Agreed, you need to read MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting in the Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 552 (1896) and Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883): “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.” Impeach the current Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour, " denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment justice between the government and the people, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011!!! Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or corrupt" judges by saying, "This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly" (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) Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976) Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Supreme Court precedent empowers any and all malice, corruption, “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” by saying “In short, the common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process. It is equally clear that § 1983 does not authorize a damages claim against private witnesses, on the one hand, or against judges or prosecutors in the performance of their respective duties, on the other.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983) WE NEED TO TAKE BACK OUR RIGHTS. WE NEED TO TAKE BACK CONTROL of campaign finance (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)), TAKE BACK Gun Control (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)) and MOST IMPORTANTLY TAKE BACK OUR RIGHTS. Absolute immunity QUASHES Basic Human Rights, The Constitution for the United States of America and Civil/Criminal constitutionally authorized ex industria Statute Law in the United States of America (Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)). The ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of Rights and Justice has been tolerated for too long!!!!!!!!!!!!! “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, September 21, 2013 in the Jane Crow, Plea Bargain and Exclusionary Rule Era!!! Justice William O. Douglas respectively said it in 1961 and 1967. Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871, the inception of the Jim Crow Era, at the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Civil constitutionally authorized ex industria Federal Statute Law as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985). dgjeep.blogspot/2012/04/impeachment-supreme-court.html
Posted on: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 20:53:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015