Source: http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2014_01_26_archive.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:09:47+00:00

Document:
John Andrew Ross District Judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri without appropriate prior LEGAL notice to the petitioner?
I make special NOTE that John Andrew Ross was a judicial member of the 21st District State Court of Missouri in 2003 when my Civil Rights were deprived by his THEN employee Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr. John Andrew Ross thus has at least a portion of the respondeat superior liability for his employee’s actions. I currently have an action before the Federal Court, Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS, confirming and asserting this deprivation.
I OBJECT to John Andrew Ross’s participation in the above CURRENT referenced issue not only because of his unannounced appointment but also his prior and CURRENT LIABILITY issues in Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nonetheless I respond to WHOM IT MAY CONCERN as referenced above per the enclosed. If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
RESPONSE to whom it may concern.
Motion to dismiss as “patently meritless” is unfortified.
1. I stress as I did in the original petition, “All Defendants/Respondents are included and asserted liable, as PARTY LEADER actors, GOVERNMENT actors and as INDIVIDUAL persons - Defendants/Respondents.” Of course per the Black Robed Royalist judiciary, no one can be held accountable to anything it is ‘absolute immunity” for ALL!!!!!
The listed defendants were at the FOREFRONT “threaten(ing) the full faith and credit of the United States” as now PUBLICALLY confirmed by President Obama in his State of the Union Address dated January 28, 2014.
Clearly the Tea Party / GOP / Republican Party, et al “threaten(ed) the full faith and credit of the United States” as now PUBLICALLY confirmed by President Obama in his State of the Union Address dated January 28, 2014.
3. As regards the straw man attempt at humor as regards the reference to the American Civil War and Egyptian Pyramids, I would be happy to provide additional precedential and historical support, but first please address the issues of clear intent as to the 14th Amendment’s timely constitutional precedential protection and relation to the CIVIL WAR as it’s raison d'être and the HISTORICAL proof of self-serving tyrannical avariciously driven monetary policy of ancient Egypt or any or all of feudal European history that constitutional Republican Form of Government by definition opposes.
“Time is of the essence"
Judicial Independence was originally postulated to altruistically support and defend the establishment of justice in the face of malice, corruption, sincere ignorance and conscientious stupid.
I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Clothes"
a country in which nobody is ever truly safe."
"The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't"
Judicial Independence was originally postulated to altruistically support and defend the establishment of justice in the face of the malice, corruption, sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.... Socrates's nemesis an otherwise unchecked democratic majority of the populace.
But that is not how it has evolved. The asserted need for Judicial independence today is, TODAY, hostile to the establishment of justice. The assertion "Judicial independence," TODAY, empowers the denial of JUSTICE and the covers up of malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity by asserting "absolute immunity" for the "malicious or corrupt" judges, the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor,  the "knowingly false testimony by police officers," the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, 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 render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of inalienable rights under color of law.
The courage of "judicial independence" afforded by a lifetime appointment for the altruistic good it was intended to "establish Justice."
"Courage is an inner resolution to go forward despite obstacles; Cowardice is submissive surrender to circumstances. Courage breeds creativity; Cowardice represses fear and is mastered by it. Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency ask the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular?
But conscience ask the question, is it right? And there comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right."
That is not how it has evolved. Today the asserted need for "judicial independence" supports cowardice of the promulgation of self-serving "absolute immunity" for the "malicious or corrupt" judges, the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor,  the "knowingly false testimony by police officers," the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, 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 render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of inalienable rights under color of law.
The Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary on the Supreme Court since the civil war in 1868 and 1871 (and again in 1967 by repeated reference) has cited Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607) to construct an "excess of power" to quash the "sense and reason" for the "raison d'être" of We the People's Constitution, Amendments, and the enactment of the constitutionally authorized ex industria statute laws, now codified into the U.S. Code as 18 USC §241 - §242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law and 42 USC §1983 - §1985 Civil action for deprivation of rights. We the People have been suffering from the Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary's criminal deprivation of rights under color of law EVER SINCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anybody that doubts this, just look at history. Justice Harlan's Dissent in Civil Rights Cases 109 U.S. 26 (1883) is the most eloquent of examples. 130 years of Jim Crow, Jane Crow, victimless crimes, plea bargain, exclusionary rule and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid "absolutely immune" judge constructed law later… the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court can STILL reach into their "black bag of tricks" to pull out anything they want to justify their malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid "absolutely immune" actions.
In 1868 the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court first CONSTRUCTED "absolute immunity" in Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607). Randall v. Brigham (1868) was Judicial sophistry at its finest, a judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary immunity from the recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 made it a CRIME for "Whoever, under color of any law…, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Judicial liability for the crime was brought up extensively in the congressional debates and EXPRESSLY made part of President Johnson's Veto (March 27, 1866), noted as "assailing the independence of the judiciary," which was then congressionally over ridden into statute two weeks later. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted into LAW over the expressed objection of the President, overridden by the Senate on April 6, 1866 (33 - 15) and then overridden by the House and became law on April 9, 1866 (122 - 41).
