Friday, October 24, 2014

Reply to request for CERTIFCATION

First-Class Mail® Certified Mail™ Label Number: 7014-1820-0001-8020-6068

Andrew Downs
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.[1] 

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"[2] again.

The enclosed petition restates the fact of the NOT "facially valid court order,"[3] [4] issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"[5] Monday November 03, 2003 08:00 PM, in terms the denial of "a Republican Form of Government," [6] "cruel and unusual punishments"[7] and "involuntary servitude"[8] that "a four-year-old[9]" 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

enclosure
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


No.   14-5551                              
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
v.
RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
The Government of the United States of America, et al, Defendants/Respondents
_  ______________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATION for the Petition for Rehearing – Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-5551
______________________________________________________________  _

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
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO  63155-9999
(314) 514-5228



[1] As of Friday October 24 2014 03:03 PM
[2] MLKing Jr., Strength to Love, 1963
[3] 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). 
[4] "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). 
[5] Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 356 (1978)
[6] Constitution for the United States of America, Article IV , Section 4, § 1
[7] The Bill of Rights, ratified December 15, 1791, specifically : AMENDMENT VIII
[8] AMENDMENT XIII Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
[9] Attorney Joe Miller (Denzel Washington REPEATED ASSERTION in "Philadelphia"): "Now, explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old."







--
Thanks in advance,
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com orDGJeep01@yahoo.com

(314) 514-5228

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

Recvd 10-24-14 From the Supreme Court


Tuesday, October 14, 2014

3rd Follow up PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS‎ - Cause No. CR203-1336M - STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff, v. DAVID G. JEEP, Defendant

Delivered - October 16, 2014 , 10:35 am - CAMDENTON, MO 65020

First-Class Mail® Certified Mail™ Label Number: 70141820000180195027

Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge
c/o Jo McElwee, Circuit Clerk
1 Court Circle, Suite 8
Camdenton, MO 65020

Re: 3rd Follow up PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS‎ - Cause No. CR203-1336M - STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff, v. DAVID G.  JEEP, Defendant

Dear Sir,

I just wanted to AGAIN REMIND you of your primary MORAL and CONSTITUTIONAL obligation, as a Judicial Officer, is to "establish Justice" under color of law.[1]  I am fully aware of just how corrupt you and your Black Robed Royalist Brethren have become. 

Now I fully admit that nearly 11 years ago I believed in the integrity of the court system.  I believed that the court system held tightly to its own integrity and constitutional commitment to establish justice.  BUT NO MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am herewith providing documentation of your sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity, malice and corruption as regards your judicial action in 2004 on Cause No. CR203-1336M - STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff, v. DAVID G.  JEEP, Defendant.  Those items are:

1.    A digital, certified by the petitioner, copy of post-trial 18-point presentencing motion that describes in detail the above documented sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity, CRIMINAL perjury, CRIMINAL cover up and CRIMINAL malfeasance in office of all involved that I sent you, Judge Bruce Colyer, on the 9th day of February, 2004 

2.    A copy of a 9 page letter I sent you, Judge Colyer, dated Thursday February 12, 2004 before sentencing exposing the criminal perjury.  The letter includes:

a.    Cover letter explanation

b.    Copy of the PRETRIAL MOTION, dated September 14, 2003, requesting exculpable evidence[2] that were unconstitutionally denied under you're the sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity, malice and corruption of your order.

c.    Copies of the NHTSA 2002 Cover page, "Procedures for Walk-and-Turn Testing" - section on 4 confirming the 2" heel condition, acquired after trial from other sources that were unconstitutionally denied under your sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity, malice and corruption of your order. (Cover and pages VIII9 – VIII11)

d.    Copies of the NHTSA 2002 "Procedures for One-Leg-Stand Testing" section on 4 confirming the 2" heel condition, acquired after trial from other sources that were unconstitutionally denied under your sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity, malice and corruption of your order. (Cover and pages VIII12 – VIII14)

3.    Copies, 2 pages of the Tim Taylor's (Officer Badge #913) police statements dated 5/18/03 (2 pages) confirming the 15 second uninterrupted blow.   

4.    Copy of the receipt for "Personal Property Taken" signed by Officer Little and the petitioner affirming that "boots" were taken off the petitioner at lock up on 5/17/03.

5.    Copies of the trial transcript confirming the false conviction at trial by way of:

a.    Cover Page of the certified trial transcript and index (2 pages)

b.    Alex Little's (Officer Badge #920) perjured[3] testimony regarding the testing procedures heel issue, based on the denied requests for exculpable evidence made pretrial that should have been known by the prosecution and the police officer because it had been highlighted by the constitutional PRETRIAL MOTIONS requesting exculpable evidence that were unconstitutionally denied under your sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity, malice and corruption of your order (page 85).

c.    Copies of the trial transcript confirming the perjured[4] testimony of "huffing and puffing" based on the sworn conflicting police statements of Tim Taylor (Officer Badge #913) that should have been known by the prosecution (Pages 119-121).

