Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Violence at best perpetuates violence. Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a “Murrah Federal Building“ ? A Rhetorical Question

Violence at best perpetuates violence.

Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a

“Murrah Federal Building“[1]?



The Supreme Court announced their October Term for 2008, yesterday the first Monday in October, October, 6, 2008. There were three cases that caught my eye. Clearly the most sensational case on the docket will be the case revolving around the use of a naughty word on TV during a recent awards show by two intellectually late blooming celebrity adolescents. In a country that has always put Freedom of Speech first, I really do not see an issue. No one was hurt by the words, no one can be hurt by just hearing the words in that context, and there is no playground in America where similar naughty words are not passed around clandestinely by prepubescents freely to assert their coming of age.

The second case that caught my eye was a decision by the Supreme Court on Texas v. New Mexico where, “The motion of the River Master for fees and reimbursement of expenses is granted, and the River Master is awarded a total of $6,673.16 for the period July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, to be paid equally by the parties.” I noticed with a little research that the court issued a similar order last October Term, October 2007 where, “The motion of the River Master for fees and reimbursement of expenses is granted and the River Master is awarded a total of $5,995.61 for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007, to be paid equally by the parties.” I am sure this is of great import, I mean it is now over $6,000 for 2008, to the River Master, but is it something for the Supreme Court of the United States. I have to question that.

The Third case was my case on page 26, “07-11115 JEEP, DAVID G. V. JONES, PHILIP, E., ET AL.” Now I realize that this is my case and for that reason I am unfairly biased, but my case was and is a clear flagrant case of judicial misconduct by a would be judge at the expense of my Civil Rights. The Federal Courts are THE only courts with jurisdiction over Civil Rights. There are two Federal Laws under which I sought protection Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.

My case a petition for a Writ of Certiorari (07-11115) was denied. My case was and is simple. The would be Judge Commissioner Jones denied my 4th, 5th and 14th amendment rights to due Process of Law. First he and others allowed the service of and a hearing on a deficient charge, without any referenced probable cause. That was a denial of my 4th Amendment right, “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause”. The hearing itself was a denial of my 5th Amendment right “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment”, because there was no presentment of the charge prior to the trial. Because this was in a State of Missouri Court and because both issues revolve around the broader right and protection of the Due Process of Law, this violated my 14th Amendment Right “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”.

Now as issues go, these issues effect virtually every Male going through a contested divorced in the United States of America today. So they have the immediacy and sensationalism of the Naughty words on network TV. But in a relative sense they should carry as least as much weight as the River Master’s Yearly Claim for $6,000 +/-. And therefore they have substance and should be of issue for the Supreme Court of the United States.

So why didn’t the court take up the case? Because the real issue is do we live under the rule of Law or do we live under the royal rule of the Judiciary.

The Supreme Court obviously believes in a Royal Judiciary because they cling tenaciously to “sovereign immunity.” The Supreme Court does not support the Rule of Law. The Laws Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights are on the books. They are indisputably an integral part of the US Code of Law. The verbiage of the Laws are simple and straightforward and the essence of both are to assure US Citizens and others, the protection of the Constitution or laws of the United States. There is no way either of the laws could be construed as unconstitutional. The verbiage of the laws:



Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years….



and



Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.



The term “under color of any law” is meant to refer to a person acting in the name of the law. Common actors “under color of any law” include obviously law enforcement, the police, government agents and, yes, Judges. Point in fact judges are specifically referenced and included by specific reference under Title 42 § 1983 i.e., “in any action brought against a judicial officer”. But somehow the Supreme Court of the United States thinks that it and its fellow members of the Judiciary are not to be included by the terms “Whoever” and “Every person” some how they are unable to read the reference “in any action brought against a judicial officer”. They feel like royals and like the royals of old, they think they are entitled to “sovereign immunity”. Now the sovereigns of old, the kings and queens, were not only entitled to sovereign immunity, they embodied it. Their will was law. Whatever they desired or wanted became the law, the instant they wanted it. There literally was no need to even attempt to sue them. Now others and we threw off that kind of tyranny via a revolution. We established what we believed to be a democratic state based on the Rule of Law, not on the tyrannical will of any ruler. At least we all believe we have.

Where do you go, what do you do when the Supreme Court denies your Civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States? Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a“Murrah Federal Building“[2]?

When Timothy McVey blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995, I like all other Americans was appalled and aggrieved. There is NO justification for an act of violence such as that in a free civilized society. Nothing can condone such a brutal and thoughtless act in a free country, of free men, with access to Due Process of Law. I was and am a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War and all war. War/violence is the complete antithesis of Civilization. Nobody asked for his motivation.

We are civilized after all. Civilization at its core is opposed to violence. Civilization is all about conflict resolution without violence, without war. A Democratic Civilization promotes the rule of Law over the rule of violence and over the rule of Royals.

