Source: https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2014_11_09_archive.html
Timestamp: 2020-01-23 16:43:31
Document Index: 429417516

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 241', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 2', '§ 241', '§1983', '§1985', '§ 1']

"The Earth and everything that's in it": November 9, 2014
A Petition for a Constitutional Amendment, Re: Petition for Rehearing - Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-5551 David Jeep v. Government of United States - DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 25, 2014.
First-Class Mail® Certified Mail™ Label Number: 7014-1820-0001-8020-8383
Expected Delivery Day: Thursday, November 13, 2014
Delivered WASHINGTON, DC 20543 November 17, 2014 10:59 am
Re: Petition for Rehearing - Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-5551 David Jeep v. Government of United States - DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 25, 2014.
Do not insult my intelligence by even thinking that your decisions are based on sublime reasoning.[1] You are as history has proved time and again, unrestrained, self-centered, self-promoting political oligarchs. Do "We the People" need a constitutional amendment to restrain your corruption of "We the People's" inalienable constitutional rights?
Martin Luther King, Jr. knew that the "separate but equal" was always separate BUT NEVER EQUAL. King's pacific explanation was sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Today when you consider the Supreme Court's support of MARTIAL LAW in the WORLD WAR on DRUGS[2] and MARTIAL LAW in the Jane Crow[3] Era I cannot be limited by King's pacific tenor. "We the People's" inalienable constitutional rights need more protection than an independent, self-admittedly[4] "corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant, conscientiously stupid and incompetent" judiciary can provide!!!! "We the People" constitutionally DEMAND a jury of our peers both criminal and civil!
To hear the Supreme Court tell us, via their unrestricted "absolutely immune" power, "We the People," all evidence to the contrary, traded the "King can do no WRONG" for the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the "malicious or corrupt" judges(Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)),[5] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976), [6] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),[7] corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant conscientiously stupid[8] and incompetent actions[9] of federal, state, local, and regional legislators (Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138)[10] and the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant conscientiously stupid[11] and incompetent actions of "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)) [12] acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION[13] of inalienable Constituional rights under color of law.
a. "A Petition for a Constitutional Amendment dated Monday, November 10, 2014
cc: Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Congressman Wm. Lacy Clay, Senator Claire McCaskill, Senator Roy Blunt and Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Solicitor General - My Blog - Monday, November 10, 2014, 5:10:46 PM
A Petition for a Constitutional
This civil liability is and has always been enforceable by the VII Amendment's jury trial requirements."
Re: Petition for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America - Petition for Rehearing - Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-5551 David Jeep v. Government of United States - DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 25, 2014.
Please give the enclosed petition for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America your attention.
Martin Luther King, Jr. knew that the "separate but equal" was always separate BUT NEVER EQUAL. King's pacific explanation was sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Today when you consider the Supreme Court's support of MARTIAL LAW in the WORLD WAR on DRUGS[14] and MARTIAL LAW in the Jane Crow[15] Era I cannot be limited by King's pacific tenor.
a. Letter to the Supreme Court dated Monday, November 10, 2014
b. "A Petition for a Constitutional Amendment" dated Monday, November 10, 2014
cc: My Blog - Monday, November 10, 2014, 5:10:46 PM
[1] MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) creating sophisticated separate and UNEQUAL racial segregation and the ongoing Jim Crow discrimination over the "necessary and proper" "ex industria" "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875
[2] The People of Ferguson Missouri have lived under the reign of MARTIAL LAW in the WORLD-WAR on Drugs for TOO LONG!!!!! They need no further proof!! But for the uninformed I offer "The Butterfly Effect of Bad Science." http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-butterfly-effect-of-bad-science-eg.html Not to mention "civil asset forfeiture, which allows the government, without ever securing a conviction or even filing a criminal charge, to seize property suspected of having ties to crime." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department-wish-list-when-deciding-which-assets-to-seize.html?emc=edit_th_20141110&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=57069838&_r=0
[3] Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-5551 David Jeep v. Government of United States
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/search/label/14-5551%20Cert
[4] "This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences." (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.)" Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
[8] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[9] 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).
[10] Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138
[14] The People of Ferguson Missouri have lived under the reign of MARTIAL LAW in the WORLD-WAR on Drugs for TOO LONG!!!!! They need no further proof!! But for the uninformed I offer "The Butterfly Effect of Bad Science." http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-butterfly-effect-of-bad-science-eg.html
[15] Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-5551 David Jeep v. Government of United States
Posted by DGJeep at 10:00:00 PM No comments: Links to this post
Labels: McCaskill, Obama, PWC 14-5551, Supreme Court
“Corruption, malice, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and incompetence ARE NOT and never have been covered by ANY grant of immunity, under color of “We the People’s” CONSTITUTIONAL law.
This civil liability is and has always been enforceable by the VII Amendment’s jury trial requirements.”
We the People of the United States of America have lived under the reign of malicious, corrupt, incompetent and stupid Judge Created MARTIAL LAW for TOO LONG!!!!!
We the People have fallen under the despotic[1] spell of the self-servingly constructed[2] "excess of power"[3] in the Supreme Court that has constructed[4] ABSOLUTE POWER[5] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for denial of inalienable constitutional rights (Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 ) by "malicious or corrupt" judges(Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)),[6] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)), [7] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),[8] the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[9] actions[10] of federal, state, local, and regional legislators (Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138)[11] and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[12] actions of "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)) [13] acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION[14] of inalienable rights under color of law.
We the People have no way of binding our judiciary or our leaders, because our Black Robed Royalist UNCONSTITUTIONAL Judiciary self-servingly asserts the MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity" for any and all JUDICIAL actions regarding "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." That defeats the Constitution's raison d'être to "establish Justice" under "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." The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly en banc disregarded our founders VII Amendment remedy for "a tribunal without juries, which will be a Star-Chamber as to Civil cases[16]"…. OUR BLACK ROBED ROYALIST UNCONSTITUTIONAL JUDICIARY CANNOT BE BOUND.
Connick, in CONNICK v. THOMPSON, based on the ADMITTED facts, Mr. Thompson had been UNCONSTITUTIONALLY held 15 years on Death Row. This was due to the ADMITTED fact that Mr. Connick, the Prosecuting attorney, had REPEATEDLY, as a government actor under color of law, failed to provide Mr. Thompson and others ex-culpable evidence that would have proven Mr. Thompson and others innocence.
"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, November 06, 2014!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [134] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said respectively said it originally in 1871[135] 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).
[10] 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).
[11] Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138
[12] 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).
[21] Now Codified into Statute law as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
[22] § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27. (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866. An excerpt from his remarks attached to his veto "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." See also BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460 U. S. 359 (1983)
[23] Originally enacted as The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 USC §1983 - §1985). The author of § 1 clearly stated the relationship between the two Acts in introducing the 1871 measure:
Posted by DGJeep at 12:00:00 PM No comments: Links to this post
Labels: Boehner, J. Roberts, Obama, PWC 14-5551, Supreme Court