Received Supreme Court DENIAL of REHEARING 14-10088

The HOLIDAY TRASH Rehearing Denied 14-10088

(YOU ONLY THINK YOU HAVE RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ​Don't let them throw Petition for Rehearing PWC 14-10088 out with the HOLIDAY TRASH.  MAKE SOME NOISE!!!!!!!)

2015 11-04-15 Oct 23 2015 Petition for Rehearing Distributed for conference 11-24-15 - PWC 14-10088

Don't let them throw Petition for Rehearing PWC 14-10088 out with the HOLIDAY TRASH.  MAKE SOME NOISE!!!!!!!   Petition for Rehearing Distributed for conference 11-24-15 - PWC 14-10088

Download/View as PDF File

2015 10-23-15 PET CERT REHEARING 14-100088  for Appeal 15-1057 REV 01.pdf

Oct 23 2015 Petition for Rehearing filed.

Download/View as PDF File

2015 10-23-15 PET CERT REHEARING 14-100088  for Appeal 15-1057 REV 01.pdf

14-10088 Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied October 5, 2015

Give back We the People’s representative government by denouncing​, once and for all time, ​ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY (both criminal[8] and civil[9]) for the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America

​John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, & Elena Kagan.

Supreme Court of the United States

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Re: Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-10088 - USAP8 15-1057, David Gerard Jeep, v. United States – counter to "absolute immunity" for the deprivation of rights

Dear People,

We the People constitutionally incorporated ourselves to secure liberty for ourselves and our prosperity.  Thomas Jefferson confirmed there is…:

"no safe depositary of the ultimate powers[1] of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."[2] 

Abraham Lincoln made a similar responsive and prescient argument at his "First Inaugural Address" Monday, March 4, 1861 when he said:

"(I)if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

Abraham Lincoln spoke with reference to the Dred Scott (1856) decision and was prescient about the Civil War with 618,222 Americans deaths (1865), Bradley v. Fisher, (1871), Justice Harlan's dissent in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), Lochner v. New York (1905) and Citizens United (2010)… to name just a few of your abominations.

            I ask you, to here and now with Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-10088 - USAP8 15-1057 - David Gerard Jeep v. United States take responsibility for your human fallibility and

​​

give back We the People's representative government by denouncing

​​

, once and for all time, your ministerial, unconstitutional, "unlawful Conspiracy"[3] "before out of Court,"[4] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions"[5] with the "sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid"[6] despotic[7] Black Robed Royalist Judiciary's self-serving

​​

ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY (both criminal[8] and civil[9]) for the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, constructed[10] as an "excess of power"[11] in "a tribunal without juries, which will be a Star-Chamber as to Civil cases."[12]

The Judicial sophistry[13] of "absolute immunity" creates "absolute power"[14] to the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of "We the People's" liberty and rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. It is a "fantastic or delusional"[15] judicial scenario.  "As long as rulers are above the law, citizens have the same type of freedom that slaves had on days when their masters chose not to beat them."[16]  

Take the VICTORY away from the slave states and secure "We the People's" liberty.[17]

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

 cc:  My Blog - Tuesday, September 01, 2015, 2:57:06 PM

---

[1] "Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter." FEDERALIST No. 39 "The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles" For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, January 16, 1788 - by James Madison

[2]  Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278

[3] 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."

[4] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

[5] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

[6] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963

[7] Montesquieu in his "De l'Espirit des Lois" (1748) (The Spirit of the Law) defines three main kinds of political systems: republican, monarchical, and despotic.    We the People have currently despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!

[8] Civil Rights Act of 1866 (18 USC §241-§242)

[9] Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC §1983-§1985)

[10] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84

[11] James Madison (1751–1836), the 4th President of the United States (1809 – 1817), often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," in his essay "Property" for the National Gazette March 27, 1792

[12] Elbridge Thomas Gerry's, was one of three men who attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787 but refused to sign the United States Constitution because it did not then include a Bill of Rights.  i.e., the objection resulted in the 7^th Amendment.  This is as quoted in Origins of the Bill of Rights,  By Leonard W. Levy, page 228

[13] "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions 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." (The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS" May 26, 1810)

[14] "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton (Lord Acton)

