Jane Crow Discrimination =
Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!
MORE to come Fall/Winter of 2021
On November 3, 2003 (7:55 pm),
I was getting ready to watch Monday
Night Football with my son. There was
a knock on the front door. My wife had just
called my son from the garage. She was just
coming home. I thus went to answer the front
door alone.
Two police officers, with guns
came in. They served me with an exparte order
of protection and explained that they were going force me from my home.
It is an accepted legal axiom
“possession is 9/10 of the law.” I would
assert in the “Jane
Crow era” possession is 10/10 of the law.
It has been nearly 15 years, and
to this date, the deprivation of my paternal, property and liberty rights WITHOUT
reasonable probable cause has never been recognized. I was, literally, forced into a “Jane Crow era”
all-consuming conspiracy
against rights (18 U.S. Code § 241).
Since then I have been impoverished / homeless for
11 years, I was jailed for 411 days for charges
that were dismissed all in my pursuit of my appeal to the Article
III “Black
Robed Royalist."
The “Jane Crow” era has NOW been PROVEN by socioeconomic statistical RESEARCH. "Jane Crow" discrimination is REAL! FATHERS ARE DISFAVORED by domestic relations law
in the United States of America! With the
birth rate down by 48% since 1960 and teen pregnancy down by 65% just since 1990
-- single motherhood is UP by 700% since 1960 (40% of births were to single mothers
in 2015 v. 1960's 5%). This affects 35% of society (40%-5%=35%). Per the report's authors, these figures stand
without regard to race or income. It has been clearly called out by the Supreme
Court prior, "The essence of the constitutional right to equal protection of
the law is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons
affected” (McCabe v.
Atchison, T. &;; S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914))
The law is on OUR SIDE, it is just that we do not have ACCESS
to DUE PROCESS OF LAW to prove it!!!
A principle according to which
the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision or arbitral
award.
"MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY AMERICAN
DOMESTIC RELATION LAW."
With the birth rate down by 48%
since 1960 and teen pregnancy down by 65% just since 1990 -- single motherhood is
UP by 700% since 1960. 40% of all births
in the United States of America were to single mothers in 2015. Why? In the "Jane
Crow" era "MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY AMERICAN DOMESTIC RELATION LAW."
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2017/12/re-case-no-417-cv-02690-agf-jeep-v_19.html
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2017/12/re-case-no-417-cv-02690-agf-jeep-v.html
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 www.DGJeep.com
David Jeep, Petitioner United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari
and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed David G. Jeep Party name:
David Jeep
“The Emperor Has No Clothes” The
Black Robed Royalist Article III judiciary DOES NOT HAVE the proverbial “clothes”
to cover the naked criminality[1] for the 12.89-years of malice, corruption, sincere
ignorance and conscientious stupidity[2] on this deprivation of rights issue.
Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner
v. United States
David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari
and motion for leave to proceed in forma David G. JeepParty name: David Gerard Jeep
Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner
v. United States
David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari
and motion for leave to proceed in forma David G. JeepParty name: David Gerard Jeep
Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner
v. United States
David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari
and motion for leave to proceed in forma David G. JeepParty name: David Gerard Jeep
Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner
v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit David G. Jeep Party name:David Gerard Jeep
Title: David G. Jeep, Petitioner
v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
David G. Jeep, Petitioner Barack
H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and Party name: David G.
Jeep
Title: David G. Jeep, Petitioner
v. Philip E. Jones, Sr., et al.
David G. Jeep, Petitioner Philip
E. Jones, Sr., et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition
for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed Party name: David G. Jeep
"Jane Crow"
is REAL! With the birth rate down by 48%
since 1960 and teen pregnancy down by 65% just since 1990 -- single motherhood is
UP by 700% since 1960. [1] 40% of all births
in the United States of America were to single mothers in 2015. Why? In
the "Jane Crow" era "MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY AMERICAN DOMESTIC RELATION
LAW."
"Academics have long wondered
how to encourage marriage, because two parents tend to have more resources than
one."
Why are two-parent household no
longer as dominant as in the past? A recent
study study[1] shows - it is not race, it is not income.
In the "Jane Crow"
era THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS TO anybody with their eyes OPEN.
MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY AMERICAN
DOMESTIC RELATION LAW.
The American legal system in America
favors woman as custodial parents. The best
men can hope for is part-time parenting and child support payments - AT BEST!! The
issue for your consideration is - can men be disfavored under the 14th Amendment's
requirement for "equal protection of the law?
