Saturday, September 24, 2011

America actually believes it is EXCEPTIONAL but IT JUST AIN”T SO!!!!!



America actually believes it is EXCEPTIONAL
but
IT JUST AIN"T SO!!!!!
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
a country in which nobody is ever truly safe."[1]
Saturday, September 24, 2011, 5:22:41 PM
The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't[2]

Donald Trump is an IDIOT!!!  America was never as great as he claims.  The Americas were and are just lucky.  Thomas Paine said it best.  

I realize this is going to sound UN-patriotic of me, if not down right UN-American, BUT, the truth has to be told.  America has for the better part of the last two centuries been acting as if we were anointed by God to lead the rest of the world to the promised land and to put it succinctly, IT JUST AIN"T SO!!!!! 

"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large (patriotic) values of 2."[3]

The roots of this misconception go back to "the Puritan John Winthrop's 1630 sermon "A Model of Christian Charity". Still aboard the ship Arbella, he had not even set foot a ground, Winthrop admonished the future Massachusetts Bay colonists that their new community would be a "city upon a hill", watched by the world.  Winthrop's sermon gave rise to the widespread belief in American folklore that the United States of America is God's country because metaphorically it is a Shining City upon a Hill, an early example of American exceptionalism."  Thomas Paine's Common Sense subsequently first popularized the belief that America was not just an extension of Europe but a new land, a country of nearly unlimited potential and opportunity that had outgrown the European model, King and country.  And it was we had potential and opportunity but we have squander so much.  We the People were then suckered in by the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny.  How could We the People resist that?  To let colonial America off the hook to some extent the French writer Alexis de Tocqueville first gave verbatim voice to "American exceptionalism" in his 1831 work, "Democracy in America."  And both John Kennedy[4] and Ronald Reagan[5] like to refer to it, heck, it makes for good political copy, American exceptionalism, Shining City upon a Hill.  But again I repeat:

"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large (patriotic) values of 2."[6]

And even though it is UN-American to even consider for an instant that We the People had NO RIGHT to expand and expand to our hearts content irregardles of our treaties with the Indians or the rights of Muslims or Southeast Asians. 

We the People were NOT anointed by God even though every politician from Monroe, to Lincoln, to Kennedy, and to Regan loved to whip We the People up for their own POLITICAL benefit… IT JUST AIN"T SO!!!!!

The United States of America, the North American Continent was never anointed by anyone or anything of GREAT GOD-LIKE POWER.  The only thing North America had going for it at its discovery by the Europeans was that it had not as yet been populated and exploited by mankind to the degree that Europe had been populated and exploited.  North America was literally and figuratively an untapped virginal gold mine.  It had not been nor would it ever be anointed by GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!  We need to give ourselves a break and let ourselves off that proverbial hook.  Not only because Our ECONOMIC clout is wearing thin but because it is the Right thing to do!!!!

We the People, in order to form a more perfect union, made an imperfect human attempt to improve government by establishing clearly defined rights with a Constitution for the United States of America.  The Constitution for the United States of America was a humanly created document.  It had its unavoidable inherent flaws e.g., its reference to African Americans as "three fifths of all other Persons."  We the People were clearly not guided by some omniscient perfect being in writing and or establishing the Constitution for the United States of America.  We the People made MISTAKES!!!!!!!!!!

What today passes for our exceptionalism is the result of We the People's almost inexorable economic success in exploiting the literally and figuratively untapped virginal gold mine under the proverbial "city upon a hill."  It is not the City we built; it is and has always been the HILL.  Our untapped resources are running out.  Our ECONOMIC clout is wearing thin!!!!

We the People have been carrying around this burden of God's anointing for tooooooooo long.  We need to, I say it again, let ourselves off the hook.  We need to come to the VERY real realization that We the People of the United States of America are just like EVERYBODY else on the planet, we are fallible, and we are human!!!!!! 

We count our dead, we mourn our wounded from our SELF made whipped up wars in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq but as the anointed by God American Exceptionals IN-humanly never count the hundreds of thousands indigenous people dead of our supposed enemies the innocent bystanders to our travesty in the name of AMERICA EXCEPTIONALISM!!!!  We are corrupted to the CORE!!!!  And We the People can not even see it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ultimate proof of this corruption, the ultimate example of our own human fallibility can be found TODAY in our creation of a new Royalist Nobility that is exalted on thrones in royalist robes.  We have done this in spite of our revolutionary founders father's abhorrence for absolutism in religion, government or any union of men.  They professed "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"[7] as the only ABSOLUTE!!!  Liberty and equality by definition are abhorrent to the absolutism of American Exceptionalism.  Equality has to by the nature of its human application allow for human variations, human differences.  And Liberty by its intrinsic nature, its definition, opposes absolutism.  No human living under the rule of absolutism of American Exceptionalism can ever be considered at liberty.

