Monday, August 15, 2011

Where is the Moral Difference, given a corrupt judge and a thief with a gun? “A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is a country in which nobody is ever truly safe.”[1]


Where is the Moral Difference,
given a corrupt judge and a thief with a gun?
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
a country in which nobody is ever truly safe."[1]
Monday, August 15, 2011, 1:35:10 PM
"The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't"[2]
Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

You tell me where is the moral difference given a corrupt Judge and a thief with gun.  One uses a gun to get what he wants the other uses the authority of the state to get what he wants.  To the victim is there any difference in the outcome?  The victim is deprived of something of value either way.  The means and methods may be a little different but the lingering effect of the public humiliation of a Judge's well-regarded, although ill-deserved, actions can do every bit if not more damage emotionally than a thief with the short-lived threat of violence.  Do either the corrupt judge or the thief with a gun have any moral authority?  NO!
Yet one can be thrown in Jail for life, in some cases executed, and the other cannot even be prosecuted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I use the example of a Judge as a starter, but the official acting under color of law could be a judge,[3] a prosecutor,[4] a police person[5] or any or "all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process."[6]
Now why can't the person acting under color of law be prosecuted?  We the People have written a constitution that incorporates We the People into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to assure We the People the 5th and 14th Amendment's protection of Due Process of Laws and the 1st Amendment's lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition our government for a redress of grievances as the Supreme Law of the Land.  We the People have statute law that assures us it is a crime punishable by prison, fines and civil liability for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[7]
Why?  Because the Supreme Court and the present and prior Presidents of the United States ministerially[8] created, granted and sustain "absolute immunity" for the crimes and the civil liability.  "Absolute immunity" is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional "unlawful Conspiracy"[9] "before out of Court"[10] to obfuscate theirs and others "false and malicious Persecutions" [11] under color of law.
I quote from the current ministerally created Supreme Court Precedent that is and has been sustained by President Obama and past Presidents as executives in charge of the prosecution of crimes:
"This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly" 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). "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). "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).
The Supreme Court first addressed immunity nearly 100 years after the ratification (1788) of the constitution with Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871).  That immunity was never an issue before addressed only adds to the suspect timing of these two rulings, 1868 and 1871.  They were both in obvious if not deliberate conspiratorial response to the § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) and § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (now Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) respectively.  During the debates on § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act judicial criminal liability was discussed.  President Johnson vetoed the bill specifically noting that it would make Judges liable to it.[12]  The Congress in 1868 over ruled his veto almost immediately, thus confirming the law and the congressional intent to make Judges liable to it.
Both Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) find their basis in the common law and ignore the legislature's STATUTE LAW intent with § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act to make the Judiciary liable. 
Now in common law times the law was not written down: it was not "reckonable"[13].  The law was whatever the King, his chief justice, his officials, or any of his servants said it was.  And admittedly in common law times you could not hold the King, his chief justice, his officials, or any of his servants criminally or civilly liable.  There were two reasons, the first was that per the divine right of the king, the King nor his chief justice, his officials, or any of his servants could do anything wrong.  They were all acting in the name of the King and to wit the King can do no wrong.  And secondly by the very intrinsic nature of an UNWRITTEN law, the giver of the law, whoever that be, as the source of the ill-defined law could not offend themselves.
But this all changed, with the written, published and ratified Constitution for the United States of America.  With the Constitution for the United States of America We the People incorporated ourselves into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to SECURE each other's "reckonable"[14] inalienable rights.  At least that is what We the People thought[15] we did.  With a written constitution We the People sought to established the essential and fundamental requirement missing from the Common Law "reckonabilty."[16]  Predictability, or as Justice Antonin Scalia asserts, "reckonabilty" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."[17]  Immunity of any kind is repugnant to the rule of law and the "reckonabilty" of the law by definition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity."   I say it NOW, 2011!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [18]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[19]. 

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[20]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[21]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[22] justice between the government and the people, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98  Decided May 31, 2011!!!
The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people.  We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[23] e.g., To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process, The Exclusionary Rule, Grounds for Impeachment, Jeep v Obama, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947, Jeep v Jones "The most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115."

