My Rights have been
Invaded / Withheld / DENIED
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
Monday, October 24, 2011, 9:17:35 AM
The very essence of Civilization IS the secured liability for rights, privileges, or immunities. Civilization's raisons d'etre is to take responsibility for the justifiable establishment, enforcement and confirmation of rights, to wit at an inviolable essential minimum, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects."
Jurisdiction is scrupulously limited by probable cause by definition. If this not be the case the alternative is arbitrary discretion of a law giver. To go further probable cause has to be knowable, and understandable "give(n) a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice." How is someone of "ordinary intelligence" to be assured his/her liberty by the avoidance of probable cause unless and until the probable cause is strictly enforced via limitations of "a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice." If Jurisdiction is considered broadly we are at the discretion of not under the rule of law "give(n) a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice."
I quote form the applicable undisputed Supreme Court Precedent on the Common Law of 1803 as confirmed by Supreme Court precedent in :
"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.""
"It is a settled and invariable principle in the law… that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress" (emphasis and underlining added for clarity) 
To me, "give(n) a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice," I have been injured by the invasion / withholding / denial of my rights, the UN-justified taking of my son, my property, and my liberty without recourse to the protection of the law. I have not been able to find a remedy or proper redress. I quote again from the same un-contradicted Supreme Court Precedent:
"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."
My liberty has been invaded / withheld / DENIED. In nearly eight years the facts of the case are undisputed. "I was falsely and maliciously arrested and persecuted on an infamous charge by two incompetent police officers. I was thrown in jail, without being heard or charged, by a judge, to wit without probable cause much less proof of any wrongdoing. My now ex-wife conspired with two Judicial officers, one of limit unrelated subject-matter jurisdiction, to hold me on an additional infamous charge again without any probable cause much less proof of any wrong doing." I was convicted of the false and malicious persecution, lacking probable cause, by "knowingly false testimony by police officers" in front of the jury over my timely motions, objections and ONGOING protestation for the exculpable evidence that would have PROVED the testimony false if not openly perjurious.
There is no dispute as to the facts the issue arises as to a remedy. I have no money. I lost my son, my home, my Father's good name was sullied; I lost EVERYTHING I ever held dear!!!!! I have endured over 8.44 Years, (3,080 days or 73,932 hours or 4,435,912 minutes or 266,154,710 seconds) of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration (where I was humiliated with the denial of the most basic of liberties - regularly and repeatedly subjected to strip searches), two psychological examinations, and 3.96 Years, (1,447 days or 34,731 hours or 4,435,887 minutes or 125,031,110 seconds) of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle for redress, Jeep v. United States of America. They tell me in spite of the First Amendment's assurance; I have no redress. The criminal perpetrators all have immunity. Justice does not require a shibboleth. I have communicated the undisputed facts accurately. Justice, as an intrinsic unavoidable liability of any credible government, civilization or constitution, ought to take exception to the malicious, corrupt and criminal conspiracy against rights as currently albeit randomly applied. If I had had the misfortune to be an approved minority, I could claim the emotional support of discrimination but this criminal conspiracy against rights is more insidiously and criminally focused on its unquestioned power. This criminal conspiracy acts randomly, maliciously, corruptly, and unconstitutionally to further its goal of TERROR. I was randomly selected by the criminal conspiracy against rights for terror and intimidation.
I have since the origination of the denial of rights been seeking the protection of the law in the original courts, 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)and the Attorneys General (State and Federal).
ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, an, by any standard of Justice in a government of free and equal persons on THIS PLANET!!!!!
ANY assertion of governmental ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, acknowledging un-avoidable human fallibility, is repugnant, an, to a government of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!
The ministerial grant of "Absolute Immunity," by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy" "before out of Court" to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."
"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." I say it NOW, 2011!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871.
Impeach the Judiciary FIVE
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."
Before they have a chance to screw-up Healthcare for
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour," denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment justice between the government and the people, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011!!!
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" e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process," "The Exclusionary Rule," "Grounds for Impeachment."
Most of the 99% of Americans have not had the pleasure and are silently intimidated by the prospect of being dragged through our corrupt COURTS kicking and screaming!!!!!! I have been kicking and screaming for nearly 8 years. I have suffered through 411 of illegal incarceration, 4 years of homelessness and two psychological examinations. I ask you to review Jeep v Obama 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case #11-2425, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947," Jeep v Bennett 08-1823, "Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and the most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115."
