Sincere Ignorance And Conscientious Stupidity
Internationally Asserted Basic Human Rights,[1]
The Constitution for the United States of America[2]
and Statute Law[3] are IGNORED
I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Clothes"
AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
a country in which nobody[4] is ever truly safe."[5]
Anthony Smith was killed on December 20, 2011 in St. Louis, Missouri. Anthony Smith's death was at best reckless disregard – manslaughter and at worst MURDER! Any obfuscation of his guilt outside those parameters is "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"
When are we going to start holding our representatives, the judges, the prosecutors and the police, to a PROFESSIONAL STANDARD of COMPETENCY and integrity under color of law and hold them accountable for their sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions?
I SAY NOW!
The Supreme Court Black Robed Royalist Article III Posers say:
"We the People," all evidence to the contrary, "sub silentio"[7] traded the "King can do no WRONG" - for any sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the "malicious or corrupt" judges (Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)), the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)), the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)), the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, and stupid actions of federal, state, local, and regional legislators (Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138) and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions of "all persons (spouses included) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)) acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of INALIENABLE RIGHTS under color of law.
Those precedent, from the Supreme Court Black Robed Royalist Article III Posers, are the definitive exemplars of Martin's assertion of ultimate danger - "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Perfection does not exist in human form, thus absolute immunity represents "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. "We the People," fought a revolution to be rid of the "King can do no WRONG." For 240 years we have slowly been relinquishing our revolutionary assertion, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" to the "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity of absolute immunity.
Judge Timothy Wilson's competency and integrity, I question both. First, his integrity, taking the case as a bench trial, over the objection of prosecutors, writing that, "after 28 years serving as a trial judge, the Court is confident in its own judgment and analytical abilities."
Judge Timothy Wilson based his decision on a clearly biased view of law enforcement from his "absolutely immune" "thirty years on the bench." Clearly, Judge Timothy Wilson deceptively refused to hold Jason Stockley to a professional level of competency and responsibility in the use of force.
Judge Timothy Wilson's asserted conclusive premise "Finally, the Court observes, based on its nearly thirty years on the bench, that an urban heroin dealer not in possession of a firearm would be an anomaly." does not hold up to competent scrutiny.
First and foremost while Judge Timothy Wilson excluded all reference to any prior bad acts he put Anthony Smith to death with the assertion of his being a convicted gun carrying drug dealer.
Additionally, I for one assert urban heroin dealers do not carry guns as a general rule. I would be willing to bet any money, with my limited experience, I could show that the overwhelming majority of drug deals, especially those on a parking lot at Church's Fried Chicken, in the State of Missouri are not covered by nor involve a gun at any time. Judge Timothy Wilson's premise is clearly FLAWED – an unsustainably INCOMPETENT biased observation.
But even if Anthony Smith had a gun, the shooting, at best, was reckless disregard and unwarranted use of a gun - manslaughter.
Clearly, Jason Stockley, at best, had reckless disregard for Anthony Smith's life with his statement "we're killing this motherfucker" regardless of the circumstances of an adrenalin fortified high-speed chase.
Anthony Smith's subsequent death, armed or unarmed, while tangled up and contained in an inflated airbag of a freshly wrecked vehicle was at best manslaughter. The risk and adrenalin of a high-speed chase, that, Judge Wilson asserts may have motivated Jason Stockley's assertion of "we're killing this motherfucker" was allayed. The car was disabled.
Jason Stockley then recklessly approached and killed Anthony Smith, i.e., manslaughter/murder.
It should be noted for clarity that Jason Stockley was a West Point Graduate and an Iraq War veteran. That fact was on his resume when he was hired and promoted by the St. Louis Police Department. To say his resume and experience has no bearing, would be to say that a brain surgeon need not complete a medical degree nor have the hands on experience of hospital residency.
Professional self-defense tactics that Jason Stockley should have been taught, and/or held to, demanded caution - and prohibited gun-slinging - and any adrenaline charged assertion of "we're killing this motherfucker."