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Monday, August 15, 2011, 1:35:10 PM, 2011 08-15-11 Where is the Moral Difference REV 02.doc



[2] Mr. Thompson in the New York Times in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
[3] "Immunity" Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868), Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) @ Page 80 U. S. 349) (origin Judicial "Absolute Immunity), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) ( Judicial Immunity as it specifically relates to Civil Rights Statute Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (Judicial "Absolute Immunity" for the nonconsensual sterilization of a health minor child ), Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (Judicial "Absolute Immunity" for having sent the US Marshall's out to physically drag an attorney into court.)
[4] "Immunity" Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial "Absolute Immunity")
[5] "Immunity" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) ("Absolute Immunity" Police for perjured testimony)
[6] [6] "Immunity" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) ("Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process")
[8] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law.  For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with tenor of the commissioner under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[9] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) "Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy."
[12] Congress passed the § 2 of the 1866 Civil rights Act (Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866.  An excerpt from his remarks attached to his veto "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without invading the immunities of… the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order." "It is, therefore, assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment, for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose."
[13] "Predictability, or as Llewellynn puts it, "reckonabilty" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia, "The Rule of Law as the Law of Rule" The University of Chicago Law Review, Vlu. 56, No. 4, Fall 1989.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[19] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[21] 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"
[22] Amendment VII 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.


--
Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"

"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, August 14, 2011

“Let them Eat Cake” There is NO Justice in America




“Let them Eat Cake”
There is NO Justice in America
Sunday, August 14, 2011, 3:54:43 PM
The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't
Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

With the Constitution for the United States of America, We the People incorporated ourselves into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to SECURE each other’s inalienable rights.  At least that is what We the People thought[1] we did.  
We the People only think We have “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”  Everybody but the innocent victim has immunity for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”  The innocent victim of the deprivation of rights is left for dead on the side of the road.
"This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly" 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). “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). “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).
Now the Supreme Court loves to assert “truthfinding safeguards” and “the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies.”[2]  With nearly 8 years of committed effort, I dispute those assertions.  Now if the victim could just get the issue in court that might be possible.  BUT the ministerial grant of “Absolute Immunity” [3] is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and “unlawful Conspiracy”[4] “before out of Court”[5] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.” [6]  You can not even get the issue into court.  And if you could summon the euber-emphatic requirements of impeachment or criminal prosecution, the victim still is left without redress of grievances.  The innocent victim is, again, left on the side of the road for dead.
I mean why did We the People even go to the effort to write a constitution,  a Bill of Rights if it was assumed that the Judges would NOT be bound by the Supreme Law of the Land and the Bill of Rights. 
There has to be liability, there has to accountability, there has to be “reckonabilty;”[7]  immunity invalidates all.   The Supreme Court has forgotten its PRIMARY task, to establish Justice.  As an innocent victim on the side of the road clinging to life by a thread all I hear is the Supreme Court and it sounds like Marie  Antoinette asserting,
“Let them Eat Cake”
But there is no cake, there is no justice as there was NO BREAD; there are NO “truthfinding safeguards”[8] and the law has NOT “provided for private parties numerous remedies.”[9]  EVERYBODY, but the innocent victim, has immunity to act with impunity.
“Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress.” “The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity.”   I say it NOW, 2011!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [10]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[11]. 

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[12]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[13]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[14] justice between the government and the people, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98  Decided May 31, 2011!!!
The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people.  We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America” e.g., To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process, The Exclusionary Rule, Grounds for Impeachment, Jeep v Obama, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947, Jeep v Jones “The most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115.”

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Sunday, August 14, 2011, 3:54:43 PM, 2011 08-14-11 Let them Eat Cake REV 02.doc

[1] “Predictability or as Llewellynn puts it, “reckonabilty” is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name.” Antonin Scalia, “The Rule of Law as the Law of Rule” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vlu. 56, No. 4, Fall 1989.
[2] “Against the consequences of their erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort. But for malice or corruption in their action whilst exercising their judicial functions within the general scope of their jurisdiction, the judges of these courts can only be reached by public prosecution in the form of impeachment, or in such other form as may be specially prescribed.”  Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U. S. 354 (1871)
[3] “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.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[4] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) “Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy.”
[7] Immunity of any kind denies the “Predictability or as Llewellynn puts it, “reckonabilty” is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name.” Antonin Scalia, “The Rule of Law as the Law of Rule” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vlu. 56, No. 4, Fall 1989.
[9] “Against the consequences of their erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort. But for malice or corruption in their action whilst exercising their judicial functions within the general scope of their jurisdiction, the judges of these courts can only be reached by public prosecution in the form of impeachment, or in such other form as may be specially prescribed.”  Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U. S. 354 (1871)
[11] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[13] 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] Amendment VII 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.

--
Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"

"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, August 11, 2011

President Barack Hussein Obama and Chief Justice John G. Roberts "How can you respect a Justice System that has no SELF-RESPECT?"


