The AUDACITY of the
INSANITY, Ignorance and
Stupidity
Internationally
Asserted Basic Human Rights,
The Constitution
for the United States of America
and Statute
Law are IGNORED
I sometimes feel like the waif
in “The Emperor’s New Cloths”
AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE
IT??
“A country in which nobody is ever really responsible
is
a country in which nobody is ever truly safe.”
Wednesday,
November 20, 2013, 10:36:38
AM
Martin Luther King said, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous
than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” (MLK Jr., Strength to Love,
1963). Justice Thurgood Marshal
dissenting in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 362 (1983) said “To assume that
Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial
officials, intended sub silentio to
exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the
incredible.”
If you can believe the Black Robed, Royalist, Article III and
UNCONSTITUTIONAL judiciary in Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. ___ (2011)
We
the People have
sub silentio GONE
beyond the “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” of Martin Luther King
and Justice Thurgood Marshal’s “incredible” scenario into audacious
INSANITY, ignorance and stupidity
in support of a “
fantastic or
delusional”
scenario.
We the People in
essence, if you can believe the Black
Robed Royalist, Article III and unconstitutional Judiciary, “intended
sub silentio to”
trade
the “absolute immunity” of the nobility
for the “absolute immunity” of the “
malicious
or corrupt” judges,
the “
malicious or dishonest” prosecutor, the “
knowingly false testimony by police
officers,"
the
malicious, corrupt,
sincerely ignorant
and conscientiously stupid actions
of federal, state, local, and regional legislators
and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest,
sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions
of “
all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral
parts of the judicial process” acting
under
color of law to wit,
ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.
I mean why would
We the People even have gone to the
effort of a revolution war, a constitution, a bill of rights and a civil war to
establish “rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American
citizenship”
if it was our intent
sub silentio to
exempt those responsible “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”???
The source of the Black
Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary’s Supreme Court precedent to quash the
unqualified
LIABILITY of the
ex industria
constitutionally authorized statute laws
in 1868
and 1871,
reaches back 406 years to a dissolved, discredited corrupt,
for CAUSE,
court for a thus corrupted ruling i.e., Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber
1607),
to evade their legal, designated under law, responsibility
for
We
the People’s inalienable justifiable “
property in rights.”
The
Star Chamber had its authority “repealed and absolutely revoked and made void”
in 1641 with the
Act of Parliament
“Abolition of the Star Chamber” July 5, 1641. Now just because the Black Robed
Royalist, Article III and unconstitutional Judiciary apparently, to this day,
has NEVER GOTTEN the memo, that does not change the FACTS. Floyd & Barker a ruling from the
Star Chamber 1607 was “
repealed and absolutely revoked and made
void,”
for
SPECIFIC cause - abusing
said “absolutely immune” power, by the
Act of Parliament
“Abolition of the Star Chamber” July 5, 1641. Thus Floyd & Barker
is void, and it use amounts to fraud,
fraus omnia corrumpit. Floyd & Barker’s thus
fraudulent
progeny
are made VOID AS WELL!!!!!
That is INSANITY!!!!
That is INSANITY!!!!
Now the FEAR MONGER
MISINFORMATIONISTS want you to believe that is because of misguided drug
policies. And that IS WRONG. Everybody in the free world has been forced
into the same misguided criminalization of DRUGS, at our insistence, to be able
to trade with us. It is not Drugs,
although in a country such as ours, with judicial sophistry
unrestrained that supposedly promotes and holds individual liberty
dearer than life itself, victimless crimes should never have been sanctioned by
an independent judiciary looking out EXCLUSIVELY to protect and defend our
personal liberties.
That is INSANITY!!!!
The REASON we have
FIVE times as many people in jail than any other country in the free world is
we do not invest in JUSTICE. Justice is
not worth the effort in the view of the Black Robed Royalist, Article III and unconstitutional Judiciary. We have the Jane Crow Era, the
Plea Bargain Era and the Exclusionary Rule Era, where JUSTICE is proclaimed too
overgenerous, and nobody is thus answerable to it. A Judge can make up probable cause out of
knowingly fraudulent information for an unrelated charge that results in a
NOT
“
facially
valid court order”
and the signed warrant becomes unquestionable
as regards the “property in rights” of the innocent victim being deprived!!!! Prosecutors can hide behind the
sincerely
ignorant and conscientiously stupid denial of exculpable evidence/due process.
