Showing posts with label Exclusionary Rule. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Exclusionary Rule. Show all posts

Monday, May 16, 2011

Sophistry - Civil Rights, The Jane Crow Era and The Plea Bargain/Exclusionary Rule era

-->
Sophistry run Amuck
Jim Crow Era, The Jane Crow Era and The Plea Bargain/Exclusionary Rule Era
Monday, May 23, 2011, 5:04:59 PM
The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't
CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

Thomas Jefferson said it first and possibly best “We have long suffered under the base prostitution of the law to party passion 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.[1]”  Thomas Jefferson was referring to the Judiciary’s approval of the Alien and Sedition Acts that had voided freedom of the speech press and assembly (1798-1800), during John Adam’s Presidency.  When Thomas Jefferson became president he pardon all those that had been charged or held under the Alien and Sedition Acts.
One need only look at the Civil Rights Act 1876, “That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement” and compare it to Civil Rights Act 1964 We the People again said “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation.”  The only substantive difference is the Supreme Court with their Sophistry unrestrained chose to void the Civil Rights Act 1876 and then just as capriciously chose NOT to void the Civil Rights Act 1964.  We the People saw the problem when we passed the Civil Rights Act 1876.  But We the People could not enact a law that was needed and useful on our own; we had to endure 100 years of the Supreme Courts Sophistry FIRST!!!! If the Supreme Court’s sophistry had not gotten in the way we could have avoided 100 years of Jim Crow Era, racial unrest and persecution. 
An ill-advised reverential consideration of our Judges has to this day, to our own determent, empowered the self-serving royalist judge made law of Judicial Immunity.[2]  Judicial immunity, by way of the ill-defined sophistry trick bag in stare diesis, can literally do anything unchecked.  We the People, have no enforceable rights in America “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process[3]” have “Absolute Immunity” for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”[4] Criminals[5] can randomly rob an innocent victim, criminals can randomly kidnap your children, criminals can randomly Murder the innocent victim.  And there is not a DAM thing anyone can do about it.  The Supreme Court requires[6] that the innocent victim, to receive substantive justice for the crimes perpetrated against the innocent victim, must first prove that the criminal, under color of law, has done the same thing to multiple other innocent victims in a timely and consistent pattern of obvious stupidity before he or she can be held accountable for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[7] from the innocent victim.
The Jane Crow Era[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.”
A fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating,[9] and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect… It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."[10] 
The innocent victim whose children have been kidnapped whose entire life’s possessions have been stolen has no recourse for redress of grievances.  It is the act of a Judge.  Black Robed Judges can do no wrong in the Royalist American version of the justice system.  Just ask the Kings, the Supreme Court[11] of the United States of America.  "Immunity is given to crime,[12] and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress.[13]" "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical[14] to the impartial administration of law and equity.[15]"
The Plea Bargain/Exclusionary Rule Era, I refuse to believe our Judicial Process is FIVE times better than the rest of the developed world.  With the ubiquitous use of the plea bargain, innocent victims are offered little hope to clear their names against a stacked deck before the evidence is even revealed, “Either you plea out before trial or we go for the MAXIMUM!”  “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.[16]” Our Royalist Judicial Process has been allowed to run amuck 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 constitutional rights.  Rights that would have cleared their name, denied by immune CRIMINAL[17] attorneys persecuting innocent victims, not prosecuting, in our justice system, or wearing badges or the black robes of the royalist judiciary.[18]  I refuse to believe we are 5 times as criminal as any other country.  It scares me to think how many men have been emotionally, financially and physically torn from their own flash and blood in the Jane Crow era.   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 5 of the current persons incarcerated in American prisons today as unproductive wards of the state might be completely innocent because they have likely had their Constitutional Rights CRIMINALLY denied under color of law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To further their cause of a Royalist Justice system, the Supreme Court has created The Exclusionary Rule to cover up their crimes at the expense of We the People.  The premise of The Exclusionary Rule is the assumption that the Judicial Process[19] can do no wrong.  The Royalist Judicial Process in America would prefer to let known criminals go free rather that accept criminal and civil responsibility for their criminal actions, under color of law.[20]  They set up a royalist system of deterrents that allow criminals acting under color of law to act without personal regard to their actions; We the People are forced to cover up Judicial Process’s criminal actions by accepting the KNOWN criminal back into our midst.  It is INSANITY!!!!   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”[21]
As verified 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.”[22]
“We the People” have to take back the unchecked power to fabricate self-serving Judge made law out of “sophistry.”  The Judiciary is and has been criminally[23] using their “sophistry” to maliciously corruptly and incompetently deny the establishment of Justice,[24] We the People[25] sought for “ourselves and our Posterity.”
“We the People” do not have the substantive right to Justice between the Government and the People that instigated the Declaration of Independence’s repeated petitions for redress.  “We the People” do not have the lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition the government for a redress of grievances secured by the First Amendment. 
“We the People” are at the mercy of the judges and “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process.[26]”  They can deprive “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[27] under color of law but outside Due Process of law and there is nothing “We the People” can do about it short of Impeachment, Revolution or War. 



Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[28]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT “good Behaviour,[29]” denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive justice between the government and the people, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)!!!

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”[30] 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)
Monday, May 23, 2011, 5:04:59 PM, Sophistry Run Amuck.doc

[1] May 26, 1810 a letter Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From “The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[2] Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ 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”), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[3] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[5] 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 or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, 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.
[6] See the recent rulings, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11), “difficult problems of proof;” I would assert IMPOSSIBLE STANDARDS of proof.
[8] The “Jane Crow” Era started with the over funded witch hunt “The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 1974 P.L. 93-247 (CAPTA).
[9] In psychology, the term refers to the inability to maintain defense mechanisms in response to stress, resulting in personality disturbance or psychological imbalance.  In times of extreme inescapable stress the psyche shuts down as its only defensive mechanism.
[10] “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, By John Maguire, “Hitting below the belt” 10/25/99, 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.
[11] See the recent rulings, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11), high standards of proof; I would assert IMPOSSIBLE STANDARDS of proof.
[12] 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.
[13]DGJeep 2011, William O. Douglas dissent Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ Page 386 U. S. 559, Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374, Congressman Lowe of Kansas, March 31, 1871
[14] Amendment 1, Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[15] DGJeep 2011, William O. Douglas dissent Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ Page 386 U. S. 559, Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 394, Congressman Rainey of South Carolina, April 1, 1871
[16] "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
[17] 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.
[18] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) "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."
[19] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[20] 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.
[22] Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) @ Page 403 U. S. 410
[23] 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.
[24] Justice is the end of government, it is the civilized society
[25] “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.” The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788
[26] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[29] 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”
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, April 30, 2011

“The Exclusionary Rule” Is a cover up Saturday, April 30, 2011, 10:28:50 AM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

09-571 Connick v. Thompson (03/29/2011)
“The Exclusionary Rule”
Is a cover up
Saturday, April 30, 2011, 10:28:50 AM
The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't
CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

The premise of The Exclusionary Rule is the assumption that the Judicial Process can do no wrong.  We the People pay the Police, the Prosecutors, the Judiciary, and the Justice Department to enforce “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”[1] on our behalf.  
Yet they see themselves as criminally and civilly immune for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” at our expense.  To make this COVER-UP more criminal if you will, they then let KNOWN criminals back on the street to COVER UP THE Justice Department’s CRIMINAL INCOMPETENCE, to wit: The Exclusionary Rule!!!!
The Supreme Court FIVE[2] in their ruling CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) excused the prosecutors attempted MURDER of Mr. Thompson without any criminal or civil repercussions.  The Supreme Court FIVE is, at present, getting away with it because of the self-serving Judge-made-law of immunity.  In CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) they do not call it immunity, they call it “difficult problems of proof”.  Both Connick and The Supreme Court FIVE admit to the evidence of the “deprivation of rights”[3] in Connick v Thompson.  The “difficult problems of proof” as The Supreme Court FIVE describe it is, Thompson should have proven that Connick not only denied Thompson’s rights but that Connick denied several other victims their rights in similar and timely fashion to the extent that Connick would have been forced to quite literally TRIP OVER the GLARING problem of the UN-enforcement of fair due process of law, to wit: the defense is entitled to evidence that would proves their innocents.  The judge-made-law standard in question Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963) had been openly on the books for 22 YEARS at the original conviction of Thompson in 1985!!!  Today it has been on the books for 48 years and still the Justice Department is NOT strictly liable for its common sense import, an accused is to be provided any evidence that would prove their innocence.
Not only does the Supreme Court FIVE refuse to limit their power per the “Constitution,[4] the Laws[5] of the United States, and Treaties[6] made” (Article III, Section 2 The Constitution for the United States of America (1788)), the Supreme Court FIVE refuses to enforce their own JUDGE-MADE-LAW 23-48 years after making it!!!!!!!!
Mr. Thompson, per the Supreme Court FIVE, from his jail cell on DEATH ROW, should have found other victims of Connick’s criminal conspiracy for the deprivation of rights[7] before Mr. Thompson tried to get a First Amendment un-abridge-able right to redress of grievance, either criminal or civil, from Connick.  That is, in immediate effect, allows any “one time” denial of rights ABSOLTE IMMUNITY from criminal and civil prosecution.  But even in Thompson’s case, where several violations were found, the “stringent standard of fault” and “difficult problems of proof”[8] required by the Supreme Court FIVE’s Judge-made-law in Connick is not just stringent and difficult, they are IMPOSSIBLE to overcome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IMPEACH the Supreme Court FIVE!