Judge Wilson asserts, "A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to arrest or prevent the escape of a person the officer believes to have committed an offense. A law enforcement officer is entitled to use deadly force where the officer reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary to effect the arrest and reasonably believes the person is attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon or may otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury.§ 563.046 RSMo 2000."
And I accept that, but I add to it We the People require a reasonable professional level obligation that caution be utilized at ALL TIMES. UNWARRANTED at risk behavior that creates a self-defensive posture can produce unwarranted criminal manslaughter and at worst murder.
There was no imperative to kill anyone. If Jason Stockley had not been sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid; Jason Stockley could have stayed safely behind Anthony Smith's vehicle out of Anthony Smith's direct view and out of range of an armed or unarmed Anthony Smith. And if Anthony Smith had been armed and brandish a gun, openly as a credible threat; then and ONLY then Smith would have warranted a lethal and overwhelming at close range barrage of gunfire. Anthony Smith never had a chance to recover from the police created exigency of impact to his vehicle and the airbag deployment much less comprehend an order.
Now while the public and police officers may have been at risk during the high-speed car chase; that was no longer the case when the car had been disabled by the impact and the airbag had been actuated - the car was un-drivable, and could have easily been blocked/restrained by the soon numerous police vehicles.
Judge Timothy Wilson verdict was an assertion of "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." The Court should, at a minimum now, "conform the pleadings to the evidence," and convict Jason Stockley of reckless manslaughter and or 1st Degree Murder (A party may move—at any time, even after judgment—to amend the pleadings to conform them to the evidence and to raise an unpleaded issue. Rule 15. Amended and Supplemental Pleadings | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
"Jane Crow" is REAL! Today's domestic relations law disfavors men. "In the United States, 40 percent of children are born to unmarried women, the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show."[8]
"Academics have long wondered how to encourage marriage, because two parents tend to have more resources than one."
Why are two-parent household no longer as dominant as in the past? A recent study study shows - it is not race, it is not income.
In the "Jane Crow" era THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS TO anybody with their eyes OPEN.
MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY AMERICAN DOMESTIC RELATION LAW.
The American legal system in America favors woman as custodial parents. The best men can hope for is part-time parenting and child support payments - AT BEST!!
The issue for your consideration is - can men be disfavored under the 14th Amendment's requirement for "equal protection of the law?
We have been here before:
"Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the pur-pose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so con-strued 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. By this I do not mean that the determi-nation of these cases should have been materially controlled by considera-tions of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requir-ing, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted."[3]
The Judiciary got away with it AGAIN because they have AGAIN put themselves above Due Process of Law's GROUNDING jury requirement.
The Gravamen
The asserted uncontested, undeniable,
NOW-exigent and "reckonable" gravamen is an ex parte court order of protection from 13.60 years, ago they took my son, my home and all my most valued worldly possession, threw me out on the street and then forced me into a disputed divorce where my
criminal adversaries had been empowered by all that has been
fraudulentlyand
criminally taken from me. I have been struggling to expose this for 13.60 years with 411 days in jail, 8 trips through the federal court system and this my
8th Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, the prior six were denied, i.e.,
07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, 14-5551, 14-10088 and 15-8884. The
current "As mailed to the Clerk and ALL the Justices
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - a question - UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT -
Case No: 17-1246 - Mandate Filed: 05/22/2017 Entry ID: 4538537 (with the 4th paragraph moved up from the reference 8th endnote)"
From the instant of day one Monday November 03, 2003 08:00 PM at the start of Monday Night Football -
New England PATRIOTS v Denver BRONCOS,
[9] this has been FRAUD ON THE COURT,
coram non judice, an
infamously-scandalous extra-judicial gravamen, by
omnipotent moral busybodies, more specifically, an unconstitutional, as noted via Supreme Court precedent, deprivation of rights under color of law:
Ø an exparte non-exigent order of protection, listing only an alleged non-exigent misdemeanor traffic violation as unreasonable probable cause…
If the
reckonable[18] Supreme Law of the Land, Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII & XIV, statutes 42 USC §1983&1985 Civil Action for the Deprivation of Rights,
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) imposes upon Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and numerous Article III precedents, as noted above, do not restrict a judicial act's jurisdiction the candid citizen must confess as rhetorically asserted by Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address,
[19] Monday, March 4, 1861, "We the People" "
have ceased to be their own rulers" and "
We the People" have resigned ourselves into the hands of an
infamously-scandalous extra-judicial group of "
omnipotent moral busybodies,"
[20] claiming delegated
respondeat superior infamously-scandalous extra-judicial authority, acting against our liberty at any time, for any reason without recourse to the
due process of the Supreme Law of the Land.
