Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan,
Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer
Supreme Court of the United States
Re: 07-2614 David G. Jeep vs.
Philip Jones, Sr. (Petition No. 07-11115)
08-1823 David G. Jeep vs.
Jack Bennett
09-2848 David G. Jeep vs. United States
10-1947 David G. Jeep vs.
Jack Bennett/ United
States
11-2425 David G. Jeep vs.
Barack Hussein Obama; (4:11-cv-0931-CAS )
Petition
for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court No. 11-8211
“The DEAL”
Dear Justices,
I would have hoped one of you would have thought of this but alas
I have heard NOTHING.
“The DEAL”
The Exclusionary
Rule is compensation to the criminal for “the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
States of America”[1] The innocent victim of the denial of rights
has no compensation because of “absolute
immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or
otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[2]
as confirmed in Bivens, “Finally,
assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary
rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is
damages or nothing.”[3]
I propose a DEAL to the foes[4] of the exclusionary rule.
The foes of the exclusionary rule on the Supreme Court concede Absolute
Immunity[5] for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws” to the Ends of Justice.[6]
For the concession, “We the People,”
reciprocally concede the Exclusionary Rule to the Ends of Justice.
What the Ends of
Justice
demand happen in cases where a citizen’s rights have been violated, the jury
needs to be told that the evidence was seized unconstitutionally and for that
reason alone they may choose
not to consider it, the jury then needs to be given the option of considering
the evidence as they see fit. The Judges need to get out of the way.
THEN, the law enforcement
professional acting “under color of law,[7]” who violated his
victim’s and We the People’s “rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws” needs to be prosecuted vigorously, regardless
of the guilt or innocence of their victim, for the crimes against We
the People’s Constitution, the
crime against We the People’s Civil
Rights.
The innocent victim of the
“deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” should have a 1st and 7th
Amendment remedy,
Justice, law and equity,[8] at their disposal. We could relatively limit the civil liability with the common (sense)
law rule, crime can not be allowed to pay. Therefore civil liability only if the
victim is found innocent of the charges with the acknowledged EXCEPTION e.g.,
if it is a misdemeanor charge, a traffic ticket. The reciprocal of crime can not be allowed
to pay has to hold true for the Police or civil rights violations as harassment
for non-exigent misdemeanor charges could be the result.
There are laws in place to
do this Title
18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of
law and Title 42 The Public Health
and Welfare § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights. These laws have been on the books since the
end of the Civil War in 1871.
The Supreme Court has been in essence warring with the constitution and the ends of justice on their enforcement
since that time.
If we truly want to feel
safe in our homes free from unwarranted judicial, prosecutorial and/or police
action, if we truly believe in fair due process of law, where the defense has a
right to compel exculpable evidence from the prosecution and force even the
police to testify truthfully. If we truly believe in the judicial
administration of justice; if we truly believe in the “rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[9]” we lawfully require under
our constitution, we need to enforce those rights by force of law on all
those acting “under color of law[10].”
I again ask you to REVIEW the Petition for a Wirt of
Certiorari to the Supreme Court No. 11-8211
currently in the clerk’s office on a motion for REHEARING. The FEAR MONGERS in error premise all their arguments on assertion of We the People’s
civil rights[11]
as an imposition and an intimidating burden to wit:
“In
addressing the consequences of subjecting judges[12]
to suits for damages under § 1983, the Court has commented:
"Imposing
such a burden on judges would contribute not to principled and fearless
decision making but to intimidation."
The ENFORCEMENT “of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America United
States of America ”[18]
is the raisons d’etre for our
Constitution and laws of the United
States of America
“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I
will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I
am about to enter. So help me God.” (5 U.S.C. §3331 - OATH OF OFFICE)
Rights are DEFINED and intended to be interpreted as, this is not open o
RE-INTERPRETATION:
“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.” 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
The cause is the Rule of law over
the Rule of the judiciary. The Judiciary
has lost sight of their obligations “under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn
to constitutional commission award themselves and others “absolute
immunity”[20] from said
constitutional commission to “do not only what their powers do not
authorize, but what they forbid”[21]
i.e., the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
“Time is of the essence”
David G. Jeep
enclosure
a.
“The
Injustice of the Exclusionary Rule” Tuesday, March 13, 2012
[2] “absolute immunity from subsequent damages
liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts
of the judicial process.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S.
[4] Justices Step Closer to Repeal of Evidence
Ruling By ADAM LIPTAK WASHINGTON
— In 1983, a young lawyer in the Reagan White House (John G. Roberts Jr.) was hard at work
on what he called in a memorandum “the
campaign to amend or abolish the exclusionary rule” — the principle that
evidence obtained by police misconduct cannot be used against a defendant.
The Reagan administration’s attacks on the exclusionary rule — a barrage of
speeches, opinion articles,
litigation and proposed legislation —
never gained much traction. But now that young lawyer, John G. Roberts Jr., is chief justice
of the United States
[5] “absolute immunity from subsequent damages
liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts
of the judicial process.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S.
[6] “Justice is the end of government. It is the
end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained,
or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”
FEDERALIST No. 51, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the
Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments For the
Independent Journal. Wednesday, February 6, 17 88,
by James Madison
[8]
Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the
evil they have suffered. I have been
forced into poverty, homelessness for FOUR YEARS! The 1st Amendment secures the
constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of
grievance from the government: “Congress shall make no law abridging the
right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The 7th Amendment secures the right to settle all suits: “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” assures justice as regards equity.
Not to mention Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985
[11] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS
§ 241. A
Conspiracy against rights -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed
in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping (they
kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or
an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they
attempted to kill Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced
to death.
[12] and/or “all persons -- governmental or
otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" Briscoe v.
LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[14] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871) In all
cases it is the judiciary’s responsibility to avoid “vexatious” or
calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their
inevitability. “Vexatious” or calumnious
actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
[15] Floyd and Barker (1607) In all cases it is the
judiciary’s responsibility to avoid “vexatious” or calumnious actions
to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. “Vexatious” or calumnious actions are hazards
in any human endeavor,
[16] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871) In all
cases it is the judiciary’s responsibility to avoid “vexatious” or
calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their
inevitability. “Vexatious” or calumnious
actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
[17] Floyd and Barker (1607) In all cases it is the
judiciary’s responsibility to avoid “vexatious” or calumnious actions
to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. “Vexatious” or calumnious actions are hazards
in any human endeavor,
[19] Constitution for the United States of America United States
[20] “In short, the common law provided absolute immunity from
subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise --
who were integral parts of the judicial process.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S.
325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
(parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[21] Alexander Hamilton June of 1788 at the
ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, The Federalist
Papers No. 78, “The Judiciary Department”
[22] Title Criminal 18,
U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 The absence of exigent circumstances
should be noted.