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”[9] 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/)
Saturday, April 30, 2011, 10:28:50 AM 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc


[4] First Amendment's declaration: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[5] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights is a crime -- 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 or an attempt to kidnap (they aided and abetted in the kidnapping of my son), aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they aided and abetted in the attempted murder of 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.
[6] 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.
[7] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights is a crime -- 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 or an attempt to kidnap (they aided and abetted in the kidnapping of my son), aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they aided and abetted in the attempted murder of 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.
[8] CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) Cite as: 563 U. S. ____ (2011) Page 18 of the opinion of the court.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY” [1]


Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has
“ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY” [1]

I, like most sane people, condemn the recent shootings in Tucson, Arizona.  The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty, I think reasonably, asks “What will change as a result of Tucson tragedy? Experience suggests, not much.”[2]  I have a different perspective than most; maybe I can offer a suggestion as to what should change.  I can, to some extent, understand the shooter.  Point in fact I have been arrested[3] for utilizing my Free Speech and talking about this understanding.[4]  In my perspective, there is cause for violence in America today and there will be more bloodshed unless we work toward a more CIVILIZED society.  Terrorism, Violence and Denial are weapons used by our court system promiscuously without regard and without accountability by way of “absolute immunity” in America TODAY. 
I believe in civilization.  I condemn the Tucson shootings because I believe in tolerance, I believe in peace; I believe in Justice; I believe in the Rule of Law, but I cannot do it alone. 
The American Court system, as ruled by the Supreme Court, does not support Justice and the Rule of Law.  Justice and the Rule of Law are now secondary to the rule of anarchy / monarchy by the grant of “absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[5] for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[6]  “Absolute immunity” for all is a prescription for ANARCHY; no one is responsible for his or her actions.  No one can be held accountable.  ANARCHY and Destruction are the unavoidable result!!!! 
The anarchy of “absolute immunity” raises its ugly head in society at large.  Our trendsetters and cult heroes today operate with the “absolute immunity” of fame.  Their every move is revered, mimic and adored.  American Society puts too much emphasis on the media darlings of the moment and holds too little value for the enduring standards of the past.  We allow our children, without the wisdom of our past experience, to put the trendsetters up on pedestals and worship them as if they were GODS.  They are not GODS; they are not super human, THEY ARE NOTHING more than human just like ALL the REST OF US.  We need to normalize our perceptions of these people and bring our children’s perceptions of them back down to terra firma.  They are ALL human; they all have their human foibles, their human appetites and their human fallibility.  A bad thought or word from them or someone else in the in-crowd is not a death sentence.  We need to RE-establish a belief in our commonality, the common law of humanity.  We all share the same origin, the same fundamental human desires we need to believe in each other’s validity as equals, without the too overpowering whims of transient popular trends or the unreasonable assertion of “absolute immunity.” 
The Rule of Law, Fundamental Civil Constitutional Rights are damned in today’s American Court System and Society.  In the courts this is a massive criminal conspiracy against rights.  It is just a matter of time.  I am not some crazy spewing swill about some personal issue.  I have been fighting this blatant denial of rights for 7 years.
There is no such thing as strict scrutiny for fundamental constitutional human rights in American Courts today much less strict liability.  If you are not rich, cool or an acknowledged minority you can be denied fundamental constitutional human rights by all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[7].  There is NO accountability for Fundamental Civil Constitutional Rights.  I say again, per the Supreme Court’s rule, there is “absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[8] therefore all persons have “absolute immunity” for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[9]  Unavoidable human error, be it malicious, corrupt or negligent is all covered-up by the blanket of “absolute immunity.”  It is as if we have somehow regressed to the Dark Ages.  We are being forced to accept rule of the King without complaint or redress.[10]