Likewise the judicial sophistry of Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), also asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was a subterfuge to give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the civil liability enacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Passed by the House on April 19, 1871 (93–74) and by the Senate on April 19, 1871 (36–13) and then it was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871.
The KICKER IS, wait for it… BOTH Randall v. Brigham (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher (1871) were based on the corrupt "black bag of tricks" assertion of Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607) as precedent. What Randall and Bradley fail to tell you is that the "Star Chamber" was abolished for CAUSE, I quote from the Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber" July 5, 1641 "the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void."
The causes were MANY, but one of particular note to anyone that has suffered at the hands of "absolute immunity" was, and again I quote, "the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments than by any law is warranted."
So our sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court constructed,  and has since pulled the wool over We the Peoples eyes, a precedent from a court that asserted "absolute immunity" but who's power was, by Act of Parliament, ultimately "clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away and determined," for cause, abusing said "absolute immunity." That would be like allowing a potential thief into your house because his father a known thief, a convicted thief asserted that he would not steal before he was caught stealing. If there is anything to be learned from Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607) it is the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court CANNOT BE "ABSOLUTELY" TRUSTED!!!!!!!!!! It is INSANITY to think any other way!!!!!!
As examples of the Judicial sophistry, that has corrupted We the People's unalienable rights under color of law, 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. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875) sophisticated deprivation of the 15th Amendment's Voting Rights protection with the subterfuges of poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses, 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 state's sanctioned kidnapping, assault and murder without regard to the 14th Amendment's 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, 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 and most recently the criminal deprivation of the 1st and 7th Amendment right of redress as established and then criminally deprived by the Supreme Court Five (Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts,) in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011. If that is not ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of We the People's intent to establish justice, I cannot imagine what is.
My QUESTION is how did the UNQUALIFIED governmental liability for RIGHTS "under color of law" i.e., the "property in rights" as asserted by James Madison (1792) 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 again establish an Individual's property in RIGHTS???
What good are rights if the "property in rights," as confirmed by James Madison (1792), is not "under color of law" protected UNQUALIFIED by any government authority??
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"???
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, for violation of their constitutional commission and CONDUCT UNBECOMING an Article III Judge.
The Article III, Black Robed Royalist, Supreme Court FIVE, 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 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?
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.
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, 13-5193 and 13-7030.
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!!!
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 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 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."
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 "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.
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.
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.
"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, prosecutorialand enforcement power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible "fantastic or delusional scenario."
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, law and equity?
I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Clothes." AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
The ministerial grant of "Absolute Immunity," 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."
"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, Sunday, January 26, 2014!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said respectively said it originally in 1871 at the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985).
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice and "fraud upon the court."
Anyone that questions this should read "INHERENTLY UNEQUAL, The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court, 1865-1903" by Lawrence Goldstone and / or The shifting wind : the Supreme Court and civil rights from Reconstruction to Brown by John R. Howard. "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners." "Six million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.—more than were in Stalin's gulags."
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, 13-5193 and 13-7030."
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?
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. 07-2614, 08-1823, 09-2848, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200). The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners" PROVES "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!!
"simply because it is right."
 The Supremacy clause, Article VI § 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America, "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."
 "And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun." 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM e.g., George Bush's false representations of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi - Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis.
 Socrates was found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state"), and subsequently sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock.
 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).
 The recent Government Shut Down comes to mind, but the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court had already handed our legislators absolute immunity for their legislative actions, Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997).
 Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
 "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.
 Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) , asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was judicial sophistry at its finest, a judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary immunity from the UNQUALIFIED recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866 (18 USC §241-§242).
 Judicial sophistry is the "ABSOLUTE" WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
 Likewise Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), also asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was a subterfuge to give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the UNQUALIFIED civil liability for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" enacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC §1983-§1985).
 "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792 "equally respect the rights of property and the property in rights"
 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.
 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!!!!!!!!!!
 In criminal case the "exclusionary rule" is an obfuscation of the Government's Article III vicarious liability for due Process rights.
 Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971) "Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing."
 United States v. Agurs - 427 U.S. 103 (1976) "typified by Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury. [Footnote 7] In a series of subsequent cases, the Court has consistently held that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, [Footnote 8] and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury."
 7th Amendment "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."
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.
 Our Federal Judiciary, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." so as to empower them to answer to Justice ALONE.
 "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."
 "It is difficult to conceive how, in society where rights and duties are relative and mutual, there can be tolerated those who are privileged to do injury legibus soluti, and still more difficult to imagine how such a privilege could be instituted or tolerated upon the principles of social good" (White v. Nicholls, 44 U.S. (3 How) 287 (1845)).
 "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!!!!!
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.
 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.
 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"
 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
 "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
 "Mark Zandi the chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "Dr. Zandi's analysis found that the cost of rescuing the industry, across all aid programs would be at minimum $75 billion, and maybe go as high as $120 billion or more."
 "Recovery Bill Gets Final Approval" The New York Times, A version of this article appeared in print on February 14, 2009, on page A15 of the New York edition.

References: v. 
 v. 
 §241
 §242
 §1983
 §1985
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §241
 v. 
 §1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.