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Monday, October 24, 2011, 9:18:45 AM, 2011 999 My Rights have been denied REV 02
 "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 (or a thief) with a gun." 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM e.g. George W. Bush's false representation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. (Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis).
 Mr. Thompson in the New York Times in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
 Amendment IV, the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified December 15, 1791
 The phrase "by definition" assumes understanding by a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice
 SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting) United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 "It is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. 453 (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct (probable casue) is forbidden." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954). See Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391-393 (1926); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 405 U. S. 162 (1972); Dunn v. United States, ante at 442 U. S. 112-113. So too, vague sentencing provisions may pose constitutional questions if they do not state with sufficient clarity the consequences of violating a given criminal statute. See United States v. Evans, 333 U. S. 483 (1948); United States v. Brown, 333 U. S. 18 (1948); cf. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399 (1966)." (Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis)
 SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting) United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 "It is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. 453 (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct (probable casue) is forbidden." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954). See Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391-393 (1926); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 405 U. S. 162 (1972); Dunn v. United States, ante at 442 U. S. 112-113. So too, vague sentencing provisions may pose constitutional questions if they do not state with sufficient clarity the consequences of violating a given criminal statute. See United States v. Evans, 333 U. S. 483 (1948); United States v. Brown, 333 U. S. 18 (1948); cf. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399 (1966)."
 To assert that any Supreme Court Precedent i.e., Randall v. Brigham 74 U. S. 7 Wall. 523 (December term 1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) could sub silentio overrule the applicable Statute Law, that had been recently enacted § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) and § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (now Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985)., and the un-contradicted common law as pronounced in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Page 5 U. S. 163, is corruption, malice and insanity of the highest order!!!!!
 SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting, United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 114, 123 (1979), "It is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. 453 (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954).
 Jack A. Bennett, Associate Circuit Judge, see letter to the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges dated Wednesday October 8, 2003
 Give or take as of Saturday October 22, 2011 12:51.18 PM
 Give or take as of Saturday October 22, 2011 12:51.18 PM
 The recent ruling Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 asserted that a Citizen who's rights had ADMITTEDLY been denied had no redress unless and until they could show that the act under color of law was repeated on SEVERAL other people in same way in a timely fashion. This asserts UN-equal protection of the law where it requires that X number of people create a violation but X-1 does not create a violation. All people before the Xth person have no protection while all the people X and above have protection. This is CLEARLY un-equal protection of the law. I would also assert that my rights were Invaded / Withheld / DENIED in a larger "Jane Crow" conspiracy. The Jane Crow conspiracy has not as yet achieved the critical mass of the unidentified "X" required by the ruling in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011.
 FBI and USMS
 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."
 Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
 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" Yes it is spelled wrong in the Constitution
 Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
 Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts stated: "Now, it is an effectual denial by a State of the equal protection of the laws when any class of officers charged under the laws with their administration permanently, and as a rule, refuse to extend that protection. If every sheriff in South Carolina refuses to serve a writ for a colored man, and those sheriffs are kept in office year after year by the people of South Carolina, and no verdict against them for their failure of duty can be obtained before a South Carolina jury, the State of South Carolina, through the class of officers who are its representatives to afford the equal protection of the laws to that class of citizens, has denied that protection. If the jurors of South Carolina constantly and as a rule refuse to do justice between man and man where the rights of a particular class of its citizens are concerned, and that State affords by its legislation no remedy, that is as much a denial to that class of citizens of the equal protection of the laws as if the State itself put on its statute book a statute enacting that no verdict should be rendered in the courts of that State in favor of this class of citizens. " Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 334.( Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 177) Senator Pratt of Indiana spoke of the discrimination against Union sympathizers and Negroes in the actual enforcement of the laws: "Plausibly and sophistically, it is said the laws of North Carolina do not discriminate against them; that the provisions in favor of rights and liberties are general; that the courts are open to all; that juries, grand and petit, are commanded to hear and redress without distinction as to color, race, or political sentiment." Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 505. (Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 178)
Thanks in advance
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
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316