President Barack Hussein Obama (by U.S. MAIL)
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500-0001

Chief Justice John G. Roberts (by U.S. MAIL)
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.    
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: How can you respect a Justice System that has no SELF-RESPECT?
“A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is a country in which nobody is ever truly safe.” “Damages” By Dahlia Lithwick[1]
Dear Fathers,
I say Fathers because this is about the rights of a son and a father.  I again write to you in hopes you would open your eyes, I admit it maybe impossible, to see the inevitable necessity for the elimination of absolute immunity and sovereign immunity in a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”  The rule of law as asserted by our founding fathers with the Constitution for the United States of America clearly demands the incorporation of our Government take responsibility for “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[2]!!!  I hesitate to demean the issue with the absurdity of the question but whom do I go to - to secure my rights, the tooth fairy? 
With the Declaration of Independence and the blood spilt in the Revolutionary War We the People threw off an absolutely immune sovereign FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!  With the Constitution for the United States of America, We the People incorporated ourselves into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to SECURE each other’s inalienable rights!!!!
There has to be strict scrutiny secured by strict liability for rights in any TRUE constitutional government.  Strict scrutiny without strict liability is just judicial sophistry[3]… BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  This is not about some exigent emergency security issue; this issue revolves around a remedy for the ongoing deprivation of Due Process of Law instigated 8 years ago!!!!!!!!![4]
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”

Revised and extended Thursday, August 11, 2011, 5:20:25 PM

David G. Jeep
enclosure
a.       “How can you respect a Justice System, That has no SELF-RESPECT?”
cc:  My Blog - Thursday, August 11, 2011, 5:20:25 PM
How can you respect a Justice System,
That has no SELF-RESPECT?
The FLAW in American Justice
Thursday, August 11, 2011, 5:21:11 PM
The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't
Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