We have been here before:
“Constitutional provisions, adopted
in the interest of liberty and for the pur-pose of securing, through national legislation,
if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship
have been so con-strued as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish,
which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished
by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determi-nation
of these cases should have been materially controlled by considera-tions of mere
expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction
that the court has departed from the familiar rule requir-ing, in the interpretation
of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which
they were adopted.”[3]
The Judiciary got away with it
AGAIN because they have AGAIN put themselves above Due Process of Law's GROUNDING
jury requirement.
The Gravamen
The asserted uncontested, undeniable,
NOW-exigent and “reckonable” gravamen is an ex parte court order of protection from
13.60 years, ago they took my son, my home and all my most valued worldly possession,
threw me out on the street and then forced me into a disputed divorce where my criminal
adversaries had been empowered by all that has been fraudulently and criminally
taken from me. I have been struggling to
expose this for 13.60 years with 411 days in jail, 8 trips through the federal court
system and this my 8th
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, the
prior six were denied, i.e., 07-11115,
11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, 14-5551, 14-10088 and 15-8884. The current
"As mailed to the Clerk and ALL the Justices Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari - a question - UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
EIGHTH CIRCUIT - Case
No: 17-1246 - Mandate Filed: 05/22/2017 Entry ID: 4538537 (with the 4th paragraph
moved up from the reference 8th endnote)"
From the instant of day one Monday
November 03, 2003 08:00 PM at the start of Monday Night Football - New
England PATRIOTS v Denver BRONCOS,[4] this has been FRAUD
ON THE COURT, coram non judice, an infamously-scandalous extra-judicial gravamen,
by omnipotent moral busybodies, more specifically, an unconstitutional, as noted
via Supreme Court precedent, deprivation of rights under color of law:
an exparte non-exigent order of
protection, listing only an alleged non-exigent misdemeanor traffic violation as
unreasonable probable cause…
If the reckonable[13] Supreme Law of the Land, Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII,
VIII &; XIV, statutes 42 USC §1983&;1985 Civil Action for the Deprivation
of Rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) imposes upon Violence Against
Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and numerous Article III precedents, as noted above, do
not restrict a judicial act’s jurisdiction the candid citizen must confess as rhetorically
asserted by Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address,[14]
Monday, March 4, 1861, “We the People” “have ceased to be their own rulers” and
“We the People” have resigned ourselves into the hands of an infamously-scandalous
extra-judicial group of “omnipotent moral busybodies,”[15]
claiming delegated respondeat superior infamously-scandalous extra-judicial authority,
acting against our liberty at any time, for any reason without recourse to the due
process of the Supreme Law of the Land.
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,[16]
Prosecutors,[17] Police[18] and
All Persons[19] 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[20] turn a blind eye to “malicious or dishonest”[21] unconstitutional persecutions via a prosecutors[22] withholding of “evidence favorable to an accused”[23] with “knowingly false testimony by police officers,”[24] “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"[25] It is insanity of the first order!!!!
I have been to the FEDERAL District
to the Circuit to the Supreme Court six times.[26] 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.[27]
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,[28]
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.”[29]
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[30] tell us, via their unrestricted absolutely immune power,
“We the People,” all evidence to the contrary, “sub silentio”[31]
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[32] spell of the self-servingly constructed[33] “excess
of power”[34] in the Supreme Court that has constructed[35] ABSOLUTE POWER[36] 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)),[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] the 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.
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)),[46] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor
Imbler v. Pachtman,
424 U. S. 428 (1976), [47] the “knowingly false testimony
by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 345 (1983)),[48] corrupt, malicious, dishonest,
sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[49] actions[50] 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)[51]
and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[52] actions of “all persons -- governmental or otherwise --
who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 345 (1983)) [53] acting under color of law to render
ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION[54] 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)[55] to construct[56] an “excess of
power”[57] to quash the “sense and reason”[58] for the “raison d'être”[59] of
We the People’s Constitution, Amendments, and the enactment of the constitutionally
authorized ex industria[60] 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[61] 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[62] “absolutely immune”
judge constructed[63] 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[64] “absolute
immunity” in Randall
v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) asserting Floyd &; Barker (Star Chamber
1607). Randall v. Brigham (1868) was Judicial
sophistry[65] 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[66] 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,
[67] 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,[68] that has corrupted We the People’s unalienable rights
under color of law, I submit, Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7 (1868)[69] the origin of judicial criminal sophisticated[70] “absolute immunity,” Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall.