The police can give “
knowingly
false testimony "
and
withhold evidence. There is nothing in the plea bargain era that the innocent
victim can do to redress the JUSTIFIABLE grievance.
Just imagine negotiating for your LIFE in a plea bargain where the
ethically unencumbered adversary can withhold exculpable evidence and assert “
knowingly false testimony by police
officers."
The lone innocent accused victim has no hope
for defense against “
knowingly false
testimony by police officers"
and the
denial of exculpable evidence they have no knowledge of. If you are luckily, or unluckily, in a capital
murder trial where the death penalty has been an issue after 18 years, an
investigator might just happen to find the evidence that clears your name as in
Connick v Thompson, but do not expect an apology or any redress of grievances,
there is no “
property in rights”
that
our government of the People, by the People, for the People is bound to
respect. We the People have asserted “
property in rights”
from
the beginning with 1
st and 7
th amendment Justice, but our
Black Robed Royalist, Article III Judiciary has with the sophistry unrestrained
unconstitutionally DENIED “We the People” any “
property in rights”
via
their judge made law of “absolute immunity”
The Judicial sophistry
of “absolute immunity” creates “absolute power” to the
ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of
We the
People’s unalienable rights.
That is INSANITY!!!!
As examples of the Judicial
sophistry
that
has corrupted
We the People’s
unalienable rights I submit, Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7 (1868)
the origin of judicial
criminal sophisticated
“absolute immunity,”
Bradley v.
Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872)
origin of sophisticated
Judicial civil
“absolute immunity,”
Blyew v. United States,
80 U.S. 581 (1871) sophisticated
“absolute immunity” for racially motivate mass murder,
United
States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) sophisticated
“absolute immunity” for racially motivated massacre (Colfax Riot/pogrom),
United States v.
Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883) sophisticated
“absolute immunity” for the states allowance of kidnapping, assault and murder
without regard to the 14
th Amendments security,
Civil Rights Cases, 109
U.S. 3 (1883) creating sophisticated
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
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
“absolute immunity,”
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424
U. S. 409 (1976) prosecutorial sophisticated
“absolute immunity,”
Stump v. Sparkman, 435
U.S. 349 (1978) sophisticated
“absolute immunity” for forced sterilization, and
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 325 (1983) sophisticated
“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 can not imagine what is.
That is INSANITY!!!!
Not to mention the
current malicious corruption of what
We the People deemed “necessary and
proper” with District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that sophisticatedly
abolished
gun control and put us all at risk of more Zimmerman/Martin like random
violence, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010),
that sophisticatedly
abolished credibility in election campaign financing and put us all at risk of
more Koch Brothers / FOX News misinformation that pollutes if not corrupts our
political system and Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. ___ (2011) that sophisticatedly
created
impossibly “difficult problems of proof” for the redress
of grievances for the deprivation of the “
property in rights.”
The FEAR MONGERS want us
ARMED and READY, via District of
Columbia v. Heller, for the inevitable conflict they
are FOMENTING with the promulgation of FEARFUL MISINFORMATION being funded by Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission.
They want to destabilize the economy by crippling the American Economy
with a crash of the currency based on a refusal to honor the Fourteenth
Amendment’s "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized
by law, “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly
called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or "Obamacare", is a United
States federal statute LAW,” shall not be questioned.
You want to fall for the sophistry that the Fourteenth Amendment’s
assertions were put there to reassure veterans of
the Civil War.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You and OTHERS want to believe that the Civil
War Era citizen was economically ignorant?
That is so FAR WRONG it is almost laughable. Those that had lived through the Civil War
had REAL LIFE experience with the economic failure of a Government to support
its legal tender. The "Greyback"
(Confederate States of
America
dollar) had JUST COLLAPSED!!!! The terms
“greenback” and “greyback” refers to legal tender, printed in green/grey on one
side and
issued by the United States/Confederate
States respectively during the American Civil War which
was backed not by the conventional gold
or silver standard but by the “validity”of the issuing government.
As the war began to tilt
against the Confederates, confidence in the “greyback” diminished, and
inflation followed. By the end of 1864, the “greyback” was practically
worthless.”
The FEAR MONGERS don’t care who wins as long as the War or UPHEAVAL or depression creates a DEMAND for a HARD
CURRENCY again!!!!!! So we can go back
to building their pyramids!!!!!!!!!!
