Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: 51 Day Follow UP
Jeep v. Obama, et al – CONSIDER YOURSELF SERVED dated 2/23/11[1]
Supreme Court of the United States of America for Original Jurisdiction
Delivered, March 01, 2011, 11:16 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001Dear People,
Please acknowledge by return post or preferably email from the Public Information Officer and deliver the enclosed letter to John Roberts' office.
I fear there is no accountability for anything anywhere without the uberempathetic virtual representation[2] that we rightly afford foreign TERRORIST[3] combatants but fail to provide NATURAL BORN CITIZENS of the United States of America. I admit I clearly do not have it.
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"
David G. Jeep
cc: a select group of e-mail favorites
file - Thursday, April 14, 2011, 4:03:55 PM
Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: 51 Day Follow UP
Jeep v. Obama, et al – CONSIDER YOURSELF SERVED dated 2/23/11[4]
Supreme Court of the United States of America for Original Jurisdiction
Delivered, March 01, 2011, 11:16 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001Dear John,
I realize you require a shibboleth[5] and since I do not have it and I am not a member of the in crowd you are probably not even listening. I am indigent, homeless and virtually powerless. I have only my computerized cave wall to defend myself with. I do not have access to the uberempathetic virtual representation[6] that we humanely afford foreign TERRORIST[7] combatants. I am one of those non descript people that were born and raised in the United States of America but do not have the pacific protection of the law to easily enforce the inalienable individual rights we were born to and VESTED with as a birthright by the Constitution of the United States of America.
I contacted you as referenced above. I have not heard from you. I realize you think yourself to be ministerially some sort of anointed god that does not have to acknowledge those of us Americans that are not currently among the favored few, the in crowd. Because of that I can only pity you and those like you.
Nonetheless and for the record, I pacifically seek the protection of the law, my rights as defined by the first amendment's constitutional assurance of my congressionally and judicially unfettered equity right to justifiably[8] petition the Government for a redress of grievances, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now I realize you and your CORRUPT, MALICIOUS and I assert INCOMPETENT brethren, the black robed royalist judiciary, assert you are above the constitution. That you can make MINISTERIAL law that denies the Citizens of the United States of America their individual vested inalienable rights. I read the laughable opinion in Connick v. Thompson, which you signed your name to. You assert that we are not entitled vested inalienable individual constitutional rights, which our constitution[9] clearly provides for. You unconstitutionally, maliciously, corruptly and incompetently assert that we some how have to prove that the violation is a considered repeated act of an ongoing focused criminal conspiracy and not just the singular random act of a despotic, corrupt, malicious and incompetent conspiracy against rights, such as yours.
I am sending this through the Clerk's office so that there might yet be a paper trail that further points to your ongoing corrupt, malicious, and incompetent conspiracy against rights of you and your Black Robed Royalist judicial brethren.[10]
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"
David G. Jeep
cc: a select group of e-mail favorites
file - Thursday, April 14, 2011, 4:04:22 PM
[1] Should need a copy you can get one electronically via this link http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/ Jeep v Obama (2011) http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2011/02/president-barack-hussein-obama-et-al.html
[2] EQUALITY IN THE WAR ON TERROR, Neal Katyal (acting Solicitor General) Stanford Law Review Volume 59, Issue 5 Page 1365
[3] Neal Katyal (acting Solicitor General) Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Lead Counsel in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006).
[4] Should need a copy you can get one electronically via this link http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/ Jeep v Obama (2011) http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2011/02/president-barack-hussein-obama-et-al.html
[5] Something about an obscure reference to an Extraordinary Writ?
[6] EQUALITY IN THE WAR ON TERROR, Neal Katyal (acting Solicitor General) Stanford Law Review Volume 59, Issue 5 Page 1365
[7] Neal Katyal (acting Solicitor General) Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Lead Counsel in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006).
[8] See Jeep v Obama (2011) http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2011/02/president-barack-hussein-obama-et-al.html
[9] See the Constitution's repeated reference to the Person, not some ill-defined group reasoned and selected by some despotic malicious, corrupt and incompetent conspiracy against rights.
[10] It might be wise for you to consider the Grounds for Impeachment I have published to secure sources outside the United States of America. (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2011/04/grounds-for-impeachment.html )
--
Thanks in advance
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"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
No comments:
Post a Comment