Revised Jurisdictional Statement[1]
Case #4:11-cv-0931
Monday, June 06, 2011, 4:17:26 PM
I assert Federal Jurisdiction under Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 85, Section § 1343. Civil rights and elective franchise:
"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:
(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42;
(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;
(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States" (1983 of Title 42)
I am asserting a civil and private criminal[2] action for the deprivation of rights as secured by THE Constitution for the United States of America the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments, Statute Law for the United States of America Title 18 § 241 & 242 Criminal action for the deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 § 1983 & 1985. Civil action for deprivation of rights and Treaties made for the United States of America "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[3]":
The Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph –
"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"[4]
This Constitution - Constitutionally secured First Amendment 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."
The Laws - :
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 21--CIVIL RIGHTS SUBCHAPTER I—GENERALLY § 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.
§ 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights - (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges - If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire… for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws
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.
§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law - Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States
Treaties made – :
"The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[5]" as adopted by the United Nations[6] on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 secures for Each State Party to the present Covenant i.e., 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.
With the unconstitutional illegitimate ministerial judicial creation and awarded of uncontestable universal Governmental Immunity where is the remedy that the colonist sought to secure with their assertion in The Declaration of Independence: "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."[7] Obviously The Colonist were not content to just be filing petitions they were looking for more - SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE between themselves and the government of King George III with "Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."
The deprivations of individual rights in my cases were not over some newly minted national security issues as in ASHCROFT v. AL-KIDD 563 U. S. ____ (2011). The deprivations of individual rights in my cases were not necessarily linked to long ago other cases as in CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON 563 U. S. ____ (2011).[8] The deprivations[9] of my individual rights in my individual cases were over my attorney's and my humble, timely, repeated and verifiable, formal, and long established, constitutional objections and motions, pre-trial, at-trial, post-trial and in the nearly 8 years of subsequent and repeated petitions, appeals and complaints for redress of grievances.
Are we governed by the rule of laws or the rule of men? I assert that the very essence of civilization is an attempt to democratically establish the rule of law that all men democratically acknowledge and submit to. Yet if Judges and the Judicial Process have immunity from the rule of law we are governed not by a democratically established constitution, not by a democratically elected legislature that makes the law, but by the self-serving unconstitutional illegitimate Judges with their self-serving power grab of immunity from the rule of law. If Judges and the Judicial Process are immune from rule of law, Judges and the Judicial Process rule as they please, not governed by We the People or by We the People's established constitutionally supreme law of the land.[10]
In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states a remedy is afforded for the invasion upon a right by mere operation of law.
"it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded."
Not so in today's United States of America. In the United States of America no one can be held accountable for rights. In the United States of America Judges and other public ministers,[11] without constitutional or statute law authority, have ministerially awarded themselves and others "Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process.[12]
"The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men." Marbury v. Madison, Page 5 U. S. 163 Cranch 137 137 (1803).
Not so in today's United States of America, laws do not govern men in the United States of America, our Judges and other public ministers have ministerailly without constitutional or statute law authorization awarded themselves "Absolute Immunity" for all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process.
Where in the United States of America do We the People go for the protection of the laws if all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process have immunity for their actions under color of law?
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Monday, June 06, 2011, 4:17:26 PM, 2011 06-06-11 Article III Judge Revised Jurisdictional Statement REV 00.doc
Article III Judge (to be determined) Case #4:11-cv-0931
c/o Clerk of the Court
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
Saint Louis, MO 63102-1125
Re: Revised Jurisdictional Statement Case #4:11-cv-0931
Dear Judge,
Please accept the enclosed as referenced above.
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
enclosure
a. "Revised Jurisdictional Statement Case #4:11-cv-0931, Monday, June 06, 2011"
[1] The possibly missing Shibboleth
[2] I assert Private Criminal action because Public Ministers at the highest levels of our government refuse to prosecute the protection for the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.
[3] "The Treaty "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" 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
[4] Non italic parenthetical text, emphasis and underlining added for reference clarity
[5] "The Treaty "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" 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
[6] "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
[7] The Declaration of Independence: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[8] The 14th Amendment security precludes a requirement for a link to others persons with "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" If protection requires three others with similar violation before enforcement, the fourth thru 100+ victim have unequal protection from the first three victims. Rights are linked to the INDIVIDUAL not any race, religion, or affiliation and or lack of affiliation.
[9] I was deprived of protection of the laws as proscribed by Probable cause and Due Process of Law 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614
[10] The Constitution for the United States of America, Article. VI. Second paragraph
[11] Other public Ministers have refused to prosecute the CRIMINAL law restricting those acting under color of law.
[12] Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ Page 80 U. S. 349 (origin Judicial "Absolute Immunity), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) (judges), 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)
--
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