Expected Delivery Date: February 24,
2012
Class: Priority Mail®
Service(s): Delivery Confirmation™
Status: Processed through USPS Sort Facility
Your item was processed through our WASHINGTON , DC
Detailed Results:
Arrival
at Unit, February 27, 2012, 11:01 am, WASHINGTON ,
DC 20022
Processed
through USPS Sort Facility, February 24, 2012, 5:04 am, WASHINGTON , DC 20066
Depart
USPS Sort Facility, February 23, 2012, HAZELWOOD ,
MO 63042
Processed
at USPS Origin Sort Facility, February 22, 2012, 11:37 pm, HAZELWOOD , MO 63042
Acceptance,
February 22, 2012, 4:08 pm, No. 11-8211
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
Defendants/Respondents
Motion for a REHEARING[1]
Re-PRESENTED QUESTION(S) I am requesting the court to rule on two issues (State Court cases originating as 03FC-010670 and CR203-1336M) as regards the now two closely RELATED questions:[2]
1. How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[3] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[4] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[5]
2. Where does a person[6] go who has been damaged, if not destroyed,[7] by the denial of rights in a largely civil action[8] for a 7th Amendment remedy, a redress or grievances,[9] or the protection of the law,[10] when the Executive's Justice Department will not enforce the law (Local, State and Federal) and the Court's Judiciary (Local, State, Federal and Supreme) have acted in an "unlawful criminal conspiracy"[11] of "deliberate indifference"[12] to ministerially[13] award themselves "Absolute Immunity"[14] "before out of Court"[15] to COVER-UP[16] "false and malicious Persecutions"[17] to wit the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?[18]
Re-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 flagrantly fraudulent issues while being denied my (paternal, property and liberty) rights and the most basic elements of Due Process of Law i.e., probable cause[19] and exculpable evidence.[20] That this criminal corruption has worked its way through the Federal Courts four times (07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425) and formally in the Supreme Court at least one other time (Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 and several other un-docketed petitions) with out being checked only further exemplifies the massive, corrupt, malicious, dishonest and incompetent[21] nature of this insidious "unlawful criminal conspiracy"[22] "before out of Court."[23]
Fraus omnia vitiate, Fraud vitiates everything it touches. When fraud is involved in civil contract or in the establishment of a law, all such laws or contracts are unraveled, made into nothing at all.
The facts of the fraud and crimes have never even been questioned. I briefly include a description here:
I was held to answer TWO infamous fraudulent charges, spousal abuse (03FC-010670) and DWI (CR203-1336M), without the most basic and essential requirements of Due Process rights, probable cause and exculpable evidence. Everything I ever cared about was taken from me as a result, from my son and my home, to my little league baseball glove. I was then forced into a fight, where my adversary had been empowered by all that had been criminally and fraudulently taken from me. I am some how not reassured that it happens illegally and unconstitutionally everyday in the Jane Crow era.[24]
Just a bare minimum cursory look at the evidence, a hand written petition at the commencement of the fraud,[25] as included here, exposes this unavoidable conclusion. The petition for the order of protection lists no probable cause that could require the court's involvement for protection of the alleged victim, given a person of ordinary intelligence. [26] What it fraudulently gives as probable cause[27] is a sensationalized hearsay account of an infamous charge from a preliminary hearing for a charge of DWI, a different subject matter jurisdiction, in a different geographical jurisdiction under a different judicial officer's[28] personal jurisdiction, where the alleged victim of the abuse was not even present, by her own admission. If ever there was a more COMPLETE lack of jurisdiction and probable cause I would like to see it.
After being served and ordered by a warrantless court order,[29] I was forced into a court to defend myself against a flagrantly fraudulent infamous charge that had no probable cause. How do you prove you did not do anything when you are not even given the specifics of the crime? It is not only unconstitutional it is illogical even to ask for a defense with out specifics.[30] My adversaries were allowed to take unfair surprise random unsubstantiated sensationalized accusatorial potshots[31] at me. The Family Commissioner, a judicial officer of LIMITED jurisdiction, then found and I quote:
"The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced. The Court does find the allegations of the amended petition to be true."[32]
My attorney of record objected pre-trial, at trial in court and immediately after made TWO post trial written motions for a copy of the alluded to "amended petition" and then to be heard on said petition. Neither motion was ever granted!!!!!!!!!! I was thus denied my God given custody rights to MY SON!!!
