"The Earth and everything that's in it": April 17, 2011

Friday, April 22, 2011

UNEQUAL Protection of the Law Limited Liability Friday, April 22, 2011, 5:29:18 PM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can’t

UNEQUAL Protection of the Law

Limited Liability

Friday, April 22, 2011, 5:29:18 PM

The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't

CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON No. 09–571. Decided March 29, 2011

Supreme Court FIVE[1] in the recent ruling Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 - Limited Liability - created a Fourteenth Amendment[2] "UNEQUAL Protection of the Law" Constitutional Violation. Limited Liability in a case involving a criminal denial of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[3] protects the innocent victim, the guilty victim and the uninvolved bystander unequally:

1. The innocent victim has an unwarranted and uncompensated loss of rights.

2. The guilty victim is compensated with the protection of The Exclusionary Rule to resist prosecution for their loss.

3. The unaffected bystander has an unwarranted loss of rights but has not needed them through any effort or fault of his or her own has no actual loss but is compensated by the public exposure of the criminal acting under color of law.

The three results, a loss, the exclusionary rule and no loss but is compensated by the public exposure of the criminal acting under color of law creates an unequal protection of the law as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

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"[4] 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 Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115

DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)

Friday, April 22, 2011, 5:29:18 PM 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc

[1] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[2] AMENDMENT XIV, Section 1. nor shall any State deprive any person… within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[3] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[4] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

--
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

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Justice Requires Legal Liability Thursday, April 21, 2011, 4:27:42 PM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can’t

Justice Requires

Legal Liability

Thursday, April 21, 2011, 4:27:42 PM

The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't

"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."[1]

Justice – The fair and proper administration of the laws. Who is responsible for the fair and proper administration of the laws, without legal liability, NO ONE! As long as "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[2] are enforced randomly NO ONE can held responsible i.e., liable.

"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."[3]

Justice is how We the People expected to subdue the instinctual forces of nature, survival of the fittest. To "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility" We the People thought it prudent to inform all men upfront of the essence of the Union being proposed. The essence of the Union was and is the individual's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[4]. We the People. Within this union We the People take responsibility and LIABILITY for each other's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[5]

Who do I go to for my rights? The guy that likes guns down the street? The religious zealot wiling to die for a cause?

We the People take responsibility for EACH OTHER's rights. With in the limits of this Union, expressed by "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America,"[6] We the People are the keeper of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[7] We the People by way of the very definition of a Union of democratic free persons take responsibility for the establishment, enforcement and confirmation of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[8] We the People are only so free as the establishment, enforcement and confirmation of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[9] allow us to be. If We the People are not protected by Due Process of Law, our enemies can attack with surprise while we are watching Monday night football and kidnap our children, throws us out of our homes and there is not a thing we can do to recover unless and until we find that like group of otherwise unrelated individuals that have in a timely and similar fashion been criminally accosted by the same Criminal Conspiracy against rights.

If We the People do not assume the liability for the support the establishment, enforcement and confirmation of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America,"[10] We the People abdicate "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[11] to nature's anarchy , survival of the fittest.

They have TAKEN EVERYTHING from me, what am I to do? Take it on the chin for the greater glory of the CRIMINALS that randomly, corruptly, maliciously and incompetently conspire to deny "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[12]

John Thompson's rights were denied most recently by the Supreme Court FIVE[13] in the recent ruling Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571. The Supreme Court FIVE[14] acknowledged the deprivation of Thompson's rights in the facts of the case. My rights have been denied for 7 ½ years (Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115). They took my son, my home, my father's good name, EVERYTHING I ever cared about!!!!!!!!!!!! They did it ILLEGALLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY. The facts of my case have never been disputed nor can they be. The evidence is unimpeachable.

How do victims re-establish themselves after the criminal denial of a conspiracy against right without any legal liability for the same? Do victims at least have the right to attack their criminal oppressors?

The Supreme Court FIVE[15] says that to peacefully recoup a loss victims have to from their criminally diminished position (for Mr. Thompson 14 years in a jail cell on death row, for me 7 ½ years of denial 3 ½ years of poverty and homelessness) find other victims that were in a timely and similar local criminal fashion been denied their rights also.

The Supreme Court FIVE[16] says that the individual has no enforceable rights. The "the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," and the protection of the Civil (Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) and Criminal (Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242) statute only protects us when a group of people is denied their rights. The Individual has no enforceable rights even though The First Amendment, Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242 are clearly worded to allow for the individual's redress of grievances.