The Court System pays lip service to rights and excuses this malice corruption and negligence, for what they call the greater good, the euphemistic assertion of their “honorable work.”  They assert that these illegal, unconstitutional, and destructive actions were “in the heat of battle” that  “the violations were not deliberate” “not malicious evil wrongdoing.”[11]  The perpetrators are excused because of their “honorable work.”  Their victims are left to deal with the loss of life, liberty or property.  To make our public servants accountable for “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”[12] is toooo much to ask, per the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Civilization is by definition an agreement between unrelated persons to acknowledge and protect each other’s fundamental rights, for the greater good.  The first such agreements were between persons in a cave and allowed for the cohabitation of caves e.g., it was agreed between cavepersons that to allow for each other to sleep soundly through the night, the greater good, there would need to be a law, no attacking while someone was asleep in the cave.  To make the agreement workable all parties to the agreement were given equal protection of the laws.  To allow “absolute immunity” from the deprivation of rights negates the essence of Civilization, “the protection of the laws.”[13]  No one can sleep soundly in his or her cave.
Today in American Courts we do not have EQUAL PROTECTION of DUE PROCESS of the LAWS as we have been taught, as we all assume.  Most of us just have not been randomly selected for the deprivation yet.  We do not have protection of the Bill of Rights, all we have is lip service.  The Supreme Court has said “All persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” have “absolute immunity”; they are excused for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[14]  They do not even have to acknowledge their illegal, unconstitutional, corrupt, malicious or negligent actions they have “absolute immunity.”  And no one else within the self-serving self-sustaining criminal conspiracy against rights will pursue their co-conspirators’ illegal, unconstitutional, criminal, corrupt, malicious or negligent actions.  It is a MASSIVE self-serving, self-sustaining conspiracy against rights, they ALL have “absolute immunity.”  The USA Today found in their research for the “Federal prosecutors series,” “"The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.”[15]
The victims of the deprivation of rights are left to dangle in the wind, damaged and desperate, without access to Constitutional Law,[16] Statute Law[17] or Common Law.[18]  Equal Protection and Due Process of Law are overwhelmed by the all POWERFUL Supreme Court’s grant of “absolute immunity” to all. 
When true criminals rights have been disregarded, the Supreme Court has granted “absolute immunity” for criminals.  Criminals can use the exclusionary rule[19]to exclude incriminating evidence acquired via the deprivation of rights.  But for the innocent person whose rights have been deprived by the officers of the government professing to act in its name there is no redress.  “There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime.”[20]
The shootings in Tucson, while tragic, reassert the undefeatable human condition.  There are no absolutes.  NO ONE IS 100% SAFE, No one has absolute immunity.  The only way to even approach 100% SAFE is to work toward Justice, the Rule of Law, and defend the RIGHTS of EVERY PERSON EQUALLY.  If we do not do that, they can and will come at us in the night while we sleep, the cave, the law, society’s norms offers us no protection. 
The Tucson shooter has been described as a “nihilistic 'paranoid outcast'”.  We have to admit it; WE failed him.  He felt alone in a crowded room, he most likely had no concept of what normal was, he could not sense the equal protection of the laws.  He seems to have seen everyone as a threat.  He was at WAR with everyone.  There was no place he felt safe.  He felt trapped in a corner.  We as a country and a society have to admit that we created him.  He may have been to some extent an aberration but he was a product of our CIVILIZATION, as clearly as our racist, our neo-Nazis, our reactionaries, our Democrats, our Republicans, our wheat, our Chevrolets and our apple pie.
I have experienced the isolation; the deprivation of rights can create.  I have always valued life, believed in my son and thought myself to be a loyal American.  I have always believed in peace, believed in the Rule of Law, believed in our Constitutional Rights, believed in the Equal Protection of the Laws.  Yet I have to admit I have contemplated violence in the extreme. 
BUT, my country has abandoned me.  I do not have the protection of the laws.  I have been forced out, isolated.  I am alone.  I am homeless.  I have been backed into a corner.  I was held to answer on TWO infamous charges without probable cause, much less proof of any wrongdoing.  It was and continues to be a criminal denial of rights.[21]    I was and have been objecting, appealing and pointing out this criminal deprivation virtually every second since.  The courts refuse to listen; they all have self-proclaimed immunity, the massive criminal conspiracy against rights is all-powerful.  “There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime.”[22]  Is the anarchy, the violence of Tucson, Virginia Tech, Kirkwood City Hall all we have left?  Is there no defeating the criminal conspiracy against rights, “absolute immunity”?
They took my son, my home, my EVERYTHING.  Because of absolute immunity I have NO REDRESS to the protection of the laws.[23]  I have endured over 7 years of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[24], two psychological examinations, and over three years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America.[25]  Am I the crazy one?? I am the one that stood up to the CRIMINAL, the UNCONSTITUTIONAL, the CORRUPT, the MALICIOUS and the NEGLIGENT.  The COURT RECORD confirms the criminality, the corruption, the malice and the negligence of the depraved deliberate indifferent criminal conspiracy against rights.[26] 
What we need to do is RE-establish a solemn respect for Fundamental Constitutional Civil Rights in our Court system and work to re-establish tolerance and solemn respect for Fundamental Constitutional Civil Rights in our society for all persons equally.  We need to make all persons feel secure in their own space, in public, in their caves, in our country and in our society.


