Source: http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013_05_05_archive.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:00:44+00:00

Document:
In the immortal words of Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" I am ALL IN! I have spent all that I have every cent of my retirement, 9 ½ years of frustrated effort and deprivation, 411 days of illegal incarceration, 5 ½ years of homelessness. I have been all the way through the Federal Courts - District, Circuit (appeals) and Supreme Court - 5 times to document the malice, corruption and incompetence of our so called Justice System's deprivation of rights and liberty. I have given them everything I have on earth and they WANT MORE!!!!!
I am not the crazy one here, although I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Cloths." AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
Any HUMAN assertion of absolute immunity is groundless in REALITY. Did We the People not discard that assertion with the "The King can do no wrong."
The ministerial grant of "Absolute Immunity," by and for judges/ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, judicial/ministerial, unconstitutional an "unlawful Conspiracy" "before out of Court" to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."
They assert they cannot be bothered by their human fallibility; it would be too inexpedient. For them to perform their functions expediently, they assert they cannot be fettered by a reckonable reading of the "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 as the supreme Law of the Land." Even though the constitution requires "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby." That is the absolute corruption of their raison d'être.
Now admittedly the specific deprivation of liberty/rights for me revolves around the Jane Crow era's misandry in our Justice System, but the malice, corruption and incompetence is that same UNCHECKED absolute power sanctioned by absolute immunity that condoned mass murder, pogrom and 100 years of Jim Crow lynching with Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 (1871), Blyew v. United States - 80 U.S. 581 (1871), United States v. Cruikshank - 92 U.S. 542 (1875) and Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 3 (1883) respectively. That is the absolute corruption  of their raison d'être.
The denial of Rights by those acting under "color of law" has been an issue since the very the earliest (411 BC) scientific credible recorded history of the assertion of liberty.
Before RIGHTS were enumerated, Liberty was subject to the prerogative the King without any limitation to reckonable reciprocity. The Magna Charta (1215 AD), in the Modern Age, was the first attempt to establish Liberty with reckonable AGREED enumerated written reciprocal RIGHTS and reciprocal enforcement.
The Magna Charta relied on the assertion of a "lawful judgement of his equals" for reciprocal enforcement of Liberty with said enumerated RIGHTS. The "lawful judgement of his equals" for reciprocal enforcement of Liberty with enumerated RIGHTS became known as Jury System and Due Process of Law.
"The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: "To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.""
Nonetheless We the People included in our Constitutional Bill of Rights. Specifically as reciprocal enforcement of Liberty, the 1st and 7th Amendments. 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.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.)."
"This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without invading the immunities 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." "It is, therefore, assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment, for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose."
it was thought necessary by the duly elected representatives in We the People's Congress with Presidential approval to enact § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) to make state officials CIVILY liable in federal court for depriving anyone of their civil rights or the equal protection of the laws. This empowered the injured individual to civilly prosecute the criminals, who had been acting under color of law, not being criminally prosecuted under § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, per the 1st and 7th Amendment under § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act by the injured party.
"This Court has, from time to time, read § 1983 against the "background" of common law tort liability. [Footnote 2/19] Far more pertinent to this case, however, is the background provided by the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Representative Bingham, who had introduced the amendment to substitute civil liability for criminal liability in the 1866 Act, had become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee by the time of the 42d Congress. Senator Trumbull, the Senate sponsor of the 1866 Act, was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1871. Representative Shellabarger, who had participated in the debates on the 1866 legislation, [Footnote 2/20] drafted the 1871 Act.
Congress was well aware that the "model" for § 1 of the 1871 law could be found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 68 (1871) (Rep. Shellabarger). The manager of the bill in the Senate, George Edmunds, stressed that § 1 was merely "carrying out the principles of the civil rights bill" that had been passed in 1866. Id. at 568. Representative Coburn stated that § 1 "gives a civil remedy parallel to the penal provision" in the Civil Rights Act. "If this penal section is valid, and no one dares controvert it, the civil remedy is legal and unquestionable." Id. at 461. See also id. at 429 (Rep. McHenry in opposition) ("The first section of the bill is intended as an amendment of the civil rights act"); id. at 365 (Rep. Arthur in opposition) (§ 1 is "cumulative, as far as it goes, with certain provisions in the civil rights bill").
The fact that § 2 of the Civil Rights Act was the model for § 1 of the 1871 Act explains why the debates in the 42d Congress on § 1 were so perfunctory. [Footnote 2/21] Of all the measures in the Ku Klux Klan Act, § 1 generated the least controversy, since it merely provided a civil counterpart to the far more controversial criminal provision in the 1866 Act. See id. at 568 (Sen. Edmunds) ("The first section is one that I believe nobody objects to"); id. at App. 313 (Rep. Burchard) ("To the first section, giving an injured party redress by suit at law in the United States courts in the cases enumerated, I can see no objections"); Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. at 436 U. S. 665 (debate on § 1 was limited, and the section passed without amendment); Developments in the Law -- Section 1983 and Federalism, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 1133, 1155 (1977).
"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"
to enforce 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments with § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court has consistently, maliciously, corruptly and incompetently denied their raison d'être - Equal Justice under the Supreme Law of the Land - ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION made flesh.
Admittedly the Jane Crow era misandry of rampant deprivation of RIGHTS is relatively new as compared to its predecessor the Jim Crow era. 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 in the Jane Crow era.
If the Sheriff Tate had made a good faith investigated of the accusations of Mayella Ewel, he would have seen them for the racially motivated baseless accusation against a crippled man of good character that they were. How could the crippled Tom Robinson been able to do the things he was accused of? And he would have been able to testify to the same. False claims of malice do not often get written about or made into movies, but I assure you LAW ENFORCEMENT deals with false claims on a regular basis. Law enforcement does it to avoid vexatious or calumnious actions on a regular basis.
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. Persecutors do it to avoid vexatious or calumnious actions on a regular basis.
If Judge Taylor had any of the altruistic, supposedly independent, courage that our judiciary is based on, he would have dismissed the charge as vexatious or calumnious so as not to offend the Ends of Justice that should have been his PRIMARY motivation. Judges do it to avoid vexatious or calumnious actions on a regular basis.
Tom Robinson was convicted because of the deliberate indifference to his right to justice and Liberty 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 14th Amendment.
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award 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?
"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, Saturday, May 11, 2013!!! 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 9½ years. I have suffered through 411 days of illegal incarceration, 5½ 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 12-2435, Jeep v Obama 11-2425 , Jeep v United States of America 10-1947," Jeep v Bennett 08-1823, "Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and the most humble Petitions for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211."
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. 12-2435, 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614). 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!!!!!!!!!!!!
 At the Supreme Court TWO were docketed (Docket for 07-11115 and Docket for 11-8211) and denied and the other THREE were ignored.
 See also the current the assertion of ABSOLUTE IMMUNIT with Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) and Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) that are both based on Bradley.
 The ethic of reciprocity or the Golden Rule is a maxim, ethical code or morality that essentially states "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". (Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6:31).
 Magna Charta (clause 39) "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land."
 The phrase due process of law first appeared in a statutory rendition of Magna Carta in A.D. 1354 during the reign of Edward III of England, as follows: "No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 § 1983
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1983
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 v. 
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 §1
 v. 
 v.