Saturday, October 1, 2011

The Gold Standard is what built the Pyramids


The Gold Standard is what built the Pyramids
A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
a country in which nobody is ever truly safe.”[1]
Monday, October 03, 2011, 1:02:39 PM
The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't[2]

I should say DEFLATION[3] and the gold standard are what built the pyramids.  Deflation is the unseen result of the Gold Standard.  Back when We the People were still learning how we wanted to self govern ourselves.  Before We the People discovered we could possibly avoid war and enhance the general welfare through the democratic use of prudent monetary policy; there was nothing but the GOLD STANDARD.  We were in effect RULED by the Gold Standard, the sovereign accumulated virtually all the gold by way of taxation at the tip of a sword.  The sovereign thus controlled the economy and deflated We the People’s value to the point of slavery to add value to his gold reserves.  And the sovereign either built pyramids or palaces for his greater glory.

What is the bad thing about the gold standard?  The bad thing about the gold standard is that it benefits those that have Gold while it impedes innovation of those that do not have Gold.  Now on the surface you might say, especially if you have gold, where is the bad in that?  Well it tends to fix society into rigid castes, those that have and those that do not have and it thus inhibits innovation.  Innovation has proven itself to NOT be hereditary or the result of affluence. 

If you are a rich person with a great new idea life is easy, you go out and exploit your new idea and finance it with your gold supply.  And if you are not a go getter; you are rich person with no ideas.  Which has consistently proven itself inevitable in a strict hereditarily line of economic succession; you just sit on your gold live off the interest and let other people do the work.  You have no incentive to innovate.  That inhibits innovation. 

If you are a poor person with a great new idea it is VERY difficult to get those that have the gold to risk it on the untested great NEW idea.  I mean they have gold or currency in the bank or hidden in their mattress, enough gold to last them forever as it were.  Why should they risk anything on a great NEW idea?  They have all that they need… point in fact they have so much that they reasonably think that the best use for all the gold they have is to build a pyramid in their own honor or maybe a palace like Versailles. 

What do you think?  Is that a good idea?

It took some time, but We the People learned from our mistakes, We the People learned that monetary policy can be a useful tool for the greater good.  Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744–1812) the patriarch of the French Banking Family is credited with the quote, “Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws.”  Abraham Lincoln was not first the first governmental leader to successfully finance a war with paper, but he was the first American president to use large scale monetary policy to do it.  During the civil war, 1860, Abraham Lincoln started printing money, the greenbacks, to finance the abolition of slavery.  Now the government paid all the Union debts off.  The Union won the war.  The loser, The Confederacy, they of course lost and those that invested everything in the Confederate version of the greenback lost everything. 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not use whips and chains to get us out of the depression, he used the carrot and the stick of monetary policy to end the depression and get us through World War II.  We the People had experienced four years of Hoover’s apathy to our dilemma.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated on March 4, 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression.  On April 5, 1933, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102, which prohibited the hoarding of gold and required citizens to exchange their gold coins for paper currency.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt laid the foundation for the New Deal’s monetary policy, INFLATION.  He devalued the currency and thus added value to We the People, the opposite of the divine right of King’s DEFLATION..  He eventually started printing money to fund the New Deal and then in turn World War II.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt got us out of the depression and defeated Hitler, the same way Lincoln abolished slavery with the democratic use of prudent monetary policy.

The Cold War was the first democratic prudent use of monetary policy to enhance We the People position and avoid blood shed.  The Cold War was not a war between free-enterprise and communism, the cold war was a war between the totalitarian use of monetary policy versus the prudent and democratic use of monetary policy.   Laissez-faire monetary policy has not been in use since AT LEAST the Civil War in the United States of America

That brings us basically to today.  How do we get things going?  We need a great new idea that we can all rally around, Lincoln had the abolition of slavery, Roosevelt had the depression and then Hitler to rally us to our self improvement.  With the Cold War, We the People had the defeat of the totalitarian use of monetary policy, communism, to rally ourselves.

Right now We the People are being devalued, deflated. Our value is being diminished because relative to the price of oil/Gold.  Those that control the GOLD/oil are not willing to risk it on the New Idea that We the People need to continue to expand and grow.  We the People need to take control using inflation, printing money, and get that scared old money out of the Banks, out of the mattresses as it were and back into the economy.

We the People have to find a way to free ourselves from the strangle hold of fossil fuels.  The inevitable bottom of the empty well is all too rapidly approaching.  OPEC knows this.  OPEC holds the rest of the world in a stranglehold.  We need to find a new power source that is CARBON free and not regionally dependent that can be easily created and maintained in EVERY country.  We need NUCLEAR power.  We need Nuclear Power Plants generating Electricity and producing hydrogen for hydrogen-cell fueled cars.  We need our GOVERNMENT and the United Nations to get behind nuclear POWERED hydrogen cell fueled CARS, INDUSTRY and DEVELOPMENT. 

High Speed trains and repairing roads will not be enough!!!!  We need a new direction that frees We the People from fossil fuels!!!!!