We the People with our Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776), our Constitution for the United States of America (June 21, 1788), our Bill of Rights (December 15, 1791) and a Civil War confirming our Government of the people, by the people and people were intent upon finally putting aside all titles of nobility,[8]  all men were pronounce equal[9] And We the People were purportedly against any grant of title of nobility i.e., the absolutism of American Exceptionalism

I would be willing to bet, a MILLION dollars if I had it.  That every person in the United States of America believes…

"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."[10]   

But they would be WRONG, because our Supreme Court has pronounce themselves royal with the self-serving grant of Absolute immunity for the Black Robed Royalist Judiciary sitting on their thrones in our courtrooms.   Absolute immunity as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States of America DENIES the Constitution for the United States as the Supreme Law as defined by itself and historical precedent the Magna Carta § 61 (1215),[11] 17th Century English Common Law - Floyd and Barker (1607), The Declaration of Independence (1776), the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America (1789),[12] 18th Century English Common Law as quoted in 19th Century Supreme Court precedent Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803), Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 (1871), Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 (1871) and treaties made, "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[13]" (as adopted by the United Nations[14] on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977).  The Combined Supreme Court precedents defining their self empowering grant royalist absolute immunity:

"This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly.[15]"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"[16]. "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"[17].  Supreme Court precedent THUS provides for "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[18] for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[19]

The ministerial grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[20] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[21] "before out of Court"[22] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[23]

"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. [24]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[25]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[26]
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,[27]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[28] 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"[29] 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, September 24, 2011, 5:22:41 PM, 2011- 09-23-11 America actually believes it is EXCEPTIONAL REV 02.doc


[2] Op-Ed Contributor, The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't, By JOHN THOMPSON, Published: April 9, 2011 New York Times regarding Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
[3] "Grabel's Law" not sure who, what or where Grabel's Law originated, all I know is I am using it as a reference here because it is all I have.
[4] In the twentieth century, the image was used a number of times in American politics. On 9 January 1961, President-Elect John F. Kennedy returned the phrase to prominence during an address delivered to the General Court of Massachusetts
[5] President Ronald Reagan used the image as well, in his 1984 acceptance of the Republican Party nomination and in his January 11, 1989, farewell speech to the nation
[6] Grabel's Law
[7] IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[8] Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph  "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States," Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility"
[9] 14th Amendment §1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."
[10] Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803) establishing Supreme Court precedent and quoting English common law per the Commentaries on the Laws of England, the 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone (emphasis ADDED)
[11] The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, established the right of redress:
"If we, our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon."
[12] Amendment I, Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[13] "The Treaty "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" is presented for both its binding force as "Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies together under one Constitution?" 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[14] "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 with a gun." 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[15] 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)
[20] "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
[21] 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."
[25] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[27] 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"
[28] 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

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor 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

Thursday, September 22, 2011

The Supreme Court’s DENIAL of The Declaration of Independence and The Revolutionary War


The Supreme Court's DENIAL of
The Declaration of Independence and
The Revolutionary War
Friday, April 29, 2011, 4:01:42 PM

The Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War were both based on the assertion "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."[1]  That was the ORIGINAL view[2] in colonial America; I would hold still the current view in America today.  If King George III's government had responded to the "repeated Petitions" with a redress of grievances, Justice and Due Process of Law, instead of "by repeated injury" the world would definitely be a different, possibly a much better, place today. 
The DENIAL of The Declaration of Independence's reference "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury"[3] and then the Revolutionary War formed the ORIGINAL view[4] that prompted the founding fathers to write into the new Constitution for the United States of America the First Amendment's security:

"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The right to substantive justice between government and governed was intended to hopefully avert future declarations and revolutions.
Given the additional Constitutional security, as a primary goal of our new Union, to establish Justice[5] by means of Due Process of Law[6] and the Jury System,[7] "We the People" thought to avoid any future arbitrary unassailable assertion of Immunity that could result in "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."[8]
But that is not the way it has played out.  Two hundred and twenty three years later The Supreme Court has fabricated, out of thin air and hubris, their unlawful abridgment, Judge made law, of immunity and or limited liability into a Jury Award for the First Amendment's secured legally UN-abridge able right for a redress of grievances.
The Supreme Court usurped the power to make law by merely asserting it in their unconstitutional, over-reaching, and self-serving interpretations.  These laws were fabricated out of a self-serving desire of the Judiciary to set themselves up as the Divine Arbitrator in a system of government that had taken offence to repeated injury with the Declaration of Independence and invested LIVES in the Revolutionary War to over throw another self-serving would-be divine arbitrator, the King. 
We the people had sought to set up the Legislator in conjunction with the President as the ONLY means of making laws and Due Process of Law,[9] the Jury System[10] as the arbitrator to establish Justice.[11]
Nowhere is Judge made law envisioned or provided for in the Constitution for the United States of America.  Article I Sections 1-10 of the Constitution clearly defines how Law is to be made by the Congress of the United States and a President of the United States of America.  No mention of the Judiciary in the establishment or creation of law.  "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made" per Article III, Section 2.  Clearly that limits Judicial Power "under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made.
With the Constitution We the People defined the judicial power's limitation.  First and foremost We the People stated our prime intent to - establish Justice.  Justice is opposed to any grant of immunity by definition, the immune person cannot be brought to Justice to wit: the King or an immune government authority.  We go further with V (5th) VII (7th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to define the means of Justice to wit: Due Process of Law and Jury system.[12]  As the primary right to substantive justice between government and governed the First Amendment's security:

