Thursday, March 10, 2011

President Barack Hussein Obama, et al – CONSIDER YOURSELF SERVED by Registered mail 2/23/11


President Barack Hussein Obama                         Chief Justice John G. Roberts
The White House                                                      Supreme Court of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.                          One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20500-0001                                Washington, DC 20543-0001

Revised and extended Thursday, March 10, 2011

Re: Jeep v. Obama, et al – CONSIDER YOURSELF SERVED by Registered mail 2/23/11
       A formal petition in the Supreme Court of the United States of America

Dear Barrack and John,
You apparently did not take me seriously in my prior communications addressed as above, dated Thursday, January 13, 2011, Re: Jeep v. Obama, et al.  I am DEAD serious the EVIDENCE of your corruption is on line and has been downloaded to remote and unimpeachable sources.
There are several cases on the current Supreme Court Docket that deal with the First Amendment’s right for a redress of grievances i.e., Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (No. 10-98) “USA Patriot Act”, Kentucky v. King (No. 09-1272) “Searches” and Connick v. Thompson (09-571) “DUE PROCESS”
This is CORRUPTION on a massive scale at the VERY HIGHEST level of ministerial power in this government of “We the People.”  You have forgotten your reason for being is in support of “government of the people, by the people, for the people” not in support of yours and others unconstitutional corrupt ministerial power.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., “Absolute Immunity,” Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph  "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility."
The Constitution thus denies a constitutionally or congressionally authorized “public Ministers[1] from creating a rule or law “abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
Immunity ministerially granted by “public Ministers” for “public Ministers is repugnant to the Constitution, the concept of the rule of law and the essence of civilized society, the protection of the laws
When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial and prosecutorial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the federal executive (prosecutorial) (Article II, § 1) and judicial (Article III, § 2) power extends, and, so extending, the Court and the Executive has all the authority appropriate to its exercise[2] (emphasis, non-italic and parenthetical text added for clarity).
The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, originally established the right of redress:
If we, our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.”
  Do I have to light myself on fire like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi to get your attention in the land of the free and home of the brave?  It would be Free Speech[3] and I have the paperwork to prove I am competent.[4]  “We the People” have inviolable and inalienable rights in this country.  People who reject or deny those natural rights as sovereign are the insane ones.  Just ask former despot Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak of Egypt.
You say you do not want to open up another can of worms for litigation abuse e.g., “medical malpractice litigation.”  Yes malpractice litigation has a cost, but the expense is no more than 2%-3%[5] of the current health care cost estimates.  Our medical malpractice litigation has done its job in creating and maintaining the BEST medical care available and at 2%-3% it does not add to the cost appreciably!  Malpractice is not driving the 10% +/- yearly increases that create the current healthcare issues today.
I remember having to pay upwards of $20,000 per year per Ironworker, working on the ground,[6] making less than $70,000 per year. As a percentage that is 29%. I do not think Doctors are claiming they have to pay 29% of their income as INSURANCE.  Insurance and or risk is an unavoidable cost of being alive.  And I know for a FACT Doctors and Ironworkers are not only surviving but THRIVING!
Chief Justice Cockburn long ago disposed of the argument that liability would deter judges:
"I cannot believe that judges . . . would fail to discharge their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths and consciences . . . from any fear of exposing themselves to actions at law. I am persuaded that the number of such actions would be infinitely small, and would be easily disposed of. (Page 386 U. S. 566)
While, on the other hand, I can easily conceive cases in which judicial opportunity might be so perverted and abused for the purpose of injustice as that, on sound principles, the authors of such wrong ought to be responsible to the parties wronged." Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, (1869) L.R. 5 Q.B. 94, 110 (1869) (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting). [7]
Ministerially created Immunity is repugnant to the rule of law, the Constitution as the supreme legem terrae (law of the land) and the essence of civilized society!!!!!!

I have literally nothing left to lose.