The Justice system for the United States of America has no self-respect.  I say that because of the Supreme Court’s numerous and repeated precedent[5] avowing the Justice System’s malice, corruption and incompetence.  Supreme Court precedent openly avows malice, corruption and incompetence of “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process” i.e., the judiciary, prosecutors, police and witnesses, within a criminal conspiracy[6] against rights.  It is blatant unmitigated actus reus[7] and mens rea[8] for the criminal conspiracy[9] against rights.  The Supreme Court openly and willfully admits that it can not control its own, the Judiciary, and concedes its creditability, with any claim to self-respect, via the assertion of an unavoidably, malicious, corrupt and incompetent Justice system.  You really have to read the precedent to even believe that the Supreme Court of the United States of America could be so naive to assert that the independence to deny[10] “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[11] is in We the People’s best interest.  
The Supreme Court of the United States goes further by granting prosecutors “absolute immunity”[12] for their malicious, corrupt and incompetent prosecutions and Police Officer’s absolute immunity for their perjured testimony.  The Supreme Court of the United States has the unmitigated gall to assert “There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding[13] safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers.”[14] My response is YA THINK??????????  The Supreme Court of the United States has been professionally inbreeding for years and their tolerance and support of malice, corruption and incompetence is the horrific result.   
The Supreme Court of the United States in repeated precedents states that the denial of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[15] is in the public interest.  They have forgotten they have been given the “Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.” [16]  “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.”[17]
The Supreme Court of the United States’ unlawful and unconstitutional tolerance for malice, corruption and incompetence within the Judicial Process is beyond belief.  The Supreme Court of the United States has obviously forgotten their purpose to establish justice[18] under the law.[19]   We the People declared our independence, fought our Revolutionary War and wrote our constitution to ELIMINATE an all-powerful immune sovereign and establish a written democratically agreed Supreme Law of the Land.[20]  To now assert immunity from the Supreme Law of the Land[21] is to negate the raison d'être for the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Constitution for the United States of America and the First Amendment’s lawfully un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances.
Immunity as asserted by the Supreme Court has its roots in the Common Law.  In the era of Common Law, the law was not written down, it was whatever the King, his chief justice, his officials, or any of his servants said it was.  Our fore fathers in the Declaration of Independence said “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. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”  King George held himself to be immune from our repeated petitions and AGAIN the raison d'être for the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Constitution for the United States of America and the First Amendment’s lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition the government for a redress of grievances was to over come this immunity from the then, pre-revolution, law of the land[22]
The ministerial grant of “Absolute Immunity” [23] is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional “unlawful Conspiracy”[24] “before out of Court”[25] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.” [26]  The Justice Department, The Judiciary, The President have NO POWER to ministerially grant themselves or others “Absolute Immunity.”[27]
You have to read the Supreme Court precedents to actually believe the absurdity of their illogical, corrupt, malicious and self-serving assertions (parenthetical non-italic text added for clarity):
"It is a principle of our law (“absolute Immunity”) that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; (blatant actus reus and mens rea of the conspiracy against rights) therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are dee---+ply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (ALL BULLSHIT, We the People are being robbed and disenfranchised NOT “benefit-ed”) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges (ALL BULLSHIT, to act without regard to our rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United states of America) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions" (ALL BULLSHIT, competency, corruption, and malice are in the opinion of the Supreme Curt of the United States of America “vexatious actions") Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871)[28] @ Page 80 U. S. 349
and again
“This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it “is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of (ALL BULLSHIT, We the People are being robbed and disenfranchised NOT “benefit-ed”) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty (ALL BULLSHIT, to act without regard to our rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United states of America) to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.”  (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in 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)) non-italic parenthetical editing added for emphasis).[29]
and again
“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. (YA Think????????? It apparently needs to be noted that the victim’s liberty is deprived illegally, unconstitutionally and immorally.  But that is of no consequence to our self avowed malicious, corrupt and incompetent Supreme Court) But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor's immunity would disserve the broader public interest. (AGAIN ALL BULLSHIT, We the People are being robbed, disenfranchised and LEFT WITHOUT REDRESS for the deprivation of rights.  It is not in the public interest, it is in the interest of FURTHERANCE of the massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional “unlawful Conspiracy”[30] “before out of Court”[31] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.” [32])  It would prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor's duty that is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system.” (AGAIN ALL BULLSHIT, who wants to empower “the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor's duty” WITHOUT regard to We the People’s “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[33]???) Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
and again
 “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. (YA think????)  The absolute immunity for prosecutors recognized in Imbler bars one possible avenue of redress for such defendants. Similarly, in this case, the absolute witness immunity bars another possible path to recovery for these defendants. But we have recognized, again and again, that in some situations, the alternative of limiting the official's immunity would disserve the broader public interest. (AGAIN ALL BULLSHIT, We the People are being robbed,  disenfranchised and LEFT WITHOUT REDRESS for the deprivation of rights.) As Judge Learned Hand wrote years ago:
"As is so often the case, the answer must be found in a balance between the evils inevitable in either alternative. In this instance, it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation." (By this logic no one is safe!!!! We the People live in “constant dread” of immune “dishonest officers” in DIRECT violation of the Forth Amendment’s guarantee “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”)
Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581 (CA2 1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 949 (1950).
In short, the rationale of our prior absolute immunity cases governs the disposition of this case. (“absolute immunity” for all) In 1871, common law immunity for witnesses[34] (That is a bold face lie based on Floyd and Barker (1607) as referenced in the origin of Judicial immunity Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871)) was well settled. The principles set forth in Pierson v. Ray to protect judges and in Imbler v. Pachtman to protect prosecutors[35] also apply to witnesses, who perform a somewhat different function in the trial process, but whose participation in bringing the litigation to a just -- or possibly unjust -- conclusion is equally indispensable.”  (It is only “indispensable” for the furtherance of the ministerial conspiracy against rights.)  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
Under the assertions “the answer must be found in a balance between the evils inevitable in either alternative,” “But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor's immunity would disserve the broader public interest,”  “the benefit of  the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences” the Supreme Court precedent appears logical.  But the premise, the assertions are false.  If you are a jugular yes, you are required to by definition juggle.  But our Justice system is not defined nor authorized to “juggle.”  Our justice system is authorized to establish justice[36] under the Law[37] and neither Justice nor the Law will tolerate any evil.  It is unassailable that the denial of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[38] is evil, unlawful and unconstitutional.[39]  The Justice System would somehow want you to believe that the deterrent of a liability for one’s unlawful and unconstitutional actions is evil.  I assert without that liability how do you secure “rights.”  As regards the repeatedly asserted public interest, the Supreme Court would have you believe that the limitations of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[40] are too restrictive for a Judge, Prosecutor, Police person or for that matter “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” to function, but again THAT is DEAD WRONG “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[41] are PREREQUSITE for any function, duty or assertions.  Alexander Hamilton said it best, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.”[42]  To attempt to do what is asserted to be their duty and or function via the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[43] is “contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised”[44] and is thus VOID.
“Absolute Immunity is diametrically opposed the civilized establishment of the rule of law, and “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America” [45] BY DEFINTION!!!! Now if the Supreme Court wants to argue derivation of definition as established by any dictionary that is another issue)
The ministerial grant of “Absolute Immunity” [46] is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional “unlawful Conspiracy”[47] “before out of Court”[48] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.” [49]  The Justice Department, The Judiciary, The President have NO POWER to ministerially grant themselves or others “Absolute Immunity.”[50]
Who do they think they’re fooling?
“Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress.” “The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity.”   I say it NOW, 2011!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [51]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[52]. 
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[53]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[54]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[55] justice between the government and the people, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98  Decided May 31, 2011!!!
The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people.  We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[56] e.g., To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process, The Exclusionary Rule, Grounds for Impeachment, Jeep v Obama, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947, Jeep v Jones “The most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115.”