6.    A listing of the actions taken by the petitioner starting in 2004 and still ongoing to expose your sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity, malice and corruption.

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

 enclosure
 cc:  My Blog - Tuesday, October 14, 2014, 5:03:20 PM

In the Circuit Court of Camden County, Missouri
Associate Circuit Judge Division
Before the Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge


State of Missouri,
                     Plaintiff,
            vs.
David G. Jeep,
                    Defendant


Case No.:CR203-1336M

       


Motion to overturn the Verdict in favor of the Defendant

The testimony by the State's witnesses was in some cases
Wholly inaccurate, wantonly and unashamedly prejudicial without foundation, conflicting and borderline perjurious.
1.  Comes now the defendant to state his case and ask the court to overturn the verdict in favor of the defendant.  The defendant asks for a new verdict of innocent in his favor and without prejudice or limitation to all issues of guilt that were and are related to this case.

2.  Officer Little under direct cross examination gave inaccurate testimony in front of the jury.  He repeatedly stated while under oath that it was a 4" heel not the 2" heel that required notification and opportunity for the removal of said shoes prior to taking of both the Walk and Turn and the One Leg Stand field sobriety tests.

3.  I submit that the National Highway and Safety Administration standard requires "individuals wearing heels more than two inches high should be given the opportunity to remove their shoes."

4.  This as a fact is indisputably a part of the National Highway and Safety Administration Standard.

5.  This I submit was known by officer Little or should have been known by any officer having more 50 hours National Highway and Safety Administration Standardized Field Sobriety Testing training within the last 24 months.

6.  His offering of inaccurate information in direct contradiction of the Standard and the direct under oath cross examination and assertion of the defendant as to an inaccurate information as fact was to say the least wantonly prejudicial without foundation.

7.  Without a credibly admiistered complete Field Sobriety Test the States case rest on nothing. They presented no other evidence of the Defendant's intoxication, there for the verdict in the case should be overturned without prejudice.  The state misrepresented either through malice of forethought or ignorance either way their prosecution was based on misinformation and not factual evidence.

8.  As an officer of the court, Officer Little should be held to a higher standard as a professional presuming to give professional reliable testimony in a court of law under oath.

9.  Officer Little failed that test in that he repeatedly asserted inaccurate testimony either through knowing deception or an unacceptable level of ignorance.

10. In Officer Taylor's 913 sworn verbal testimony, in front of the jury, he knowingly contradicted his prior signed statement dated 5/18/03 titled Supplemental Report as approved by Matt Schwenn #915.  Please see attached copy of said report.

11. When asked had the Defendant blown (a steady tone) for 15-16 seconds during the test administered in regard to this issue, Officer Taylor 913 repeatedly offered testimony conflicting with his Supplemental report signed by T. Taylor 913 on each page of the two page report and dated 5/18/03.

12. This sworn testimony was prejudicial in front of the jury.  The defendant repeatedly asked Officer Taylor 913 to confirm that the defendant had blown for 15 seconds and he repeatedly refused to confirm his signed and approved Supplemental Report dated 5/18/04.

13. Without Officer Taylor's denial of his previous report, the state has no evidence of a refusal.  The defendant clearly blew 15-16 seconds per officer Taylor's singed and approved report dated 5/18/03 just after the incident and the State's own representative from the State's Division of Health, Breath Alcohol Department testified that a 15 second blow fell to the upper end of the credible range she reported as 7-17 seconds for the average blow.

14. In that Officer Taylor 913 had in effect sworn to the facts in his Supplemental Report and then contradicted said report again in Sworn Testimony in front of the jury his action are borderline perjurious.  And the evidence he provided was therefore suspect and without foundation.

15. As an officer of the court, Officer Taylor 913 should be held to a higher standard as a professional presuming to give professional reliable testimony in a court of law under oath.

16. In that the defense had no way of knowing in advance that the prosecution was going to purport misinformation and what can be construed as outright lies or contradictions of previously reported facts the defendant can not be held to a verdict based on a false prosecution.  Therefore the defendant requests the court enter a verdict in favor the defendant's innocents without prejudice or limitation on the issue and all matters related to this issue.

17. In a closely consider case on which the jury ponder for considerable amount of time, this wantonly and unashamedly prejudicial conduct had a deleterious effect on the defendant's case and therefore I ask that you to take judicial exception to the verdict and issue a verdict of innocents in the defendant's favor.

18. Because of the above referenced unreliable and potentially criminal, wantonly and unashamedly prejudicial testimony of the state's sworn officers of the court in front of the jury hearing the case, I here by ask that the court take judicial exception to the verdict and render a new verdict of innocents without limitation in the defendants favor including all issues and connected issues that were and are related to this issue before the court. 
Dated this 9th day of February, 2004
David G. Jeep
16359D Lakefield Place
Grover, MO 63040

The above is a digital representation of the 18-point presentencing motion that was sent to Judge Colyer 9th day of February, 2004.  The signature of the petitioner below swears to this as fact!

 ____________________________________
David G. Jeep




[2] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963) "We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution."
"The rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, arguably applies in three quite different situations. Each involves the discovery, after trial, of information which had been known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense.
In the first situation, typified by Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury.




