Clearly the Supreme Court FIVE's[17] requirement for Group Protection also creates a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection violation. The Victim sustains a loss for the protection of the law while the undamaged bystander is also protected and profited by the Government's learning experience but not damaged. The difference between the damaged victim and undamaged bystander is UNEQUAL protection of the law.

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"[18] 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 Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115

DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)

Thursday, April 21, 2011, 4:27:42 PM 2011 04-21-11 Justice Requires Legal Liability Thursday, April 21, 2011, 11-20-13 AM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't REV 01.doc

[1] Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America

[2] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983

[3] "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.

[4] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983

[5] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983

[6] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983

[7] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983

[8] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[9] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[10] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[11] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[12] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[13] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[14] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[15] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[16] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[17] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[18] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Remedial Grievance Other Remedies Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 5:01:35 PM The Prosecution Rests, but I Can’t

Remedial Grievance

Other Remedies

Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 5:01:35 PM

The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't

"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."[1] Justice has been denied since Bradley v. Fisher, 1871, originally established Absolute Immunity. This denial of justice has empowered the Jim Crow era, the Jane Crow Era and now the CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON No. 09–571. Decided March 29, 2011 any RANDOM act era. With Absolute Immunity, the victim has no possibility for Justice a redress of grievances. Bradley v. Fisher acknowledges a need for Justice, a remedy, a redress for grievances, but pays only lip service. I quote:

"Against the consequences of their erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort. But for malice or corruption in their action whilst exercising their judicial functions within the general scope of their jurisdiction, the judges of these courts can only be reached by public prosecution in the form of (uberempathetic virtual representation[2]) impeachment, or in such other form as may be specially prescribed." Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 335 (1871) Page 80 U. S. 354.

An "Oops I am sorry" will not cut it.

I would assert that the First Amendment's Democratic Constitutional Assertion of a redress of grievances with liability unencumbered or limited by anything but the constitutional intent of "We the People to establish Justice[3] i.e.,

"Congress shall make no law respecting… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

is the redress the founding fathers had in mind. The founding fathers had the historical experience of the problematic enforcement of the Magna Carta's § 61 [4] (1215) right of redress under the prerogative of a king. Our Democratic Constitutional GUARANTEE of "the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" limited only by Due Process of Law and the intent to establish Justice[5] has UNCONSTITUTIONALLY limited at the expense of Justice. Our constitutionally guaranteed "right of redress" IS problematic if not IMPOSSIBLE to enforce under the prerogative of the Supreme Court FIVE.[6] We the People's constitutional "right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is constitutionally limited by Due Process of Law and the ends of justice exclusively. But that is not how the Judge made UNCONSTITUTIONAL law of the Supreme Court FIVE[7] sees it.

The Exclusionary Rule (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)) was sold to We the People as way to ensure our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[8] The Exclusionary Rule was never the fix it was sold as. Even less so now, (Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S.Ct. 2159 (2006) & Herring v. United States No. 07-513 (2008)) than when it was originally created as Judge made law in 1961. The Exclusionary Rule was intended to provide a citizen, whose rights have been unconstitutionally violated a remedy. The Exclusionary Rule provides absolute immunity for the criminal being unconstitutionally persecuted by the criminal Law enforcement official that has criminally violated our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[9]

The Exclusionary Rule, unconstitutional judge made law, is also unconstitutional because it violates the 14^th Amendment's guarantee of "Equal Protection." For while it provides some protection for the guilty victim of the deprivation of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws;"[10] there is no remedy for the innocent financially encumbered victim, falsely arrested, illegally convicted or denied Due Process of Law.

Now if you have vast reserves of money, the Supreme Court's shibboleth, are a member of a politically appealing minority, the backing of a politically correct action committee or the law enforcement officials have been flagrantly, repeatedly and timely incompetent by doing this same thing to several victims, you might have a case.

But if you are a lone random victim with limited financial resources without a Supreme Court shibboleth, a socially or politically appealing case, you are denied "Equal Protection," you have no remedy. You can be victimized by the denial of your "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[11]" and there is NOTHING you can do. Those acting "under color of law[12]" do not have to obey the law; they can unequally flaunt it with the random impunity of their Judge decreed immunity. The Judges, Prosecutors, Police or "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process[13]" have immunity from criminal and civil prosecution for their random unconstitutional actions "under color of law[14]."

The Exclusionary Rule, attempts by force of law to make evidence disappear. The Exclusionary Rule wanted to perform magic. We all would like to be able to perform magic but NOBODY, not even the Supreme Court can perform magic. It is all just slight of hand.

