I have been comparing my case, Jeep v Obama, to CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) for a while now. I am sure some of you are wondering where is the similarity? Thompson’s was a death row case, yours is a Divorce/Traffic law case. And based on the facts that is 100% accurate. Both of our cases are currently at a standstill because of the denial of Justice by way of stare diesis. Stare Diesis in these cases is at war with the equal protection of the law and the ends of Justice.
Both Thompson and I have been severely damaged, I doubt Thompson would want to take my place; I know I would not want to Thompson’s place. Who has been damaged more? Because my feelings are REAL to me and Thompson’s only hypothetical, I have to come down on my side. My life was destroyed by incompetent irresponsible power wielding officers of the court “Under color of Law.” It was fraud on the court. I still suffer the linger effects of “post-traumatic stress. I cannot help but keep replaying in my mind the tape of what happened to me in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. I have been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly.” The seemingly impossible hope of justice is all I have left. I know it is along shot. But even more than that I know the Criminals need to be exposed. The Criminals on the Supreme Court, the criminals in the federal courts, the criminals in the state courts, the criminals in Osage Beach and St. Louis County. They have all forgotten the founding premise of any government of the people, by the people and for the people, to establish Justice.
The bigger difference is in representation, because Mr. Thompson was in a death penalty case, the state had to hire an uberempathetic pro-bono high powered, expensive, law firm to back him up during the appeals process. If they had not done that he would, like me, be convicted of crime he can prove to be fraud, but cannot get it in front of the court because of the Judge made law, stare diesis.
Because my case is not a death penalty, because I do not have the ability nor the resources to search the trial records in Osage Beach and St. Louis County I can’t get my case in front of the court. Not that I could now get past the criminal stare diesis in Connick v. Thompson. The Guild of Judges has closed ranks; they are asserting stare diesis in my case, even though I have evidence that irrefutably proves that the Four Judges on two different case, two police officers and three prosecuting attorneys have all acted a in accord, a conspiracy against rights, MY RIGHTS. My son is being raised almost exclusively by my courtroom mortal enemy, my ex-wife. She has the Ex-Parte Order of Protection she can force me from the room with a false tear. I have been branded an abuser and drunkard, my family looks at me differently, my co-workers look at me differently, my friends fear me even though I have never even raised my hand to threaten ANYONE and never had a drinking problem!!!!!!
Being a declared wife abuser and a convicted drunkard I am automatically filed away as violent and irresponsible. I might as well have a scarlet letter on my brow.
Because at present there is no money in either of our cases, they are DEAD in the water. Neither of us has the funds to pursue our cases with our own finances. Mr. Thompson got further than I did, because for awhile he had the uberempathetic pro-bono high powered, expensive, law firm backing him up during the appeals process. I have nothing “but the will that says hold on.” They took everything from me, I have nothing but emptiness of their larceny. The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't!!!!!!!!
“In such cases as ours, there is no safety for the citizen except in the protection of the judicial tribunals for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government professing to act in its name. There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime.” United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882)Page 106 U. S. 219
How can stare diesis nullify the First Amendment's security?
“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Re: The First Amendment's guaranteed legally un-abridge-able security
A request for a meeting to discuss the impeachment of the Supreme Court FIVE[1]
Dear Congressman,
This may seem far-fetched, but I assure you it is inevitably essential. I have endured over 7 ½ years (2,737 days) of criminal denial of rights, 411 days of illegal incarceration[2] (where I was humiliated with the denial of the most basic of liberties - regularly and repeatedly subjected to strip searches), two psychological examinations, and 3 ½ years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America.[3] It scares me to think how many others have been overwhelmed by the CRIMINAL Deprivation of rights and not been able to resist the immune criminals. (Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ Page 80 U. S. 349) (Post Civil War origin of Judicial Immunity), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial "Absolute Immunity"), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (Judicial "Absolute Immunity"), Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (Judicial "Absolute Immunity"), 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."[4])
I do not even have the uberempathetic virtual representation we afforded foreign terrorist, I am just a non-minority natural born American Citizen. But that form of accountability is too weak, as it posits an uberempathetic voting population so concerned for the rights of others that they will vote on the basis of policies that do not impact their own lives. This is just too fanciful. Virtual representation cannot be effective if it depends on heroic assumptions of empathy, just as our early countrymen recognized by placing the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV and writing McCulloch with virtual representation in mind."[5][i]
I have always been a peaceful man. I realize the only way to fight violence is to resist violence with pacifism. I believe violence at best perpetuates violence. I was a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War. I was and am a card-carrying-pacifist. My alternatives are limited. Do I have to light myself on fire in the street to get representation, like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi?
