Source: http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012_12_09_archive.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:00:48+00:00

Document:
I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Cloths"
Article III, §1 & 2 of the Constitution, The Supreme Court of the United States of America, is and has been an abysmal failure as the supposed altruistic defender of Justice and Liberty within our constitutional system of government. The original purpose for having an appointed for life independent judiciary, free from political or economic corruption, was to empower it to altruistically defend Justice and Liberty for ALL. Now it HAS VERY RARELY if ever done that. In fact most of the Supreme Court's rulings tend to oppose Justice and Liberty rather than altruistically or independently support it.
The assertion that the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution for the United States of America, and "We the People," as represented by BOTH houses of congress, enacted into law the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 and The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, enacted April 20, 1871, over the specific expressed objections to judicial, legislative and ministerial officer's liability of President Johnson's Veto, as the reckonable supreme Law of the Land, "intended sub silentio to exempt" under color of law "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process," especially those entrusted with judicial, prosecutorial and enforcement power, all evidence to the contrary, from the federal Constitution's paramount binding authority and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice is an incredible, fantastic or delusional scenario.
Justice without civility, equity consideration, is unsustainable. The pursuit of Justice and Liberty without equity consideration impoverishes the victim at the expense of the injustice and denial of liberty that has overwhelmed them. Most of the victims of injustice are in prison if not impoverished. How do you instigate a defense of your innocence from POVERTY if not incarceration?
Our forefathers knew this would be the case and provided a remedy with the 1st Amendment's lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition/sue the government for redress of grievances with the 7th Amendment's security "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." In 1803 there was no such thing as common law sovereign immunity per Chief Justice John 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."
"The opinion in these cases proceeds, it seems to me, upon grounds entirely too narrow and artificial. I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.
"It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul."
Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed 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. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted.
The purpose of the first section of the act of Congress of March 1, 1875, was to prevent race discrimination in respect of the accommodations and facilities of inns, public conveyances, and places of public amusement. It does not assume to define the general conditions and limitations under which inns, public conveyances, and places of public amusement may be conducted, but only declares that such conditions and limitations, whatever they may be, shall not be applied so as to work a discrimination solely because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The second section provides a penalty against anyone denying, or aiding or inciting the denial, of any citizen, of that equality of right given by the first section except for reasons by law applicable to citizens of every race or color and regardless of any previous condition of servitude."
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to 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?
We the People have fallen under the despotic spell of the concentrated power in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER from 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 to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.
I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Cloths." AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
"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, Thursday, December 13, 2012!!! 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.
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. "Six million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.—more than were in Stalin's gulags."
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 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 and 11-8211."
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 "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!!
 See African American Civil Rights in Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871), United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) and Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). See the paradoxical assertion of Liberty of Contract that denied We the People the Liberty to organize and pass Statute Law to promote the general Welfare with Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). See the DENIAL of any accountability with the CRIMINAL assertion of absolute immunity in Judicial (Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)), Prosecutorial (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)) and all persons (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)).
 Now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Whoever" criminally liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.
 Now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Every person" civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.
"This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary, as adequate judicial remedies could be adopted to secure the desired end without invading the immunities of legislators, always important to be preserved in the interest of public liberty; without assailing the independence of the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order. The remedy proposed by this section seems to be in this respect not only anomalous, but unconstitutional; for the Constitution guarantees nothing with certainty if it does not insure to the several States the right of making and executing laws in regard to all matters arising within their jurisdiction, subject only to the restriction that in cases of conflict with the Constitution and constitutional laws of the United States the latter should be held to be the supreme law of the land.…"
 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" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America.
 "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
 "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).
The Supreme Court precedent has empowered itself and the rest of the judiciary by saying ""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 denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
 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 4.75 YEARS!
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.
 "The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Was included as the last section of Amendments 13, 14 and 15.
Be it enacted, That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude."
 Incompetence is the most insidiuos and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishoesty, malice andcorruption. As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
 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 FOUR YEARS! 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.
 Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!

References: §1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 241
 § 1983
 § 241
 § 1983
 v. 
 v.