335 (1872)[71] origin of sophisticated[72] Judicial civil “absolute immunity,” Blyew v. United States,
80 U.S. 581 (1871) sophisticated[73] “absolute immunity”
for racially motivate mass murder, United States
v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875) sophisticated[74] 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[75]
“absolute immunity” for racially motivated massacre (Colfax Riot/pogrom), United States v. Harris,
106 U.S. 629 (1883) sophisticated[76] “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[77] 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[78] 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[79] “absolute immunity,” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.
S. 409 (1976) prosecutorial sophisticated[80] “absolute
immunity,” Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. 349 (1978) sophisticated[81] “absolute immunity”
for forced sterilization, and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S.
325 (1983) sophisticated[82] “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)[83] and the Revolutionary
War, Civil War, Constitution, World War I, World War II and the “statute’s (§1983)
raisons d'etre”[84] 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”[85] from their constitutional commission to “do
not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”[86] i.e., the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?”[87] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental
accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[88]
We the People have fallen under
the despotic[89] spell of the constructed[90] “excess of power”[91] in the Supreme
Court that has constructed[92] ABSOLUTE POWER[93] 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,[94] the
“malicious or dishonest” prosecutor, [95] the “knowingly
false testimony by police officers,"[96] corrupt, malicious,
dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[97]
actions[98] of federal, state, local, and regional legislators
are entitled to absolute immunity”[99] and the malicious,
corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[100] actions of “all persons -- governmental or otherwise
-- who were integral parts of the judicial process” [101]
acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION[102]
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,”[103] has and will continue to QUASH the “raison
d'être”[104] 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[105] court order at the inception and center of this issue,
in 2003, was NOT “a facially valid court order.”[106] The issuing Judicial Officer did not have “probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation”[107] for the stated
charge[108] and thus it was "taken in a complete absence
of all jurisdiction."[109] Clearly to any facially[110]
reckonable[111] 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."[112]
In the 10.41 years[113] 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.”[114] Since the civil domestic issue has been ongoing
for 10.41 years[115] “the "exclusionary rule"[116] is simply irrelevant… it is damages or nothing.”[117] 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.” [118]
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.[119]
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,[120] 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.”[121] 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.[122]
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[123] absolute immunity with “no remedy for the violation
of a vested legal right” and sought to establish a reckonable[124] 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[125] 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[126]
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[127] or calumnious[128] 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[129] is based on, he would have dismissed the charge as racially
based “vexatious”[130] or “calumnious”[131] 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.[132]
How can the malice, corruption,
dishonesty and incompetence[133] condoned[134] 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[135] 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.”[136] 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”[137]
ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[138] prosecutorial[139]and enforcement[140] power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible
“fantastic or delusional scenario.”[141]
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[142]
This embarrasses the future and the past[143]
There are no royal absolutely
immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[144] 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.[145]
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated
authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission awarded themselves
and others “absolute immunity”[146] from their constitutional
commission to “do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”[147] i.e., the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?”[148] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental
accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[149]
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,[150] 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[151] grant of “Absolute Immunity,”[152]
by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional
an “unlawful Conspiracy”[153] “before out of Court”[154] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.”[155]
“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, Sunday, August 06, 2017!!! Justice
William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [156] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina
respectively said respectively said it originally in 1871[157]
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[158]
the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[159]
for condoning the denial of a
Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[160] 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”[164] 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"[167]" for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[168] e.g., “To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,”[169] “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.[170] 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.”[171]
We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. [172] We can spend
$1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[173] We can make-work
to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. [174] We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5
Trillion. [175]
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)” [176] and compensate the victims?
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is TIME…
“simply because it is right.”
Sunday, August 06, 2017, 3:30:24
PM
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY,
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
(314) 514-5228
[2] "But in some parts of the country, the marriageable
male is no longer living up to his name, according to a new paper from researchers
at the University of Maryland.
Economics professor Melissa Kearney,
the study's co-author, wanted to explore how fracking booms have affected the share
of babies born outside of marriage. Historically, bursts of prosperity among blue-collar
men have reduced the share of kids born to unwed parents.
[4] I apologize for the excess of information, but I have
been RELIVING the instant EVERYDAY
“Consequently, it (the judge’s order)
can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all
jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d
331 (1978) (citation omitted).” Id.”.
