The fact that someone – ANYONE made only 105, NON-critical, errors (e-mail) in over 30,000 transactions
-
I think it is pretty much the best anyone can expect.
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
Thursday, September 08, 2016, 4:57:51 PM
FBI investigators reviewed the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in 2014. The investigation found "a very small number" contained classification markings at the time they were sent.
The change in servers and devices meant some emails were not saved but remained in the "slack space" of the previous ones. That led to the "painstaking undertaking" of piecing together millions of email fragments like a jigsaw puzzle, Mr. Comey said, and ultimately proved that she had not turned over all of her work-related email to the State Department as she and her aides have claimed.
Comey said that agents "found no evidence" that any of the emails not among the 30,000 returned in 2014 were deleted as a way to hide them, but he also said it was not a surprise to learn many emails were found outside of that batch.
"Our assessment is that, like many email users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails or emails were purged from the system when devices were changed," Comey said. "Because she was not using a government account — or even a commercial account like Gmail — there was no archiving at all of her emails, so it is not surprising that we discovered emails that were not on Secretary Clinton's system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department."
The State Department confirmed July 6 that it was aware of two emails that were marked confidential, the lowest level of classification, when they were sent. An aide sent the two emails to Clinton to prepare her for phone calls with foreign leaders, according to the New York Times.
In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.
One email, dated Aug. 2, 2012, noted that Kofi Annan, the former secretary general of the United Nations, was stepping down as special envoy trying to mediate the war in Syria. A second one, sent in April 2012, discussed Mrs. Clinton's call to the newly inaugurated president of Malawi.
Each was marked with a small notation, "(C)," indicating it contained information classified as "confidential."
Investigators also looked at e-mails outside those Clinton submitted and found one contained secret information and 2 contained confidential information.
Now what we have to realize in Hillary was largely dealing with an enemy that lives in caves and/or tents. ISIS / ISIL is not as sophisticated as the USSR in the cold war or even China today.
Now what we have to realize in Hillary was largely dealing with an enemy that lives in caves and/or tents. ISIS / ISIL is not as sophisticated as the USSR in the cold war or even China today.
Perfection does not exist in the human species, never has never will. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone can and should strive to do better. I did a little research, Human Error Website:
· The error rate for more complex logic errors is about 5%.
· Proofreading (error detection) catches about 90% of all nonword spelling errors and about 70% of all word spelling errors.
· For logic errors, error detection is far worse, often 50% or less.
· For omission errors, where we have left something out, correction rates are very low.
% of TOTAL
| ||
100%
|
30,000
|
Total E-mails submitted by the State Department, noted as from Hillary Clinton
|
0.3333%
|
100
|
In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.
|
0.0267%
|
8
|
Eight (8) chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification
|
0.1200%
|
36
|
36 chains contained secret information
|
0.0267%
|
8
|
remaining eight (8) contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.
|
0.0067%
|
2
|
Each (2) was marked with a small notation, "(C)," indicating it contained information classified as "confidential."
|
0.0100%
|
3
|
Investigators also looked at e-mails (2) outside those Clinton submitted and found one contained secret information and 2 contained confidential information.
|
0.3500%
|
105
|
Total E-mails QUESTIONED
|
Now we will never know whether any of these human mistakes ever put anyone at risk. You have to believe that to the best of her ability, she at least tried not to put anyone at risk. Although, if we had missed getting Osama bin Laden or the information had been used by foreign actors and American lives had been lost, I think we would have been told.
The fact that someone – ANYONE made only 105, NON-critical, errors in over 30,000 transactions, 4 years in office (1,460 calendar days, 1,040 workdays, 8,320 hours) is not, in my opinion "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" as Mr. Comey suggested that Mrs. Clinton and her aides were. I think it is pretty much the best anyone can expect.
New York Times - POLITICS
"F.B.I. Findings Damage Many of Hillary Clinton's Claims"
By STEVEN LEE MYERS - JULY 5, 2016
Washington Post Nation
"Six things we learned from the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's email"
By Mark Berman July 5
"FBI findings tear holes in Hillary Clinton's email defense"
By Lauren Carroll on Wednesday, July 6th, 2016 at 5:16 p.m.
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."
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 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 14thAmendment'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"???
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, for violation of their constitutional commission and CONDUCT UNBECOMING an Article III Judge.
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]
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, for violation of their constitutional commission and CONDUCT UNBECOMING an Article III Judge.
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.
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, for violation of their constitutional commission and CONDUCT UNBECOMING an Article III Judge.
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)
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."
...
[Message clipped]