Neither The Egyptian Pyramids, The Palace of Versailles,
The Taj Mahal or The Biltmore Estate did a DAM thing for the SLAVES that
built them!!!!!
My QUESTION is how did the UNQUALIFIED
governmental liability for an individuals
RIGHTS i.e., the “property in rights”
as asserted by James Madison (1792)[69] and the Revolutionary War, Civil War, Constitution, World War I, World
War II and the “statute’s (§1983) raisons d'etre,” get reduced??? Do we have to invest more
lives to ESTABLISH an INDIVIDUAL’s PROPERTY in RIGHTS???
What good are rights if the
“property in rights,” as confirmed by
James Madison (1792), is not protected UNQUALIFIED by any government authority
under color of law??
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” under color of law???
The Article III,
Black Robed Royalist, Supreme Court,
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” from their
constitutional commission to “
do not only
what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”
i.e.,
the “
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?”
by DENYING the constitutional assurance of
governmental accountability with 1
st and 7
th Amendment
Justice,
We
the People have fallen
under the
despotic spell
of the constructed
“
excess of power”
in the Supreme Court that has constructed
ABSOLUTE POWER
from
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the “
malicious or corrupt”
judges,
the “
malicious or dishonest” prosecutor, the “
knowingly false testimony by police
officers,"
corrupt, malicious, dishonest,
sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid
actions
of federal, state, local, and regional legislators are entitled to
absolute immunity”
and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest,
sincerely ignorant and conscientiously
stupid
actions of “
all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were
integral parts of the judicial process” acting
under
color of law to render
ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of
inalienable rights under color of law.
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,”
has and will continue to QUASH the “
raison
d'être”
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 and 13-5193.
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 court order at the inception and center of this issue, in 2003,
was NOT “a
facially valid court order.”
The issuing
Judicial Officer did not have “probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation”
for the stated charge
and thus it was "taken in
a complete absence of all jurisdiction."
Clearly to any
facially reckonable
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."
In the 10.41 years
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.”
Since the civil
domestic issue has been ongoing for 10.41 years
“
the
"exclusionary rule"
is simply irrelevant… it is damages
or nothing.” 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.”
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.
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, 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.” 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. 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 absolute immunity with “no remedy for the violation of a
vested legal right” and sought to establish a reckonable 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 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 fait accompli, "
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 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
or calumnious
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
is based on, he would
have dismissed the charge as racially based “vexatious”
or “calumnious”
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.
How can the malice,
corruption, dishonesty and incompetence condoned 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 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.”
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” ANYONE,
all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,
prosecutorial
and enforcement
power from its paramount binding authority is
an incredible “fantastic or delusional scenario.”
"Facts do not cease to exist because they
are ignored."
This embarrasses the future and the past
There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country
i.e., no titles of nobility.
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.
How can the Supreme
Court,
a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission
awarded themselves and others “
absolute
immunity” from their constitutional commission to “
do not only what their powers
do not authorize, but what they forbid”
i.e.,
the “
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?”
by DENYING the constitutional
assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th
Amendment Justice,
and
I sometimes feel like the waif
in “The Emperor’s New Cloths.” 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, 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 grant of
by and
for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional
an “unlawful Conspiracy” “before out of Court” to obfuscate
“false and malicious Persecutions.”
Impeach the current Black
Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally
un-abridge-able right to justice 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”
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"
" 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.”
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. 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 and 13-5193.”
We hold a “
4-Year-Old Can Be
Sued.”
We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion.
We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in
Iraq and
Afghanistan.
We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion.
We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion.
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)”
and compensate the victims?
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It
is TIME…
“simply
because it is right.”
Wednesday, November
20, 2013, 10:36:38 AM
GENERAL DELIVERY,
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
(314) 514-5228
There are TWO
constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute
Immunity," Article
1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall
be granted by the United States" and Article
1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title
of Nobility."
Incompetence is the most
insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice
and corruption. Martin Luther King said
it better, “Nothing in all the world is
more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” (MLK
Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
Incompetence is the most
insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice
and corruption. Martin Luther King said
it better, “Nothing in all the world is
more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” (MLK
Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
“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 the certainty of
corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office
sanctifies the holder of it.” Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and
ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.