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”


Revised and extended Thursday, March 10, 2011


David G. Jeep

cc: a select group of e-mail favorites
      file

enclosure
      A petition In the Supreme Court of the United States of America


In the Supreme Court of the
United States of America
Revised and extended Thursday, March 10, 2011

David G. Jeep,          Plaintiff,
            vs.
President Barack Hussein Obama, et al


United States of America,


Mike Christian (FBI),  Lyonel Mrythill (FBI), Chris Boyce (USMS), Dan Bracco (FBI), Robert O’Connor (USMS) and Raymond Meyer (AUSA),

US Supreme Court (Writ of Certiorari 07-11115) , Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

8th District US Court of Appeals (07-2614 & 08-1823),

Carol E. Jackson, US District Court Judge, 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al (07-2614),
Scott O. Wright, Senior US District Judge, 4:07-cv-00506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al (08-1823),

Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr., Sharon G. Jeep (ex), Joseph A. Goeke , Robert S. Cohen , Michael T. Jamison , Emmett M. O’Brien , Steven H. Goldman , Barbara W. Wallace , James R. Hartenbach , John A. Ross , Michael D. Burton , Larry L. Kendrick , Richard C. Bresnahan , Melvyn W. Wiesman , Maura B. McShane , Colleen Dolan , Mark D. Seigel , Barbara Ann Crancer , Mary Bruntrager Schroeder , Brenda Stith Loftin , Dale W. Hood , Thea A. Sherry , Gloria Clark Reno , John R. Essner , Ellen Levy Siwak , Patrick Clifford , Bernhardt C. Drumm , Dennis N. Smith , Judy Preddy Draper , Sandra  Farragut-Hemphill , Douglas R. Beach , John F. Kintz , Gary M. Gaertner , Phillip E. Jones , Carolyn C. Whittington , Tom W. DePriest , David Lee Vincent,  St. Louis County and State of Missouri (4:07-CV-1116 CEJ),

Jack A. Bennett, Associate Circuit Judge, Devin M. Ledom, Asst. Prosecuting Attorney, Alex Little, Officer Badge #920, Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913, W. Steven Rives, Prosecuting Attorney, W. James Icenogle, Prosecuting Attorney, Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge, Jay Nixon Attorney General, Governor Mathew Blunt, City of Osage Beach, Camden County, and State of Missouri (4:07-cv-00506-SOW),

Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)



















Case No                                       _ 

Appeal:                                         _




A Cause of Action, Jurisdictional Statement and Pleading for the “Protection of the Laws”


