Friday, April 29, 2016

What is the DIFFERENCE between a thief, a prosecutor, a police man and a judge?


What is the DIFFERENCE between a thief, a prosecutor, a police man and a judge?
Friday, April 29, 2016, 3:39:42 PM


What is the DIFFERENCE between:

1.    a thief
2.    a prosecutor
3.    a policeman
4.    a judge

THEY CAN AND DO ALL ACT CRIMINALLY (18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 Criminal Deprivation of Rights).  The only criminal that can or would ever be prosecuted or held liable would be the "thief."  The REST would walk, no matter, they put someone in jail for life, had them executed or took their children, everything they owned and liberty!!!!!

            What is the DIFFERENCE between:

1.    the innocent victim of a thief
2.    the innocent victim of a prosecutor[1] – acting criminally withholding evidence
3.    the innocent victim of a policeman[2] - acting criminally testilying (police perjury)
4.    the innocent victim of a judge[3] – acting criminally without "reasonable probable cause"

THEY ARE ALL INNOCENT VICTIMS.  The only innocent victim that might be able to get compensation is "the innocent victim of a thief."  There are government agencies and relief organizations that compensate the victim of gun crimes.  But the GOVERNMENT refuses to acknowledge our ex industria statute law for the deprivation of rights under color of law as a crime[4] that demands compensation.[5]   

You ask why we have Jim Crow, Jane Crow and MASS INCARCERATION IN AMERICA?  Judges,[6] Prosecutors,[7] Police[8] and All Persons[9] have "absolute immunity" for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."


Malicious or corrupt OR INCOMPETENT judges[10] turn a blind eye to "malicious or dishonest"[11] unconstitutional persecutions via a prosecutors[12] withholding of "evidence favorable to an accused"[13] with "knowingly false testimony by police officers,"[14] "under color of law."  IT HAPPENS EVER SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA!!!!

We need strict vicarious liability for the rights we wrote our constitution to SECURE!!!

Strict vicarious liability for rights under color of law was, is and always will be the raison d'être for We the People to have constitutionally INCORPORATED ourselves into a "government of the people, by the people, for the people."



[1] "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. But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor's immunity would disserve the broader public interest. It would prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor's duty that is essential to the proper functioning (Page 424 U. S. 428) of the criminal justice system."Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
[2] Ibid., Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[3] "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.""  Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
[4] 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 Criminal Deprivation of Rights
[5] 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 Civil Action for the Deprivation of Rights
[6] "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.""  Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
[7] "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. But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor's immunity would disserve the broader public interest. It would prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor's duty that is essential to the proper functioning (Page 424 U. S. 428) of the criminal justice system."Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
[8] 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)
[9] "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." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983)
[11] Ibid., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
[12] Ibid., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
[13] The Bill of Rights does not require "'difficult problems of proof,' and we must adhere to a "stringent standard of fault," lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.12 Bryan County, 520 U. S., at 406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392."(CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON) 
Any violation of rights secures for the INDIVIDUAL person "where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy" (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 167 (1803)) and "it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 164 (1803))

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Strict vicarious liability for rights under color of law was, is and always will be the raison d'être for We the People to have constitutionally INCORPORATED ourselves into a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer (please distribute, postage is limited)
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001

Re: PWC 15-8884 - David Gerard Jeep and heir, Petitioner v. United States (corporation) - USAP8 15-3403

Dear People,

 Am I your Ida B. Wells[1] (1884) or your Rosa Parks[2] (1955)?  Strict vicarious liability for rights under color of law was, is and always will be the raison d'être for We the People to have constitutionally INCORPORATED ourselves into a "government of the people, by the people, for the people."  "Absolute immunity" was an abomination of the nobility! 

As you ALL know, since 1868,[3] 1871[4] and 1883[5] the purely whimsical political issue of Supreme Court decision has been nothing more than a corrupt, malicious, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[6] means of arbitrarily depriving natural "rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship."  It has nothing to do with the constitution, rights, honor, integrity, justice or truth.

