Saturday, August 6, 2011

The Idea of Nine Persons Unaccountable to any electorate Ruling a DEVELOPED DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY Is absurd in the MODERN world today


The Idea of Nine Persons Unaccountable to any electorate Ruling a DEVELOPED DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY
Is absurd in the MODERN world today
Saturday, August 06, 2011, 9:35:49 AM

The Idea of Nine Persons with life time appointments, the United States Supreme Court, unaccountable to any electorate,[1] ruling the Democratic United States of America, the purported Leader of the Free World is absurd in today's MODERN world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
What has the Supreme Court ever championed besides outdated stale ideas long past their time? 
Segregation, the Supreme Court forced America's victorious Civil War majority, as represented by both houses of congress and the President, to institutionalize SEGREGATION.  The Civil Rights Act 1876 that Congress passed, the President signed in 1876 OUTLAWED segregation, The Supreme Court created government enforced SEGREGATION by voiding the Civil Rights Act 1876It was and is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim Crow, separate and unequal, Plessy v. Ferguson's, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) institutionalized separate and UNEQUAL for 100 years UNTIL We the People passed the Civil Rights Act 1964 a virtual mirror image of the Civil Rights Act 1876 We the People had passed before.  It was and is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Liberty of Contract, under the sophistry of an assertion of liberty, the Supreme Court for 80 years at the start of the Industrial Revolution (1805-1933) favored Property rights over the Rights of Workers i.e., the rights of the few (property) over the rights of the many (workers).  It was and is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Warren Court supposedly scores big with their fight for integration, that ignores the FACT that the Supreme Court created segregation and separate and UNEQUAL by VOIDING the Civil Rights Act 1876 prohibition of segregation 100 years prior!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  It was and is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Warren Court supposedly scores big with their fight for Civil Criminal Rights i.e., Miranda rights, the Exclusionary Rule and criminal rights in general and then DENIES any and all liability for those rights with Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967).   The later courts hand out Absolute Immunity for the deprivation of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[2] like it was Halloween Candy until NO ONE in the Judicial Process[3] is EVER liable for "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[4]  It was and is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Burger (69-86) / Rehnquist (86-05) courts while trying to undo the Exclusionary Rule, what the Warren Court had supposedly done for the Civil Rights of the accused, created the largest per capita prison population in the world.  "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners. We currently incarcerate 756 inmates per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the average worldwide of 158 for every 100,000."[5]  Without substantially affecting the crime rate, while in New York:

"Twenty years ago most criminologists and sociologists would have doubted that a metropolis could reduce this kind of crime by so much. Although the scale of New York City's success is now well known and documented, most people may not realize that the city's experience showed many of modern America's dominant assumptions concerning crime to be flat wrong, including that lowering crime requires first tackling poverty, unemployment and drug use and that it requires throwing many people in jail or moving minorities out of city centers. Instead New York made giant strides toward solving its crime problem without major changes in its racial and ethnic profile; it did so without lowering poverty and unemployment more than other cities; and it did so without either winning its war on drugs or participating in the mass incarceration that has taken place throughout the rest of the nation."[6]

I repeat the crime rate went down without "throwing many people in jail," and without "participating in the mass incarceration that has taken place throughout the rest of the nation."
The "Jane Crow"[7] Era,[8] where a man's rights in family court are secondary to a woman's.  The Federal Courts, via Supreme Court Precedent, like to assert that the 14th Amendment does not apply to Family Law.  Who in their right mind, other than a lazy corrupt, malicious and incompetent Judiciary, would ever relinquish their Constitutional Due Process Right when it CONCERNS EVERYTHING in your life from your house, to your little league baseball glove, to your family heirlooms, to your own flesh blood your children!!!!!!!!!!    It was and is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Today to COVER their own exposed posterior they assert the SOPHISTRY of a "stringent standard of fault" with "difficult problems of proof"[9] to cover up their own blatant actus reus and mens rea with their assertion of absolute immunity for the malice, corruption and incompetents of "all persons that were integral in their Judicial Process"[10]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  
The ruling in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 is manifest UNEQUAL protection of the law[11] in open violation of the 14th Amendment!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Per the ruling in Connick the first 4 victims +/- have no redress-able grievance for the denial of rights but the 5th victim +/- has redress-able grievance rights?  It is a criminal conspiracy to cover up malice, corruption and incompetents.  Any organization that allows 5 violations in a row on the same issue is not only malicious criminal and incompetent in each of those violations, but mind-bogglingly STUPID.  It is CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY to cover up random acts of malice, corruption and incompetents at We the People's expense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  As long as the acts are random, not repeated 4 +/- in row, there is no REDRESSABLE GRIEVANCE.  Congress can not lawfully abridge a redress of grievances, but the Supreme Court can rule, they are not bound by the constitution.  The first 4 victims have no First Amendment[12] protection.  It was and is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me where my logic is WRONG?

