99%
of the People Have NO RIGHTS
“A
country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
Wednesday, October 19, 2011, 12:44:30 PM
99% of "We the People[4]" Have
NO RIGHTS, why because the Royalist 1% says so. The
Royalist 1%, the Supreme Court and others, assert our rights are just “continual
calumniations” and/or “vexatious actions." (Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S.
335 (1871), Page
80 U. S. 348 and 349)[5]
"We the People" incorporated ourselves into a government of the
people, by the people, and FOR THE PEOPLE to indemnify each others “rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
States of America”[6] John Marshal
in Marbury v.
Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) confirmed and originally establish
binding Supreme Court precedent for the relevant common law with a quote from
Sir William Blackstone’s[7] Commentaries
on the Laws of England, the 18th-century treatise on
the common
law of England:
"(I)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."”
“It is a settled and invariable principle in the law… that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." [8] (emphasis and underlining added for clarity) Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Page 5 U. S. 163
This BINDING Supreme Court precedent and the, then,
recently enacted statute law[9] was all OVER
RIDEN sub silentio by the racist[10] post Civil War
Supreme Court in Randall v. Brigham 74 U. S. 7 Wall. 523 (December
term 1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S.
335 (1871) reaching back 263 years (1871 minus 1608) for a skewed
reading of the ROYALIST common law. I quote from Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S.
335 (1871):
“This was adjudged in the case of Floyd and Barker, reported by Coke, in 1608, where it was laid down that the judges of the realm could not be drawn in question for any supposed corruption impeaching the verity of their records, except before the King himself, and it was observed that if they were required to answer otherwise, it would "tend to the scandal and subversion of all justice, and those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual calumniations."” Page 80 U. S. 348
Their skewed reading of Lord Coke’s Reports in Floyd and Barker (1607) makes no allowance for its origin in the ROYALIST Court of the Star Chamber[11] nor the noted before out of court exception that absolute immunity creates. I quote Lord Coke’s Reports in Floyd and Barker (1607) here for the binding and relevant overlooked exception:
“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.” (Floyd and Barker (1607), (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I, In the Court of Star Chamber, First Published in the Reports, volume 12, page 23, the Third argument)
Absolute Immunity is diametrically opposed to the Rule
of LAW by definition, e.g. if someone is immune form the rule of law, there is
no rule of law. Absolute Immunity created a Royalist 1% that is
thus empowered to assert “99% of the People Have NO RIGHTS.” Absolute
immunity has been fabricated by and for our public ministers without the
requisite constitutional authority of "We the People." "We the People" with our Constitution created the Supreme
Law of the Land that holds that:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”[12]
The ministerial grant of “Absolute Immunity,”[13] by
and for public ministers is UNCONSTITUIONAL. Absolute Immunity as
applied within the government of the United States of America is a
massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and “unlawful
Conspiracy”[14] “before
out of Court”[15] to
obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.”[16]
Thomas Jefferson politely called it Sophistry when he
wrote:
“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.”[17]
I am its victim I find
it harder to be polite, I call it what it is the BULLSHIT of the
1%. I again cite Supreme Court Precedent/BULLSHIT:
“This provision of the law (immunity) is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge,[18] but for the benefit of (“We the People” being robbed and disenfranchised) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to (act without regard to our rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United states of America) exercise their functions with independence, and without fear of consequences."
"This immunity applies even when the judge is
accused of acting maliciously and corruptly."[19] “To be sure,
this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress
against a prosecutor (a judge, all persons integral in the judicial
process) whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of
liberty."[20] “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."[21] In short
the Supreme Court precedent asserts “absolute immunity… for all persons --
governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[22] (non-italic
parenthetical editing added for emphasis).
I say it again the ministerial grant of “Absolute
Immunity,”[23] by
and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial,
unconstitutional and “unlawful Conspiracy”[24] “before
out of Court”[25] to
obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.”[26]
“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, 2011!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and
1967. [27] Mr. Lowe
of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively
said it originally in 1871[28].
Impeach the Judiciary FIVE[29]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and
congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."
Before they have a
chance to screw-up Healthcare for
100 years!!!!!!
Impeach the Supreme
Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[30]"
denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured
and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of
substantive 7th Amendment[31] justice
between the government and the people, Connick,
District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 and
"fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v.
al-Kidd No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011!!!
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"”[32] for
the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[33] e.g.,
“To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,”[34] “The
Exclusionary Rule,” “Grounds for Impeachment.”
Most
of the 99% 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 8
years. I have suffered through 411 of illegal incarceration, 4 years
of homelessness and two psychological examinations. I ask you to
review Jeep v Obama 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case
#11-2425, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947,” Jeep v Bennett 08-1823,
“Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and the most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to
the Supreme Court 07-11115.”
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in
it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Wednesday, October 19,
2011, 12:44:30 PM, 2011 10-19-11 99% of the People Have NO RIGHTS
REV 01
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge,
1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred) www.DGJeep.blogspot.com
(314) 514-5228
[1] “And
if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by
far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its
abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international
circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not
fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child (or
a thief) with a gun.” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E.
WOLFGRAM Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis.
[2] “Damages”
By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday,
Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
(underlining, emphasis and internal footnote added for clarity)
[3] Mr.
Thompson in the New York Times in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No.
09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
[4] “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.” Per the requirement
of ratification by nine states, set by Article Seven of the Constitution, was
met when New Hampshire voted to ratify, on June 21, 1788.
[7] The Commentaries
on the Laws of England are an influential 18th-century treatise on
the common law of England by Sir William
Blackstone, originally published
by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, 1765-1769. The work is divided into four volumes, on the rights
of persons, the rights of things, of private wrongs and of public wrongs.
[8] Ibid. Chief
Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, 5
U.S. 163 (1803) quoting English common law
[9] The,
then, recently enacted § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) and § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (now Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985).
[10] I
say racist because the timing of these two precedents 1868 and 1871 is all
tooooo suspect when compared to the enactment of the POST CIVIL Civil Rights
Act 1866 and 1871. They were both in obvious if not deliberate
conspiratorial response to the § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) and § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (now Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) respectively.
[11] Over
time the Star Chamber had evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the
misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts. In
1641, the Long Parliament, led by John Pym and inflamed by the severe treatment
of John Lilburne, as well as that of other religious dissenters such as William
Prynne, Alexander Leighton, John Bastwick and Henry Burton, abolished the Star
Chamber with an Act of Parliament, the Habeas Corpus Act 1640.
[13] “absolute
immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who
were integral parts of the judicial process” for the “deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[14] 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.”
[17] The
Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS"
To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810
[18] It
should be noted that it protects the “malicious or corrupt judge” i.e., “Absolute
Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process”
[19] 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
[23] “absolute
immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who
were integral parts of the judicial process” for the “deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[24] 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.”
[29] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and
Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[30] 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
[31] 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.
[32] “absolute
immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who
were integral parts of the judicial process” for the “deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[34] 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 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, and no verdict against them for their failure
of duty can be obtained before a South Carolina jury, the State of South
Carolina, 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 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 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." Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 505. (Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S.
167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 178)
No comments:
Post a Comment