The Right of Petition is the un-abridge-able right to substantive justice between government and governed. This security right originated under the Magna Carta (§ 61) in June of 1215 at Runnymede. The Barons thought they had addressed it, "with lasting strength, for ever." Yet it remains an issue today nearly 800 years later.
The Right to substantive justice between government and governed was again addressed in the Magna Carta 1297 and The Petition of Right 1628. They both denied Sovereign Immunity and assured the un-abridged right to substantive justice between government and governed via the "lawful judgment of his peers."
In colonial times it cropped up again with the Declaration of Independence "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."[6]The government of King George III's denial of the colonist's Right to substantive justice between government and governed was the cause for the Revolutionary war (1776-1782).
In 1789 in the First Congress under the new Constitution for the United states of America, Congress and the President included in the Bill of Rights the Right to substantive justice between government and governed with the First Amendment's security:
"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Thinking that no one would be able to make any law abridging the Right.
After the Civil war in 1871 President Ulysses S. Grant fought for black civil rights when he pressed for the former slaves to be "...possessed of the civil rights which citizenship should carry with it." Grant submitted to congress his request for Congressional action in 1871, a 500-page description of the abuses being perpetrated on the newly emancipated Citizens in the post Civil War South. During the debate it was documented into the congressional record that "Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." (Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374, Congressman Lowe of Kansas, March 31, 1871) and "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." (Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 394, Congressman Rainey of South Carolina, April 1, 1871). There was an obvious lack substantive justice between government and governed. The Congress then passed and President Grant signed the Civil Rights Act of 187[7] to again assert substantive justice between government and governed.
During the Civil rights movement in the 1960's there was a group of Black American's attempting to get service at a bus station's cafeteria counter, they were arbitrarily denied. The Case came to the Supreme Court as Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). Justice William O. Douglas asserted in dissent that "Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." and "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." The petitioner asserted that during the Jim Crow era it was again a problem to get substantive justice between government and governed. The Supreme Court noted the in-justice and ruled in favor of those that had been clearly "wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity."
That brings us to today and CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11). The Supreme Court FIVE[8] in the majority opinion acknowledge the criminal DENIAL of Thompson's Rights yet provide no redress for the acknowledge crime. The Supreme Court FIVE acknowledge the attempted murder[9] of Thompson but refuse to even consider punishment for the crimnals. The majority, the Supreme Court FIVE, overturned Mr. Thompson's already established Due Process,[10] Jury verdict award[11] for substantive justice between government and governed. The Supreme Court FIVE have brazenly denied "effective redress" for crimes "under color of law." The Supreme Court FIVE"under color of law" are "wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity."
This is clearly NOT "good Behaviour"[12]. We need to exercise our privilege to impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[13]and take back the constitutionally guaranteed and lawfully un-abridge-able right to substantive justice between the governed and the government.
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: file - Monday, May 02, 2011, 5:04:35 PM
enclosure
A."The Supreme Court's DENIAL of The Declaration of Independence and The Revolutionary War"
The Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War were both based on the assertion "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."[14] That was the ORIGINAL view[15] in colonial America; I would hold still the current view in America today. If King George III's government had responded to the "repeated Petitions" with a redress of grievances, Justice and Due Process of Law, instead of "by repeated injury" the world would definitely be a different, possibly a much better, place today.
The DENIAL of The Declaration of Independence's reference "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury"[16] and then the Revolutionary War formed the ORIGINAL view[17] that prompted the founding fathers to write into the new Constitution for the United States of America the First Amendment's security:
"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The right to substantive justice between government and governed was intended to hopefully avert future declarations and revolutions.
Given the additional Constitutional security, as a primary goal of our new Union, to establish Justice[18] by means of Due Process of Law[19] and the Jury System,[20] "We the People" thought to avoid any future arbitrary unassailable assertion of Immunity that could result in "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."[21]
Two hundred and twenty three years later The Supreme Court has fabricated, out of thin air and hubris, their unlawful abridgment, Judge made law, of immunity and or limited liability into a Jury Award for the First Amendment's secured legally UN-abridge able right for a redress of grievances.