1.         I am filing this as a cause of action for original Jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of The United States of America against The United States of America Government in the person of its “public Ministers [8] at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive[9] and Justice[10] Departments.  This is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional “unlawful Conspiracy [11]out of Court[12] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.” [13]  The Justice Department, The Supreme Court, The President (prosecutorial power) have NO POWER to ministerially grant themselves or others Absolute Immunity.”[14]  This involves the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, as an individual and as a public Minister of the United States of America  Government, yourselves, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, the Supreme Court of the United States of America, as individuals and as public Ministers of the United States of America Government,”[15] and others listed defendants.  The pleading, the jurisdictional statement, the issue is in opposition to the ministerial policy, “Absolute Immunity,” adopted, supported and executed at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive[16] and Justice Departments; “Absolute Immunity” is REPUGNANT to the Constitution and Statute Law as the supreme legem terrae (law of the land). [17]
2.         I assert that Immunity is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the Rule of Law by definition.  “We the People” i.e., government of the people, by the people, for the people have established the Rule of Law, the Constitution, as the supreme legem terrae (law of the land).  Immunity for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[18] denies “We the People” “the protection of the laws,[19]the essence of civilization.[20]  “Absolute Immunity” a ministerial policy adopted, supported and enforced at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive[21] and Justice Departments is repugnant to Rule of Law, the Constitution and statute law, Civil[22] and Criminal.[23]  I petition the President of the United States of America as the executive[24] in charge  and yourselves, The Supreme Court as the highest judicial ministerial levels of the FEDERAL, STATE and Local Government of the United State of America...  “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.[25] and “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court”[26] of the United States of America, as government “public Ministers [27] for a redress of grievances as assured by the First Amendment, criminal and civil statute law.
3.         Immunity, as ministerially created and applied without constitutional or statute law authorization, is repugnant to both the constitution and statute law.
4.         I am petitioning for the protection of the laws. 
5.         I have been to the Missouri State Court, The Missouri State Court of Appeals, United States Eastern Missouri 8th District Court, 8th United States Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, Attorney General and the President of the United States of America and been denied.[28] 
6.         I am now petitioning the President of the United States of America as the Executive in charge of the Justice Department’s enforcement and or protection of the laws as the responsible party for the enforcement and yourselves as the Supreme Court Judiciary as the responsible party for the judicial enforcement and or protection of the laws. Both the Executive and the Supreme Court share responsibility to “We the People” for the protection of the laws.
7.         I seek the protection of the laws.  More specifically I seek the protection of the laws as defined by my 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment RIGHTS as Constitutionally the supreme legem terrae (law of the land).  Additionally I seek the protection of the laws with Civil and Criminal statute Laws, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights and Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Criminal Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
8.         I site Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 Page 5 U. S. 163The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.”
9.         I have been denied the protection of the laws because of “Absolute Immunity[29] as currently held as a ministerial policy adopted at the highest levels of the Executive and Justice Departments. I have been denied the protection of the laws via agents (local Police, State or Missouri Highway Patrol, FBI,[30] and USMS), the courts (Local, State, Federal, Appeals (Federal and State) and Supreme Court of the United States of America) and the Executive (State of Missouri (Governor and Attorney General) United States of America (President and Attorney General)) in numerous prior petitions, complaints, pleadings, correspondence, appeals and motions on file online (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/) with this court and others. (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America "Opposed to Immunity" currently on file and in the Supreme Court clerk's office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).
10.    Absolute Immunity” ministerially granted for “public Ministers [31] is repugnant to the Constitution.  There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility, “Absolute Immunity,” Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph  "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility."
11.    These issues arise from a series of 2003 incidents, “unlawful Conspiracy,[32] where the Plaintiff, David G. Jeep was held, in court, to answer on two infamous charges, “false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court,”[33] without any probable cause, much less proof of any wrong doing.  The facts[34] of the issues are a matter of court record and are not in dispute.
12.    They unconstitutionally and illegally took my son, my home, my EVERYTHING.  Because of absolute immunity I have had NO REDRESS to the protection of the laws.  “Absolute Immunity” is a policy adopted at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive[35] and Justice Departments of the United States of America.  I have endured over 7 ½ years (2,667 days +/-) of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[36] (where I was humiliated with the denial of the most basic of liberties - regularly and repeatedly subjected to strip searches), two psychological examinations, and 3 ½ years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America.
13.    These originating ministerial actions in 2003 were unconstitutional and unauthorized by any statute law.  These ministerial actions were and ARE criminal.  The actions denied the plaintiff the protection of the laws i.e., they violated the plaintiff’s 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment Rights as secured by the Constitution for the United States of America, Civil (Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights) and Criminal (Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Criminal Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) laws.[37]
14.    I am herewith making formal application, seeking redress for my grievances, the originating actions in 2003 and the subsequent “unlawful Conspiracy [38]out of Court[39] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions,” [40] in chronological order, the Magna Carta § 61 (1215)[41], Floyd and Barker (1607),[42] First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America (1789),[43] Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights[44] (1877) and Justice William O. Douglas’s dissent in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Page 386 U. S. 565.[45]
15.    I seek damages  and injunctive relief, noting that offending Judicial Officers were involved, as follows:
I.          Injunctive relief to overturn and expunge the DWI Conviction (Case # ,     CR203-1336M) and remove all reference of it from my Driving Record and the 33 year old 1978 DWI conviction.[46] 
II.         Injunctive relief to overturn all orders of protection between Sharon G. Jeep and David G. Jeep and remove all record of them (Case No.: 03FC-10670M).
III.       Injunctive relief to overturn the subsequent and coupled Property and Custody Order (Case No.: 03FC-12243) currently in effect between David G. Jeep and Sharon G. Jeep as regards the joint marital property as of November 3, 2003 and the custody of the Minor Child Patrick Brandon Jeep (DOB 12/22/94) and remand it to a new judge for resettlement based on this ruling.
IV.     Actual Damages in the amount of:
     Fifty Million Dollars and No Cents-----------------------        $50,000,000.00
V.      Punitive damages. In the amount of:      
     One Hundred Million Dollars and No Cents--------------        $100,000,000.00
16.    I am homeless, destitute and unable to pay any filing fee for this complaint.
17.    I have nothing but postage to mail this petition.  I have holes in the seat of my one pair of pants, holes in the soles of my one pair of shoes and nothing but food stamps to eat.  Do I have to light myself on fire in the street to get your attention, like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Thursday, March 10, 2011
Signature of Plaintiff(s)