"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.[13]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[14].

I realize it sounds crazy it sounds euber-emphatic but…

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[15]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[16]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[17] 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"" for the deprivation of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[18] 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 "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)
Saturday, August 06, 2011, 9:35:49 AM, 2011 08-05-11 The Idea of Nine Persons Unaccountable to any electorate Ruling a DEVEL-OPED DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY Is absurd in the MODERN world today Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 4-46-22 PM REV 00.doc


[1] The only accountability We the People have is the EUBER-EMPHATIC process of IMPEACHMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[5] "Why We Must Fix Our Prisons", By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: March 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
[6] "How New York Beat Crime" as described by Franklin E. Zimring in the August 2011 issue of Scientific American
[7] The illegal judicial preference for a Mother's (woman) rights over a Father's (man) rights with the UNEQUAL protection of the law.
[8] "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." "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
[9] The standard restated in CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) requires the innocent victim in their deprived state, be it incarcerated, indigent or just deprived on the street to find multiple other victims who have had their rights deprived in similar repeated and timely situations by the same perpetrator before JUSTICE can applied for in the original victims case.  Unequal Protection of the law, the first 4 victims +/- have no redress-able grievance for denial of rights but the 5th victim +/- has redress-able grievance rights?
[11] Per the ruling in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 the first 4 victims +/- have no redress-able grievance for denial of rights but the 5th victim +/- has redress-able grievance rights?
[12] Constitutionally secured First Amendment lawfully un-abridge-able right: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[14] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[16] 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"
[17] 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.


--
Thanks in advance



"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
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

Friday, August 5, 2011

What do “We the People” gain from immunity[1]? I forgot “We the People” are 5 times more likely to be in Jail!


What do "We the People" gain from immunity[1]?
We are 5 times more likely to be in Jail!
The FLAW in American Justice
Friday, August 05, 2011, 9:17:50 AM

What do We the People gain from immunity?  The Supreme Court has tried to convince us that We the People get a smooth operating Judicial Process.  I do not doubt that a bit!!!  Without liability for Due Process of Law, without liability for competency, without any resistance to malice and corruption there is no barrier to a smooth operating Judicial Process.
But, is a smooth operating judicial process worth the cost.  Is the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[2] a very dear price to have to pay?
I for got, in the United States of America, We the People, are 5 times more likely to be in jail.  "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners. We currently incarcerate 756 inmates per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the average worldwide of 158 for every 100,000."[3]  I refuse to believe we are 5 times as criminal as any other country.  To illustrate further support on the positive side of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America,"[4] statistics revealing a spectacular crime drop in the Big Apple throughout the 1990s and 2000s — I cite  "How New York Beat Crime" as described by Franklin E. Zimring in the August 2011 issue of Scientific American:
"Twenty years ago most criminologists and sociologists would have doubted that a metropolis could reduce this kind of crime by so much. Although the scale of New York City's success is now well known and documented, most people may not realize that the city's experience showed many of modern America's dominant assumptions concerning crime to be flat wrong, including that lowering crime requires first tackling poverty, unemployment and drug use and that it requires throwing many people in jail or moving minorities out of city centers. Instead New York made giant strides toward solving its crime problem without major changes in its racial and ethnic profile; it did so without lowering poverty and unemployment more than other cities; and it did so without either winning its war on drugs or participating in the mass incarceration that has taken place throughout the rest of the nation."
I repeat the crime rate went down without "throwing many people in jail," and without "participating in the mass incarceration that has taken place throughout the rest of the nation."
Was not the raison d'etre for our constitution the desire to establish Justice with "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[5] with Due Process of Law?  Is not "absolute immunity" "before out of court[6]" the abrogation of Due Process of Law?   Without Due Process of Law, without our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America,"[7] We the People can not defend our life liberty or property without a resort to violence?  Civilization's raison d'etre is to establish law and order in the place of unrestricted chaos and violence.

With "absolute immunity" for all persons integral in the
Judicial Process.
We the People lose EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!
We the People gain NOTHING!!!!!!

The Supreme Court hopes to COVER-UP their malice, corruption and incompetence, blatant actus reus and mens rea, with BULLSHIT i.e., sophistry.  The Supreme Court freely and unashamedly admits actus reus and mens rea[8] with their criminal conspiratorial grant of absolute immunity, before out of court,[9] as it protects the "malicious or corrupt judge."[10] That is to say also the "malicious or corrupt" Prosecutor,[11] Police and "all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process."[12] I quote from the legal precedent Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871)[13] @ Page 80 U. S. 349:
"It is a principle of our law ("absolute Immunity") 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; (blatant actus reus and mens rea) therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (ALL BULLSHIT, We the People are being robbed and disenfranchised) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions" (ALL BULLSHIT, competency, corruption, and malice are in the opinion of the Supreme Curt of the United States of America "vexatious actions")
"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 (ALL BULLSHIT, We the People are 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) to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences."  (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.) (PIERSON V. RAY, 386 U. S. 547 (1967)) non-italic parenthetical editing added for emphasis).[14]

