Clerk of the Court
Federal Court House
Re: Jeep v. Obama
Dear People,
I am indigent as a result of the enclosed issues. Please accept the enclosed copy of my summary of pleading entitled:
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff,
vs.
President Barack Hussein Obama, et al, Defendants
for the court’s consideration. Additionally I am enclosing a fully executed MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT dated today May 20, 2011.
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
eclosure
a. “summary of pleading entitled Jeep v Obama, et al”
b. “MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT dated today May 20, 2011”
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff,
vs.
President Barack Hussein Obama, et al, Defendants
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
Chief United States District Judge Eastern Missouri 8th Circuit Catherine D. Perry (8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947),
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, State of Missouri,
Defendants
Case No ________________________
A First[1] and Fourth[2] Amendment based REPEATED Petition for suit in “the most humble terms” “for a Redress of Grievances”
1. The respondents deprived the plaintiff of the INDIVIDUAL security guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment by depriving him of his INDIVIDUAL constitutional rights and then requiring him to overcome an unrelated “stringent standard of fault” and “difficult problems of proof” with an otherwise unrelated group to sustain the government’s liability for individual constitutional rights to wit: Per the ruling in CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) a plaintiff, purporting to be a victim of a crime, must prove multiple other victims sustained the same criminal deprivation in a timely fashion before liability can be consider or established for the Individual plaintiff. This violates an individual’s rights by inserting this REQUIRED group connection and or affiliation. “The Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant in this case. It is Damages or nothing.”[3]
2. This is discrimination not based on a victim’s affiliations, but on the lack of a victim’s affiliation. It would be as if when you were robbed, you not only had to find the robber, but you had to find other victims who had also been robbed by the same robber in similar and timely situation. The state has the obligation to, per the 14th Amendment, enforce the law equally[4] without regard to affiliation or lack of affiliation.
3. I seek the Security that is to be secured by Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” In the originating issues (2 each) My son, ALL my property and my driving privileges were seized, via fraud upon the court, without probable cause and a denial of Due Process of Law.[5] Since the originating issues my INDIVIDUAL security has been deprived by the unconstitutional requirement of proof involving a GROUP.
4. Constitutional Rights are not vested in a group. Constitutional Rights are vested in the INDIVIDUAL.
5. I site Bevins’s[6] implied cause of action for the deprivation the Fourth Amendment’s security for rights as applicable to the Federal Government, the State Government and the Local Government via the 14th Amendment. “The Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant in this case. It is Damages or nothing.”[7]
6. I seek the constitutionally required strict scrutiny for the Constitutionally Supreme Law of the Land for the lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition the government for a just redress of grievances as provided for in the First Amendment. I can and will JUSTIFY my grievance for the deprivation of rights that instigated this issue in 2003 (see 8th Circuit court of Appeals Filings in 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614). I seek to establish the justifiable liability for the deprivation under the Constitution, Fist Amendment, Statute Law Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 and Treaties Made, “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ” PART II, Article 2, Section 3., (a), (b) and (c)
7. I site the Declaration of Independence as Precedent for the Right to Petition as Substantive justice between the Government and the People. “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. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” Obviously The Colonist were not content to have be just filing petitions they were looking for SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE between themselves and the government of King George III with “Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”
8. I assert my grievance is and has been the deprivation of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America
9. I am filing this as a cause of action 8th U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against The United States of America Government in the person of its “public Ministers” [11] at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive[12] and Justice[13] Departments. This is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional “unlawful Conspiracy” [14] “out of Court”[15] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.” [16] The Justice Department, The Judiciary, The President have NO POWER to ministerially grant themselves or others “Absolute Immunity.”[17] This involves the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, as an individual and as a public Minister responsible for the enforcement and prosecution of the laws for the United States of America Government - 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 for the Judicial enforcement the laws of the United States of America Government,”[18] 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 and Justice Departments; “Absolute Immunity” is REPUGNANT to the Constitution and Statute Law as the supreme law of the land. [19]
10. I assert that Immunity is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to Rule of Law. “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 Law of the land. Immunity for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”[20] denies “We the People” “the protection of the laws,”[21] “the essence of civilization.”[22] “Absolute Immunity” a ministerial policy adopted, supported and enforced at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive and Justice Departments is repugnant to Rule of Law, the Constitution and statute law, Civil[23] and Criminal.[24] I petition the President of the United States of America as the executive in charge and The Supreme Court Justices as the highest judicial ministerial levels of the FEDERAL, STATE and Local Government of the United State of America United States of America
11. Immunity, as ministerially created Law out of self-serving desire and then applied without constitutional or statute law authorization, is repugnant to both the constitution, statute law and the very essence of civilization.
12. I am petitioning for the protection of the laws and a redress of grievances resultant from the denial of the protection of the laws.
13. 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.[29]
14. 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 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.
15. I site Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. Great Britain
16. I have been denied the protection of the laws because of “Absolute Immunity”[30] 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 Police, FBI, and USMS) and the courts (Local, State, Federal and Supreme) in numerous prior petitions, complaints, pleadings, appeals and motions on file with this court and others. (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/).
17. “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."
18. These issues arise from a series of 2003 incidents where the Plaintiff, David G. Jeep was held to answer on two infamous charges, “false and malicious Persecutions,”[32] without any probable cause, much less proof of any wrong doing. The Judges, the Prosecutors and The Police all withheld exculpable material. The Police (Alex Little, Officer Badge #920, Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913) State of Missouri , Camden County St. Louis County
19. 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 and Justice Departments of the United States of America
20. These originating ministerial actions in 2003 were unconstitutional and unauthorized by any constitutional or 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.
21. I am herewith making formal application, seeking redress for my grievances, the originating actions in 2003 and the subsequent denials per, in chronological order, the Magna Carta § 61 (1215)[35], Floyd and Barker (1607), First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America (1789),[36] and Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights[37] (1877)
22. The Constitution for the United States of America
“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
“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
II. Law:
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.
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.
III. All Treaties made – secures us:
“The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[39]” as adopted by the United Nations[40] 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.
23. In every stage of these Oppressions I have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: My repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A President, A group of Judges or Judicial Process whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.[41]
24. 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.[42]
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
Fifty Million Dollars and No Cents------------------------------ $50,000,000.00
V. Punitive[43] damages. In the amount of:
One Hundred Million Dollars and No Cents-------------- $100,000,000.00
One Hundred Million Dollars and No Cents-------------- $100,000,000.00
25. I am homeless, destitute and unable to pay any filing fee for this complaint.
26. I DO NOT even have 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 to eat and nowhere to live. Do I have to light myself on fire in the street to get the rights granted by my creator to all men, like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi?
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Friday, May 20, 2011
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
_________________________________________
David G. Jeep
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
[1] “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
[2] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[4] 14 Amendment “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
[5] I was denied exculpable material in both 08-1823 (proof of the police standard) and 07-2614 (probable cause so as to defend myself against the charge)
[6] Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by federal agents.
[9] For the sake of brevity in 07-2614 I was held to answer and infamous charge without having been provided probable cause. In 08-1823 The police presented FALSE INFROMATION at trial over my pretrial, at trial and post trial objections. Both cases exemplify “Fraud on the Court” and deprivation of 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment Rights.
[14] 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.”
[17] “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
No comments:
Post a Comment