How can "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"
and
"absolute immunity" for the "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America" BOTH BE CONSTITUTIONAL? Martin Luther King, Jr. knew when he said… "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
You ask why we have MASS INCARCERATION IN AMERICA? Judges,
[21] Prosecutors,
[22] Police
[23] and All Persons
[24] have "absolute immunity" for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."
Malicious or corrupt OR INCOMPETENT judges
[25] turn a blind eye to "
malicious or dishonest"
[26] unconstitutional persecutions via a prosecutors
[27] withholding of "
evidence favorable to an accused"
[28] with "
knowingly false testimony by police officers,"
[29] "under color of law."
IT HAPPENS EVER SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA!!!!
THINK!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!! THINK!!!!!!!!!
I recently read an article in the New York Times "An Ode to Obamacare" By Gail Collins - FEB. 12, 2015. Now I admit the article was unabashedly in favor of the President's healthcare program. And I admit I am too.
What I am writing about is not HEALTHCARE, let us be clear on that! My issue is with our malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant, conscientiously stupid and Incompetent JUSTICE system that will even entertain a suit such as King v. Burwell. The four individuals, in
King v. Burwell, who live in Virginia, were suing because they did not want the tax credits offered to assist them in finding affordable healthcare. And we cannot hold our Article III Justice system accountable for "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"
[30] It is insanity of the first order!!!!
I have been to the FEDERAL District to the Circuit to the Supreme Court six times.
[31] I am through the District (MOED Case #: 4:15CV1533HEA) and into the Circuit (U. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit Case# 15-3403) for me SEVENTH time.
[32]
I have been at this for 11 years, with undisputed evidence of malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence on the part of the Police,
[33]Prosecutors and Judges. The Police with their malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and incompetence unimpaired by our justice system offered, what should have been, knowingly false testimony. The Prosecutors refused me exculpable evidence that would have proved the false testimony the police offered perjury. The Judge acting with a complete lack of JURISDICTION e.g., Subject matter jurisdiction a complete lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Complete lack of Geographic Jurisdiction offered a court order that was
NOT "a
facially valid court order."
[34]
THINK!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!! THINK!!!!!!!!!
Stop the ongoing WAR ON CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!!
THINK!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!! THINK!!!!!!!!!
It is not about race relations, sexuality, police brutality or campaign finance, it is about corruption in our justice system.
Everybody acting under color of law HAS CIVIL AND CRIMINAL "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY" FOR THE "THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution and laws." It is not about the "thin blue line" among our police. IT IS ABOUT THE MALICIOUS AND CORRUPT GUILD OF "BLACK ROBED" ROYALIST "ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE" ARTICLE III JUDICIARY. Police have absolute immunity to provide "knowingly false testimony" on the stand under oath. Prosecutors have "absolute immunity" for "malicious or dishonest" actions.
THINK!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!! THINK!!!!!!!!!
"Absolutely immune" Dishonest, malicious, corrupt, "knowingly false testimony" and the withholding of exculpable evidence does more damage to "We the People" every day in our so called Article III attempt to "establish justice" than a squad of police officers could do with automatic weapons in a shopping mall without remorse!!!
IT IS NECESSARILY ABOUT JUSTICE.
