The Royalist Supreme Court Is Responsible for 100 years of Racial Unrest in this Country Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 10:32:51 AM

The Royalist Supreme Court
(Article III Posers)

Is Responsible for 100 years of Racial Unrest in this Country

Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 10:32:51 AM

The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't

CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

The Royalist Supreme Court (Article III poser) is directly and unequivocally responsible for 100 years (1865- Civil Rights Act 1964) of Jim Crow's racial unrest and criminal malfeasants after the end of the American Civil War (1861–1865).  The Majority of the victorious We the People as represented by BOTH houses of congress and the President in 1875 NEVER wanted segregation.  The Majority of We the People as represented by BOTH houses of congress and Presidents[1] passed into law AMENDMENT XIII (Passed by Congress January 31, 1865, Ratified December 6, 1865), AMENDMENT XIV (Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, Ratified July 9, 1868), AMENDMENT XV (Passed by Congress February 26, 1869, Ratified February 3, 1870), Force Act of 1870-1875[2], The Civil Rights Act of 1871, and the ANTI-Segregationist Civil Rights Act (1875). 

The Royalist Supreme Court forced segregation upon the victorious majority of We the People by voiding their constitutionally[3] authorized national corrective statutory efforts.  The Civil Rights Act (1875) clearly prohibited segregation, yet six years after it was passed The Royalist Supreme Court VOIDED the Civil Rights Act (1875) with the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) and then iced the cake with Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) creating the concept and sanctioning 100 years of government sponsored "Separate and Unequal."  

   I will and have always refused to believe that Thurgood Marshall was the first person black or white to think of suing for the "equal" in separate but equal.  I have always held that the Royalist Supreme Court utilized its Royalist discretion to not entertain the obvious issue, claim immunity, to in essence look the other way to inequality thus breaching its responsibility and establishing its malfeasants.  There is no way in a country based on equal protection you can install 100 years of "Separate and Unequal" without a Royalist's IMMUNE prerogative to ignore the INHERENT inconsistency.

You ought to actually read the Royalist Supreme Court opinions in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) and Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896),[4] if you never have.  Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) is an openly racist manifesto.[5]  Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) has always been regarded as the source of the term Separate but Equal.  Separate but Equal does not even appear in the Majority opinion.  The majority opinion references "equal, but separate," separate being the controlling exception to the rule.  "Equal, but separate" does not even come close to Separate but Equal.  The majority opinions in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) and Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) all but sanctions the race warfare that would consume us unnecessarily for a 100 years.  Separate and VERY unequal better describes the majority opinion.  John Harlan's well-reasoned timely dissent supporting integration, which spoke for the majority of the people at the time, has the only reference to Separate but Equal. 

We the People in 1875 passed the ORIGINAL Civil Rights Act.  The Civil Rights Act (1875) is a virtual match with the Civil Rights Act (1964).  If the Supreme Court had not ruled to void the Civil Rights Act (1875) in favor of segregation with the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) there would have been no SEGREGATION, no Jim Crow, no 60's race riots, no Rodney King riots and no 100 years of racial motivated lynching.  We would have dealt with race as an issue as the victorious We the People wanted to in a smaller, more immediate, civilized and less violent world in 1875 before it had morphed throughout a 100 year lifespan into the institution of Jim Crow.

The Royalist Supreme Court REPEATEDLY attempted to DERAIL Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal with its manufactured vision of the "Liberty of Contract" (Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)) that supported property rights over worker's rights and may have indeed fomented if not prolonged the Great Depression while restraining Roosevelt's New Deal

The Royalist Supreme Court is now using their unchecked ROYALIST power to sustain their Royalist Immunity, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11), from substantive Justice between the Government and We the People in spite of the Supreme Law of the Land that clearly denies IMMUNITY, the Declaration of Independence's precedent for  repeated Petitions for redress answered only by repeated injury, the First Amendment's legally un-abridge-able right petition for Substantive Justice, Statute Law,[6] and Treaties Made.[7] 

The Royalist Supreme Court wants to maintain the Jane Crow[8] era where a man's rights in family law are secondary to a woman's AND the Plea Bargain/Exclusionary Rule era in Criminal law where we incarcerate 5 times[9] as many people per capita as the rest of the world.  This does not even address the lingering New Jim Crow Laws that incarcerate African Americans at 10 TIMES the rate of non-African Americans.[10]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[11]

We the People need to use constitutional assured

representative power to

IMPEACH for NOT "good Behaviour,[12]"

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"[13] 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)

Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 10:32:51 AM, Separate and Unequal.doc

---

[1] Lincoln, Over President Johnson's veto and Grant

[2] Series of four acts passed by the U.S. Congress (1870–75) to protect the rights guaranteed to blacks by the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The acts authorized federal authorities to penalize any interference with the registration, voting, officeholding, or jury service of blacks. Violations produced over 5,000 indictments and 1,250 convictions throughout the South. The Supreme Court later ruled sections of the acts unconstitutional.