[15] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)

[16] James Bovard "Attention Deficit Democracy" (Palgrave, 2006)

[17] http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2015/09/how-south-won-civil-war.html​

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/

My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com orDGJeep01@yahoo.com

(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep

GENERAL DELIVERY

Saint Louis , MO 63155-9999

“We the People" incorporated ourselves with the “Constitution for the United States of America” to “establish Justice” and “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia

Supreme Court of the United States

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Download a PDF FILE with live links

Re: Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-10088 - USAP8 15-1057, David Gerard Jeep, v. United States – counter to "absolute immunity" for the deprivation of rights

Dear People,

In my case the issuance of the NOT "facially valid court order" [1] issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction""[2] was "sufficiently clear" that every "reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,"[3] i.e., the universal understanding of the IV Amendment. 

The NOT "facially valid court order" was issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction."" That is to say without Common Law,[4] Constitutional Law[5] and Statute[6] Law jurisdiction.  The three jurisdictionally required elements for universally accepted Supreme Court sanctioned probable cause are:

1.    Subject Matter Jurisdiction[7]

2.    Personal Jurisdiction[8]

3.    Geographic Jurisdiction[9]

That this issue has been OPENLY ongoing now for 12+ years and six trips through the Article III District, Circuit and Supreme Court Corporation of the United States[10] only goes to show how thoroughly and unashamedly unscrupulous the Article III Judicial Corporation of the United States has become!

That the omnipresent "Jane Crow"[11] potential, that a "Government official's conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, "[t]he contours of [a] right [are] sufficiently clear" that every "reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,"[12] has not been given more attention in the municipalities, i.e., corporations, of the Federal and State Courts, goes to satisfy your restriction in Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd and then Connick v. Thompson. 

The specifics of my PWC14-10088, as considered in light of the above paragraph, easily clears the hurdle of "proving that a municipality (i.e., corporations, of the Federal and State Courts) itself actually caused a constitutional violation by failing to train the offending employee presents "difficult problems of proof," and we must adhere to a "stringent standard of fault," lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior."[13]

The ubiquitous "Jane Crow" potential for spurious claims of "abuse" for an ex parte order of protection[14] was MUCH in the news for the prior decade and was clearly common knowledge in 2003 and still is unfortunately today.  It should have been addressed by the municipality (i.e., Federal and State court corporations) and trained for to avoid the "deprivation of rights" via the NOT "facially valid court order" issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction.""  Thus sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity are not an excuse.

"Absolute immunity" for the "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States:" defeats the "We the People's" raisons d'etre for the incorporation with the "Constitution for the United States of America" i.e., to "establish Justice" and "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish."  See Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-10088. 

With 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners legal authorities[15] and the press[16] are making note of the absurdity of "absolute immunity" in an attempt to "establish Justice."

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

 cc:  My Blog - Thursday, July 23, 2015, 9:09:58 AM

[1] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte order of protection.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge.  "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003).

[2] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)

[3] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011)), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).

[4] Magna Carta in 1215 to Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98

[5] "AMENDMENT IV "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause

[6] M.R.S. Protective Orders Section 455.035 "for good cause shown in the petition… An immediate and present danger of domestic violence to the petitioner"

[7] "Where there is clearly no jurisdiction over the subject matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority, and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible." Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 351 (1871)

[8] "had no jurisdiction in the premises"  Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 339 (1871)

[9] "had no jurisdiction in the premises"  Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 339 (1871)

[10] Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United states i.e., 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030 , 14-5551 and NOW 14-10088

[11] "unequal protection" of the Laws based on gender discrimination via "fraud on the court" e.g., blatantly false accusation of abuse for tactical reasons in divorce and child custody proceedings.

[12] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011)).

