Published on 11/8/10 2:14 PM
Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer,John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan
c/o The Clerk’s Office, Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: Connick v. Thompson 09-571
The Right of Redress of Grievances
The “Jane Crow”[1] era, Jeep v. United States of America
Dear Justices,
The issue in Connick is a simple one. Given that no one on this planet is divine or omniscient, the assumption of innocence is not a right it is an invincible maxim: "Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. - The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof." The Ends of Justice thus REQUIRE the accused be informed thoroughly of the charges against him. Any surprise or denial in the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence attempts to defeat an invincible maxim.
Surprise, how can someone prove the negative when they are not sure of what the negative is? Denial of exculpable evidence defeats the ends of Justice. The Ends of Justice via logical consideration requires affording the accused a fair chance to defend themselves. How is an accused person suppose to defend themselves if they do not have all the evidence. And if there is exculpable evidence, why is the prosecution persecuting the accused anyway?
That brings us to the REAL issue, the Right of Redress as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. The right of redress has for TOO long been denied Citizens of the United States of America.
We can bail out the automaker’s to the tune of $75-$120+ billion[2]. We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion[3]. We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion[4]. But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence, malice and corruption of our “our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants” and compensate the victims?
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, established the right of redress: “If we, our chief justice(judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.” It was assumed by the Barons, that the King, his chief justice (judges), his officials, or any of his servants might offend and there would need to be a right of redress.
The 1st Amendment to the Constitution as the “supreme Law of the Land[5]” requires that the Courts afford “We the People” consideration and thus Due Process of Law as regard “Congress shall make no law… abridging the… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It was assumed by the Founding Fathers, the newly formed Government would from time to time screw up and be liable to the Citizen for a redress of grievances. The founding Fathers had learned from the experience of history from the time of Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) to the writing of the constitution (1787). “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.[6]” The “auxiliary precautions”[7] precluded the grant of ABSOLUTE immunity to anyone.
Judicial Power, the administration of Justice, per Article III of the Constitution for the United States of America is defined as: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties...” Justice was important to the founding fathers. The Declaration of Independence was based on the pursuit of Justice to over come “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism[8]”. James Madison just prior to the ratification of the Constitution in the Federalist No. 51 said: “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.[9]” The grant of absolute immunity is incompatible with the ends of Justice because it arbitrarily asserts a known fallacy i.e., divinity or omniscience. No one on this planet is divine or omniscient.
In 1935 in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 the Supreme Court further explained. “The United States Attorney is the representative 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, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his 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, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the prosecuting attorney, 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.”
Justice, per the Constitution requires the State to provide the accused with “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation [10]” via a warrant and ultimately the “presentment[11]” of the charges with “Due Process of Law[12]”.
Due Process of Law as defined by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), says: “We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Page 373 U. S. 87 clearly requires the state to present ALL it’s evidence to the accused prior to the trial.
Now granted this will makes things difficult for the prosecution but that is why they get paid for it. Why we call it work instead of vacation. To date “We the People” have determined our “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” as the best way to avoid “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism[13]”
Due Process is not an ambush. Surprise evidence has no place in the prosecution of the law under a democratically limited government. Due Process is a search for the TRUTH. In that search during that search the accused is to be granted access to all the evidence so that he can make is defense of the “negative.”
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) gave the Judges immunity from any liability for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, e.g., Jim Crow laws. They have been utilizing that lack of restraint with the “Jane Crow” discrimination in Family Law and in their establishment of Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983). Their JOB is to administer Justice per our rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. They should NEVER have been allowed to grant themselves absolute IMMUNITY from the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. This by definition goes against “auxiliary precautions” [14] of our rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.
I have endured 7 years of denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration, two psychological examinations, and three years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America[15]. I quote from Lord Acton (1887), but I agree 110%: "I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge (our Government) Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.[16]"
Now you want to force me to violence, something I abhor[17], to achieve the ends of Justice. “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.[18]
We can bail everybody out. But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence, malice and corruption of our “our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants” and compensate the victims?
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jeep v. United States of America is a flagrant case of Judicial, Prosecutorial and Police negligence, malice and corruption. It is time to over rule Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983). Judges, Prosecutors and Police work for “We the People.” It is time “We the People” had our rights per 1st Amendment to the Constitution “Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Justice REQUIRES it. “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”[19]
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
“Time is of the essence”
Thank you in advance.
Dave@DGJeep.COM
David G. Jeep
cc: Adam Liptak
file
Robert O'Connor
Criminal Investigator U.S. Marshal Service
U. S. Department of Justice
111 South 10th Street, Suite 2-319
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone 314-539-2023
E-Mail: Robert.OConnor@USDOJ.gov
Re: The Date has passed
Your "Maginot Line."
Dear Mr. O’Connor,
Just to keep you abreast I include a copy of my latest communications, a letter dated Monday, November 08, 2010 to the Justices. Now I fully realize that no one may even bee listening. That unfortunately is a fact in our all too insulated world.
You got to do what you got to do. I have as of your reaction last week to the passing of the Date, requested a meeting, for us discuss our options. I am as always open to negotiations. I am open to turning myself in?
You got to do what you got to do “The Ends of Justice” require it. “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. [20]”
There will be no more dates and your "Maginot Line" is laughable. I have copied Charles Shaw in as references below. He may or may not be of help to you.
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
“Time is of the essence”
Thank you in advance.
Dave@DGJeep.COM
David G. Jeep
enclosure
cc: Charles Alexander Shaw. Article III federal judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
file
Charles Alexander Shaw
111 South 10th Street, Suite 8.148
St. Louis, MO 63102-1125
Phone (314)244-7480
Re: Just thought you might be of some help
Dear Mr. Shaw,
Things have change from last we had any communications. Thought you might be able to help?? Having had some experience with criminal bias.
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
“Time is of the essence”
Thank you in advance.
Dave@DGJeep.COM
David G. Jeep
enclosure
cc: file
[1] The Court’s bias for a woman’s rights over a man’s rights with unequal protection of the Law
[2] “Mark Zandi the chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “Dr. Zandi’s analysis found that the cost of rescuing the industry, across all aid programs would be at minimum $75 billion, and maybe go as high as $120 billion or more.”
[3] “Recovery Bill Gets Final Approval” The New York Times, A version of this article appeared in print on February 14, 2009, on page A15 of the New York edition.
[4] “Bailout Plan: $2.5 Trillion and a Strong U.S. Hand” The New York Times, By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and STEPHEN LABATON Published: February 10, 2009
[5] Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI
[6] The Federalist No. 51, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments, Independent Journal, Wednesday, February 6, 1788 by James Madison
[8] The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776.
[10] Amendment IV,”The right of the people to…probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation”
[11] Amendment V, “No person shall be held to answer for a(n) infamous crime, unless on a presentment… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
[13] The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
[15] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America “Opposed to Immunity” currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk’s office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).
[16] Lord Acton in a letter to ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887. Dalberg-Acton, John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston: Beacon Press, p. 364
[17] See my Blog “A Card-Carrying Pacifist” First published February 10, 2009
