
[40] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[41] 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).
[42] 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
[43] 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).
[45] "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.
[46] "Floyd and Barker, reported by Coke, in 1608" Bradley v. Fisher - 80 U.S. 347 (1871), Pierson v. Ray - 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
[47] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[48] James Madison (1751–1836), the 4th President of the United States (1809 – 1817), often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," in his essay "Property" for the National Gazette March 27, 1792
[49] "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) and ""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)
[53] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[54] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[55] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[56] "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)
[57] "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)
[58] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[59] "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)
[60] Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) , asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was judicial sophistry at its finest, a judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary immunity from the UNQUALIFIED recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866 (18 USC §241-§242).
[61] Judicial sophistry is the "ABSOLUTE" WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[62] Likewise 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 UNQUALIFIED civil liability for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" enacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC §1983-§1985).
[63] Judicial sophistry is the "ABSOLUTE" WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[64] Judicial sophistry is the "ABSOLUTE" WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[65] Judicial sophistry is the "ABSOLUTE" WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[66] Judicial sophistry is the "ABSOLUTE" WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[67] Judicial sophistry is the "ABSOLUTE" WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[68] Judicial sophistry is the "ABSOLUTE" WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[69] Judicial sophistry is the "ABSOLUTE" WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[70] Judicial sophistry is the "ABSOLUTE" WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[71] Judicial sophistry is the "ABSOLUTE" WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[72] Judicial sophistry is the "ABSOLUTE" WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[73] Judicial sophistry is the "ABSOLUTE" WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[74] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792 "equally respect the rights of property and the property in rights"
[75] BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in OWEN V. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, 444 U. S. 622 (1980)
[77] 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"
[79] 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.
[80] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[81] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[82] James Madison (1751–1836), the 4th President of the United States (1809 – 1817), often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," in his essay "Property" for the National Gazette March 27, 1792
[83] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[84] "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.
[85] 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.
[88] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[89] 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).
[90] 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
[91] 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).
[93] "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.
[94] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[96] The fraud exception to rei publicae, ut sit finis litium, and nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadam causa is self evident to me, but alas I believe in the "sense and reason" of a Supreme Law of The Land. You assert judicial interpretation. Here we agree as noted in United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65 (1878) is applicable here "But there is an admitted exception to this general rule in cases where, by reason of something done by the successful party to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial or decision of the issue in the case. Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court."
Not only was the petitioner, the unsuccessful party, never given a chance to defend himself, he was never even given the specifics of the cause for the finding under which his son, his life and all his belongs were taken.
[97] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[98] The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
"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."
[99] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, where he is tasked by statute to "for good cause shown in the petition", issued a warrant without any probable cause. A Judges' power is necessarily limited by the Constitution and statute. A Judge can not issue a warrant without probable cause. Not only did the petition for an Ex-Parte Order of protection not list any abuse, what it did list was third party description of an incident in traffic court that was being handled by another geographical JURISDICTION, 150 miles away and different subject matter jurisdiction by a judicial officer that subsequently recused himself for his bad act.
For Judge Goeke to even list it as a probable cause violated the respondents right to the elementary principles of procedural due process.
[100] Mireles v. Waco,502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam)
[101] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[103] Hugo Black is Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. This article was delivered as the first James Madison Lecture at the New York University School of Law on February 17, 1960. Reprinted from NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Vol. 35, April, 1960.
[104] 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
[105] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[106] 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
[107] In criminal case the "exclusionary rule" is an obfuscation of the Government's Article III vicarious liability for due Process rights.
[108] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971) "Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing."
[109] Hugo Black is Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. This article was delivered as the first James Madison Lecture at the New York University School of Law on February 17, 1960. Reprinted from NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Vol. 35, April, 1960.
[110] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, where he is tasked by statute to "for good cause shown in the petition", issued a warrant without any probable cause. A Judges' power is necessarily limited by the Constitution and statute. A Judge can not issue a warrant without probable cause. Not only did the petition for an Ex-Parte Order of protection not list any abuse, what it did list was third party description of an incident in traffic court that was being handled by another geographical JURISDICTION, 150 miles away and different subject matter jurisdiction by a judicial officer that subsequently recused himself for his bad act.
For Judge Goeke to even list it as a probable cause violated the respondents right to the elementary principles of procedural due process.
[111] United States v. Agurs - 427 U.S. 103 (1976) "typified by Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury. [Footnote 7] In a series of subsequent cases, the Court has consistently held that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, [Footnote 8] and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury."
[114] 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.
[115] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia, ibid.
[116] After NINE years of Good Faith appeals, the issues of undeclared exigent circumstances and or Good Faith immunity are no longer available.
[117] The issue of a infamous was made pertinent in the Bill of rights, the 5th Amendment "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" And unlike the confirmation bias of Supreme Court precedent the 5th Amendment secured to the "person" a right and thus a remedy. 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 "But 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" 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. 137 (1803)
[118] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871) "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," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
[119] Floyd and Barker (1607) "And those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual Calumniations," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
[120] Our Federal Judiciary, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." so as to empower them to answer to Justice ALONE.
[121] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871) "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," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
[122] Floyd and Barker (1607) "And those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual Calumniations," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
[123] "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."
[124] 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).
[125] "It is difficult to conceive how, in society where rights and duties are relative and mutual, there can be tolerated those who are privileged to do injury legibus soluti, and still more difficult to imagine how such a privilege could be instituted or tolerated upon the principles of social good" (White v. Nicholls, 44 U.S. (3 How) 287 (1845)).
[126] 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).
[128] "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!!!!!
[129] ""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"
[130] 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)
[131] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[8] 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)
[135] 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[136] 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.
[138] 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"
[140] 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.
[141] 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.
[142] 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.
[144] 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."
[148] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[149] "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"
[151] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[152] 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
[153] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[154] 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.
[155] "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
[156] "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
[157] The Caging of America, Why do we lock up so many people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012
[160] 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.
[161] 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
[162] "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
[164] 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.
[172] "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