On the Second fraudulent[33] charge, the DWI,[34] the original presiding Judge, Judge Bennett, recused himself for his bad acts that had been fraudulently blamed on the respondent in the ex-parte order of abuse, not that it could be of any use to me in the ex parte hearing and the alluded to "amended petition."
During the pretrial motions, before the replacement, Judge Colyer, FORMAL written motions/requests for specific exculpable evidence were heard and DENIED. At trial, the two arresting officers knowingly gave false testimony, fraud, [35] incriminating themselves to contradict the exculpable evidence that had been criminally[36] DENIED the defendant!
Again the facts of the fraud and crimes have never even been questioned, I thus see no need in presenting evidence AGAIN here. Since the origination of these two[37] flagrantly fraudulent denials, unlawfully combined by some of the defendants into one issue, I have been unconstitutionally and criminally[38] deprived of my liberty, my Paternal Rights, and my Property rights as secured by the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America.
In the 8+ years since the origination of the denial of rights, I have been relentlessly seeking the protection of the law in the original courts, the courts of appeals Missouri State Court of Appeals (SD26269 and ED84021), U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missour1 (4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al (07-2614), 4:07-cv-0506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al (08-1823), Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM (10-1947), 4:11-cv-00931-CAS (11-2425))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 Police enforcement (local, state and federal[39]), the Governor of Missouri, the Attorneys General (State and Federal), the President of the United States, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
When this issue[40] started over 8 years ago my son was 8 years old, he will be 17 years old very shortly (12-22-2011).
I seek an EMERGENCY ORDER, damages and injunctive relief, noting that criminally[41] offending Judicial Officers were involved, as follows:
I. Injunctive relief to overturn and expunge the DWI Conviction (Case No. CR203-1336M) and remove all reference of it from my Driving Record and the 33 year old 1978 DWI conviction.[42]
II. Injunctive relief to overturn all orders of protection between Sharon G. Jeep and David G. Jeep and remove all record of them (Case No.: 03FC-10670M).
III. Injunctive relief to overturn the subsequent and coupled Property and Custody Order (Case No.: 03FC-12243) currently in effect between David G. Jeep and Sharon G. Jeep as regards the joint marital property as of November 3, 2003 and the custody of the Minor Child Patrick Brandon Jeep (DOB 12/22/94) and remand it to a new judge for resettlement based on this ruling.
IV. Actual Damages[43] in the amount of:
Fifty Million Dollars------------------$50,000,000.00
One Hundred Million Dollars-----------$100,000,000.00
As a person, a 55 year old NATURAL born citizen of the United States of America all I can do is beg, HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have already spent 411 days in jail[46] for just considering the Supreme Court's suggestion of "the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime."[47]
HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re-presented REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
- The raisons d'etre for civilization is dispute resolution with the Rule of Law "given a person of ordinary intelligence."[48] Therefore "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" Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163.
- "This Constitution,[49] and the Laws[50] of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,[51] 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"[52] I STATE unequivocally the Rule of Law as written and agreed by persons of normal intelligence is SUPREME.
- 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 by a commissioned United States of America governmental authority contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, can be endured without remedy and redress!!!!
- To deprive someone of their rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America[53] is, by definition, contrary to the Constitution!
- The assertion of Common Law Absolute Immunity has lead to Absolute power and Absolute corruption. As proof, ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY has empowered the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[54] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor,[55] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[56] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[57]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [58] acting under color of law to the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[59] of WE THE PEOPLE… again… absolute corruption.
- Any assertion of justice that does not include both Law and Equity is unsustainable. Justice without equity consideration impoverishes its victims in pursuit of justice, thus the founding father's 7th amendment remedy.
- The Rule of law "given a person of ordinary intelligence"[60] is incompatible with the supremacy and inherent vagaries of blanket Absolute Immunity. Why would We the People have even written a Constitution if it was to be possible to negate our supreme Law of the Land with an overpowering assertion of common law Absolute Immunity?[61] Was not the King's prerogative based on his common law assertion of Absolute Immunity, the King can do no wrong… the raisons d'etre for our revolution? The supreme Law of the Land is clearly and irreconcilable incompatible with any assertion of common law Absolute Immunity from the supreme Law of the Land.