TODAY, "We the People" are ruled by the unwritten absolutely immune self-serving MARTIAL LAW of JUDICIAL RULE in the "Jane Crow Era," the World War on Drugs and the malicious and corrupt prerogative of the MALICIOUS AND CORRUPT GUILD OF "BLACK ROBED" ROYALIST "ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE" ARTICLE III JUDICIARY that NEGATES all our supposedly inalienable constitutional rights.
I realize it sounds almost ridiculous but "We the People" "to establish Justice" need a Constitutional Amendment:
"Malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence ARE NOT and never have been covered by ANY grant of immunity, under color of CONSTITUTIONAL law."
You don't believe me READ their precedent.
To hear the supreme court sophistry
[35] tell us, via their unrestricted absolutely immune power, "
We the People," all evidence to the contrary, "
sub silentio"[36] traded the "King can do no WRONG" for the of the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the "malicious or corrupt" judges (Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)), the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)), the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)), corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions of federal, state, local, and regional legislators (Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138) and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions of "all persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)) acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of INALIENABLE RIGHTS under color of law.
We need a constitutional amendment to END the judicial sanction of Malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence
What the Supreme Court has done and I quote the 2011, CONNICK v. THOMPSON, decision:
"As our precedent makes clear, proving that a municipality 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.12 Bryan County, 520 U. S., at 406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392."
HOW COULD OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND / OR GOVERNMENT ACTORS "UNDER COLOR OF LAW," AVOID STRICT ABSOLUTE LIABILITY FOR INALIENABLE SUPREME COURT CERTIFIED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?
Connick, based on the ADMITTED facts, Mr. Thompson had been UNCONSTITUTIONALLY held 15 years on Death Row. This was due to the ADMITTED fact that Mr. Connick, the Prosecuting attorney, had REPEATEDLY, as a government actor under color of law, failed to provide Mr. Thompson and others ex-culpable evidence that would have proven Mr. Thompson and others innocence.
HOW COULD OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND / OR GOVERNMENT ACTORS "UNDER COLOR OF LAW," AVOID STRICT ABSOLUTE LIABILITY FOR INALIENABLE SUPREME COURT CERTIFIED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?
We the People have fallen under the
despotic[37] spell of the self-servingly constructed
[38] "
excess of power"
[39] in the Supreme Court that has constructed
[40] ABSOLUTE POWER[41] from
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for denial of
INALIENABLE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (Criminal
18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 and Civil
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 ) by "
malicious or corrupt" judges(Bradley v. Fisher, supra,
80 U. S. 335,
80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray,
386 U. S. 57 (1967)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)),
[42] the "
malicious or dishonest" prosecutor (
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)),
[43] the "
knowingly false testimony by police officers" (
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),
[44] the
corrupt, malicious,dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid
[45] actions
[46] of federal, state, local, and regional legislators (Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997)
Tenney v.
Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376;
Amy v.
Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138)
[47] and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest,
sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[48] actions of "
all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process" (
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983))
[49] acting
under color of law to render
ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION[50] of inalienable rights under color of law.
Article III Judicial Power is defined and limited by an act of "We the People's" Congress. It does not require a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment. It is time that "We the People" assert our control, via an act of congress, of the Supreme Court: "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" (Article III, Section. 2, § 2)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If there is only one thing you read this YEAR, please, PLEASE read MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 1883… AND THEN CONSIDER WHERE "We the People" would be had "WE THE PEOPLE" prevailed in 1883 with constitutionally authorized "necessary and proper" ex industria statute law the 1875 Civil Rights Act!!!!!!!
To hear the Supreme Court tell us, via their unrestricted absolutely immune power,
We the People, all evidence to the contrary, traded the "King can do no WRONG" for the
ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the "
malicious or corrupt" judges(Bradley v. Fisher, supra,
80 U. S. 335,
80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray,
386 U. S. 57 (1967)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)),
[51] the "
malicious or dishonest" prosecutor
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976),
[52] the "
knowingly false testimony by police officers" (
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),
[53] corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid
[54] actions
[55] of federal, state, local, and regional legislators (Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997)
Tenney v.
Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376;
Amy v.
Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138)
[56] and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest,
sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[57] actions of "
all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process" (
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983))
[58] acting
under color of law to render
ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION[59] of
INALIENABLE RIGHTS under color of law.
The Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary on the Supreme Court since the civil war in 1868 and 1871 (and again in 1967 by repeated reference) has cited Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607)
[60] to construct
[61] an "
excess of power"
[62] to quash the "sense and reason"
[63] for the "
raison d'être"
[64] of
We the People's Constitution, Amendments, and the enactment of the constitutionally authorized
ex industria[65] 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 Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary's criminal
[66] deprivation of rights under color of law EVER SINCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anybody that doubts this, just look at history. Justice Harlan's Dissent in Civil Rights Cases 109 U.S. 26 (1883) is the most eloquent of examples. 130 years of Jim Crow, Jane Crow, victimless crimes, plea bargain, exclusionary rule and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid
[67] "absolutely immune" judge constructed
[68] law later… the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court can STILL reach into their "
black bag of tricks" to pull out anything they want to justify their malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid "absolutely immune" actions.
In 1868 the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court first CONSTRUCTED
[69] "absolute immunity" in
Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) asserting
Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607). Randall v. Brigham (1868) was Judicial sophistry[70] at its finest, a judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary immunity from the recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866. The
Civil Rights Act of 1866 made it a CRIME for "
Whoever, under color of any law…, 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." Judicial liability for the crime was brought up extensively in the congressional debates and EXPRESSLY made part of
President Johnson's Veto (March 27, 1866), noted as
"assailing the independence of the judiciary," which was then congressionally over ridden into statute two weeks later. The
Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted into LAW over the expressed objection of the President, overridden by the Senate on April 6, 1866 (33 - 15) and then overridden by the House and became law on April 9, 1866 (122 - 41).
Likewise the judicial sophistry
[71] of
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871),
also asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607),
was a subterfuge to give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the civil liability enacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Passed by the House on April 19, 1871 (93–74) and by the Senate on April 19, 1871 (36–13) and then it was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871.
What neither Randall v. Brigham (1868) nor Bradley v. Fisher (1871) like to admit is they both were basically CONTRIVED issue drawn from administration issues of the court, in both cases an attorney sued the sitting judge, questioning the judge's administerial discretion "striking the name of an attorney from its roll." I liken this to questioning an umpire after a called strike it was not constitutional issue and to infer that ANY Judge is exempt from liability in a civil or criminal action for their judicial acts done within their jurisdiction, and judges of superior or general authority are exempt from such liability even when their judicial acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, unless perhaps where the acts in excess of their jurisdiction are done maliciously or corruptly."
The KICKER IS, wait for it… BOTH Randall v. Brigham (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher (1871) were based on the corrupt "
black bag of tricks"
assertion of Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607) as precedent. What Randall and Bradley fail to tell you is that the "Star Chamber" was
abolished for CAUSE, I quote from the
Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber" July 5, 1641 "
the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void."
The causes were MANY, but one of particular note to anyone that has suffered at the hands of "absolute immunity" was, and again I quote, "the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments than by any law is warranted."
So our sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court constructed,
[72] and has since pulled the wool over
We the Peoples eyes, a precedent from a court that asserted "absolute immunity" but who's power was, by Act of Parliament, ultimately "
clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away and determined,"
FOR CAUSE, abusing said "absolute immunity." That would be like allowing a potential thief into your house because his father a known thief, a convicted thief asserted that he would not steal before he was caught stealing. If there is anything to be learned from
Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607) it is the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court CANNOT BE "ABSOLUTELY" TRUSTED!!!!!!!!!! It is INSANITY to think any other way!!!!!!