“Fraus omnia corrumpit,” fraud corrupts all. A principle according to which the discovery of fraud
invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision. United States v. Throckmorton,
98 U.S. 65 (1878) is applicable here “But there is an admitted exception to
this general rule in cases where, by reason of something done by the successful
party to a suit, there was in fact no
adversary trial or decision of the issue in the case. Where the unsuccessful
party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case by fraud or deception
practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court.” This describes ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY’S effect
PERFECTLY.
Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7
(1868), Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
AND Connick, District Attorney, et
al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011, TO NAME BUT A FEW!!!!!!
The Caging of America, Why
do we lock up so many people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012
“With
5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's
reported prisoners” and you have the moronic audacity to ask why????
“Why
We Must Fix Our Prisons”, By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published:
03/29/2009, U.S.
Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK,
published: February 29, 2008, Our
Real Prison Problem. Why are we so worried about Gitmo? Newsweek by Dahlia
Lithwick published June 5, 2009
“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” (Thomas Jefferson, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26,
1810)
Incompetence is the most
insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice
and corruption. Martin Luther King said
it better, “Nothing in all the world is
more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” (MLK
Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
“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” (Thomas Jefferson, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26,
1810)
“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 the certainty of
corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office
sanctifies the holder of it.” Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and
ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.
“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” (Thomas Jefferson, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26,
1810)
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of sophistication,
ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Judicial sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE” WORST kind of
sophistication, ibid.
Montesquieu in his “De
l'Espirit des Lois” (1748) (The Spirit of the Law) defines three main kinds of
political systems: republican, monarchical, and despotic. Driving each classification of political
system, according to Montesquieu, must be what he calls a
"principle". This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate
behavior on the part of the citizens in ways that will tend to support that
regime and make it function smoothly. For democratic republics (and to a
somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics), this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness
to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. For
monarchies, the spring is the love
of honor -- the desire to attain greater rank and privilege.
Finally, for despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler.
We the People have currently
despotic system in that we have NO
enforceable rights in America
TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
“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 the certainty of
corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office
sanctifies the holder of it.” Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and
ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.
Incompetence is the most insidious
and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and
corruption. Martin Luther King said it
better, “Nothing in all the world is more
dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” (MLK Jr.,
Strength to Love, 1963).
“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 the certainty of
corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office
sanctifies the holder of it.” Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and
ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.
10.41 years, 3,799 days,
hours 91,184, minutes 5,471,053 or seconds 328,263,202 based on Thursday
October 10 2013 09:13:21.82 AM
10.41 years, 3,799 days,
hours 91,184, minutes 5,471,053 or seconds 328,263,202 based on Thursday
October 10 2013 09:13:21.82 AM
Incompetence is the most
insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice
and corruption. Martin Luther King said
it better, “Nothing in all the world is
more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” (MLK
Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
Incompetence is the most
insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice
and corruption. Martin Luther King said
it better, “Nothing in all the world is
more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” (MLK
Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
“To assume that Congress, which had enacted a
criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26]
intended sub silentio to exempt
those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible.
[Footnote 2/27]” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a
fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
""It is a principle of our law 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; therefore the
proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply
interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (HOW does the potential denial of rights
benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the
independence (HOW do the judges justify
the denial of the Supreme Law land there WERE TO BE BOND BY?) of the judges
and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
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)
There
are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity," Article
1, Section 9, 7th paragraph
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article
1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No
State shall… grant any Title of Nobility." Additionally I cite
Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution
Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 as further
timely clarification of the supreme law of the land:
"Nothing need be said to illustrate the
importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility(i.e., absolute
immunity). This may truly be
denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are
excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any
other than that of the people."
You some how want to argue
that “the grant of Nobility” was about something other than the ROYAL Status of
IMMUNITY. You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a
Colonial interpretation of Nobility?
That would undermine Free-Enterprise.
Anyone that wants to
assertion “the prohibition of titles of nobility’ was meant to be anything more
than a prohibition of theabsolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed,
need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to
the asserted immunity of the nobility.
There is not now and there
was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being
above the law? Did NatKing Cole violate
the constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE-THING
of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Amendment I Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
Alexander Hamilton June of
1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America,
The Federalist Papers No. 78, “The Judiciary Department”
Justice without regard to
equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have
suffered. I have been forced into
poverty, homelessness for 5.69 years!!!! (as of Saturday July 13 2013 02:30
PM) The 1st Amendment secures
the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable
redress of grievance from the government: “Congress
shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.” The 7th
Amendment secures the right to settle all suits: “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” assures justice as regards equity.
