What are the constitutional grounds for impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice?
Friday, April 15, 2011, 4:19:51 PM
A Supreme Court Justice's "Grounds for impeachment" is and I quote from the Constitution for the United States of America, Article III., Section. 1., "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour."
Alexander Hamilton said it first and best in June of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, The Federalist No. 78, The Judiciary Department:
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void… To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
Criminal Behaviour is clearly Bad Behaviour! I quote from the FBI's Civil Rights CRIMINAL Statutes web page:
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Clearly to any sane person John Thompson's Due Process rights were denied most recently by the Supreme Court FIVE in the ruling . The Supreme Court FIVE incriminated themselves by acknowledging the deprivation of Thompson's rights in the facts of the case from 1985.
The Supreme Court FIVE then went on to deprive Mr. Thompson of his ALREADY established and confirmed, by A JURY, CONSTITUTIONAL equity rights for redress of grievances for the self-acknowledged bad acts by Connick, District Attorney, et al.
The Supreme Court FIVE confirmed and assumed criminal liability for Connick, District Attorney, et al's. bad acts, they then added additional criminal liability of their own criminal actions by denying Thompson's suit in equity rights ALREADY established by a proper proceeding for redress in the lower court.
Clearly to any sane person the Supreme Court FIVE's actions were both criminal Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 & 242 and unconstitutional a denial of Due Process (V and XIV Amendments) and the equity right to a redress of grievances (First Amendment).
If we ever want our RIGHTS as declared by the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America to be respected by those acting under color of law, we have to hold ALL those acting under color of law accountable to the CONSTITUTION and LAWS of the United States of America for their Good Behaviour. The Supreme Court FIVE's actions clearly violated the constitutionally assured rights of Mr. Thompson, by their own admission, and thus confirmed their BAD BEHAVIOUR. Their BAD BEHAVIOUR was motivated for self serving reasons to preserve their grant of ABSOLUTE POWER to themselves and "for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process""
The Constitution for the United States of America shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.
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))
Friday, April 15, 2011, 4:19:51 PM 2011 04-1511 What are the constitutional grounds for impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice REV 00.doc
 Mr. Thompson said it in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in his case, Connick v. Thompson, No. 09-571.
Thanks in advance
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316