That being said our Declaration of Independence assures us we have “unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness[3]”. While at the same time it allows for “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it[4]” (Government) “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends.[5]” Patrick Henry one of our founding fathers said it more succinctly in his applauded declaration “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death.”

The Constitution was and is based on the issues addressed in the Declaration of Independence. Thus the Declaration sets out the Constitution’s purpose and goals, we have unalienable rights and “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[6]”

We fought a war in this country to assure Civil Rights to all persons, The Civil War. Our constitution was then again refocused on our Unalienable Rights. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that “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” a result of the Civil War.

The United States Code TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 21--CIVIL RIGHTS SUBCHAPTER I—GENERALLY Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights confirms and supports “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” Again the Civil Rights Act Codified into the current US Code of Law as 42USC1983, was originally the Civil Rights Act of 1871, it was a direct and immediately subsequent result of the Civil War.

Our rights appear well protected on paper, but paper is just that. And those rights, those protections are not worth the paper they are written on. You do not have to be charged with anything to have your son and everything you own taken away. It can all happen, the result of the whim of a would be judge. And with Due Process of Law capriciously defined at the will of any would be judge, charges can be created and changed on the fly during your trial and immediately incorporated in to a ruling or finding. The oath of honesty for witnesses does not apply to the police. They can knowingly present false evidence, contradict prior sworn testimony, they can do anything they want to inflicted their will, they have immunity from the rule of law. The Prosecutors do not have to provide the defense with exculpable material. The Prosecutors have no responsibility to verify the veracity of their witnesses against established standards. The Prosecutors can knowingly present false evidence and suborn perjury, because they have immunity from the law. Judges have no responsibility to the integrity of their court proceeding, they can let it all go to hell in hand basket and not be held accountable for their shoddy behavior or the integrity of obviously false and perjurious testimony, they have immunity from the law and any and all professional liability.

I am not some crazy squawking about some distant long ago issues, I have only heard rumors of. I have lived these issues, I have been fighting this cancerous immunity from the law eating away at the foundations of our liberty in this country for 5 years to regain my son, my home, my worldly possession and…. the life liberty and pursuit of happiness of my once quiet life.

If we had the constitutional rights we were told/taught we had and there was a common law for everyone and if a person was convicted of a crime via fraud or perjury by the state, they would then immediately be victims of a crime and for all time innocent of the charge. Fraud and Perjury are not crimes in a court of law until and if someone is convicted based on the fraud and/or the perjury. When there is a conviction, fraud is a crime, especially so as fraudulent evidence in a court of law supposedly founded for and on truth and justice. That is the difference between slander and fraud. You can knowingly and falsely say someone did a crime and that is slanderous, but when you say it and convince the court or someone else to act on it, it becomes fraud. Because the conviction is based on fraud, the conviction is thus also fraudulent and rendered null and void. In this case the victim was always innocent, but that is not an issue, the victim of a fraudulent conviction by the state is for all time legally innocent of the charge because the state per the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” only gets the one chance. Double Jeopardy applies; the state cannot again put the person in jeopardy for the crime.

Why then after more than five years am I trying to get the government of “We the People” to afford me my unalienable rights to Paternity, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness via due Process of Law? Why have I expended every ounce of energy and every cent I have for five years in the pursuit of my unalienable rights via Due Process of Law. Because my fellow citizens you and I have been duped. Our government is no longer of or for “We the People” our Government; the Courts, in particular, have assumed Royal status, all in the name of order and Justice. We no longer have a right to Due Process of Law; we are subject to the Royal whim. A Judge can do whatever they want to do and they are protected by this immunity. Their crimes can be anything from gross incompetence, to fraud, to false arrest, to malicious prosecution, to perjury, to malfeasance in office, to the blatant denial of their soul purpose, Due Process of Law, and/or to criminal discrimination/bias by way of anyone from a traffic cop to a Federal Court Judge and we can do nothing about it. There is no appeal, the Supreme Court and all it’s lower courts declare this blanket immunity as law.

Nowhere in the constitution is immunity provided for. The Courts have usurped the divine right of kings, the most destructive of all power to the forces of freedom. They have become Royal. It is no longer the rule of law that guides the courts; they are guided and controlled in the defense of their Royal Status, their immunity. The Constitution allows for just the opposite, the Constitution asserts that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.[7]” They are not exempt from the quality of the their behavior, they are to be held accountable to “good Behavior.”

Let me tell you of my particulars, the Government has taken everything from me, my son, my home, my ability to work at my career, all my worldly possessions. I have the cloths on my back. I live in a homeless shelter; I cannot even afford to call my son on the phone. I supported a family, lived in a nice home and worked for 30 years at my profession for this as my reward.

