Class: First-Class Mail® - Service(s): Certified Mail™
Label/Receipt Number: 70031680000080632866
Expected Delivery Date: March
9, 2012 --- NOT DELIVERED Friday March 16, 2012 01:02:33.01 PM
Although the United States Post Office has not Certified delivery the Supreme Court has docketed the petition, "Feb 22 2012 Petition for Rehearing filed"
--------------------------------------------------
William K. Suter, ClerkAlthough the United States Post Office has not Certified delivery the Supreme Court has docketed the petition, "Feb 22 2012 Petition for Rehearing filed"
| Feb 22 2012 | Petition for Rehearing filed. |
| Mar 21 2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2012. |
c/o Gail Johnson
Supreme Court of the United States
Office of the Clerk
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: David G. Jeep v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States
No. 11-8211 Resubmittal of motion for rehearing
Dear People,
I am in receipt of your letter dated and postmarked February 29, 2012, received March 5, 2012. In response I submit the following
1. Certificate of Good Faith Submission dated Tuesday, March 06, 2012 (1 page)
2. To be CLEAR, Statement of Damages and Relief Sought dated Tuesday, March 06, 2012 with escalation accounting detail as of Tuesday March 06 2012 10:53:67 AM (2 pages)
3. Motion for REHEARING dated Tuesday, March 06, 2012 (4 pages).
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
--------------------------------------------------
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
Certificate of Good Faith Submission
I here with certify that this petition for rehearing, based on "intervening circumstances" and "grounds not previously submitted," is being submitted in "good faith and not for delay."
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, Tuesday, March 06, 2012
___________________________________________
David G. Jeep
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred, (314) 514-5228
The plaintiff is homeless and without the will to go on because of this issue AND SEEKS EMERGENCY RELIEF!!!
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Statement of Damages and Relief Sought
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
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[1] (writ of audita querela).[2]
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)(writ of audita querela).[3]
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. (writ of audita querela).[4]
IV. Actual Damages[5] in the amount of:
Fifty Million Dollars------------------$50,000,000.00
One Hundred Million Dollars-----------$100,000,000.00
[1] 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.
[2] A writ of audita querela inhibits the unconscionable use of a lawful judgment because of matters arising subsequent to the judgment.
[3] A writ of audita querela, ibid.
[4] A writ of audita querela, ibid.
[5] See enclosed worksheet for more detail on damages
[6] 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."
[7] 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."
--------------------------------------------------
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]
Based on "intervening circumstances" of the callous revealing assertions of your victim[2] Donna R. Andrieu,[3] an assistant district attorney in New Orleans, in Smith v. Cain, No. 10-8145 I feel it necessary to assert "grounds not previously submitted."
"The Wrong,"[4]the basis of my injury, is uncontested in FOUR 8th Circuit Federal Court Appeals cases, 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425 and can be reviewed in detail there. For the sake of brevity I will state, verbatim, only the evidence of the LARGEST and most damaging denial of Due Process:
"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."[5]
A Judge's finding can not amend the pleading during a hearing on that pleading or due process of law[6] is meaningless. This was devastating[7] and a flagrant denial of Due Process rights. Say we try you for petty theft, but find you guilty of murder?
The "grounds not previously submitted" are:
"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives." United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) @ Page 220.
"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."[8]
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour."[9]
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."
The REVISED QUESTION:
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity" [10] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[11] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America,"[12] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[13]
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, Tuesday, March 06, 2012 03:54.54 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)
(314) 514-5228
The plaintiff is homeless and without the will to go on because of this issue AND SEEKS EMERGENCY RELIEF!!!
[1] I also include by REFERENCE 360+ entries on my blog www.DGJeep.blogspot.com
[2] Your victims have been benumbed to Justice in both law and equity by your assertion that they like the "KING CAN DO NO WRONG." It is important to STRESS LAW and EQUITY.
[3] "Justices Rebuke a New Orleans Prosecutor" New York Times, November 8, 2011, By ADAM LIPTAK
[4] See http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012/03/jeep-vobama-wrong-undisputed.html
[5] 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 Due Process right.
[5] 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 Due Process right.
[6] "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution… 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." (STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U. S. 398 (1932)).
[7] Not only did it take my son and home it left emotionally devastated, "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... 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
[8] FEDERALIST No. 78 "The Judiciary Department" From McLEAN'S Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 Alexander Hamilton
[9] The Constitution for the United States of America, Article III. Section. 1. "The judicial Power of the United States shall"
[10] "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. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[11] 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"
[13] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for FOUR YEARS! The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable 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 secures the right to settle all 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.
Current Track & Confirm e-mail information provided by the U.S.
Postal Service.
Label Number: 7003 1680 0000 8063 2866
Expected Delivery By:
March 9, 2012
Certified Mail™
Detailed Results:
Processed at USPS Origin Sort Facility, March 10, 2012, 1:13 pm,
WASHINGTON, DC 20018
Dispatched to Sort Facility, March 06, 2012, 5:53 pm, SAINT LOUIS,
MO 63101
Acceptance, March 06, 2012, 4:29 pm, SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101
Expected Delivery Date: March 9, 2012 --- NOT DELIVERED
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