As examples of the Judicial sophistry,
[73] that has corrupted
We the People's unalienable rights under color of law, I submit, Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7 (1868)
[74] the origin of judicial criminal sophisticated
[75] "absolute immunity,"
Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872)
[76] origin of sophisticated
[77] Judicial civil "absolute immunity,"
Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871) sophisticated
[78] "absolute immunity" for racially motivate mass murder,
United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875) sophisticated
[79] deprivation of the 15
th Amendment's Voting Rights protection with
the subterfuges of poll taxes
, literacy tests
, and grandfather clauses,
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) sophisticated
[80] "absolute immunity" for racially motivated massacre (Colfax Riot/pogrom),
United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883) sophisticated
[81] "absolute immunity" for the state's sanctioned kidnapping, assault and murder without regard to the 14
th Amendment's security,
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) creating sophisticated
[82] racial segregation and the ongoing Jim Crow discrimination over the "necessary and proper" "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) separate and UNEQUAL, clarifying sophisticated
[83] segregation over the necessary and proper "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)
reaffirmed Judicial sophisticated
[84] "absolute immunity,"
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) prosecutorial sophisticated
[85] "absolute immunity,"
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) sophisticated
[86] "absolute immunity" for forced sterilization, and
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) sophisticated
[87] "absolute immunity" for "knowingly false testimony by police officers," and "all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process." If that is not
ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of
We the People's intent to establish justice, I cannot imagine what is.
![]()
THAT IS AUDACIOUS INSANITY!!!!
My QUESTION is how did the UNQUALIFIED governmental liability for RIGHTS "under color of law"i.e., the "property in rights" as asserted by James Madison (1792)[88] and the Revolutionary War, Civil War, Constitution, World War I, World War II and the "statute's (§1983) raisons d'etre"[89] get reduced??? Do we have to invest more lives to again establish an INDIVIDUAL'S property in RIGHTS???
What good are rights if the "property in rights," as confirmed by James Madison (1792), is not "under color of law" protected UNQUALIFIED by any government authority??
Why have a constitution, much less statute law; if it can be disregarded as disposable property in the hands of those who are commissioned to provide UNQUALIFIED protection of the "property in rights"???
The Article III, Black Robed Royalist, ,
Antonin Scalia,
Clarence Thomas,
Samuel Alito,
Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice
John G. Roberts, delegated authorities, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission have
awarded themselves and others "absolute immunity"[90] from their constitutional commission to "
do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"
[91] i.e.,
the "
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"
[92] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1
st and 7
th Amendment
Justice, [93]
We the People have forgotten the "property in rights" asserted by James Madison in 1792. We the People have to "equally respect the rights of property and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments." ("Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792)
Absolute Immunity, as a "constructive power,"
[108] has and will continue to QUASH the "
raison d'être"
[109] for the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Constitution, Statute Law and thus Inalienable RIGHTS/Justice.
I submit the indisputable and undisputed facts in SEVEN United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case #07-2614, 08-1823, 09-2848, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200 and THREE
docketed and two denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193 and
13-7030.
No one in a free country under a constitutional Government can be above the Law. No one in a country of FREE and EQUAL persons is more powerful than an innocent man.
Family Court is the place where Fathers systematically lose all right to their own children, but remain financially responsible for them. This happens to 90% of fathers that go through the court, and it happens to hundreds of families every day. This has crippled hundreds of millions of men across western democracies both emotionally and financially and has resulted in a 1500% higher suicide rate than regular unaffected men.
The original fraudulent[110] court order at the inception and center of this issue, in 2003, was NOT "a
facially valid court order."
[111] The issuing Judicial Officer did not have "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation"
[112] for the stated charge
[113] and thus it was "taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction."
[114] Clearly to any
facially[115]reckonable
[116] reading of Due Process rights, reasonable probable cause is a prerequisite for government action/jurisdiction. There are "absolutes" in our Bill of Rights, and they were put there on purpose by
men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be "absolutes."
[117]
In the 10.41 years
[118] since there has never been any mention of "exigent circumstances" nor "good faith" mistakes there for the order stands on its own as, brazenly,
NOT a "
facially valid court order."
