"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals
are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress."
Individual Constitutional Rights have become
Too Inexpedient to Guarantee
Thursday, April 14, 2011, 9:25:58 AM
The Supreme Court recently confirmed in Connick v. Thompson, No. 09-57 with their ministerially created Law that individuals no longer have the guarantee of any enforceable "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[1] They say it is too much trouble to enforce an individual's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[2]
To get an individual's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[3] enforced, the individual has to show that several other people have had their "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[4] denied in timely and similar circumstances by the same responsible party acting under color of law. No one has any responsibility at all to the INDIVIDUAL to assure a person's INDIVIDUAL "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[5]
To get the constitutional enforcement of "We the People's individuals "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[6] you have to prove, at your own expense, that the offending party acting under color of law has committed the same CRIME several times to several other individuals before it becomes an enforceable CRIME and Equity loss to you. People have been lynched, destroyed and humiliated by this way of thinking without protection of their constitutionally SECURED INDIVIDUAL "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[7]
This is insanity! "Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." (Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374, Congressman Lowe of Kansas, March 31, 1871)
Per the Supreme Courts majority[8] in Connick v. Thompson, No. 09-57 as long as the party acting under color of law acts randomly with their malice, corruption and incompetence as regards "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[9] it is acceptable to the current majority[10] of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Now this interpretation of constitutional law goes against the inherent spirit of the Constitutionally assured Federal Government's responsibility for the enforcement of rights per the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments:
Fourth - 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.
Fifth - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
and
Fourteenth - No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now after the Civil War, "We the People" passed The Civil Rights Act of 1871 to assure the newly emancipated persons their INDIVIDUAL "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,"[11] now codified into law as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983:
Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and… if such acts include kidnapping[12] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill,[13] shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
and
Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress
Both Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 appear even today to assure the individual person that they have individually enforceable rights vested in the PERSON, not the group, not the association, not the race, not the sexual orientation, not the previous condition of servitude.
"We the People" wrote our Constitution in terms of the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, the person. But, that is not the way the self-serving Supreme Court of the United States of America sees it. They are not interpreting the law they are AT WAR WITH THE CONSTITUTION and are attempting to change constitutional via their judicially order MINISTERIALLY MADE LAW.
It is STILL as declared on April 1, 1871 by Congressman Rainey of South Carolina, "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." (Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 394)
We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America e.g., To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process, The Exclusionary Rule, Grounds for Impeachment (Jeep v Obama, Jeep v United States of America (10-1947), Jeep v Jones (07-11115))
DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
Thursday, April 14, 2011, 9:25:58 AM -- 2001 04-14-11 Constitutional Rights have become Too Inexpedient to Guarantee REV 00.doc
[8] Supreme Court FIVE - Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, & Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[10] Supreme Court FIVE - Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, & Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[13] I doubt anyone could disagree with Mr. Thompson's assertion of attempted MURDER: "If I'd spilled hot coffee on myself, I could have sued the person who served me the coffee," he said. "But I can't sue the prosecutors who nearly murdered me."
--
Thanks in advance
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
No comments:
Post a Comment