The Supreme Court usurped the power to make law by merely asserting it in their unconstitutional, over-reaching, and self-serving interpretations. These laws were fabricated out of a self-serving desire of the Judiciary to set themselves up as the Divine Arbitrator in a system of government that had taken offence to repeated injury with the Declaration of Independence and invested LIVES in the Revolutionary War to over throw another self-serving would-be divine arbitrator, the King.
We the people had sought to set up the Legislator in conjunction with the President as the ONLY means of making lawsand Due Process of Law,[22]the Jury System[23] as the arbitrator to establish Justice.[24]
Nowhere is Judge made law envisioned or provided for in the Constitution for the United States of America. Article I Sections 1-10 of the Constitution clearly defines how Law is to be made by the Congress of the United States and a President of the United States of America. No mention of the Judiciary in the establishment or creation of law. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made" per Article III, Section 2. Clearly that limits Judicial Power "under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made."
With the ConstitutionWe the People defined the judicial power's limitation. First and foremost We the People stated our prime intent to - establish Justice. Justice is opposed to any grant of immunity by definition, the immune person cannot be brought to Justice to wit: the King or an immune government authority. We go further with V (5th) VII (7th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to define the means of Justice to wit: Due Process of Law and Jury system.[25] As the primary right to substantive justice between government and governed the First Amendment's security:
"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The Government is to be held accountable for a redress of grievances by Constitutional security i.e., force of law to wit: due process of law and the Jury system. We the People thus sought to pre-empt any future possibility for "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury"[26] as addressed and affirmed by our Declaration of Independence and the investment of lives in the Revolutionary War.
With LAW, We the People after the Civil War sought to reinforce "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[27] and to reaffirm the right to substantive justice between government and governed for the newly emancipated slaves with LAW, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified into our code of law as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985. The Civil Rights Act of 1871, via statute LAW, held "Every person" civilly liable and "Whoever" criminally UN-abridge ably liable for the "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" under color of law.
With Treaties made, we most recently reassured the world with "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" adopted by the United Nations on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 - PART II, Article 2, Section 3. "Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted."
We the People have with the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Revolutionary War 1776-1782, the Constitution 1788, the Law "Civil Rights Act of 1871" and Treaties made "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" 1977 given CLEAR direction to the Supreme Court per Article III, Section 2 "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made.". We the People demand "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
with their abridgment "difficult problems of proof," and limited liability as regards the already established Due Process of Law[30]Jury Award[31] of Mr. Thompson. This is a refusal to take note of We the People "under this Constitution,[32] the Laws[33] of the United States, and Treaties[34] made" Article III, Section 2 The Constitution for the United States of America (1788).
The current Supreme Court FIVE[35] has clearly committed fraud upon the court by the Supreme Court's DENIAL of The Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made as BINDING LAW and originalist and current PRECEDENT with their ruling CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11).
This is clearly NOT "good Behaviour"[36] and an impeachable OFFENCE to We the People and the Constitution for the United States of America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Thompson and I both "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."[37] "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.[38]" Our Justice system has been allowed to run 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 rights. Rights that would have cleared their name denied by immune CRIMINALS persecuting, not prosecuting, in our justice system, wearing badges or the black robes of the royalist judiciary.[39] I refuse to believe we are 5 times as criminal as any other country. 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, the inflated American population, 5 of the current persons incarcerated in our prisons as unproductive wards of the state might be completely innocent because they have quite possibly had their Constitutional Rights CRIMINALLY denied under color of law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[9]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.
[10] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution. Due Process of Law
[11] VII (7th) Amendments to the Constitution. "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
[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"
[14] "IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[15] This should appease all the Originalist's in the audience. I would assert that this is the Current view also.
[16] IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[17] This should appease all the Originalist's in the audience.
[18] "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."
[19] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.
[21] IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[22] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution. Due Process of Law
[23] VII (7th) Amendments to the Constitution. "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
[24] "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."
[25] V (5th) VII (7th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution.
[26] IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[29] In a Judicial proceeding a party's misconduct so serious that it undermines the integrity of the proceeding
[30] V (5th) and XIV (14th) Amendments to the Constitution. Due Process of Law
[31] VII (7th) Amendments to the Constitution. "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
[32]First Amendment's declaration: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the peopleto petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[34]The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted by the United Nations on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 - PART II, Article 2, Section 3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
[36] 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"
[37] "IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[39] 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."
