Source: http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2011/12/common-law-v-brady-v-maryland-373-us-83.html
Timestamp: 2018-02-23 00:42:22
Document Index: 533240554

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 241', '§ 1983', '§ 241', '§ 249', '§ 1981', '§ 1985']

"The Earth and everything that's in it": The Common Law v. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
The Common Law v. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Friday, December 30, 2011, 11:56:41 AM
In a recent New York Times editorial, "Justice and Prosecutorial Misconduct" the New York Times misses an important point. The Common Law never sanctioned withholding exculpable evidence. Withholding exculpable evidence has ALWAYS been in direct conflict with THE ENDS OF JUSTICE that the COMMON LAW is founded on, given a person of ordinary intelligence.[4] As James Madison stated at the inception of our nation, "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."[5] Even the Common Law from Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607), the asserted basis for ALL absolute immunity, would have considered the withholding of exculpable evidence as a "but if he hath conspired before out of Court" exclusion as, and I quote, "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."[6]
There is nothing MAGICAL about the Brady Rule (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), yes the Supreme Court highlighted the issue into their stare decisis but that means about as much as separate but equal did from Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). As we all NOW KNOW things were… and to a very real extent still are separate and VERY unequal. NO ONE could then or can now actually petition the government for a justifiable redress of grievances in spite of our lawfully un-abridge-able First Amendment Constitutional right to do so, because of the unconstitutional judicially created, asserted and maintained Absolute Immunity. The Judiciary has awarded themselves and others the powers, to do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid[7] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[8]
The New York Times is correct in that the issue is Absolute Immunity! In our imperfect world Absolute Immunity is irreconcilable with THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
Absolute Immunity goes back to the Civil War reconstruction with Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) the origins of Judicial Immunity in the American Justice system, two of the most scrupulously adhered to corrupt, malicious, dishonest and incompetent Supreme Court precedents. Both Randall and Bradely are based on a incomplete skewed reading of the Common Law Immunity extracted from Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) that came into the common law as an effort in self defense from an ADMITTEDLY, by all parties, corrupt and malicious court the Star Chamber.[9]
Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) was a judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary immunity from the then recently constitutionally enacted, over President Johnson's Veto[10] expressing concerns about "assailing the independence of the judiciary" that would result, from The Civil Rights Act of 1866.[11] Likewise Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) was a subterfuge to give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the constitutional congressionally enacted CIVIL LIABILITY by the Civil Rights Act of 1871[12] constitutionally enacted "As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Lawrence, declared:
"I answer it is better to invade the judicial power of the State than permit it to invade, strike down, and destroy the civil rights of citizens. A judicial power perverted to such uses should be speedily invaded. The grievance would be insignificant."" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) Page 460 U. S. 360)
Alexander Hamilton said it best in June of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, The Federalist Papers No. 78, "The Judiciary Department":
"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… 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." [13]
How then can a judge, a delegated authority, acting under a constitutional commission award themselves 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"[14]
The issue is the ministerial[15] grant by "a delegated authority," the Supreme Court of "Absolute Immunity,"[16] by and for the judiciary, our ministers. Almost as if they were nobility.[17] It is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[18] "before out of Court"[19] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[20]
ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity,[21] in a government of free and equal persons on THIS PLANET!!!!!
Before they have a chance to screw-up Healthcare for 100 years!!!!!!
Friday, December 30, 2011, 11:56:41 AM, 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc
[1] "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 (or a thief) with a gun." 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM e.g., George Bush's false representations of al-queda links and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq - Underlining and non-italic text added for emphasis.
[4] SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting, 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 (probable cause) 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. So too, vague sentencing provisions may pose constitutional questions if they do not state with sufficient clarity the consequences of violating a given criminal statute. See United States v. Evans, 333 U. S. 483 (1948); United States v. Brown, 333 U. S. 18 (1948); cf. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399 (1966)." (Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis)
[5] Paraphrased form FEDERALIST No. 51 The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments Wednesday, February 6, 1788. James Madison
[6] Floyd and Barker (1607), (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber. It should be noted that the skewed reading of Floyd and Barker (1607), less its declared exceptions has been used for 143 years to justify ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. First in
[7] Alexander Hamilton said it first and best in June of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, The Federalist Papers No. 78, "The Judiciary Department"
[8] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985
[9] The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court of law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until 1641. It was made up of Privy Counsellors, as well as common-law judges and supplemented the activities of the common-law and equity courts in both civil and criminal matters. Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy.
In the early 1900s, American poet, biographer and dramatist Edgar Lee Masters, 1868-1950, commented: "In the Star Chamber the council could inflict any punishment short of death, and frequently sentenced objects of its wrath to the pillory, to whipping and to the cutting off of ears. ... With each embarrassment to arbitrary power the Star Chamber became emboldened to undertake further usurpation. ... The Star Chamber finally summoned juries before it for verdicts disagreeable to the government, and fined and imprisoned them. It spread terrorism among those who were called to do constitutional acts. It imposed ruinous fines. It became the chief defense of Charles against assaults upon those usurpations which cost him his life…" First English Civil War (1642–1651) The Civil War led to the trial and execution of Charles I "January 1649"
[10] 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.…
[11] Now codified into current statute law as TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS § 241 - § 249
[12] Now codified into current statute law as TITLE 42 - CHAPTER 21 -CIVIL RIGHTS - SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY § 1981 - § 1985.
[13] Alexander Hamilton said it first and best in June of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, The Federalist Papers No. 78, "The Judiciary Department"
[15] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law. For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[16] "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[18] 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."
[19] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)
[21] 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.
Posted by David G. Jeep at 12:57:00 PM
Labels: 4:11-cv-931-CAS, Common Law, J. Roberts, Obama