Justice without regard to
equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have
suffered. I have been forced into
homelessness for FIVE YEARS! The 1st
Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able
redress of grievance from the government: “Congress shall
make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.” The 7th Amendment’s secures the
right to settle all disputes/suits: “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”
assures justice as regards equity.
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 the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was
granted.
“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
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.”
“And the inference is
greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of
instituting impeachments… upon the members of the judicial department. This is
alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a
series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would
hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was
possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from
their stations.” Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 81, “The Judiciary
Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority” From McLEAN's
Edition, New York.
Wednesday, May 28,
1788 stated that impeachment was to be used as an integral check
for “Judicial Authority”
The redress of a
justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
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" Yes it is spelled wrong in the Constitution
1st Amendment, “Congress shall make no law abridging the
right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
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.
“With
5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's
reported prisoners” and you have the moronic audacity to ask why????
“Why
We Must Fix Our Prisons”, By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009, U.S. Imprisons One in
100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM
LIPTAK, published: February
29, 2008, Our Real
Prison Problem. Why are we so worried about Gitmo? Newsweek by Dahlia
Lithwick published June
5, 2009
The Caging of America, Why
do we lock up so many people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012
“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
Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts stated:
"Now, it is an effectual denial
by a State of the equal protection of the laws when any class of officers
charged under the laws with their administration permanently, and as a rule,
refuse to extend that protection. If every sheriff in South Carolina (or now
the State of Missouri) refuses to serve a writ for a colored man, and those
sheriffs are kept in office year after year by the people of South Carolina (or
now the State of Missouri), and no verdict against them for their failure of
duty can be obtained before a South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri)
jury, the State of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), through the
class of officers who are its representatives to afford the equal protection of
the laws to that class of citizens, has denied that protection. If the jurors
of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) constantly and as a rule
refuse to do justice between man and man where the rights of a particular class
of its citizens are concerned, and that State affords by its legislation no
remedy, that is as much a denial to that class of citizens of the equal
protection of the laws as if the State itself put on its statute book a statute
enacting that no verdict should be rendered in the courts of that State in
favor of this class of citizens. " Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p.
334.( Monroe v.
Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 177) Senator Pratt of Indiana spoke of the
discrimination against Union sympathizers and Negroes in the actual enforcement
of the laws: "Plausibly and sophistically, it is said the laws of North
Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) do not discriminate against them; that
the provisions in favor of rights and liberties are general; that the courts
are open to all; that juries, grand and petit, are commanded to hear and redress
without distinction as to color, race, or political sentiment." "But
it is a fact, asserted in the report, that of the hundreds of outrages
committed upon loyal people through the agency of this Ku Klux organization,
not one has been punished. This defect in the administration of the laws does
not extend to other cases. Vigorously enough are the laws enforced against
Union people. They only fail in efficiency when a man of known Union
sentiments, white or black, invokes their aid. Then Justice closes the door of
her temples." Cong.Globe,
42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 505. (Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S.
167 (1961), Page
365 U. S. 178) non italic parenthetical text added fro clarity.
9.12 years, 3,330 calendar
days, 53,287 waking hours, 3,197,196 waking minutes, 191,831,788 waking waking
seconds, as of Thursday June 28, 2012
10:54:41.35 AM
“4-Year-Old Can
Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case” “Citing cases dating back as far as
1928, a New York State Supreme Court Justice has ruled that a young girl
accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training
wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence.” Justice Paul Wooten of the New York State
Supreme Court in Manhattan, New
York Times, New York
edition, published: October
28, 2010, A version of this article appeared in print on October 29, 2010,
on page A24 By Alan Feuer
Cost of War in Iraq
$804,350,051,831, Cost of War in Afghanistan $537,364,138,152 Total
Cost of Wars Since 2001$1,341,714,189,983
Please enable Javascript for
the counter to update.
Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61)
See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the
Supreme Court 07-11115,
11-8211 and 13-5193
“With
5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's
reported prisoners” and you have the moronic audacity to ask why????
“Why
We Must Fix Our Prisons”, By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009, U.S. Imprisons One in
100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM
LIPTAK, published: February
29, 2008, Our Real
Prison Problem. Why are we so worried about Gitmo? Newsweek by Dahlia
Lithwick published June
5, 2009
