Label Number: 7010 1870 0002 8257 6044
Service Type: First-Class Certified Mail
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivered WASHINGTON DC 20543 10/11/11 8:03am
Notice Left (No WASHINGTON DC 20543 10/09/11 9:27am
Authorized Recipient Available)
Arrival at Unit WASHINGTON DC 20022 10/09/11 9:12am
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 10/05/11 3:36pm
Reminder: Track & Confirm by email
Certified Mail™
Service Type: First-Class Certified Mail
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivered WASHINGTON DC 20543 10/11/11 8:03am
Notice Left (No WASHINGTON DC 20543 10/09/11 9:27am
Authorized Recipient Available)
Arrival at Unit WASHINGTON DC 20022 10/09/11 9:12am
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 10/05/11 3:36pm
Reminder: Track & Confirm by email
Certified Mail™
William K. Suter, Clerk
c/o Gail Johnson
Supreme Court of the United States of America
Washington, D.C. 20543-0001
Re: I am in receipt of your letter dated September 22, 2011[1]
Dear Mr. Suter,
I am in receipt of your letter as referenced above. I have now received the dispositive order for my current case (11-2425) in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals dated yesterday October 04, 2011. Please file the enclosed Petition for a writ of certiorari.
Immunity from the rule of law is "opposed to all the principles upon which the rights of the citizen, when brought in collision with the acts of the government, must be determined. In such cases, there is no safety for the citizen… for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government professing to act in its name. There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime. The position assumed here is that however clear his rights, no remedy can be afforded to him when it is seen that his opponent is an officer of the United States claiming to act under its authority, for, as Chief Justice Marshall says, to examine whether this authority is rightfully assumed is the exercise of jurisdiction, and must lead to the decision of the merits of the question. The objection of the Defendants/Respondents in error necessarily forbids any inquiry into the truth of the assumption that the parties setting up such authority are lawfully possessed of it, for the argument is that the formal suggestion of the existence of such authority forbids any inquiry into the truth of the suggestion."[2] The Defendants/Respondents argument begs the question, e.g., we are right and you can not even question our rectitude. As Justice William O. Douglas put it sounds like the old UN-CONSTITUTIONAL adage "The King can do no wrong."[3]
As further reference I quote from the Federalist Papers #78, by Alexander Hamilton, "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No... act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."[4]
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
[1] Return of Jeep v. Obama et al stamped received Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court U.S. September 21, 2011
[4] FEDERALIST No. 78, The Judiciary Department, From McLEAN'S Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788
By Alexander Hamilton
No. ______________________________________
Appeal 11-2425
Case No. 4:11-cv-0931-CAS
An EMERGENCY WRIT OF CERTIORARI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
— PETITIONER FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
David G. Jeep and heir
- RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
President Barack Hussein Obama, et al, Defendants/Respondents
President Barack Hussein Obama, United States of America
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,
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, 10-1947 and 11-2425),
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-0506-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, 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243),
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, Camden County, and City of Osage Beach (4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M) ,
All Defendants/Respondents are included and asserted liable, as Government actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors
Defendants/Respondents[1]
(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)PETITION
IN THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DIVISION 65
Commissioner Phillip Jones, Presiding
03FC-010670
(07-2614, 10-1947 and 11-2425 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals)
And
IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION
The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge
CR203-1336M
(08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I am requesting the court to rule on two issues as regards the question:
Where does a person go for the protection of the law when the Executive's Justice Department (Local State and Federal) and the Court's Judiciary (Local, State, Federal and Supreme) have acted in an "unlawful Conspiracy"[2] to ministerially award themselves "Absolute Immunity"[3] "before out of Court"[4] to COVER-UP[5] "false and malicious Persecutions"[6] to wit the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?[7]
LIST OF PARTIES
[X] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.
OPINIONS BELOW
[X] For cases from federal courts:
The opinion of the United States court of appeals included with the petition and is [X] unpublished.
JURISDICTION
[X] For cases from federal courts:
The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was October 4, 2011
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under THE RULE OF LAW and 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1) (acknowledging pro-se 28 U.S.C. § 2111. Harmless error[8] that does not affect on the issue) ________________________________________________________________
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED:
The Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph, 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, treaties made "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights " (as adopted by the United Nations 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., PART II, Article 2, Section 3), Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Blackstone's English Common Law as of 1803.[9]
The Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph:
"This Constitution, and the Laws[10] 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"[11]
1st Amendment
"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
4th Amendment
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.
5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
14th Amendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws….
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as adopted by the United Nations on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977:
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.
Title 42§1983 Civil Rights Act:
"Every person who, under color of any statute… subjects… any citizen of the United States… 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…."
English common law per the Commentaries on the Laws of England, the 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone and as quoted by John Marshal in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163:
"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."[12] (Page 5 U. S. 163)
AND
"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." (Page 5 U. S. 163)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The case in chief, In 2003 (03FC-010670) and 2004 (CR203-1336M) in the State Courts of Missouri I was charged and held on TWO infamous crimes while being denied my rights and the most basic elements of Due Process of Law.[13] The facts of the issues have never even been questioned; I thus see no need in presenting them AGAIN here. Since the origination of these two denials, unlawfully combined by the defendants into one issue,[14] I have been deprived of my LIBERTY, my Paternal Rights, and my Property rights.
I have since the origination of the denial of rights been seeking the protection of the law in the original courts,[15] the courts of appeals Missouri State Court of Appeals (SD26269 and ED84021), 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals), U.S. Supreme Court (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115) and with additional efforts in written correspondence to the President of the United States, the Governor of Missouri, Police enforcement (local, state and federal {FBI and USMS})and the Attorneys General (State and Federal).
When this started over 8 years ago my son was 9 years old, he will be 17 years old very shortly (12-22-2011).
I seek an EMERGENCY ORDER, damages and injunctive relief, as described in the most recent appeal 11-2425.
As a person, a 55 year old NATURAL born citizen of the United States of America all I can do is beg, HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
The protection of the law is the raisons d'etre for a constitution, courts, a government… for Civilization.[16] Without the protection of the law civilization breaks down and we are back at the entrance to the cave VIOLENTLY fighting for dominance to endure a trial by ordeal.
CONCLUSION
The petition should be granted to give creditability AGAIN to the RULE OF LAW.
Immunity by definition is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the RULE OF LAW.
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, Thursday, October 06, 2011 11:40.40 AM
David G. Jeep
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
The plaintiff is homeless and without the will to go on because of this issue AND SEEKS EMERGENCY RELIEF!!!
[1] Please note that all Defendants/Respondents are included as Government actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors
[2] 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."
[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
[5] 100 years of Jim Crow Laws denial of basic human rights can be linked to this cover-up… IMMUNITY
[8] 28 USC § 2111. Harmless error, On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
[9] AS Quoted in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803)
[11] Emphasis and underlining added for reference clarity
[12] Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803) establishing Supreme Court precedent and quoting English common law per the Commentaries on the Laws of England, the 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone (emphasis ADDED)
[13] Probable cause and Exculpable evidence
[14] See APPENDIX: Original Exparte Order of Protection where one issue CR203-1336M (DWI) is used for as unrelated probable cause for the second issue 03FC-010670 (Exparte order of protection, Abuse)
[15] See the NUMEROUS TIMELY objections and motions, pre-trial, at-trial, and post-trial for all issues as a part of the court's record.
[16] "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)(Page 5 U. S. 163)
--
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor 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