Friday, May 6, 2011

A LEGAL Precedent to deny the establishment of Justice and abridge a constitutionally secured legally un-abridge-able right? That is NOT “good Behaviour”[1]!!!!!

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan,
Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer
Supreme Court of the United States

One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001

Re: A LEGAL Precedent to deny the establishment of Justice and abridge a constitutionally secured legally un-abridge-able right?  That is NOT “good Behaviour”[1]!!!!!

Dear Justices,
As you may or may not know I have repeatedly “Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms[2] for the constitutionally established right to substantive justice between government and governed.  My “repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.[3]”  Both of the cases, that originated my Petitions, are flagrant case of “Fraud on the Court[4].”
Supreme Court Precedent is not and never has been unimpeachable.  Point in fact IMPEACHMENT is the only thing, at this critical juncture in our history, which will overcome Supreme Court CORRUPTION, MALICE and INCOMPETENCE.  I know this may sound extreme, but in this time of fear mongering, we need to stand up for equal Justice fore all… more than ever before!!!!!
“In the most humble terms[5]I beg for your assistance.  Impeachment is too often overlooked as too extreme a countermeasure.  That assertion of extreme is based on nothing more than it has never been done before.  I liken it to surgery at the turn of the 18th century. Imagine how EXTREME surgery sounded, “you are going to cut him open and take something out?”  We now know that surgery is an indispensable lifesaver.  Impeachment, at this stage of our history, is an indispensable liberty-saver.
Our history, since the ratification of the Constitution, is not as was predicted in 1788.  Alexander Hamilton in “The Judiciary Department” (The Federalist No. 78, Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788) predicted, “liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary.”  As we all know that has not been the historical outcome.  One need only look at “Immunity,[6]“Separate but Equal,[7]” “Liberty of Contract,[8]” and “The Exclusionary Rule.[9]”  Our liberty has been the victim of OVER REACHING judicial power.  Judicial power has grown out of its supposed limitation of interpretation of the law “under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made” and into the CREATION of law with the immune indiscriminate fabrication of law as PRECEDENT.
I ask you to stand up for Justice under the law and support the Rule of Law by submitting to and proposing a standard for impeachment that prohibits the creation of law.  A professional standard of good behavior has never been defined; we need to define it now!
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[10] for verifiable NOT “good Behaviour,[11]” denying the establishment of justice and a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive justice between government and governed CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)!!!
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: Congressman Wm. Lacy Clay – delivery by hand
       a select group of e-mail favorites
       file - Monday, May 09, 2011, 10:47:03 AM

enclosure
A.       “A LEGAL Precedent to abridge an un-abridge-able right?”


A LEGAL Precedent to abridge an
un-abridge-able right?
Monday, May 09, 2011, 10:47:03 AM

Our forefathers, for all the originalist thinkers in the group, in the Declaration of Independence knew what they wanted when they said:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury
The Right to Petition, to our forefathers, meant more than the right to “repeated Petitions… answered only by repeated injury.”  Clearly our forefathers sought substantive justice between government and governed.  They had experienced, firsthand, the corruption, malice and incompetence of the Government of King George III’s “repeated injury.” 
Based on the failed result, with the Government of King George III, of our forefather’s attempts at justice with “repeated Petitions… answered only by repeated injury[12]” that resulted in the Revolutionary war, our forefathers thought it prudent to:
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.”[13]
Our forefathers sought to further define and establish Justice between the government and the people with the constitutionally assured First Amendment's lawfully un-abridge-able right:

“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Yet in America Judicial Power has replaced the malice, corruption and incompetence of the King.  In America Judicial Power creates legal precedent.  Legal Precedent, Judge made law governs all?  NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Judicial Power was and is to be limited by the Constitution for the United States of America to wit:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby[14]
and
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made.[15]

This Constitution - the First Amendment secures us:

 “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The Laws - Statute law secures us:

TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 21--CIVIL RIGHTS SUBCHAPTER I—GENERALLY  Sec. 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

and

TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same.
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping (they stole everything and then kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

All Treaties made secures us:
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[16]” as adopted by the United Nations[17] on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 secures for third world countries and the United States of America:

PART II, Article 2, Section 3.
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a)   To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b)   To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c)   To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