I need your HELP!
The Gravamen

The asserted uncontested, undeniable, NOW-exigent[7] and "reckonable"[8] gravamen was and is an ex parte court order of protection[9] without "REASONABLE PROBABLE CAUSE" from 12.94 years ago.[10]  This has been a FLAGRANT VIOLATION from day one.  The Police Officer that originally served it, laughed at it.  The first judge to hear it looked to the sky in amazement and/or disgusted.  REGARDLESS, they and EVERYONE since have without resistance upheld it.  Of course, they risked nothing when they took my son, my home and all my most valued worldly possession, threw me out on the street and then forced me into a disputed divorce where my criminal adversaries[11] had been empowered by all that had been fraudulently[12] and criminally[13] taken from me. 

I have, since, been struggling to expose this for 12.94 years[14] with 8.46 years homeless, 411 days in jail, 7 trips through the federal court system and this, 15-8884, my 7th docketed Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, the prior six were denied without comment (07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, 14-5551 and 14-10088).

By definition individual rights are the spring for and preceded We the People's Constitutional incorporation of them into the supreme law of the land.  Therefore, there can be no statute of limitations on the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws at the instigation of an action under color of law.[15]
In attuned and reconciled LEGALESE, the "reckonable" gravamen is and has always been the result of a deprivation of rights under color of law.  And now attuned to requirements of current precedent, it was and is an unconstitutional deprivation[16] of rights under color of law with a:

·         NOT "facially valid court order"[17]

·         The 14th Amendment "beyond debate"[18] "reckonably" states: "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" without NON-EXIGENT exception, and under the Article. VI. § 2 "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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."  THUS THERE CAN BE NO JUDGE MADE EXCEPTION[19] I.E., THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS EXCEPTION.[20]

·         that was issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,""[21]

·         that over comes "difficult problems of proof" and "stringent standard of fault"[22] with the ubiquitous UNCONSTITUTIONAL "Jane Crow" assertion of a Woman's "victimhood" to the deprivation of any Man's constitutional rights in legal disputes,[23] is uncontestable.

·         that facts[24] were and are "beyond debate"[25] "sufficiently clear" THAT EVERY "reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,"[26] (i.e., the universal reckonable understanding of the IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV Amendments).


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
 cc:  My Blog - April 25, 2016, 4:26:28 PM


[1] Ida B. Wells demanded her rights in 1884
[2] Rosa Parks demanded hers and Ida B. Wells rights AGAIN in 1955
[5] "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." MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting - Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883)
[6] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr. - Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
[7] See ESCALATING DAMAGES included in original petition http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2016/04/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-15-8884.html
[8] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."  Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules,  56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[10] As of Tuesday April 19, 2016 03:43.47 PM
[12] 18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally
[13] 18 USC §241 - §242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law
[14] As of Tuesday April 19, 2016 03:43.47 PM
[15] 1st Amendment (December 15, 1791) to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law … prohibiting… or abridging… the right of the people… to petition the government for a redress of grievances" i.e., Justice.
[16] Deprivation of the IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV Amendment rights
[17] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for an ex parte order of protection.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided IN THE PETITION, 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). 
[18] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
   [19] The very statute in questions INVITES other remedies, a federal civil rights action, for it.  Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Proceedings independent of others - Section 455.070
[20] But even that is overridden by their own precedent now… Obergefell V. Hodges 2015 (Page 22) "These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty."
[21] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[22] "difficult problems of proof," and we must adhere to a "stringent standard of fault," lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.12 Bryan County, 520 U. S., at 406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392 - Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson,  Certiorari to the Supreme Court, No. 09–571. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 29, 2011
   [23] ADDITIONALLY - the petitioner holds "This argument (Connick) with respect to volume of traffic seems to us to be without merit. It makes the constitutional right depend upon the number of persons who may be discriminated against, whereas the essence of the constitutional right is that it is a personal one." McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914) 
[25] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[26] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).