[13] Connick, District attorney, et al. V. Thompson no. 09–571 563 U. S. ____ (2011)

[14] The "domestic relation exception" does not present itself because the statue itself excludes it.   Proceedings independent of others - Section 455.070, "All proceedings under sections 455.010 to (This includes Protective Orders Section 455.035) 455.085 are independent of any proceedings for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, separate maintenance and other actions between the parties and are in addition to any other available civil or criminal remedies, unless otherwise specifically provided herein. (L. 1980 S.B. 524 § 13)"

[15] Stephen R. Reinhardt , Circuit Judge, a judge on the Ninth Circuit - Michigan Law Review Vol. 113:1219 and Alex Kozimski, a judge on the Ninth Circuit - 44 GEO. L.J. ANN. REV. CRIM. PROC (2015)

[16] "Supreme Court's Unsigned Rulings Show a Narrow View of Rights" New York Times, By Adam Liptak  JULY 20, 2015

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/
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com orDGJeep01@yahoo.com

(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep

GENERAL DELIVERY

Saint Louis , MO 63155-9999

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-10088 - Jul 9 2015 - DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.

No. 14-10088 For a DOWNLOADABLE - PDF COPY  Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. United States Docketed: June 4, 2015 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit   Case Nos.: (15-1057)   Decision Date: April 3, 2015   Rehearing Denied: May 1, 2015 ~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ May 19 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 6, 2015) Jul 2 2015 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed. Jul 9 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.

---

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
David G. Jeep	General Delivery	(314) 514-5228
	Saint Louis, MO  63155-9999
	Dave@DGJeep.com
Party name: David Gerard Jeep
Attorneys for Respondent:
Donald B. Verrilli Jr.	Solicitor General	(202) 514-2217
	United States Department of Justice
	950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
	Washington, DC  20530-0001
	SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
Party name: United States

The Article III life-time-appointment was never meant to be a cover up for “sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia

Supreme Court of the United States

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Download a this as PDF file with active links.

Re: Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-10088 - USAP8 15-1057, David Gerard Jeep, v. United States – counter to “absolute immunity” for the deprivation of rights

Dear People,

I realize that all your quixotic polemics are not even worth a “parchment guarantee,” in the REAL-EVERYDAY-WORLD, for “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States of America… male, female, gay, straight, white, black, red, yellow, pink, or purple. 

Both of your assertions in King v. Burwell and Obergefell v. Hodges are without any real consistent basis, other than self-aggrandizingly rhetorical.  You both want to look like you are defending the “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States of America but you both know that is a lie.  Your support is without any real consistent resoluteness. 

Before the South won, pre-Civil-War, “We the People” could rely on our rights.  It was, at least judicially, "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" (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803)).

As pseudo students of history I would hope you know that “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”[1] of the United States of America lost all their gravitas with the despotic southern judicial victory post-Civil-War.  But alas I realize, as M. L. King, Jr. said, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”[2]

I see people fashionably upset by the glorification of the Southern Victories with Rebel Flags and rebel heroes, glorified with street names and public statuary.  If they only knew the true facts, they would be crying as I do.

The Black Robed Royalist Article III oligarchy on the Supreme Court starting after the Civil War in 1868[3] and 1871[4] has quashed the “sense and reason”[5] of the “raison d'être”[6] of We the People’s Constitution, Amendments, and the enactment of the constitutionally authorized ex industria[7] statute laws, now codified into the U.S. Code as 18 USC §241 - §242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law and 42 USC §1983 - §1985 Civil action for deprivation of rights.  We the People have been suffering from the despotic southern Black Robed Royalist Article III oligarchy’s criminal[8] deprivation of rights “under color of law” EVER SINCE!

Now I realize that Ginsburg’s recent assertions might appear on the surface to be more consistent with “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States of America.  But she has turned a blind eye at least 5 times,[9] I am personally aware of, to the 147 year issue of “absolute immunity” for the "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."

I have to ask, where would “We the People” be today had the judicial constitutional “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" (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803)) HELD post-Civil-War for ALL PERSONS as “We the People” “desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law”[10]?

With Scalia’s recent yammerings in Obergefell v. Hodges and King v. Burwell, he clearly does not have the slightest clue as to what rights are all about or how statues are read.  But I restate just so he cannot deny them - the Constitutional Judicial Rule prior to the South winning the Civil War was "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" (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803)).  Post-Civil-War it was REITERATED into ex industria constitutionally authorized statute law, the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871:

“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, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”[11]

and

“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, 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, 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]

There is no grey-area as to the interpretations of the pre-Civil War constitutional judicial rule and post-Civil-War statutes.  Constitutionally Judges were bound[13] prior to the Civil War and then post-Civil-War “Every person” or “Whoever,” without exclusion, were constitutionally and knowingly prohibited from the “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States” “under color of any law…” by the constitution and ex industria constitutionally authorized statute law.

