Source: http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012/03/all-power-tends-to-corrupt-and-absolute.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:54:25+00:00

Document:
"This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly." ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY empowers the "malicious or corrupt" judges, the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor,  the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"  acting under color of law to the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America" of WE THE PEOPLE. We the People have no redress of grievances as if they were NOBILITY.
"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, or which shall be made, under their Authority"
Did We the People not learn that with the END of the divine right of kings?
We the People have fallen under the despotic spell of the concentrated power in the CORRUPT Supreme Court that condones ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges, the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor,  the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"  acting under color of law. The blanket governmental grant of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY takes us back in time to before The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY enables ABSOLUTE POWER!!!!!!
"Absolute immunity" is a denial of the constitutional guarantee of Due Process of Law, "extrajudicial" an "unlawful Conspiracy"  "before out of Court"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I sometimes feel like the waif in the Danish parable "The Emperor's New Cloths."
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY has corrupted our Justice system. 100 years of Jim Crow can be directly linked to the not coincidental timing of the two initiating Supreme Court precedents, Randall (1868) and Bradley (1871), and the passage of § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act that clearly made "whoever" i.e., Judges, statutorily criminally liable for the deprivation of rights and § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act that clearly made "Every person" i.e., Judges, statutorily civilly liable for the deprivation of rights.
NOTE: Randall (1868) gave the Judiciary ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from criminal prosecution for the deprivation of rights without any reference to the clear - two year old – constitutional legislative intent § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act to make "whoever" i.e., Judges, criminally liable and Bradley (1871) gave the Judiciary ABSOLUTE POWER and ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from criminal and civil prosecution for the deprivation of rights without any reference to the clear - not even a year old - constitutional legislative intent of § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act "Every person" i.e., Judges civilly liable. This was naively never even question until it was all corruptly condoned and confirmed in 1967 with Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547.
We the People have since Randall (1868) and Bradley (1871) lived in the ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY era, where "equal protection of the law" can sophisticatedly be turned into separate and VERY UNEQUAL, where we NOW incarcerate 5 times as many people per capita as the rest of the world. We incarcerate more people per capita in our modern police state, one in 100 adults, than most of the infamous police states in modern history, Adolph Hitler's Nazi Germany, Mao Zedong's China, and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union.
"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. No act… therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour."
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"  from said sworn to 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."
We the People have fallen under the despotic spell of the concentrated power in the Supreme Court that condones ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges, the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor,  the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"  acting under color of law.
Now if you go back to the Divine Right of Kings, before The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the there was no liability for His chief justice, His officials, or any of His servants. That was then. THIS IS NOW! We the People threw off that form of government with our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights to establish a government of the People, by the People and FOR the People.
Now the Supreme Court likes to allude to a Common Law Justification for immunity, it does not exist, it NEVER HAS as regards the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America." Why did We the People write a constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land if per Common Law it would have no binding effect? I mean why would We the People even have put our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights on paper if it were not our intention to incorporate ourselves into government to indemnify each others "rights, privileges, or immunities" with the First Amendment's lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition our government of the People, by the People and FOR the People for redress of grievances acknowledging its source in the Magna Carta 1215 (§ 61)?
Now King George III of England ignored the colonist repeated petitions prior to the Declaration of Independence based on their legal rights under The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, the Magna Carta (1215 § 61), and The Petition of Right 1628 for redress of their grievances and they sent him the Declaration of Independence.
Our Supreme Court and their stare decisis is just as ignorant and CORRUPT as King George III. I have sent NUMEROUS petitions to attempt to settle my grievances, to date all have been DENIED!!!!
"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained." Now granted we will never obtain justice perfected but the never ending search for that elusive perfection is what gives life meaning. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY blocks that pursuit. But, this is not an issue of theoretical Justice, this is a common sense issue "give(n) a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice" based on established Due Process of Law as prescribed by Supreme Court's own prior PRECEDENT. The only issue is in HOLDING the Judges, the Prosecutors and the Police liable for their own VERIFIABLE unconstitutional, malicious, corrupt and incompetent actions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We the People cannot even bring the corruption, malice and incompetence of our Judges, Prosecutors and Police Persons to court because they have ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"  from said 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, law and equity?
"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.  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871.
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 8 years. I have suffered through 411 days of illegal incarceration, 4 years of homelessness and two psychological examinations. I ask you to review Jeep v Obama 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case #11-2425, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947," Jeep v Bennett 08-1823, "Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and the most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115."
I have referenced "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process," in several of my papers, I do so only because the facts of the case in "To Kill a Mocking Bird" are generally known. The abuses are happening EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE Mr. Thompson (No. 09–571), Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145),  Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98) and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425). The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners" PROVES IT !!!!!!!!!!!!
 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 have a despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
 "If we, our chief justice(judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon."
 Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) ""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."
 Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U. S. 352 "But if on the other hand a judge of a criminal court, invested with general criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed within a certain district, should hold a particular act to be a public offense, which is not by the law made an offense, and proceed to the arrest and trial of a party charged with such act, or should sentence a party convicted to a greater punishment than that authorized by the law upon its proper construction, no personal liability to civil action for such acts would attach to the judge, although those acts would be in excess of his jurisdiction, or of the jurisdiction of the court held by him, for these are particulars for his judicial consideration, whenever his general jurisdiction over the subject matter is invoked." This in effect nullifies the prohibition of ex-post facto laws U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3, art. I § 10 cl. 1. Per Bradley (1871) a Judge can do whatever they might want disregarding our rights or the existence or need of any legislative or statutory law!!!! And this was and is all a unlawful ministerial grant by and for ministers!!!!
 The Constitution for the United States of America, Article III. Section. 1. "The judicial Power of the United States shall"
 Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second 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." There is NO IMMUNITY from the Supreme Law of the Land, especially as noted "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."
 The Colonist had read their history, unlike the Supreme Court, they had seen King John in 1215 almost immediately try to wriggle out His commitments to a right to petition for a redress of grievances less than a year after He signed it with the assist of Pope Innocent III. Our forefathers had hoped to avoid that issue by constitutionally, as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, stating "Congress shall make no law abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." For the Supreme Court to attempt to wriggle out of it by ministerially nullifying the constitutional intent with their ministerial assertion of immunity is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The founders had most recently seen King George III ignore right to petition for a redress of grievances in The Declaration of Independence i.e., "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"
 The Petition of Right speaks to immunity/ an exemption i.e., Section of "IX. And also sundry grievous offenders, by color thereof claiming an exemption, have escaped the punishments due to them by the laws and statutes of this your realm, by reason that divers of your officers and ministers of justice have unjustly refused or forborne to proceed against such offenders according to the same laws and statutes, upon pretense that the said offenders were punishable only by martial law, and by authority of such commissions as aforesaid; which commissions, and all other of like nature, are wholly and directly contrary to the said laws and statutes of this your realm."
 As recently quoted by SCALIA, J., dissenting in SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 "It is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. 453 (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954). See Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391-393 (1926); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 405 U. S. 162 (1972); Dunn v. United States, ante at 442 U. S. 112-113.
 Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into homelessness for FOUR 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.

References: § 2
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 v. 
 § 61
 v. 
 § 9
 § 10
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.