But our Judiciary ABRIDGES and openly deprives us of the protection of our “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.[18]  "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY0"" for the deprivation of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”  Criminals go free if any of their rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” are ABRIDGED,The Exclusionary Rule.”  Our Judges, our Prosecutors, our Police, point in fact “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[19] can criminally use the Color of Law to randomly, maliciously, corruptly or incompetently Steal, Kidnap, and Murder by depriving the innocent victim’s rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.
And unless, the innocent victim while being impoverished, destitute, homeless and alone on the street or convicted in jail on death row, can prove that the criminals that stole from the innocent victim, the criminals that kidnapped[20] the innocent victim’s children, the criminals that attempted to MURDER[21] the innocent victim did the EXACT same thing to several other innocent victims in a timely and consistent pattern, the innocent victim has NO HOPE for substantive justice between the government and the people even if you repeatedly petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  Judicial precedent deprives the innocent victim of the right to substantive justice between the government and the people.[22]
There is binding LEGAL precedent out there that abridges the constitutionally and congressionally un-abridge-able Right of Petition’s as substantive justice between the government and the innocent victim?  This is OUR Judiciary at war with the constitution, at war with the common law, at war with the civilized world.  This is OUR Judiciary wagging a war of oppression against its own people.  And why?  Because, for self-serving reasons, the criminal conspiracy of black robed royalist in the JUDICIARY has simply said so?
Legal precedent that abridges a constitutionally and congressionally un-abridge-able right is repugnant to the Constitution, repugnant to common law and repugnant to the ends of Justice.[23]
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby[24]

for verifiable NOT “good Behaviour,[26]” denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive justice between the government and the people, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)!!!


The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people.  We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America[27] e.g., To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process, The Exclusionary Rule, Grounds for Impeachment, Jeep v Obama, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947, Jeep v Jones “The most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115.”

DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
Monday, May 09, 2011, 10:47:03 AM 2011 05-06-11 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer - A LEGAL Precedent to abridge an un-abridge-able right REV 02.doc



Congressman Wm. Lacy Clay - delivery by hand

625 North Euclid Street, Suite #326
St. Louis, MO 63108-1660

Re: A LEGAL Precedent to deny the establishment of Justice and abridge a constitutionally secured legally un-abridge-able right?  That is NOT “good Behaviour”[28]!!!!!
       A request for a meeting

Dear Congressman,
I am again requesting a meeting as referenced above and on the enclosed.
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[29] for verifiable NOT “good Behaviour,[30]” denying the establishment of justice and a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive justice between the government and the people CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11)!!!
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 - Monday, May 09, 2011, 10:47:03 AM

enclosure
B.       Letter to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer - A LEGAL Precedent to abridge an un-abridge-able right? dated 05-06-11
C.      “A LEGAL Precedent to abridge an un-abridge-able right?”




[1] Article III., Section. 1. The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788
[2] Jeep v Obama, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947, Jeep v Jones “The most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115.”  See Grace Johnson in Supreme Court Clerk’s office (202)479-3038
[3] The Declaration of Independence: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[4] In Jeep v Jones the Court order on its face is without probable cause and thus Fraud on the Court.  The second Jeep v. Bennett, the Judge allowed, the Prosecutors suborned and the Police presented false evidence over my timely, pretrial, at trial and post trial objections and thus Fraud on the Court.
[5] Jeep v Obama, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947, Jeep v Jones “The most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115.”
[6]  Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ Page 80 U. S. 349) (origin Judicial “Absolute Immunity), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial “Absolute Immunity”), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (Judicial “Absolute Immunity”), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (“Absolute Immunity” for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process)
[7] Plessy v. Ferguson, AND “Immunity” combined to give us 100 years of “Separate and UNEQUAL
[8] Lochner v. New York, “Liberty of Contract” does not necessarily limit the liberty of the People to self-regulate.
[9] Mapp v Ohio  “The Exclusionary Rule” is a cover up for Justice Department’s Incompetence at the expense of the People
[11] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”
[12] The Declaration of Independence: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[13] Preamble The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788
[14] Article. VI. 2nd paragraph The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788
[15] The Definition of Judicial Power Article III. Section. 2.”The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made” The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788
[16]The Covenant is presented for both its binding force as "Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies together under one Constitution?” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[17]And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun.” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[20] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
[21] TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping (they kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
[22] Anybody that actually even wants to NOT believe this ought to read the Declaration of Independence.  And if you think all our forefathers wanted when they “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury” was to be free to endlessly petition without any force of law to establish the right to substantive justice between government and governed.  You are INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[23]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.” “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.
[24] Article. VI. 2nd paragraph The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788
[26] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”
[28] Article III., Section. 1. The Constitution for the United States of America, September 17, 1787 – ratification final – June 21, 1788
[30] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”