First-Class Mail® Certified Mail™ Label Number: 7014-1820-0001-8020-6068
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: A CERTIFICATION for a Petition for Rehearing - Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-5551 David Jeep v. Government of United States
Dear Mr. Downs,
I stress, as always, "Time is of the essence." I am impoverished and have been homeless for 6.97 years in this 11.45 year effort.
It is truly MIND BOGGLING to me that you and others you represent, all PROFESSIONAL law school graduate, can with a straight face support and defend your unmitigated "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" again.
The enclosed petition restates the fact of the NOT "facially valid court order,"  issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction," Monday November 03, 2003 08:00 PM, in terms the denial of "a Republican Form of Government,"  "cruel and unusual punishments" and "involuntary servitude" that "a four-year-old" could understand
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
a. "A Petition for Rehearing - Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-1470 David Jeep v. Government of United States" dated Friday, October 24, 2014
b. Certification dated Tuesday, October 15, 2013, 9:32:16 AM
cc: Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Solicitor General
My Blog - Tuesday, October 15, 2013, 9:32:16 AM
Appeal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals: 14-1470
Eastern Missouri U.S. District Court Case No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS
PETITIONER FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
David G. Jeep and heir Petitioners
RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
The Government of the United States of America, et al, Defendants/Respondents
I am herewith stating UNDER PENALTY of PERJURY that enclosed Rehearing – Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-5551, originally mailed and dated October 6, 2014, is being presented in "good faith and not for delay." I have complied to the best of my pro se indigent ability to comply with requirements of the court.
Respectfully submitted, Friday, October 24, 2014 05:05.05 PM
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
David G. Jeep
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
 As of Friday October 24 2014 03:03 PM
 MLKing Jr., Strength to Love, 1963
 The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for an ex parte restraining order. Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided originally, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge. "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003).
 "that no set of circumstances exists under which [order] would be valid", United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987), or that the statute [order] lacks any "plainly legitimate sweep", Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 740, n. 7 (1997) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgments) (internal quotation marks omitted).
 Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 356 (1978)
 Constitution for the United States of America, Article IV , Section 4, § 1
 The Bill of Rights, ratified December 15, 1791, specifically : AMENDMENT VIII
 AMENDMENT XIII Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
 Attorney Joe Miller (Denzel Washington REPEATED ASSERTION in "Philadelphia"): "Now, explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old."