Source: http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013_10_06_archive.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:32:43+00:00

Document:
Per the Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary on the Supreme Court of the United States We the People, for more than 406 years (Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607) to 2013), have “been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit” for reckonable inalienable rights “so far inferior that” We the People “had no rights which the” Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary, the delegated authority of the government of the people, by the people and for the people, “was bound to respect, and that” We the People “might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery” paraphrased from Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 407 (1857).
The Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary on the Supreme Court since the civil war in 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 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 deprivation of rights under color of law EVER SINCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To make a too long story short, the Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary on the Supreme Court reaches back 406 years, Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), to nullify their legal responsibility for We the People’s inalienable rights. How can We the People secure our liberties under a government who’s judiciary asserts absolute immunity for any and all legal responsibility for our inalienable rights?
We in essence traded 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 or corrupt 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 wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.
How many heroes on the battle fields in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII or any of the lesser conflicts would have actually given up their lives for rights that require difficult problems of proof above an beyond even respondeat superior liability §1983 as asserted by the Black robed Royalist Supreme Court five in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011. That means that liability for a workman’s comp claim is easier to establish than liability for any or all of the inalienable rights i.e., Freedom of Speech, Due Process, Equal Protection, Life, Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness. Per the Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary even an admission of culpability does secure for the victim an apology, much less a requirement for an equitable remedy.
We the People have fallen under the despotic, malicious and corrupt spell of the concentrated construct of an “excess of 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," the malicious or corrupt 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 wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.
Absolute Immunity, as a “constructive power,” has and will continue to QUASH Inalienable RIGHTS and Justice… the “raison d'être” for the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Constitution and 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.
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 THREE denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115, 11-8211 and 13-5193.
WE ARE SLAVES “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY” I am not the CRAZY one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Black Robed Royalist 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, after conceding that Thompson’s rights had been deprived by the denial of “exculpable evidence” with “18 years in prison, including 14 years on DEATH ROW” asserted “a “stringent standard of fault,” lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.” Difficult problems of proof are not difficult they are IMPOSSIBLE if AFTER YOU CONCEDE them you cannot be found guilty of them e.g., I robbed shot and killed the man, but you cannot hold me responsible, because after you were “18 years in prison, including 14 years on DEATH ROW,” I conceded my culpability? That does not make SENSE!!!! Conceding culpability after 18 years is not an excuse.
My QUESTION is how did the UNQUALIFIED governmental liability for RIGHTS 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 ESTABLISH an INDIVDUAL’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??
We the People have fallen under the despotic spell of the concentrated “excess of 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," the malicious or corrupt 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 wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.
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 as credibly sustain the Judiciary’s unreasonable absolute immunity in a common law 7th Amendment controversy before a Jury of OUR peers.
“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, Wednesday, October 09, 2013!!! 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).
 Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011, after conceding that Thompson’s rights had been deprived by the denial of “exculpable evidence” with “18 years in prison, including 14 years on DEATH ROW” “difficult problems of proof,” and we must adhere to a“stringent standard of fault,” lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.” Difficult problems of proof are not difficult they are IMPOSSIBLE if after YOU CONCEDE GUILT you cannot be found guilty!!!!!!!!!

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