I have since this denial of my rights, worked tirelessly and peacefully for five years to get the government of “We the People” to acknowledge my unalienable rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws via Due Process of Law, but the Courts are all “Royal” they have immunity. They can do as they please. They can act incompetently, order and enforce deficient warrants, perjure themselves, present false evidence, withhold exculpable material, look the other way to perjury, blatantly deny Due Process of Law, unlawfully imprison us and then claim immunity. We as citizens have the right to pay for their incompetence for their criminal behavior and for what amounts to the denial of our own rights. That is our only recourse short of violence.

I am just a Citizen who has done nothing wrong except possibly to have the misfortune to NOT be a fashionable minority group with a politically correct action committee. Via the prevailing legal fashion of the day I am nothing, a lowly white middle class male educated, born and raised in the United States of America.

Please reassure me and tell me violence is not the only way to achieve the dignity of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. I am and have always been a peaceful man, reassure me the lies of these royalists in power will be voided. Tell me how the denial of my rights makes you safer and me better. I have been fighting this war of words for 5 years and I am literally at my wits end, I cannot rest but I cannot give into the nearly irresistible urge to attempt to abolish our supposed government of “We the People.” “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death.[8]” Our Declaration of Independence and constitution both provide for violence to abolish it, god knows I have tried to alter it peaceably for five years now.

I am Begging, PLEASE!!!!! Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a “Murrah Federal Building“? But do not be so trite as to think that fear of imprisonment or torture will have any effect, they have taken everything from ME!!!!! I have nothing left to loose. Deterrents have never worked and never will against true defenders of justice. Without the unalienable rights of our founding fathers we have nothing, all of us when pushed to limit will be patriots of the cause and declare, “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death.”

“Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a “Murrah Federal Building?” I am not some nut case, off tilting at windmills, the Royals admit my cause of action, but they protect their fellow Royals with the assertion of immunity. As if immunity is a requirement for integrity in government. Immunity from civil and criminal prosecution does not foster integrity in government; it covers up for civil and criminal corruption and incompetence. If anything, immunity corrupts more than it cures in a Government of the people, by the people and for the people. Everyone needs to be accountable in a true Democracy; there can be no Royals, exempt from the law. Immunity fosters impunity; no one can act with impunity in a Democracy of free and equal persons under color of law.

Immunity rewards incompetence by allowing it to go unpunished by the law of natural selection. Immunity does not promote excellence. Immunity from prosecution never gave a coward courage. Immunity has and does everyday empower incompetent people to act fearlessly without regard to the consequences of their actions.

Those that support immunity say that without it we could not govern. Government would be constantly put on the defensive. Well that assumes that the government is constantly grossly negligent and not even I as a victim of governmental immunity and incompetence would go that far. Civil and Criminal Prosecution of the law is how civilization resolves disputes among civilized persons. Yes there will be more suits, but as standards and ethics are established and enforced, they will peak and recede to an acceptable natural level.

The government has illegally trespassed against me, they have taken my son, invaded my home and stolen everything form me. Have I no right to defend my self?????

I admit I am human, out of any 100 decisions I make, 10 of them are going to be almost unavoidably wrong. That is human fallibility. When I find an error, I like to think I admit it and work to correct it. When the Royals make a mistake, they claim immunity and walk away, this in spite of the law, 42USC1983 Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights.

We have unalienable RIGHTS, per the Declaration of Independence. This government has taken my unalienable rights. I have tried for 5 years to peaceably reacquire my unalienable rights. In the Declaration of Independence it asserts, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (unalienable rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”

If it did not sound so violent so cruel it would almost be a relief to have an end to it all. “Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a “Murrah Federal Building?” But also, tell me why don't I have a right to wage war, for my son, my home, my property, my RIGHTS?????

For more information on these issues please see the United States 8th District Court of Appeals Appeal #08-1823 and Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 to the Supreme Court.
Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a
“Murrah Federal Building“[9]?



Thanks in advance,



"Time is of the essence".



David G. Jeep

Dave@DGJeep.com





ps: A Declaration of War is forth coming.

[1] A rhetorical QUESTION, not intended as a threat, but if anyone feels the need to arrest I say come on, I would love to make this into a freedom of speech issue also.

[2] A rhetorical QUESTION, not intended as a threat, but if anyone feels the need to arrest I say come on, I would love to make this into a freedom of speech issue also.

[3] The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

[4] The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

[5] The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

[6] The preamble to the United States Constitution

[7] Article 3 Section 1 United States Constitution

[8] The Victim of Immunity, David G. Jeep

[9] A rhetorical QUESTION, not intended as a threat, but if anyone feels the need to arrest I say come on, I would love to make this into a freedom of speech issue also.