[119] Since the civil domestic issue has been ongoing for 10.41 years
[120] "
the "exclusionary rule"[121] is simply irrelevant… it is damages or nothing."[122] Since 2003 the Commissioner Jones and the original petitioner Sharon G. Jeep both contradicted their original assertions, although neither took the "Good Faith" requisite of RESPONSIBILITY!!!
I again quote Justice Hugo Black:
"The Fourth Amendment provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The use of the word "unreasonable" in this Amendment means, of course, that not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Only those which are unreasonable are unlawful. There may be much difference of opinion about whether a particular search or seizure is unreasonable and therefore forbidden by this Amendment. But if it is unreasonable, it is absolutely prohibited.
Likewise, the provision which forbids warrants for arrest, search or seizure without "probable cause" is itself an absolute prohibition."
[123]
The warrant/Order issued by Judge Goeke and ordered heard by Commissioner on its
FACE was unreasonable because it lacked "probable cause" for the stated charge.
[124]
Now if you could somehow get past the constitutional requirement for REASONABLE probable cause and prohibition of a "general warrant," which you can not. The 8th Amendment's requirement that "nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
" for an alleged, later disproven,[125] misdemeanor traffic violation precludes the imposed punishment, the deprivation of my home, my son, my paternity and my liberty.
The Rule of Law, the "mere operation of law" as described by Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, the seminal Supreme Court case said, "The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."[126] Of course the 1st Amendment's lawfully un-abridge-able right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" and the right to sue the sovereign/government for a justifiable grievance under Article III and the 7th Amendment as timely and explicitly made precedent by Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803):
"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."
In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.
"In all other cases," he says,
"it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded."
And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he says,
"I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the Courts of common law.[127] And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress."
The Founding Fathers, the Authors of the constitution, had lived for too long at the discretion of the Nobility's[128] absolute immunity with "no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right" and sought to establish a reckonable[129] Rule of Law to replace the Rule of the Nobility's absolute immune prerogative. The Rule of Law is meaningless if the ubiquitous absolute immunity[130] that empowered the Rule of the Nobility in pre-revolutionary times is allowed to circumvent the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is therefore, by definition, irreconcilably opposed to absolute immunity. There can be no Rule of Law if the law can be circumvented by absolute immunity.
I can prove my competency; I have TWO government certified competency exams to my credit: I dare say the Judiciary's asserted unimpeachable incorporated competency could not credibly sustain the Judiciary's unreasonable absolute immunity in a common law 7th Amendment controversy before a Jury of OUR peers.
The immediate issue for the writer revolves around the Jane Crow era in Family Law, where a man's rights are secondary to the rights of any woman that can feign tears:
The "Jane Crow" Era, "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 fete de complete, "
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, 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. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order." "
The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire,
Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, 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.
Admittedly the Jane Crow era of rampant deprivation of RIGHTS is relatively new as compared to its predecessor the Jim Crow era.
Jane Crow and Jim Crow are both based on the conviction/lynching by infamous[131] accusation without access to 5th and 14th Amendment's Justice with the equal protection of Due Process of Law.
I have referenced "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process," in several of my papers. I do so only because the admittedly fictionalized facts of the case in "To Kill a Mocking Bird" are generally known but not without standing Jane Crow era. If the Sheriff Tate had investigated the accusations of Mayella Ewel, he would have seen them for the racially motivated baseless vexatious
[132] or calumnious
[133] accusation against a crippled man of good character that they were.
How could the crippled, a man of good character, Tom Robinson been able to do the things he was accused of?
If Horace Gilmer the prosecuting attorney had actually looked at the evidence Atticus presented instead of blindly pushing the perjured racially biased testimony of the Ewels he would have offered to dismiss the charges. If Judge Taylor had any of the altruistic, supposedly independent, courage that our judiciary
[134] is based on, he would have dismissed the charge as racially based "vexatious"
[135] or "calumnious"
[136] so as not to offend the
Ends of Justice that should have been his PRIMARY motivation.