The Article III life-time-appointment was never meant to be a cover up for “sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity.”  There is an enforceable “sense and reason,”[14] of the “raison d'être” if you will, [15] to every law that may conflict with a hypothetically EXTRACTED biased interpretation of a phrase isolated from the whole as the court agreed in King v. Burwell.  The Article III life-time-appointment was meant to establish Justice based on the “sense and reason,”[16] the “raison d'être” [17] if you will, for minorities (LGBT and men in the “Jane Crow” era – see PWCert 14-10088) against entrenched pejorative majorities to vindicate “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” for ALL PERSONS.

To any reasonable interpretation the “sense and reason”[18] of the “raison d'être”[19] of both post-Civil-War statutes was the statutory reassertion of the constitutional pre-Civil War judicial rule i.e., "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" (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803)).

Clearly the rights to have the government endorse your “paternity rights,” your “property rights,” your right to assert next of kin” on a death certificate and “marital commitments” (and associated joint paternity and property rights) are “fundamental right(s) inherent in the liberty of the person” i.e., “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” and subject to the constitutional protection of “due process of law” and “equal protection of the laws.”[20]  As the Court’s opinion makes clear quoting Cicero, “The first bond of society is marriage; next, children; and then the family.”[21]

All of that is defeated today by “absolute immunity” for the “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,”         see Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-10088. 

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

cc:  My Blog - Monday, July 06, 2015, 3:40:46 PM

---

[1] See the XIV Amendment, Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985

[2] MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963) - Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. 

[3] Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)

[4] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) and Mireles v. Waco 502 U.S. 9 (1991), Not to mention their progeny Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)

[5] "It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul." MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

[6] “To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre.”  Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 656 (1980)

“"Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre.”  [Footnote 41] Note, Developments in the Law: Section 1983 and Federalism, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 1133, 1224 (1977). See also Johnson v. State, 69 Cal.2d 782, 792-793, 447 P.2d 352, 359-360 (1968): “As a threshold matter, we consider it unlikely that the possibility of government liability will be a serious deterrent to the fearless exercise of judgment by the employee. In any event, however, to the extent that such deterrent effect takes hold, it may be wholesome. An employee in a private enterprise naturally gives some consideration to the potential liability of his employer, and this attention unquestionably promotes careful work; the potential liability of a governmental entity, to the extent that it affects primary conduct at all, will similarly influence public employees.” Owen v. City of Independence - 445 U.S. 656 (1980)

[7] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 34 (1883)

[8] 18 USC §241 - §242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law

[9] Docketed and denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030 & 14-5551

[10] “Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law.”  MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

[11] As currently codified into US Statute law as Criminal 18 U.S. Code § 242

[12] As currently codified into US Statute law as Civil 42 U.S. Code § 1983

[13] Article VI. § 2 “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.”

[14] "It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul." MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

[15] “To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre.”  Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 656 (1980)

[16] "It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul." MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

[17] “To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre.”  Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 656 (1980)

[18] "It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul." MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

[19] “To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre.”  Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 656 (1980)

“"Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre.”  [Footnote 41] Note, Developments in the Law: Section 1983 and Federalism, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 1133, 1224 (1977). See also Johnson v. State, 69 Cal.2d 782, 792-793, 447 P.2d 352, 359-360 (1968): “As a threshold matter, we consider it unlikely that the possibility of government liability will be a serious deterrent to the fearless exercise of judgment by the employee. In any event, however, to the extent that such deterrent effect takes hold, it may be wholesome. An employee in a private enterprise naturally gives some consideration to the potential liability of his employer, and this attention unquestionably promotes careful work; the potential liability of a governmental entity, to the extent that it affects primary conduct at all, will similarly influence public employees.” Owen v. City of Independence - 445 U.S. 656 (1980)

[20] Article. IV - Section. 2. “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” And XIV Amendment Section 1. “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.  ”

[21] 3 576 U. S. ____ (2015)