We the People are deprived of the protection of life, liberty and property with "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[15]  We the People are ROBBED, victimized and left at the discretion of ANY and ALL of the corrupt, malicious and incompetent  "persons that were integral in the Judicial Process"[16] without ANY hope of redress of grievances.[17]
They took my son, they took my home, they took my liberty[18] and I am suppose to just capitulate because they have conjured up out of BULLSHIT, sophistry and nothingness this corrupt, malicious and incompetent grant of Absolute Immunity???????? 
The more modern attempt at justification of Absolute Immunity, before out of court,[19] comes from Judge Learned Hand.  I say that almost tongue in cheek but the real name of the much-honored ignorant judicial terrorist is Judge Learned Hand.  Judge Learned Hand on immunity Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d at 581 and as referenced in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983):
"The justification for doing so (the grant of immunity) is that it is impossible to know whether the claim is well founded until the case has been tried (This is an outright lie or at best a false statement, the prosecutors and Judges get unfounded claims and dismiss cases all the time for lack of evidence.  That is part of the job as professionals in the judicial process.), and that to submit all officials,(only the ones for whom "probable cause" can be substantiated) the innocent as well as the guilty, to the burden of a trial and to the inevitable danger (Where is there "inevitable danger" in a credible system of JUSTICE?) of its outcome would dampen the ardor (I unabashedly want to dampen the ardor of those that would maliciously, corruptly or INCOMPETENTLY persecute the innocent) of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible, in the unflinching discharge of their duties (their duties are based on and empowered by the grant of power with the prerequisite of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America). Again and again the public interest calls for action which may turn out to be founded on a mistake,[20] in the face of which an official may later find himself hard put to it to satisfy a jury of his good faith. There must indeed be means of punishing public officers who have been truant to their duties, but that is quite another matter from exposing such as have been honestly mistaken to suit by anyone who has suffered from their errors. As is so often the case, the answer must be found in a balance between the evils inevitable in either alternative. In this instance, it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation..."[21] (Non-italic parenthetical editing and emphasis added)
This entire argument is sophistry, false on its FACE, it asserts as a premise "There must indeed be means of punishing public officers" the complete opposite of what it concludes "it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs" i.e., immunity for "public officers."
The TERRORIST ministerial grant for terrorist ministers and by terrorist ministers of "Absolute Immunity," [22] is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional, "unlawful Conspiracy,"[23] "before out of Court"[24] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions." [25] 
The Justice Department, The Judiciary, The President have NO POWER to ministerially grant themselves or others "Absolute Immunity."[26]  The United States Constitution repeats itself twice in proclaiming, "No Title of Nobility[27] shall be granted by the United States[28]" and "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility.[29]

We the People lose EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!
We the People gain NOTHING!!!!!!

 "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. [30]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[31]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[32]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[33]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[34] 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"" for the deprivation of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[35] 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 "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)
Friday, August 05, 2011, 9:17:50 AM, 2011 08-05-11 What do We the People gain from immunity - 5 times the rate of incarceration REV 99RX.doc


[1] "Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process" Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) @ Page 80 U. S. 349) (origin Judicial "Absolute Immunity), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial "Absolute Immunity"), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (Judicial "Absolute Immunity"), Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (Judicial "Absolute Immunity"), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) "Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process"
[3] "Why We Must Fix Our Prisons", By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: March 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
[6] 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."
[8] "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" Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) @ Page 80 U. S. 349.  "to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[9] 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."
[10] Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) @ Page 80 U. S. 349) (origin Judicial "Absolute Immunity), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial "Absolute Immunity"), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (Judicial "Absolute Immunity"), Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (Judicial "Absolute Immunity"), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) ("Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[11] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial "Absolute Immunity")
[12] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) ("Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[13] It should be noted that this precedent, Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871), and the only and other precedent preceding it Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) were both in deliberate response to § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (now Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) and the § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) respectively.
[14] Uneditted text from Page 80 U. S. 349 "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."  (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.  ) (PIERSON V. RAY, 386 U. S. 547 (1967))
[17] Constitutionally secured First Amendment lawfully un-abridge-able right: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[18] As documented in 8th District United States Federal Court of Appeals Cases, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614.
[19] 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."
[20] Any professional should be able to competently handle emergency exigent circumstances; but in such cases "Good Faith" could be the presumption.  But because immunity is, before out of court, emergency exigent circumstances, good faith, bad faith, overwhelming proof is never even an ISSUE!!!!!!!!!
[21] Judge Learned Hand, Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d at 581
[22] "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
[23] 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."
[26] "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
[27] There was not in 1776 and there is not NOW any titular value in Nobility apart from immunity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[28] Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph  "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States"
[29] Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility"
[31] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[33] 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"
[34] 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.