We the People’s irrational fear of nuclear power is without merit.  I liken it to the fear of fire.  I am sure the first caveman had a struggle convincing his cave-mates that Fire was controllable, that Fire was a good thing.  And if you actually look at the devastation fire still causes today, We the People have never fixed the problem; We the People have just conquered our fear. 

I read an article the other day that the Japanese nuclear accident, Fukushima, was going to set nuclear power back and that is the WRONG direction.  Nuclear is the only power source that has the potential we need.  Nuclear power is the ultimate source of all power in the UNIVERSE.  We the People have had a nuclear fusion power plant desalinating ocean water since, literally, the beginning of time… Sun and Rain.  Sunlight is NUCLEAR RADIATION!!!  Yes a nuclear plant can generate a more deadly form of nuclear radiation, but We the People can control it.  Fukushima should be a stepping stone not an impediment.  We should learn from the Japanese’s recovery from Nagasaki and Hiroshima and now their recovery in just a few months from Fukushima.  And their unflinching commitment to Nuclear Power in the future of Japan should be applauded and imitated!!!!!!!!!  Nuclear POWER CAN BE SAFELY UTILIZED to replace fossil/carbon based fuels to the betterment of We the People and the planet.  The fear of Nuclear power is being subsidized by the fear of We the People,  the money invested in fossil fuels and the STAGNATE MONEY stuck in the proverbial mattress’s of OLD MONEY. 

But on the other hand Absolute Immunity is NOT.

The ministerial grant of Absolute Immunity,”[4] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and “unlawful Conspiracy[5]before out of Court[6] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.”[7]

“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. [8]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[9]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[10]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[11]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[12] 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[13] 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 “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 03, 2011, 1:02:39 PM, 2011 09-23-11 The Gold Standard is what built the pyramids REV 02.doc




[1] “Damages” By Dahlia Lithwick Slate Posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET
[2] Op-Ed Contributor, The Prosecution Rests, but I Can’t, By JOHN THOMPSON, Published: April 9, 2011 New York Times regarding Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
[3] Deflation allows one to buy more goods with the same amount of money over time.  In economics, deflation is a decrease in the general price level of goods and services. This allows one to buy more goods with the same amount of money over time. Deflation increases the real value of money: conversely, inflation reduces the real value of money over time – the currency of a national or regional economy.
[4] “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] 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.”
[9] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[11] 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"
[12] 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.




--
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
(314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

Thursday, September 29, 2011

"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.


"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."
Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
a country in which nobody is ever truly safe."[1]
Thursday, September 29, 2011, 6:10:50 PM
The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't[2]

     No One is safe in America today, not the popular people, not the unpopular people. The establishment of Justice[3] is NO longer possible.  We the People are forced to accept corruption in our Judicial process in the form of corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Police and "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." [4] 
"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."[5]  "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." [6]  WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

HOW CAN We the People BE SAFE??
 
     Our Supreme Court has abolished any accountability for rights with their impunity of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY… "This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly."[7] "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty."[8]  "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers."[9]  In short the Supreme Court precedent asserts "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." [10]
Where do We the People go for the protection of the law when "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" have ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[11]?????
 
     The ministerial grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[12] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[13] "before out of Court"[14] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[15]
"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. [16]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[17]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[18]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[19]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[20] 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"[21] 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 "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)
Thursday, September 29, 2011, 6:10:50 PM, 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc




[2] Op-Ed Contributor, The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't, By JOHN THOMPSON, Published: April 9, 2011 New York Times regarding Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
[3] "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." The Constitution for the United States of America June 21, 1788
[4] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 339 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for all persons
[5] 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
[6] Ibid. Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803) quoting English common law
[7] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[8] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[9] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[10] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 339 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for all persons
[12] "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
[13] 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] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[19] 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"
[20] 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.


--
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
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

Monday, September 26, 2011

The People Surrender Nothing


The People Surrender Nothing
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
a country in which nobody is ever truly safe."[1]
Sunday, September 25, 2011, 4:24:57 PM
The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't[2]

Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776 said:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Alexander Hamilton STRESSED a few years later in the Federalist Papers:
"It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the Petition of Right assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."[3]
John Marshal, often referred to as best Chief Justice, confirmed 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."[4]   

Do you think that Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton or John Marshal could have ever imagined "The ministerial grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[5] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[6] "before out of Court"[7] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions?"[8]  That is to say
"This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly.[9]"To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty"[10]. "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers"[11].  Supreme Court precedent THUS provides for "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[12] for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."[13]

"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. [14]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[15]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[16]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[17]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[18] 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"[19] 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 "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)
Sunday, September 25, 2011, 4:24:57 PM, 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc




[2] Op-Ed Contributor, The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't, By JOHN THOMPSON, Published: April 9, 2011 New York Times regarding Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
[3] FEDERALIST No. 84, Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 by Alexander Hamilton
[4] 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)
[5] "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
[6] 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."
[9] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967)
[15] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[17] 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"
[18] 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.

--
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
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316