- I was denied my son… my life, my liberty, and my property without due process of law by the corrupt, malicious, incompetent and fraudulent finding:
"The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced. The Court does find the allegations of the amended petition to be true."[62]
You can not amend the pleadings during a hearing on said pleadings without a requisite; Due Process required rehearing on said pleadings. - If the ubiquitous unconstitutional and criminal, MISS USE of the ex parte order of abuse in domestic relations, the Jane Crow era,[63] does not meet the standard for strict scrutiny and strict liability of Equal Protection of the law per the 14th Amendment, Jim Crow discrimination never did and NOTHING EVER WILL!
- The assertion that there is even a possibility for an exemption, Kahn v. Kahn 21F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) "The domestic relations exception," from the SUPREME law of the land is without merit.
"There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution. When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the federal judicial power extends (Article III, § 2), and, so extending, the Court has all the authority appropriate to its exercise. Accordingly, it has been decided in a great variety of circumstances that, when questions of law and fact are so intermingled as to make it necessary, in order to pass upon the federal question, the Court may, and should, analyze the facts. Even when the case comes to this Court from a state court, this duty must be performed as a necessary incident to a decision upon the claim of denial of federal right. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Albers Commission Co., 223 U. S. 573, 223 U. S. 591; Creswill v. Knights of Pythias, 225 U. S. 246, 225 U. S. 261; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585, 236 U. S. 593; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 248 U. S. 67, 248 U. S. 69; Merchants' National Bank v. Richmond, 256 U. S. 635, 256 U. S. 638; First National Bank v. Hartford, 273 U. S. 548, 273 U. S. 552-553; Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380, 274 U. S. 385-386 (STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U. S. 398 (1932)).
Again why would We the People even have written a Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights as our supreme Law of the Land; if we were going to allow non exigent exceptions? - Any assertion of common law immunity is in direct conflict with the "right of trial by jury" per the 7th Amendment dispute resolution remedy:
"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." - Chief Justice John Marshal wrote Blackstone's common law into binding, if anything in deed binds the Supreme Court, precedent:
"I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the Courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803)
The First Amendment assures the Right of redress of grievances, the common law jurisdiction as defined by Chief Justice John Marshal provides a court to cognizance the grievance/injury, "all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice." Clearly based on the First Amendment's assured right to petition the GOVERNMENT for Redress of Grievances, there was understood to be injuries caused by the government under the "cognizance of the common law courts of justice."
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed and respectfully submitted, Wednesday, February 22, 2012 03:49.49 PM
______________________________________
David G. Jeep
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
The plaintiff is homeless and without the will to go on because of this issue AND SEEKS EMERGENCY RELIEF!!!
[1] I also include a paper entitled "Justice is a Pitiful Farce In the United States of America"
[2] I make note of the potential for Harmless error 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.
[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 (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[4] Alexander Hamilton June of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, The Federalist Papers No. 78, "The Judiciary Department"
[5] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 The absence of exigent circumstances should be noted.
[6] It should be noted that the petitioner is pro se and does not have the uber-emphatic representation of a pro bono high priced law firm that is afforded a death row inmate (i.e., , Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 Smith v. Cain, No. 10-8145) much like most of the Supreme Court's victims in this government of the people, by the people and FOR THE PEOPLE. The only hope he has is the 1st and 7th amendment remedy
[7] I have spent every penny I have in 8.78 years (3,203 days). I was incarcerated for 411 days, and then denied my day in court, on a false charge ("We live in a Lawless Society" via Eastern District Court of Missouri Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP Document #78, Attachments #(1) Exhibit, time stamped 3/25/2010, 5:30 PM CDT). I have been indigent and living on the street for 4.30 years (1570 days) in my struggle to regain my rights!
[8] While injunctive relief is a component of my petition, monetary damages are the essential remedy. The Exclusionary rule is irrelevant in a Civil Issue.
[9] 1st Amendment -"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[11] 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."
[13] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law. For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[14] "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
[16] 100 years of Jim Crow Laws denial of basic human rights can be directly linked to this cover-up… IMMUNITY
[19] 4th Amednment
[20] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
[21] Incompetence is the most insidious of human evils; but especially, if it is denied and covered up by the grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[24] The "Jane Crow" Era, "It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house."
A fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order." "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08
[25] Fraus omnia vitiate, Fraud vitiates everything it touches. When fraud is involved in civil contract or in the establishment of a law, all such laws or contracts are unraveled, made into nothing at all. If fraud can be proven, such laws by their natures could not exist, for they were created under both a false pretense, as well as created with understanding and assent on false pretenses, see enclosed copy of the hand written petition by Sharon G. Jeep on 11-03-03
[26] 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 cause) 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. (Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis)
[27] "for good cause shown in the petition" Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 455, Abuse--Adults and Children--Shelters and Protective Orders section 455.035
[28] It should be noted that Judge Bennett recused himself from the DWI issue for his bad acts that were unrelatedly, fraudulently, corruptly and maliciously blamed on the petitioner. But the damage from the flagrantly fraudulent ex parte order of protection had already been done and the judicial officer of limited jurisdiction, Commissioner Jones could not and would not reconsider based on the potshot revision of probable cause at the hearing.
[29] The ex parte Order was originated and served by Judge Goeke and ordererd heard by Commissioner Jones
[30] "The Sixth Edition of Black's Law Dictionary explained the parenthetical maxim as follows: 'Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit.... The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof. Black's Law Dictionary 516 (6th ed. 1990).'"
[31] "potshot" a shot fired at game merely for food, with little regard to skill or the rules of sport.
[32] IN THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DIVISION 65, Commissioner Phillip Jones, Presiding, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003, Cause No. 03FC-010670. Petitioner, Sharon G. Jeep, denied any physical or verbal abuse at the subsequent divorce hearing in addition to the denials at the abuse hearing. It should be noted that if exigent circumstances were involved, they weren't, they should have STILL BEEN noted and respondent given a subsequent chance to be heard on the exigent/infamous charge as assured by constitutional right.
[33] Fraus omnia vitiate, Fraud vitiates everything it touches.
[34] IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION, The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge, Cause No. CR203-1336M (Jack A. Bennett, Associate Circuit Judge recused himself in November of 2003)
[35] Fraus omnia vitiate, Fraud vitiates everything it touches.
[37] - A.) CR203-1336M the fraudulent DWI, the denial of exculpable evidence to prove the incompetent fraudulent probable cause and fraudulent testimony to cover up the incompetence
--- B.) 03FC-010670 the fraudulent Ex-parte Order without the jurisdiction of probable cause
--- B.) 03FC-010670 the fraudulent Ex-parte Order without the jurisdiction of probable cause
[39] FBI and USMS
[40] 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)
[42] Alcohol-related driving offenses, expunged from records, when--procedures, effect--limitations 577.054. 1. After a period of not less than ten years, an individual who has pleaded guilty or has been convicted for a first alcohol-related driving offense which is a misdemeanor or a county or city ordinance violation and which is not a conviction for driving a commercial motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and who since such date has not been convicted of any other alcohol-related driving offense may apply to the court in which he or she pled guilty or was sentenced for an order to expunge from all official records all recordations of his or her arrest, plea, trial or conviction.
[43] See enclosed worksheet for more detail on damages
[44] As regards Punitive Damage, without punitive damages the federal/state/local electorate may assume the risk. Is that not what the racist did with "Jim Crow." The Racist succeeded with "Jim Crow" because the odds of the risk were on their side with Judicial Immunity attached to their like minded criminal judges. The assumption of RISK has to be deterred by the potential for open ended punitive damages and the 7th Amendment. Let's not let the same thing happen with "Jane Crow," sexual discrimination in Family for the Mother over the Father, as we did with "Jim Crow."
[45] 7th Amendment – "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."
Not to mention "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
[46] "We live in a Lawless Society" via Eastern District Court of Missouri Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP Document #78, Attachments #(1) Exhibit, time stamped 3/25/2010, 5:30 PM CDT released without his day in court for failure to provide a speedy trial Monday April 26 2010 08:00.00 PM
[47] United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882), Page 106 U. S. 219
[48] 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 cause) 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. (Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis)
[49] The 1st and 7th Amendment remedies
[51] "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)
[52] Emphasis and underlining added for reference clarity
[54] 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 is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[55] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[56] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[57] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[58] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[60] SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, ibid.
[61] "In short, the common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 335 (1983)
[62] IN THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DIVISION 65, Commissioner Phillip Jones, Presiding, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003, Cause No. 03FC-010670. Petitioner, Sharon G. Jeep, denied any physical or verbal abuse at the subsequent divorce hearing in addition to the denials at the abuse hearing. It should be noted that if exigent circumstances were involved, they weren't, they should have STILL BEEN noted and respondent given a subsequent chance to be heard on the exigent/infamous charge as assured by constitutional right.
