Bill McClellan St Louis Post-Dispatch

Friday, April 13, 2007

Bill McClellan
St Louis Post-Dispatch
900 N Tucker Blvd.
Saint Louis, MO, 63101

Re: Jeep v State of Missouri
The indisputable facts.

Dear Bill,

I have attempted to contact you before in this regard. I am not sure if you are interested or would even be able to help, but thank you for listening anyway.

We have a mutual acquaintance, XXXXXX. He had put us together 10 years ago over the corruption inherent with the issue of minority participation in the $60,000,000 St. Louis Public Schools asbestos abatement and rebuilding program in the early 90s. We met at the TGIF Fridays on Olive just west of I-270 to discuss it over a cup of coffee. I was able to relate stories although nothing truly note worthy.

That all being said I wanted to discuss an unrelated personal issue with you. There are four basic unwritten laws we have to agree on up front, before I can proceed. These as subliminally asserted by every alcohol related public service announcement broadcast these days. They are:

1) Everybody that drinks is a drunk or a potential drunk
2) All drunks drink and then drive.
3) Everybody that drinks and drives is a baby killer
4) All drunks lie to cover up 1, 2 and 3.

Those are the “Politically Correct Rules” and there is no disputing them and no opposing them· If you oppose them you are in support of baby killers. You can consider them as iron clad as all “Duke University Lacrosse Players are drunken rowdy out of control sexual abusers.” Those are both indisputable axioms. Political Correctness rules the world today!!!!!!!

We have a constitutional right to drink alcohol in this country. We suffered through prohibition and the repeal of prohibition to get the right to drink into the constitution. We are still suffering under the prohibition of other intoxicants, but that issue is for another day.

We have a right to drive automobiles safely in this country. This would be covered by the basic right to liberty and the 9th amendment regarding enumerated rights. We have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness as a reference in the Declaration of Independence as a part of the countries founding covenant.

Thus we have a right to safely drive automobiles while we drink. Now I am not at issue with the specifics of actually drinking while I drive. Although constitutionally we could make a case for it. What I am at issue on is the prosecution and enforcement of our laws in this regard safety…. As discussed earlier the current politically corrected law is as follows:

1. Everybody that drinks is a drunk or a potential drunk
2. All drunks drink and then drive.
3. Everybody that drinks and drives is a baby killer
4. All drunks lie to cover up 1, 2 and 3.

The current sediment is we need to get baby killers / drunk drivers off the road at any cost. What people do not see is that at any cost is then interpreted as perjury, fabrication of evidence, false arrest and malicious prosecution. If a man even smells of alcohol while driving he needs to be punished to the limit of any and all laws humanly possible.

In the State of Missouri although the law states you have to prove blood alcohol content, that is not what or how it is enforced. The public majority is willing to assert and support that If a man even smells of alcohol while driving he needs to be punished to the limit of any and all laws pertaining.

There is the Neo-Prohibition afoot today. And we heap any and all punishment on any person found to be drinking and driving. Anybody that drinks and drives cannot be trusted in a job, with children or with a driver’s license. Again everybody that drinks and then drive is a baby killer.

All the above is a factual representation of the facts as they exist in today’s society. I say that generally as they relate to everyone and specifically as they relate to the perjury that has been supported and backed up by the very legal system that should be absolutely opposed to perjury and injustice.

I have three issues with the above. The first should be obvious, generalities although seductive for their ease of use are never as absolute as they portend to be. The “all” and “everybody” cannot be applied to any group of individuals. Every group is comprised of individuals and individuals by definition cannot be “all” and “everybody”, they are individuals.

The second issues was recently put forward by Al Gore as quoted from Mark Twain, “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” And if you think that Mark Twain was wrong, I ask you to consider my case and the case of the Duke University LaCross team as examples of what we think we know, but just ain’t true.

The third are the statistics that supposedly support the puritanical campaign against drinking and driving.

I am not going to burden you with the reams of documentation in support of my case against the police. I am enclosing a letter for reference only I sent to the Missouri State Highway Patrol earlier this week. I will provide additional documentation if asked.

Suffice it to say, that I can prove that the police either rhad no knowledge of the their own legal procedures at the time of my arrest or openly disregarded them so the arrest was either fallacious or malicious. I can prove that I made the prosecutors and the police aware of the legal issues in their case in advance of the trial and that their prosecution was therefore an illegal persecution. I can prove that police officers involved in the case were both aware of their mistakes at the arrest in advance of their testimony and changed their stories under oath on the stand to their arrest. I have been making the power that be aware the issues of their incompetents, perjury and cover up of the same for three years now. None has taken the action that they were suppose to Prosecute the Criminal and Defend the rights of the innocent. Again suffice it to say:

1. Everybody that drinks is a drunk or a potential drunk
2. All drunks drink and then drive.
3. Everybody that drinks and drives is a baby killer
4. All drunks lie to cover up 1, 2 and 3.
And DO NOT forget that all “Duke University Lacrosse Players are drunken rowdy out of control sexual abusers.”

I would like to sit down and talk to you. If you would like to sit down for a cup of coffee and talk about the specifics and allow me to hand deliver the documentation, I am more than happy to, I will buy the coffee this time.

If you would be interested still in that FAILED social experiment known as Minority Participation in Construction Contracting / Affirmative Action, you might look into a company once known as Interface General Contracting / Ready Mix. The owner was Sam Hutchinson as I remember. He, as a black man, was put in business probably 30 years ago for Minority Participation and utilized by everybody. He was put out of business after the Teamster’s strike against the ready mix companies in 1999-2000. He signed up retroactively to the then disputed Teamster’s Contractor and was then completely legally able to sell Ready Mix non-stop during the strike. But again, for my money he got forced all toooo quietly, out of business after 2 + decades of loyal pass through billing as an affirmative action and minority participation pawn for defying the big boys. He actually had some credibility and might have been able to someday stand on his own. To date I can state without reservation, as a 30 year veteran of the construction industry, I have yet to find a successful free standing affirmative action example of a minority contractor in St. Louis.

Time is of the essence, if there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.


Thank you in advance.



David G. Jeep

David G. Jeep

enclosure
Letter Dated 4/9/07 MSHP

cc: file