111 South 10th Street, Suite 14.182
St. Louis, MO 63102-1125
Re: Autocratic rulers in the Gulf and the United States of America
Your Maginot Line will not hold, I carry no weapons
Dear Ms. Perry,
This imbroglio is not of your making but you support and defend the "sacred values" of your "tribal-moral community"[1] illicitly without regard to your solemn oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."[2] The Constitution of the United States of America specifically precludes the grant of Nobility, absolute immunity, TWICE.[3] You fraudulently assert you are not obligated under color of law, The Constitution for the United States of America, to disavow the "Title of Nobility" granted by ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. You unlawfully support the MASSIVE ALL POWERFUL CONSPIRACY against rights. That is CRIMINAL DENIAL and you KNOW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The First Amendment and "§ 1983" cause of action gives me the clear CONSTITUTIONAL right to redress for my grievances. I asserted and reassert now Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622 (1980) gives you the clear mandate to protect rights and assure redress for their deprivation. You are bound by your oath of office to the constitution:
"Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Page 445 U. S. 656.
"We believe that today's decision, together with prior precedents in this area, properly allocates these costs among the three principals in the scenario of the § 1983 cause of action: the victim of the constitutional deprivation; the officer whose conduct caused the injury; and the public, as represented by the municipal entity. The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury. The offending official, so long as he conducts himself in good faith, may go about his business secure in the knowledge that a qualified immunity will protect him from personal liability for damages that are more appropriately chargeable to the populace as a whole. And the public will be forced to bear only the costs of injury inflicted by the
"execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy. "" Page 445 U. S. 638
Your refusal to enforce CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS per Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622 (1980) makes you derelict and criminal in your sworn duty. This precedent, Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622 (1980), was directed at the Eighth Circuit and is binding to you as a Judge of the Eighth Circuit. You and your cohorts in the Eighth Circuit have refused your duty to provide the Protection of Laws via Supreme Court Precedent, the Constitution, your oath of OFFICE and the natural common law. I know you would prefer that I call someone else out for this issue, but it is ALL YOURS.
You are not acting in good faith. You have no moral ascendancy. Your refusal makes you culpable for your CRIMINAL[4] actions. And you will be held to strict scrutiny and strict liability[5] for your OATH of office to "support and defend" constitutional rights.
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
"Time is of the essence"
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
cc: e-mailed to a select group of favorites
file
Autocratic rulers in the Gulf and the United States of America
The King can do not wrong
"We can't win the future with a government of the past."
PRESIDENT OBAMA, in his State of the Union address.
"We the People of the United States of America" live under the autocratic rule of the Judiciary. They assert that they can do no wrong. Justice William O. Douglas in his dissent said it best:
"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."" Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Page 386 U. S. 565
As the UNDISPUTED COURT RECORD CONFIRMS! I was ILLEGALLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY held to answer on TWO infamous charges without probable cause, much less proof of any wrongdoing. It was and continues to be a criminal denial of rights.[6] I was and have been objecting, appealing and pointing out this criminal deprivation virtually every second since. The courts refused to listen; they all have self-proclaimed immunity, the massive criminal conspiracy against rights is all-powerful. "There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime."[7] Is the anarchy, the violence of Tucson, Virginia Tech, Kirkwood City Hall all we have left? Is there no defeating the criminal conspiracy against rights, "absolute immunity"?
They took my son, my home, my EVERYTHING. Because of your criminal denials and criminal assertion of absolute immunity I have had NO REDRESS to the protection of the laws.[8] I have endured over 7 years of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[9], two psychological examinations, and over three years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America.[10] Am I the crazy one?? I am the one that stood up to the CRIMINAL, the UNCONSTITUTIONAL, the CORRUPT, the MALICIOUS and the NEGLIGENT. The COURT RECORD confirms the criminality, the corruption, the malice and the negligence of the depraved deliberate indifferent criminal conspiracy against rights.[11]
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
[1] "If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community," Dr. Haidt said. "They'll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they'll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value." It's easy for social scientists to observe this process in other communities, like the fundamentalist Christians who embrace "intelligent design" while rejecting Darwinism. But academics can be selective, too, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan found in 1965 when he warned about the rise of unmarried parenthood and welfare dependency among blacks — violating the taboo against criticizing victims of racism.
"Moynihan was shunned by many of his colleagues at Harvard as racist," Dr. Haidt said. "Open-minded inquiry into the problems of the black family was shut down for decades, precisely the decades in which it was most urgently needed. Only in the last few years have liberal sociologists begun to acknowledge that Moynihan was right all along." "Social Scientist Sees Bias Within" By JOHN TIERNEY, New York Times February 7, 2011
[2] § 3331. Oath of office An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
[3] 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"
[4] Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
[6] Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
[8] Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, or the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[10] 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/).
--
Thanks in advance,
"We live in a Lawless Society...
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G.Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