[63] The "Jane Crow" Era, "It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house." ibid.(page4 of 16)
William K. Suter, Clerk
Supreme Court of the United States of America
Washington, D.C. 20543-0001
Re: Motion for REHEARING on Petition for Writ of Certiorari 11-8211 dated 22-Feb-12
"Justice is a Pitiful Farce In the United States of America" dated 22-Feb-12
Dear Mr. Suter,
I enclose as dated and referenced above and an accounting/breakout of the damages.
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
1. Motion for REHEARING on Petition for Writ of Certiorari 11-8211 dated 22-Feb-12
2. "Justice is a Pitiful Farce In the United States of America" dated 22-Feb-12
3. an accounting/breakout of the damages dated 22-Feb-12
cc: My Blog - Thursday, February 23, 2012, 11:48:16 AM
Justice is a Pitiful Farce In the
United States of America
I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Cloths"
AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is
Thursday, February 23, 2012, 11:50:32 AM
Justice is a pitiful farce in the United States of America today. The inalienable right to Justice is devoid of the essential equity consideration,[4] via the Supreme Court of the United States precedent. The Supreme Court of the United States precedent sanctions uninhibited malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence.[5] This sanction unashamedly empowers "malicious or corrupt" judges,[6] "malicious or dishonest" prosecutors, [7] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[8] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[9]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [10] acting under color of law for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[11] over WE THE PEOPLE of limited means.
"This immunity applies even when the judge (or all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent) persons) is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly."[12] "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without (JUSTICE… justice without equity considerations irrefutably impoverishes its victims in pursuit of their inalienable right to Justice) civil redress against (all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[13]) persons) a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty."[14] "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 (all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[15]) persons) police officers"[16] (YA THINK?). In short the Supreme Court precedent asserts "absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[17] thereby limiting Justice to only those that can afford the open ended unlimited investment of time and money.
We the People thus have no security for "the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,"[18] much less a "redress of grievances"[19] as if they were NOBILITY.[20]
The sophistry (bullshit) of the Supreme Court tries to justify its corruption by saying:
"it "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of (We the People being robbed and disenfranchised?) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty (to act without regard to "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[21]) to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences." (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.) (Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967)) (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
PLEASE, tell me how We the People benefit from the willful unrestrained "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[22]
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"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. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."[23]
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour."[24]
There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility to wit, "Absolute Immunity," Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility."
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity" [25] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[26] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[27] This is corruption on a massive scale!
We the People have fallen under the despotic[29] spell of the concentrated power[30] in the Supreme Court that condones ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[31] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [32] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[33] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[34]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [35] acting under color of law.
I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Cloths."
AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity,[36] in a government of free and equal persons on THIS PLANET!!!!!
ANY assertion of governmental ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, acknowledging un-avoidable human fallibility, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity, in a government of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!
The ministerial[37] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[38] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[39] "before out of Court"[40] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[41]
"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. [42] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[43].
Impeach the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[44]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[45] and
"fraud upon the court."
Before they have a chance to screw-up Healthcare for 100 years!!!!!!
Impeach the current Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[46]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[47] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[48] 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"[49]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[50] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[51] "The Exclusionary Rule,"[52] "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 days 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."
I have referenced "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process," in several of my papers, I do so only because the facts of the case in "To Kill a Mocking Bird" are generally known. The abuses are happening EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE Mr. Thompson (No. 09–571),[53] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [54] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[55] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[56] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[57] PROVES IT !!!!!!!!!!!!
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Thursday, February 23, 2012, 11:50:32 AM, 2012 02-21-12 Justice is a Wretched Farce In the United States of America REV 01
[1] "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 e.g., George Bush's false representations of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi - Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis.
[2] "Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
[3] 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
[4] Justice without regard to equity irrefutably impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into homelessness for FOUR YEARS! The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 7th Amendment's secures justice as regards equity with the right: "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".
[5] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[6] 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 is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[7] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[8] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[9] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[10] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[12] 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 (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[13] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[14] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[15] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[16] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[17] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 339 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for all persons (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[18] "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." Preamble to the Constitution for the United states of America
[19] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[20] There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity," Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility."