Thanks in advance,
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep, Federal Inmate #36072-044
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com or DGJeep01@yahoo.com

(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis , MO 63155-9999

Friday, April 22, 2016

Apr 21 2016 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed. - Petition for Writ of Certiorari 15-8884


The Gravamen

The asserted uncontested, undeniable, NOW-exigent[1] and “reckonable”[2] gravamen was and is an ex parte court order of protection[3] without “REASONABLE PROBABLE CAUSE” from 12.94 years ago.[4]  This has been a FLAGRANT VIOLATION from day one.  The Police Officer that originally served laughed at it.  The first judge to hear it looked to the sky in amazement and/or discussed.  REGARDLESS, they and EVERYONE since have upheld it.  They risked nothing when they took my son, my home and all my most valued worldly possession, threw me out on the street and then forced me into a disputed divorce where my criminal adversaries[5] had been empowered by all that had been fraudulently[6] and criminally[7] taken from me. 

I have, since, been struggling to expose this for 12.94 years[8] with 411 days in jail, 7 trips through the federal court system and this, 15-8884, my 7th docketed Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, the prior six were denied (07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, 14-5551 and 14-10088).

By definition individual rights are the spring for and preceded We the People’s Constitutional incorporation of them into the supreme law of the land.  Therefore, there can be no statute of limitations on the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws at the instigation of an action under color of law.[9]

In attuned reconciled LEGALESE, the “reckonable”[10] gravamen is and has always been the result of a deprivation of rights under color of law.  And now attuned to requirements of current precedent, it was and is an unconstitutional deprivation[11] of rights under color of law with a:

    • NOTfacially valid court order[12]
    • The 14th Amendment “beyond debate”[13] “reckonably”[14] states: “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 lawswithout NON-EXIGENT exception, and under the Article. VI. § 2 “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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”  Thus there can be no Judge made exception[15] i.e., the Domestic Relations exception.[16]
    • that was issued “in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"”[17]
    • that over comes “difficult problems of proof” and “stringent standard of fault[18] with the ubiquitous UNCONSTITUTIONAL “Jane Crow” assertion of a Woman’s “victimhood” at the expense of any Man’s constitutional rights in legal disputes[19]
    • that facts[20] were and are “beyond debate[21]sufficiently clearTHAT EVERYreasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,[22] (i.e., the universal reckonable[23] understanding of the IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV Amendments).


    [1] See ESCALATING DAMAGES included in original petition http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2016/04/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-15-8884.html
    [2] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."  Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules,  56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
    [4] As of Tuesday April 19, 2016 03:43.47 PM
    [6] 18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally
    [7] 18 USC §241 - §242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law
    [8] As of Tuesday April 19, 2016 03:43.47 PM
    [9] 1st Amendment (December 15, 1791) to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting… or abridging… the right of the people… to petition the government for a redress of grievances” i.e., Justice.
    [11] Deprivation of the IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV Amendment rights
    [12] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for an ex parte order of protection.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided IN THE PETITION, 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). 
    [13] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
    [14] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."  Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules,  56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
       [15] The very statute in questions INVITES other remedies, a federal civil rights action, for it.  Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Proceedings independent of others - Section 455.070
    [16] But even that is overridden by their own precedent now… Obergefell V. Hodges 2015 (Page 22) “These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.”
    [17] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
    [18] “difficult problems of proof,” and we must adhere to a “stringent standard of fault,” lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.12 Bryan County, 520 U. S., at 406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392 - Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson,  Certiorari to the Supreme Court, No. 09–571. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 29, 2011
       [19] ADDITIONALLY - the petitioner holds “This argument (Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011) with respect to volume of traffic seems to us to be without merit. It makes the constitutional right depend upon the number of persons who may be discriminated against, whereas the essence of the constitutional right is that it is a personal one.” McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914) 
    [20] See the enclosed documentation IN THE PETITION, the originating petition and the motion dated December 12, 2003. “A copy of the original ex parte NOT “facially valid court order” of protection dated November 3, 2003. (2 pages 53&54)– “A copy of by Tim Schlesinger (PAULE, CAMAZINE & BLUMENTHAL, A Professional Corporation), MBE #33494 petition/order filed (12/05/03) served (12/05/03) and denied (12/12/03) dated December 5, 2003 (6 pages 55-60)
    [21] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
    [22] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).