"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Government is to be held accountable for a redress of grievances by Constitutional security i.e., force of due process law and the Jury system.  We the People thus sought to pre-empt any future possibility for "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury"[13] as addressed and affirmed by our Declaration of Independence and the investment of lives in the Revolutionary War.
With LAW, We the People after the Civil War sought to reinforce "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[14] and to reaffirm the right to substantive justice between government and governed for the newly emancipated slaves with LAW, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified into our code of law as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985The Civil Rights Act of 1871, via statute LAW, held "Every person" civilly liable and "Whoever" criminally UN-abridge ably liable for the "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" under color of law.
With Treaties made, we most recently reassured the world with "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" adopted by the United Nations on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 - PART II, Article 2, Section 3. "Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted."
We the People have with the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Revolutionary War 1776-1782, the Constitution 1788, the Law "Civil Rights Act of 1871" and Treaties made "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" 1977 given CLEAR direction to the Supreme Court per Article III, Section 2 "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made.". We the People demand "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The current Supreme Court FIVE[15] has, in CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) been derelict in their duty with "fraud on court,[16]" in an unlawful and unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment's security:

"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
 with their inserted "difficult problems of proof," and limited liability as regards the already established Due Process of Law[17] Jury Award[18] of Mr. Thompson.  This is a refusal to take note of We the People "under this Constitution,[19] the Laws[20] of the United States, and Treaties[21] made" Article III, Section 2 The Constitution for the United States of America (1788).
The current Supreme Court FIVE[22] has clearly committed fraud upon the court by the Supreme Court's DENIAL of The Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made as BINDING LAW and originalist and current PRECEDENT with their ruling CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11).

This is clearly NOT "good Behaviour"[23] and an impeachable OFFENCE to We the People and the Constitution for the United States of America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Thompson and I both "Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."[24]  "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.[25]"  Our Justice system has been allowed to run unchecked for TOOO long.  We have no IDEA.  It scares me to think how many INNOCENT people may currently be incarcerated that have been denied their rights; that would have cleared their name by immune CRIMINALS are persecuting, not prosecuting, in our justice system or wearing badges or the black robes of the royalist judiciary.  I refuse to believe we are 5 times as criminal as any other country.  I REFUSE to believe that our criminal Justice system is 5 times better!!!!  I am FORCED by the PRECEDENT of personal experience to think that 4 out of, the inflated American population, 5 of the current persons incarcerated in our prisons as unproductive wards of the state might be completely innocent because they have quite possibly had their Constitutional Rights CRIMINALLY denied under color of law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between government and governed.  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"[26] 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" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
Friday, April 29, 2011, 4:01:42 PM 2011 04-29-11 The Supreme Court's DENIAL of The Declaration of Independence and The Revolutionary War Friday, April 29, 2011, 3-35-30 PM Rev 02.doc


[1] "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury" IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[2] This should appease all the Originalist's in the audience. I would assert that this is the Current view also. 
[3] "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury" IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[4] This should appease all the Originalist's in the audience.
[5] "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."
[6] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.
[7] VII (7th) Amendment to the Constitution
[8] "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury" IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[9] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.  Due Process of Law
[10] VII (7th) Amendments to the Constitution. "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."
[11] "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."
[12] V (5th) VII (7th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.
[13] "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury" IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[16] In a Judicial proceeding a party's misconduct so serious that it undermines the integrity of the proceeding
[17] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.  Due Process of Law
[18] VII (7th) Amendments to the Constitution. "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."
[19] First Amendment's declaration: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[21] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted by the United Nations on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 - PART II, Article 2, Section 3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
[23] 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"
[24] "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury" IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[25] "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

--
Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"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

The ministerial grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[1] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[2] "before out of Court"[3] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[4]
"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. [5]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[6]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[7]
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,[8]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[9] 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"[10] 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)
Thursday, September 22, 2011, 9:58:23 AM, 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc




[1] "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
[2] 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."
[6] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[8] 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"
[9] 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

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor 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