[23] FEDERALIST No. 78 "The Judiciary Department" From McLEAN'S Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 Alexander Hamilton
[24] The Constitution for the United States of America, Article III. Section. 1. "The judicial Power of the United States shall"
[25] "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 (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[26] Alexander Hamilton June of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, The Federalist Papers No. 78, "The Judiciary Department"
[28] "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton, John Emerich Edward Dahlberg-Acton (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston: Beacon Press, p. 364
[29] Montesquieu in his "De l'Espirit des Lois" (1748) (The Spirit of the Law) defines three main kinds of political systems: republican, monarchical, and despotic. Driving each classification of political system, according to Montesquieu, must be what he calls a "principle". This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior on the part of the citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make it function smoothly. For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics), this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. For monarchies, the spring is the love of honor -- the desire to attain greater rank and privilege. Finally, for despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler. We the People have currently a despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
[30] "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton, John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston: Beacon Press, p. 364
[31] 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 is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[32] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[33] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[34] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[35] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[36] Justice without regard to equity irrefutably impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into homelessness for FOUR YEARS! The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 7th Amendment's secures the right to settle all disputes/suits: "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" assures justice as regards equity.
[37] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law. For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[38] "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 (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[39] 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."
[42] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967) (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[43] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[45] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[46] 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
[47] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[48] 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.
[49] "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
[51] 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 (or now the State of Missouri) 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 (or now the State of Missouri), and no verdict against them for their failure of duty can be obtained before a South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) jury, the State of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), 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 (or now the State of Missouri) 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 (or now the State of Missouri) 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." "But it is a fact, asserted in the report, that of the hundreds of outrages committed upon loyal people through the agency of this Ku Klux organization, not one has been punished. This defect in the administration of the laws does not extend to other cases. Vigorously enough are the laws enforced against Union people. They only fail in efficiency when a man of known Union sentiments, white or black, invokes their aid. Then Justice closes the door of her temples." Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 505. (Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 178) (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity).
[52] It should be noted that in a civil dispute, where we ALL HAVE RIGHTS, the exclusionary rule is meaningless.
[56] See also USCA8 #07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947 and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court #07-11115
[57] "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners" and you have the moronic audacity to ask why???? "Why We Must Fix Our Prisons", By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009, U.S. Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: February 29, 2008, Our Real Prison Problem. Why are we so worried about Gitmo? Newsweek by Dahlia Lithwick Published June 5, 2009
ESCALATING from Motion to reconsider dated Tuesday June 14, 2011 12:00 AM | |||||
| Waking Seconds | Rate | Totals | Rel % | ||
| Loss of unrestricted Driving Privileges | 184,588,273 | $ 0.016015612 | $ 2,956,294.15 | 1.72131664% | |
| Loss of career potential WORK as related to driving | 136,379,473 | $ 0.031601280 | $ 4,309,765.89 | 2.50938214% | |
| Loss of custody of my son | 174,750,673 | $ 0.069735301 | $ 12,186,290.83 | 7.09552707% | |
| Alienation of affection immediate family | 136,379,473 | $ 0.013102970 | $ 1,786,976.10 | 1.04047552% | |
| Alienation of affection immediate Friends | 136,379,473 | $ 0.012332207 | $ 1,681,859.86 | 0.97927108% | |
| Loss of Little League, Cub Scouts, Pinewood Derby, Boy Scouts, 3 years of High School Memories | 174,750,673 | $ 0.064461203 | $ 11,264,638.58 | 6.55889057% | |
| Loss of possessions | 174,750,673 | $ 0.031649279 | $ 5,530,732.73 | 3.22029602% | |
| Homelessness less Jail | 66,798,673 | $ 0.069585073 | $ 4,648,190.52 | 2.70643152% | |
| Jail Time | 23,707,200 | $ 0.076858535 | $ 1,822,100.65 | 1.06092696% | |
| Loss of Sleep, Humiliation, Pain and Suffering | 184,588,273 | $ 0.050994250 | $ 9,412,940.46 | 5.48073034% | |
| Punitive Damages | $ 55,599,789.78 | 32.37324787% | |||
| Legal Fees as a percentage of Punitive Damages | $ 55,599,789.78 | 32.37324787% | |||
| Tuesday, June 14, 2011 | 4.25000000% | $ 4,946,727.97 | 2.88025640% | ||
| Thursday February 23 2012 04:46 PM | $ 171,746,097.30 | 100.00000000% | |||
| $ 171,746,000.00 | |||||
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