                             Revised and extended Thursday, March 10, 2011

_____________________________________
                                   David G. Jeep

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228



[1] Article III. Section. 2. 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America, America “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Article III. Section. 2.1 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties”
[2] I could not have said it better myself. Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932) Page 287 U. S. 397-398 Emphasis, Underlining and Non italic text added for clarity
[3] I have to laugh at myself for even considering it but Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that Free Speech cannot be limited under the First Amendment.
[4] I have had TWO psychological examines, at the government’s expense attesting to my competency. See Eastern District Court of Missouri Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP
[5] “Total health care cost $1.9 trillion in 2005” CBO TESTIMONY Statement of Peter R. Orszag Director Growth in Health Care Costs before the Committee on the Budget United States Senate January 31, 2008 - “According to Towers Perrin, a global professional services firm, malpractice litigation costs $30 billion a year and has grown at more than 10% annually since 1975.” August 6, 2009, “The High Cost of Medical Malpractice” By Diana Furchtgott-Roth ($30 billion / $1.9 trillion = 2%) “Medical Malpractice System Breeds More Waste” By DAVID LEONHARDT, New York Times, September 22, 2009 “Health Care Wastefulness Is Detailed in Studies”, By KEVIN SACK, New York Times, September 7, 2010
[6] It should be noted that an ironwork working rebar, on the ground pays a higher rate than an ironworker working the high structural steel, 20 stories up.  Yes Construction companies complain but it is a cost of business.
[7] Justice William O. Douglas’s dissent in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Page 386 U. S. 565
[8] Article III. Section. 2. 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America, America “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Article III. Section. 2.1 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties”
[9] Article. II. Constitution for the United States of America, Article. II. Section. 3.1 “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
[10] Article III. Section. 2. 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America, America “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Article III. Section. 2.1 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties”
[11] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy.(The argument that the actions of public officials must not be subjected to judicial scrutiny because to do so would have an inhibiting effect on their work is but a more sophisticated manner of saying "The King can do no wrong." (Historically, judicial immunity was a corollary to that theory. Since the King could do no wrong, the judges, his delegates for dispensing justice, "ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed corruption [for this tends] to the slander of the justice of the King." Floyd & Barker, 12 Co.Rep. 23, 25, 77 Eng.Rep. 1305, 1307 (Star Chamber 1607). Because the judges were the personal delegates of the King, they should be answerable to him alone. @ 74 U. S. 536 and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Footnote 2/5)
[14] “absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[15] Article III. Section. 2. 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America, America “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Article III. Section. 2.1 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties”
[16] , Article. II. Section. 3.1 “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
[17] Article. VI., 2nd paragraph This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States… shall be the supreme legem terrae (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.
[19] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 Page 5 U. S. 163
[20] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 Page 5 U. S. 163
[21] Article. II. Section. 3.1 “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
[24]Article. II. Section. 3.1 “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
[25] Article II., Section. 1. Paragraph 1 Constitution for the United States of America, Article. II. Section. 3.1 “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
[26] Article III., Section. 1. Paragraph 1 Constitution for the United States of America
[27] Article III. Section. 2. 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America, America “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Article III. Section. 2.1 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties”
[28] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America "Opposed to Immunity" currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk's office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).
[29][29]Immunity is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the Rule of Law” and it is a policy adopted at the highest levels of the Executive and Justice Departments.
[30] The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the lead agency for the investigation of Civil Rights Abuses. 
[31] Article III. Section. 2. 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America, America “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Article III. Section. 2.1 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties”
[35] Article. II. Section. 3.1 “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
[38] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) “Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy.”
[41] The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, established the right of redress:
“If we, our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.”
[42]but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy.”
[43] Amendment I, Congress shall make no law… prohibiting… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[44] Every person who… subjects…, 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…
[45] “The argument that the actions of public officials must not be subjected to judicial scrutiny because to do so would have an inhibiting effect on their work is but a more sophisticated manner of saying "The King can do no wrong." (Historically, judicial immunity was a corollary to that theory. Since the King could do no wrong, the judges, his delegates for dispensing justice, "ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed corruption [for this tends] to the slander of the justice of the King." Floyd & Barker, 12 Co.Rep. 23, 25, 77 Eng.Rep. 1305, 1307 (Star Chamber 1607). Because the judges were the personal delegates of the King, they should be answerable to him alone. . @ 74 U. S. 536 and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Footnote 2/5)
Chief Justice Cockburn long ago disposed of the argument that liability would deter judges:
"I cannot believe that judges . . . would fail to discharge their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths and consciences . . . from any fear of exposing themselves to actions at law. I am persuaded that the number of such actions would be infinitely small, and would be easily disposed of. (Page 386 U. S. 566)
While, on the other hand, I can easily conceive cases in which judicial opportunity might be so perverted and abused for the purpose of injustice as that, on sound principles, the authors of such wrong ought to be responsible to the parties wronged." Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, L.R. 5 Q.B. 94, 110 (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting).
[46] Alcohol-related driving offenses, expunged from records, when--procedures, effect--limitations
577.054. 1. After a period of not less than ten years, an individual who has pleaded guilty or has been convicted for a first alcohol-related driving offense which is a misdemeanor or a county or city ordinance violation and which is not a conviction for driving a commercial motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and who since such date has not been convicted of any other alcohol-related driving offense may apply to the court in which he or she pled guilty or was sentenced for an order to expunge from all official records all recordations of his or her arrest, plea, trial or conviction.