Tom Robinson was convicted because of the infamy of the charge and the deliberate indifference to his right to JUSTICE under fair Due Process of law as required and asserted in the Constitution for the United States of America – the preamble to establish justice, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, Article III, §1 & 2, Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph and the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment.
Atticus should not have had to say a word, just present the evidence of a crippled since childhood man. The Sherriff, the Prosecutor and the Judge are all representatives not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, the Sherriff, the Prosecutor and the Judge are in a peculiar and very definite sense the servants of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. The Sherriff and the Prosecutor may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, they should do so. But, while they may strike hard blows, they are not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much they're duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
It is fair to say that the average jury (MOST everyday people), in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the judiciary, prosecuting attorney, and sheriff will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused, when they should properly carry none. (paraphrased slightly from Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 88 (1935))
Judges by definition in We the People's system are there to independently and altruistically enforce fair Due Process of law on the Sherriff, the Prosecutor and the defendant as necessary to the ends of justice.[137]
How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[138] condoned[139] and supported by Supreme Court precedent be constitutional in a SANE government of the people, by the people and for the people?
This is a massive malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[140] self-serving conspiracy against rights!!!
"Historically, the claim of precedent and / or consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled."
[141] Absolute Immunity even in the supreme Court has NEVER been established without, in most cases, multiple dissenting opinions.
To assume that the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution of the United States of America as the supreme Law of the Land, "intended
sub silentio to exempt"[142] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,
[143] prosecutorial
[144]and enforcement
[145] power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible "fantastic or delusional scenario."
[146]
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[147]
This embarrasses the future and the past[148]
There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.
[149] We the People incorporated ourselves, in 1788, into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity with a lawfully un-abridge-able right of the people to justifiably petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[150]
How can the Supreme Court,
a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission
awarded themselves and others "
absolute immunity"[151] from their constitutional commission to "
do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"
[152] i.e.,
the "
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"
[153] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, [154]
and
I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Clothes." AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, [155] in a government of free and equal persons on THIS PLANET!!!!!
ANY assertion of governmental ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, acknowledging un-avoidable human fallibility, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, in a government of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!
The ministerial[156] grant of [157] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional an "unlawful Conspiracy"[158]"before out of Court"[159] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[160]
Impeach[163] the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[164]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[165] and "fraud upon the court."
Supreme Court precedent empowers the "
malicious or corrupt" judges by saying, "
This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly" (
Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in
Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 349, note, at
80 U. S. 350.)
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
Supreme Court precedent empowers the "
malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "
To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty."
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
Supreme Court precedent empowers the "
knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "
There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers."
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
Supreme Court precedent empowers any and all malice, corruption, "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"
[169] by saying "
In short, the common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process. It is equally clear that § 1983 does not authorize a damages claim against private witnesses, on the one hand, or against judges or prosecutors in the performance of their respective duties, on the other."
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983)
Judicial modesty is one of the best possible qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice, a position that offers so much untrammeled power and brings so much temptation along with it.
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"
[172]" for the "
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"
[173] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"
[174] "The Exclusionary Rule," "Grounds for Impeachment."
Most of the 99% of Americans have not had the pleasure and are silently intimidated by the prospect of being dragged through our corrupt COURTS kicking and screaming!!!!!! I have been kicking and screaming for nearly 9 years.[175] I have suffered through 411 days of illegal incarceration, 5 years of homelessness and two psychological examinations. I ask you to review 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case
Jeep v Government of the United States of America #07-2614, 08-1823, 09-2848, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200, and the most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court
07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193 and
13-7030."
We hold a "
4-Year-Old Can Be Sued."
[176] We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion.
[177] We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[178] We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion.
[179] We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion.
[180] But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence, malice and corruption of "our chief justice (judges), our officials (prosecutors), or any of our servants (law enforcement)"
[181] and compensate the victims?
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is TIME…
"simply because it is right."
Friday, September 22, 2017, 10:21:35 AM
GENERAL DELIVERY,
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
(314) 514-5228