We need JUSTICE under Due Process of Law not

Judicial fiat.

What needs to happen in cases where a citizen's rights have been violated, the jury needs to be told that the evidence was seized unconstitutionally and for that reason alone they may choose not to consider it. The jury then needs to be given the option of considering the evidence as they see fit. The Judges need to get out of the way with their Judicial fiat.

The law enforcement professional, acting criminally "under color of law[15]", needs to be prosecuted vigorously criminally and civilly[16] for the crime against our Constitution, the crime against our Civil Rights. There are laws in place to do this Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights. These laws have been on the books since the end of the Civil War in 1871. The Supreme Court has been in essence warring with the constitution on their enforcement since 1871 (Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871)).

If we truly want to feel safe in our homes free from unwarranted judicial and/or police action, if we truly believe in fair due process of law, where the defense has a right to compel the law enforcement officials to testify truthfully to their own procedures and prior sworn testimony and the defendant has a right to all the evidence, exculpable material included.[17] If we truly believe in the "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[18]" we assert under our constitution, we need to enforce those rights by force of law on all those acting "under color of law[19]."

There are criminals wearing the Black Robes of the Judiciary. There are criminals wearing the pressed and starched uniforms with the badges of the police. We cannot continue to allow our law enforcement professionals to continue to have the "Free Hand" afforded by the self-serving Judge made law of immunity.

An "Oops I am sorry" will not cut it.

It is Damages or NOTHING

Finally, with Thompson and myself (Jeep) being innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. "For people in (Our) Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing." Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) Page 403 U. S. 410

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, Jeep v Obama, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947, Jeep v Jones Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115

DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)

Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 5:01:35 PM 2011 04-19-11 Remedial Grievance Other Remedies Tuesday, April 19, 2011 REV 02.doc

[1] "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.

[2] Uberempathetic virtual representation is untenable, see the defense of the Terrorist Combatants Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006)

[3] The Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America, 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.

[4] Magna Carta's § 61 (1215) problematic enforcement under the prerogative of the king.

"If we, our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon."

[5] The Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America, "We the People… establish Justice…"

[6] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[7] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[8] Title 42 § 1983.Civil, Title 18 § 242, Criminal Law and Title 18 § 241, Criminal Conspiracy Law

[9] Title 42 § 1983.Civil, Title 18 § 242, Criminal Law and Title 18 § 241, Criminal Conspiracy Law

[10] Title 42 § 1983.Civil, Title 18 § 242, Criminal Law and Title 18 § 241, Criminal Conspiracy Law

[11] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

[12] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

[13] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335

[14] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

[15] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

[16] Any Civil Settlement in favor of subsequently convicted felon could be put in a future victims fund to assist in vindication of other victims. A civil settlement from a convicted misdemeanor charge should go to the convicted misdemeanor victim.

[17] "Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Pp.86-88. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)

[18] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

[19] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Constitutional Rights as regard Family Law. Mark Young, www.ExiledFathers.org

Mark Young, www.ExiledFathers.org

Mark Young, Arlington, VA

Phone (703)798-7598

E-mail: markyoung12@yahoo.com

I stumbled upon your petition "PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES"

I feel we are both after the same thing, the First and Fourteenth Amendments assurance of right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and EQUAL PROTECTION of the LAW, although we come to the issue from differing points of view.

You reference only 42USC 1983 and 1985 where you should also be asking for protection of the criminal code 18USC241 and 242. I quote from the FBI civil Rights Web Page:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

There are two critical misrepresentations to get its enforcement:

We have to establish the Family Law is governed by the Constitution for the United States of America and not some rogue social engineering faction of our Courts. It is absurd to even assert that “We the People” wold have thought to demand the protection of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” [1] in every court action BUT when it concerned our life’s blood, our children, (custody agreements) and ALL our worldly possessions (property settlement).
           We have to establish criminal and civil liability for "for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[2] for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” [3]
      Not “"Absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[4] for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." [5] As is currently the Supreme Court’s interpretation.
      IMMUNITY is diametrically opposed to the Justice and Rule of Law. The Immune person cannot be brought to heel by Justice or the Rule of Law by DEFINITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!   It is illogical insanity to assert anything but “IMMUNITY is diametrically opposed to the Justice and Rule of Law.”

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”[6] 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 Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115

DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)

Thursday, April 21, 2011, 9:44:49 AM 2011 04-21-11 Mark Young, www-ExiledFathers-org.doc

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, MO63103-2316

[1] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983

[2] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335

[3] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983

[4] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335

[5] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983

[6] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983