Label/Receipt Number: 0310 2640 0001 4442 2904
Expected Delivery Date: February 25, 2011
Class: Priority Mail®
Service(s): Delivery Confirmation™
Status: Delivered

Your item was delivered at 4:13 am on March 02, 2011 in WASHINGTON, DC 20500.

  • Delivered, March 02, 2011, 4:13 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20500
  • Notice Left (No Authorized Recipient Available), March 01, 2011, 10:42 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20500
  • Sorting Complete, March 01, 2011, 10:25 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20022
  • Arrival at Unit, March 01, 2011, 10:00 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20022
  • Processed through Sort Facility, February 23, 2011, 9:05 pm, HAZELWOOD, MO 63042
  • Acceptance, February 23, 2011, 3:36 pm, SAINT LOUIS, MO 63108










Label/Receipt Number: 0310 2640 0001 4442 2898
Expected Delivery Date: February 25, 2011
Class: Priority Mail®
Service(s): Delivery Confirmation™
Status: Delivered

Your item was delivered at 11:16 am on March 01, 2011 in WASHINGTON, DC 20543.

  • Delivered, March 01, 2011, 11:16 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20543
  • Notice Left (No Authorized Recipient Available), March 01, 2011, 10:33 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20543
  • Sorting Complete, March 01, 2011, 10:25 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20022
  • Arrival at Unit, March 01, 2011, 10:22 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20022
  • Processed through Sort Facility, February 23, 2011, 9:00 pm, HAZELWOOD, MO 63042
  • Acceptance, February 23, 2011, 3:36 pm, SAINT LOUIS, MO 63108