[3] Amendments 13, 14 and 15 all had the provision "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

[4] They are readily available online Justia website Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) or Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) or google them. 

[5] "There were thousands of free colored people in this country before the abolition of slavery, enjoying all the essential rights of life, liberty and property the same as white citizens, yet no one at that time thought that it was any invasion of his personal status as a freeman because he was not admitted to all the privileges enjoyed by white citizens, or because he was subjected to discriminations in the enjoyment of accommodations in inns, public conveyances and places of amusement. Mere discriminations on account of race or color were not regarded as badges of slavery." That is a bold face LIE, they complained, they were not heard, they had no LEGAL voice!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[6] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[7] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - PART II, Article 2, Section 3. (a), (b) and (c)

[8] ."  "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.

[9] "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

[10] About 10.4% of the entire African-American male population in the United States aged 25 to 29 was incarcerated, by far the largest racial or ethnic group—by comparison, 2.4% of Hispanic men and 1.2% of white men in that same age group were incarcerated.  Prison Population Exceeds Two Million — Infoplease.com

[11] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[12] 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"

[13] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

--
Thanks in advance


To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process

"Agere sequitur 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

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)

[4] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[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.

[7] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[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.

[21] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[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)

[27] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[28] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[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”

[30] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

Why don’t we just cut out the middleman and submit ourselves directly to the criminals? Monday, May 09, 2011, 4:25:00 PM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

Why don't we just cut out the middleman and submit ourselves directly to the criminals?

Monday, May 09, 2011, 4:25:00 PM

The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't

CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)

Why is there such a big issue in holding our Civil Servants liable for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[1]  What is their function if not to enforce the law within the confines of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"

Why do we have Judge, Prosecutors, Police, point in fact "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[2] if they can criminally use the Color of Law to randomly, maliciously, corruptly or incompetently Steal, Kidnap, and Murder by depriving the innocent victim's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."  Why don't we just cut out the middleman and submit ourselves directly to the criminals?

This Constitution -  is suppose to secures us:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to … establish Justice… to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article 4., Section 2

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article 6., 2^nd Paragraph

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Amendment 1

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

Amendment 14, Section 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 herein 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.

The Laws - Statute law secures us:

TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 21--CIVIL RIGHTS SUBCHAPTER I—GENERALLY  Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress

and

TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same.

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 stole everything and then 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.

All Treaties made – secures us:

"The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[3]" as adopted by the United Nations[4] on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 secures for third world countries and the United States of America:

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;

To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted

We will HAVE NONE of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

We will HAVE Supreme Court Precedent, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11), that requires the innocent victim, while possibly being impoverished, destitute, homeless and alone on the street, like myself, or convicted in jail on death row like Mr. Thompson, to prove that the criminals that stole from the innocent victim, the criminals that kidnapped[5] the innocent victim's children, the criminals that attempted to MURDER[6] the innocent victim did the EXACT same thing to several other innocent victims in a timely and consistent pattern.  If the innocent victim does not prove all that, the innocent victim has NO HOPE for substantive justice from the government of the people, by the people and for the people for the criminal government actions.  Even if the innocent victim repeatedly "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  Judicial precedent deprives the innocent victim of the right to substantive justice between the government and the people[7]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why don't we just cut out the middleman and submit ourselves directly to the criminals?

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"[8] 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/)

Monday, May 09, 2011, 4:25:00 PM 2011 05-09-11 Constitutional ISSUES  REV 02.doc

---

[1] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[2] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335

[3] "The Covenant 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

[4] "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

[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 (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.

[6] 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.

[7] Anybody that actually even wants to NOT believe this ought to read the Declaration of Independence.  And if you think all our forefathers wanted when they "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" was to be free to endlessly petition without any force of law to establish the right to substantive justice between government and governed.  You are INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[8] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

--
Thanks in advance


To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process

"Agere sequitur 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