“A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is a country in which nobody is ever truly safe.” “Damages” By Dahlia Lithwick[57]

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Thursday, August 11, 2011, 5:21:11 PM, 2011 08-08-11 Respect for Justice REV 99RX.doc

[3] “We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice.”  The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS" To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810

[4] U.S. Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit #11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823, and 07-2614
[5] "Immunity" Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868), Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) @ Page 80 U. S. 349) (origin Judicial "Absolute Immunity), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial "Absolute Immunity"), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (Judicial "Absolute Immunity" for the nonconsensual sterilization of a health minor child ), Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (Judicial "Absolute Immunity" for having sent the US Marshall’s out to physically drag an attorney into court.), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) "Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process"
[7] Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions of Canada, Australia, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, England, Ireland and the United States.
[8] Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind".  In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty".
[10] This assertion of course assumes the rare exigent emergency exception to deny rights that is then addressed and rectified by Due Process of Law and a Speedy Trial.  I have been nearly 8 years in my attempt to get my issue addressed and rectified by Due Process of Law and a Speedy Trial.  I have been denied by an unlawful conspiracy before out of court. 
[12] Immunity of any kind denies the “Predictability or as Llewellynn puts it, “reckonabilty” is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name.” Antonin Scalia, “The Rule of Law as the Law of Rule” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vlu. 56, No. 4, Fall 1989.
[13] Where is the “truthfinding” in a system that avows malice, corruption and incompetence? 
[16] Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, 2nd paragraph, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
[17] FEDERALIST No. 78, “The Judiciary Department” From McLEAN'S Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788
By Alexander Hamilton, To the People of the State of New York
[18] Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America (1788)  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
[19] Constitution for the United States of America, 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”
[20] Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, 2nd paragraph, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
[21] Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, 2nd paragraph
[22] Prior to the Revolution the Law of land was based on the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628).  Both were intent on limiting if not eliminating the “absolute” nature of the sovereign i.e., arbitrary taxation and denial of due process of law. 
[23] “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.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[24] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) “Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy.”
[27] “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.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[28] It should be noted that Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) were both in obvious if not deliberate response to the § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) and § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (now Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) respectively.
[29] Uneditted text from Page 80 U. S. 349 “This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it “is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.”  (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.  ) (PIERSON V. RAY, 386 U. S. 547 (1967))
[30] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) “Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy.”

[34] Floyd and Barker (1607). (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber. First Published in the Reports, volume 12, page 23. “conspiracy doth not lye against a Juror or Indictor, but against a Witnesse.”  Witness absolute IMMUNITY abrogates the laws of Perjury!!!!!!!!

[35] The only justification for “prosecutorial absolute immunity” can be likened to the supposed right to sell defective goods at market price.  Is it right?  Is it just to attempt to sell the jury on a verdict the prosecutor KNOWS to be questionable???
[36] Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America (1788)  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
[37] Constitution for the United States of America, 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”
[39] This assertion of course assumes the rare exigent emergency exception to deny rights that is then addressed and rectified by Due Process of Law and a Speedy Trial.  I have been nearly 8 years in my attempt to get my issue addressed and rectified by Due Process of Law and a Speedy Trial.  I have been denied by an unlawful conspiracy before out of court. 
[42] FEDERALIST No. 78, “The Judiciary Department” From McLEAN'S Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788
By Alexander Hamilton, To the People of the State of New York
[44] FEDERALIST No. 78, “The Judiciary Department” From McLEAN'S Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788
By Alexander Hamilton, To the People of the State of New York
[46] “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.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[47] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) “Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy.”
[50] “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.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[52] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[54] 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"
[55] Amendment VII 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.


--

Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"

"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)