As an additional controlling relevant
issue, Judge Goeke never provided due process to the petitioner. Goeke signed the order and then handed the issue
off to Family Court Commissioner Jones. As
a Family Court Commissioner, of LIMITED jurisdiction, Jones had no jurisdiction
over the criminal issue of a DWI:
[I]f a probate judge, with jurisdiction
over only wills and estates, should try a criminal case, he would be acting in the
clear absence of jurisdiction and would not be immune from liability for his action;
on the other hand, if a judge of a criminal court should convict a defendant of
a nonexistent crime, he would merely be acting in excess of his jurisdiction and
would be immune.
The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic
violation does not provide REASONABLE probable cause for an ex parte order of protection. Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten
petition dated 11-03-03 as provided IN THE PETITION, THERE WAS A COMPLETE ABSENCE
OF JURISDICTION for the stated charge.
[7] “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, Certiorari to the Supreme Court, No. 09–571. Argued
October 6, 2010—Decided March 29, 2011
[9] See Original Petition dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016, pages
26-33
[10] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix
v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[14] Parenthetical text added for clarity here
[15] C. S. Lewis prescient assertion: “Of all tyrannies, a
tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be
satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end
for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
[16] “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)
[17] “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)
[18] 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)
[19] “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)
[21] Ibid., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
[22] Ibid., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
[23] 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))
[24] Ibid., Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[26] 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
[27] 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
[28] 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)
[29] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[30] “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)
[32] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[33] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of “constructive
power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[34] 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
[35] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of “constructive
power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[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] 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.
[49] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance
and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King “Strength to Love” 1963
[50] 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).
[51] 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
[52] 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).
[54] “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.
[55] “Floyd and Barker, reported by Coke, in 1608” Bradley
v. Fisher - 80 U.S. 347 (1871), Pierson v. Ray - 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
[56] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of “constructive
power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[57] 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
[58] "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)
[62] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance
and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King “Strength to Love” 1963
[63] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of “constructive
power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[64] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of “constructive
power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[65] “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)
[66] “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)
[67] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of “constructive
power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[68] “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)
[69] 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).
[70] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of sophistication,
ibid.
[71] 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).
[72] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of sophistication,
ibid.
[73] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of sophistication,
ibid.
[74] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of sophistication,
ibid.
[75] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of sophistication,
ibid.
[76] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of sophistication,
ibid.
[77] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of sophistication,
ibid.
[78] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of sophistication,
ibid.
[79] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of sophistication,
ibid.
[80] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of sophistication,
ibid.
[81] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of sophistication,
ibid.
[82] Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of sophistication,
ibid.
[83] “Property” James Madison Essays for the National Gazette
1791- 1792 “equally respect the rights of property and the property in rights”
[84] BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in OWEN
V. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, 444 U. S. 622 (1980)
[86] 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”
[88] 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.
[89] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[90] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of “constructive
power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[91] 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
[92] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of “constructive
power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[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] 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.
[97] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance
and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King “Strength to Love” 1963
[98] 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).
[99] 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
[100] 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).
[102] “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.
[103] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of “constructive
power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[105] 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.
[106] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[107] 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.”
[108] 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.
[109] Mireles v. Waco,502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116
L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam)
[110] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[112] 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.
[113] 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
[114] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[115] 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
[116] In criminal case the “exclusionary rule” is an obfuscation
of the Government’s Article III vicarious liability for due Process rights.
[117] 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.”
[118] 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.
[119] 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.
[120] 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.”
[123] 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.
[124] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic
of any law worthy of the name." Antonin
Scalia, ibid.
[125] After NINE years of Good Faith appeals, the issues of
undeclared exigent circumstances and or Good Faith immunity are no longer available.
[126] 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)
[127] 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,
[128] 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,
[129] 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.
[130] 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,
[131] 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,
[132] “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.”
[133] 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).
[134] “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)).
[135] 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).
[137] “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!!!!!
[138] ""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"
[139] 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)
[140] 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)
[144] 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[145] 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.
[147] 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”
[149] 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.
[150] 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.
[151] 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.
[153] 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.”
[157] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 &; 394
[158] “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”
[160] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy
in BOTH law and equity
[161] 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
[162] 1st Amendment, “Congress shall make no law abridging the
right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
[163] 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.
[164] “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere
ignorance and conscientious stupidity” (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
[165] “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
[166] The Caging of America, Why do we lock up so many people?
by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012
[169] 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.
[170] 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
[171] “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
[173] 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.
[181] “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