“In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights.  With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.” Carl Sagan

Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has
“ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY”

We pay lip service. We say we oppose bullying, we say we stand for equal protection of the law and fundamental constitutional civil rights, we say we believe in our commonality but when push comes to shove we look the other way and allow absolute immunity to those that we KNOW are doing wrong. 

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)

[2] Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty ONLINE Monday, January 10, 2011,
[4] The Kirkwood City Council shooting occurred on February 7, 2008, in Kirkwood, Missouri, United States; a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri in St. Louis County. A gunman went on a shooting rampage at a public meeting in the city hall, leaving six people dead and two others injured. Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton shot one police officer with a revolver across the side street from city hall and took the officer's handgun before entering city hall.   “Why did Cookie snap?”
[10] Or will we come to Justice William O. Douglas’s realization in his dissent from Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)?
“The argument that the actions of public officials must not be subjected to judicial scrutiny because to do so would have an inhibiting effect[17] on their work is but a more sophisticated manner of saying "The King can do no wrong." Chief Justice Cockburn long ago disposed of the argument that liability would deter judges:
"I cannot believe that judges . . . would fail to discharge their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths and consciences . . . from any fear of exposing themselves to actions at law. I am persuaded that the number of such actions would be infinitely small, and would be easily disposed of. While, on the other hand, I can easily conceive cases in which judicial opportunity might be so perverted and abused for the purpose of injustice as that, on sound principles, the authors of such wrong ought to be responsible to the parties wronged. Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, L.R. 5 Q.B. 94, 110 (1869) (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting)". (Page 386 U. S. 565-566)
[11]“Bill Weigel, president of the National Organization of Bar Counsel, an association of state disciplinary officials.” As quoted “States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do.” USA Today
[13] “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
[16] The right of redress as assured by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution
[18] “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
[19] The Exclusionary Rule (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)) was never the fix it was intended to be.  Even less so now (Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S.Ct. 2159 (June 15, 2006) & Herring v. United States No. 07-513 (January 14, 2009)) than when it was originally created as Judge made law in 1961.
[21] Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, 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.
[23] Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, or the 1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 
[25] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America “Opposed to Immunity” currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk’s office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)