--
Thanks in advance,
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com orDGJeep01@yahoo.com

(314) 514-5228

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

Denied - Petition for Writ of Certiorari No. 14-5551, Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. United States





Monday, October 6, 2014

A Petition for Rehearing - Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-5551 David Jeep v. Government of United States EMPHASIS “a Republican Form of Government,” [7] “cruel and unusual punishments”[8] and “involuntary servitude”[9] that “a four-year-old[10]” could understand

DELIVERED -OCTOBER 10, 2014 , 10:39 AM - WASHINGTON, DC 20543

First-Class Mail® Certified Mail™ Label Number: 7014-1820-0001-8019-5041

_  _______________________________________________________________
No.   14-5551                              
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
v.
RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
The Government of the United States of America, et al, Defendants/Respondents
_  _______________________________________________________________
A Petition for Rehearing – Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-5551[1]
_______________________________________________________________  _

For your re-consideration I submit three points that were just recently apparent, to the pro se indigent petitioner, and not made an issue in the original petition:

1.)    "Republican Form of Government,"[2]
      a.)  ""The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary,
             an irresponsible (i.e., unrepresentative) body - working like gravity by
             night and day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing
            it's noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall
            render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will
            become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
            separated." --Thomas Jefferson"[3]
     b.)The FIAT un-representative governing empowered by across the board
           "absolute immunity" for the Article III Judiciary negates the constitutional
            guarantee of "a Republican Form of Government" (Constitution for the
            United States of America, Article IV , Section 4, § 1) as secured by the
            representation of the 7th Amendment's civil jury of one's peers.

2.)    "cruel and unusual punishments"[4]
     a.)  Beyond the "complete lack of jurisdiction" STRESSED in the original
           order at the center of this issue, the Order created an infliction of a "cruel
           and unusual punishments" for an ex parte order of protection[5] i.e., a
           misdemeanor traffic violation as probable cause for an ex parte order of
           protection is "cruel and unusual" to say the least.

3.)    "involuntary servitude"[6]
     a.)  In that petition was without reason or warrant, petitioner was FORCED
           into "involuntary servitude" to sustain his parental rights to see his son.



_____--___________________________________________________________
Respectfully submitted, Monday , October 06, 2014
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.  




                                                        
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO  63155-9999
(314) 514-5228
First-Class Mail®       Certified Mail™ Label Number: 7014-1820-0001-8019-5041

Scott S. Harris, Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001

Re: A Petition for Rehearing - Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-5551 David Jeep v. Government of United States EMPHASIS "a Republican Form of Government," [7] "cruel and unusual punishments"[8] and "involuntary servitude"[9] that "a four-year-old[10]" could understand

Dear Mr. Harris,

I stress, as always, "Time is of the essence."  I am impoverished and have been homeless for 6.92 years in this 11.40 year effort.[11] 
"How did strict scrutiny for inalienable "reckonable" rights ever result in anything less than STRICT LIABILITY?"
"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." --Thomas Jefferson [12]
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

enclosure
a.     "A Petition for Rehearing - Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-1470 David Jeep v. Government of United States" dated Tuesday, Monday , October 06, 2014

cc:  Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Solicitor General
       My Blog - Monday , October 06, 2014

First-Class Mail® 

Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001

(202) 514-2217


Re:      "A Petition for Rehearing - Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-1470 David Jeep v. Govern-ment of United States"

Dear Mr. Verrilli,

I stress, as always, "Time is of the essence."  I am impoverished and have been homeless for 6.92 years in this 11.40 year effort.[13]

Please accept the transmission of the above referenced petition.

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing and enclosed is true and correct.  

Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"




David G. Jeep

enclosure
a.     "A Petition for Rehearing - Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-1470 David Jeep v. Government of United States" dated Monday , October 06, 2014

cc:  My BlogMonday , October 06, 2014



[2] Constitution for the United States of America, Article IV , Section 4, § 1
[3] As quoted into the Congressional Record Senate Vol. 152, Pt. 1 page 80-81, Mr. Santorum and Bergh, 15:331. 1821
[4] The Bill of Rights, Passed by Congress March 4, 1789, Ratified December 15, 1791, specifically : AMENDMENT VIII
[5] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455 Abuse--Adults and Children--Shelters and Protective Orders  Section 455.050  August 28, 2013
[6] AMENDMENT XIII Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
[7] Constitution for the United States of America, Article IV , Section 4, § 1
[8] The Bill of Rights, ratified December 15, 1791, specifically : AMENDMENT VIII
[9] AMENDMENT XIII  Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
[10] Attorney Joe Miller (Denzel Washington REPEATED ASSERTION in "Philadelphia"): Now, explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old.
[11] As of Monday October 06 2014 01:25 PM
[12] As quoted into the Congressional Record Senate Vol. 152, Pt. 1 page 80-81, Mr. Santorum and Bergh, 15:331. 1821.
[13] As of Monday October 06 2014 01:25 PM








--
Thanks in advance,
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com orDGJeep01@yahoo.com

(314) 514-5228

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