Friday, March 25, 2011

Mr. Neal Katyal - Re: Jeep v. United States of America. [1] -- Immunity

Mr. Neal Katyal
McDonough 5th Floor
600 New Jersey Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20001-2022

Re: Jeep v. United States of America. [1] -- Immunity

Dear Mr. Katyal,
I don't want to scare you but I have the makings of a homegrown TERRORIST.  I am quite literally at my wits end.
I am not a man that takes to begging readily.
I discovered that you are the ACTING Solicitor General of the United States after reading the article noted below.  Even as the ACTING Solicitor General of the United States, this is a case of interest to the Executive of the United States of America, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."  Immunity stands in the way of the laws being faithfully executed.  One need only consider Douglas's dissent in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967) "Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374, "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 394, "by reason of popular sentiment or secret organizations or prejudiced juries or bribed judges, [cannot] obtain the rights and privileges due an American citizen." Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 429. [2]
I was a white upper class, 45 year-old, born and bred American Citizen when this all started.  I literally went to THE Old Boys School.  I had never had any issues with the law, never been charged with anything but a traffic violation.  That was until I ran into the impenetrable wall of "absolute Immunity." [3]
I was arrested on an infamous charge by two incompetent[4] police officers; I was thrown in jail by a judge without probable cause much less proof of any wrongdoing.  My now ex-wife conspired with a Judge and a Family Commissioner to hold me on an additional infamous charge without any probable cause much less proof of any wrong doing.
They took my son, my home, my father's good name… literally EVERYTHING I once held dear.  For me it was virtually "damages or nothing"[5] an "I am sorry would not have cut it."
That was the Spring, Summer and Fall of 2003, 7 ½ years ago.  I have since that time been seeking a remedy, Justice.  I started out by spending $10,000 with attorneys.  That was a complete LOSS.  I ran into the impenetrable wall of "absolute Immunity." [6]
"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."[7]  The "Absolutely Immune" person cannot be brought to Justice!!!!!!!!!!!  The "Absolutely Immune" person cannot be brought to heel by the Rule of Law!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We need to learn from mistakes and make remedial efforts to correct them rather than obfuscate and COVER-UP mistakes with the UNCONSTITUTIONAL corrupt, malicious and incompetent veneration and en-Nobling of the Black Robed Royalist Judiciary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As you probably know, absolute immunity is based on two issues both rooted in a 1607 "Star Chamber" court case by Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker.  I contend that the case, Floyd and Barker, does not extend absolute immunity but the Supreme Court has held that judicial immunity is attached. 
Their argument:
1.      "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. William O. Douglas Dissenting PIERSON V. RAY, 386 U. S. 547 (1967).
2.      If "we subject the established courts of the land to the degradation of private prosecution, we subdue their independence and destroy their authority. Instead of being venerable before the public, they become contemptible"[8] and would be "harassed by vexatious actions"[9]

I have to agree with both issues, the "King could do no wrong" and the potential for the "degradation" of "vexatious actions.'

My argument:
1.      "The King can do no wrong."  We no longer live in the time of the King nor under the King; we live under Constitutional Law as the supreme legem terrae (law of the land).[10]  We are GUARANTEED our 1st,[11] 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment RIGHTS by the supreme legem terrae (law of the land). 
2.      The "degradation of private prosecution" is begging the question, a logical fallacy, petitio principii, "assuming the initial point".  They assert that "private prosecution" is always "degradation."  "Private prosecution" when consistently and judiciously directed is not degradation or vexatious but remedial and educational.  "Private prosecution" is "vexatious" "degradation" when it is maliciously, corruptly, haphazardly or incompetently applied.  Since Judges are the ones to apply it.  Are Judges incriminating themselves with their assertion, "private prosecution" is always "vexatious" "degradation???"

Now that is where you come in; I recently read your online article "EQUALITY IN THE WAR ON TERROR," Stanford Law Review at 59 STAN. L. REV. 1365 (2007).  The Supreme Court, the Guild of Judges, sometimes referred to as Black Robed Royalist Conspiracy against Rights asserts that they are answerable only to impeachment and you gave me the best expression of my argument I have yet to find:
But that form of accountability (impeachment) is too weak, as it posits an uberempathetic voting population (and/or Congress) so concerned for the rights of others that they will vote on the basis of policies that do not impact their own lives. This is just too fanciful. Virtual representation cannot be effective if it depends on heroic assumptions of empathy, just as our early countrymen recognized by placing the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV and writing McCulloch with virtual representation in mind."[12]
No one has any empathy for me; HELL, I was a rich good-looking, smart, athletic, tall white guy.  My opponents have the veneration and en-Noblement of the judiciary, they have the trappings of royalty, they sit high at a throne like bench and they wear black robes as a symbol of their venerated, exalted and en-Nobled status.
Would you want to help me?
Do you have a friend that might?
I have no money.  I have endured over 7 ½ years (2,667 days +/-) of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[13] (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.[14]  It is all on my blog (

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 Friday, March 25, 2011
David G. Jeep

cc:  file - Friday, March 25, 2011, 4:07:52 PM

[1] 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 (
[2] I realize these quotes are from the 42d Congress in 1871, but you are naive if you think it does not go on EVERY DAY in today's Judicial Tribunals, the application of the malice, corruption and incompetence is just haphazardly applied without regard to race.  Lord Acton said it best in 1887 "I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."
[3] "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
[4] The Police officers actually confirmed their incompetents with false, I assert perjurious testimony, over my prior motions for exculpable material and protestation of their incompetents at trial.
[5] BIVENS V. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U. S. 388, Page 403 U. S. 410, Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring in the judgment of the court, was much more honest: "For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing."
[7] "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments" The Federalist No. 51, Wednesday, February 6, 1788, by James Madison.
[9] Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868) Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ Page 80 U. S. 349)
[10] 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.
[11] redress of grievances
[12] "EQUALITY IN THE WAR ON TERROR," Stanford Law Review at 59 STAN. L. REV. 1365 (2007).page 1387(24).
[14] 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 (

Thanks in advance,
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process

"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"

David G. Jeep
E-mail is preferred,

(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO63103-2316

Post a Comment