Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Virtual Republican Representation and Judicial Tyranny v. Civil Rights



Virtual Republican Representation
v.
Civil Rights
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
a country in which nobody[2] is ever truly safe."[3]
Tuesday, June 26, 2012, 11:54:06 AM
       Absolute Judicial Immunity, as defined by the Supreme Court in Bradley (1871) offered "If in the exercise of the powers with which they are clothed as ministers of justice they act with partiality, or maliciously, or corruptly, or arbitrarily, or oppressively, they may be called to an account by impeachment and suspended or removed from office.[5]"  That is all well and good if the act with "partiality, or maliciously, or corruptly, or arbitrarily, or oppressively" is at odds with the representative majority or in the case of senatorial impeachment a cloture, Super Majority, to put down a filibuster. But if it is at odds with individual rights Virtual Republican Representation was never intended to be the last line of defense for individual rights. 
       How does the minority victim of an act with "partiality, or maliciously, or corruptly, or arbitrarily, or oppressively" get relief?  I quote from Bivens, "But it must also be recognized that the Bill of Rights is particularly intended to vindicate the interests of the individual in the face of the popular will as expressed in legislative majorities; at the very least.[6]"  It is minorities that need "The Protection of the Law"[7], a majority has the strength of overwhelming numbers.  Again I agree with and quote from Bivens, "For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing."[8]
       Civilization has evolved from the law of the jungle, "survival of the fittest" to "an eye for an eye" to today "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you."  We no longer compete to the death, although litigation can at times seem like slow death.  We no longer ask for opposing parties to submit to mutilation.  What we do in VIRTUALLY all civilized countries is establish a pecuniary amount to compensate the victim for redress of grievances.[9]   
       Neal K. Katyal, Lead Counsel in the Supreme Court case that established civil rights for detainees at Guantanamo Bay,[10] further commented I think succinctly, "To be sure, there is always some political accountability when the legislature absolutely deprives aliens of their rights. For example, American citizens could be aghast at the MCA[11] and vote out those who voted for it in Congress. But that form of accountability is too weak, as it posits an uberempathetic voting population so concerned for the rights of others that they will vote on the basis of policies that do not impact their own lives. This is just too fanciful. Virtual representation cannot be effective if it depends on heroic assumptions of empathy, just as our early countrymen recognized by placing the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV and writing McCulloch with virtual representation in mind."[12]  The Supreme Court has said as stated prior, "But it must also be recognized that the Bill of Rights is particularly intended to vindicate the interests of the individual in the face of the popular will as expressed in legislative majorities; at the very least.[13]
       Historically, the claim of precedent and / or consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Absolute Immunity even in the Supreme Court has NEVER been asserted unanimously – without multiple dissenting Justice's opinions. 
       To assume that the founding fathers, who had just enacted the Constitution of the United States of America as the supreme Law of the Land, intended sub silentio,[14] all evidence to the contrary, to exempt ANYONE, especially those tasked with judicial,[15] prosecutorial[16]and enforcement[17] power from its paramount binding effect is a fantastic or delusional scenario.[18]

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[19]

There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[20]  We the People incorporated ourselves, in 1788, into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity with a lawfully un-abridge-able right of the people to justifiably petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
       How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[21] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[22] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[23] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[24]
       We the People have fallen under the despotic[25] spell of the concentrated power[26] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[27] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [28] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[29] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[30]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [31] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.

See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211 Jeep v. Obama

       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,[32] 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[33] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[34] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[35] "before out of Court"[36] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[37]
       "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. [38]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[39]

Impeach[40] the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[41]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[42] 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,[43]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[44] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[45] 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"[46]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[47] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[48] "The Exclusionary Rule," "Grounds for Impeachment."
        Most of the 99% of Americans have not had the pleasure and are silently intimidated by the prospect of being dragged through our corrupt COURTS kicking and screaming!!!!!!  I have been kicking and screaming for nearly 8 years.  I have suffered through 411 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."
We hold a "4-Year-Old Can Be Sued."[49]  We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. [50]  We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. [51]  We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. [52]  We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. [53]  But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence, malice and corruption of "our chief justice (judges), our officials (prosecutors), or any of our servants (law enforcement)" [54]  and compensate the victims?
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        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),[55] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [56] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[57] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[58]   The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[59] PROVES "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!!


DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Tuesday, June 26, 2012, 11:54:06 AM, 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc

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


[1] "Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 657 (1980)
Note, Developments in the Law: Section 1983 and Federalism, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 1133, 1224 (1977). See also Johnson v. State, 69 Cal.2d 782, 792-793, 447 P.2d 352, 359-360 (1968):
"Nor do we deem an employee's concern over the potential liability of his employer, the governmental unit, a justification for an expansive definition of 'discretionary,' and hence immune, acts. As a threshold matter, we consider it unlikely that the possibility of government liability will be a serious deterrent to the fearless exercise of judgment by the employee. In any event, however, to the extent that such deterrent effect takes hold, it may be wholesome. An employee in a private enterprise naturally gives some consideration to the potential liability of his employer, and this attention unquestionably promotes careful work; the potential liability of a governmental entity, to the extent that it affects primary conduct at all, will similarly influence public employees." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 657 (1980) as referenced Footnote 41
[2] "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.
[3] "Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added
[4] 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
[6] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (Page 403 U. S. 407) "(Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co. v. May, 194 U. S. 267, 194 U. S. 270 (1904)).
[9] Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[10] Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006) The Supreme Court precedential case that established military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949,"
[11] Military Commissions Act (MCA), Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600.
[12] 2007, 'Equality in the War on Terror' Neal K. Katyal, 59 Stan. L. Rev. 1365-1394 (2007)
[13] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (Page 403 U. S. 407) "(Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co. v. May, 194 U. S. 267, 194 U. S. 270 (1904)).
[14]  "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]"  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[15] ""It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused" (Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Law Reports Exchequer 220) Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[16] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "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." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
[17] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[8] by saying, "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."  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[19] Aldous Huxley
[20] You some how want to argue that "the grant of Nobility" was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility?  That would undermine Free-Enterprise.
Anyone that wants to assertion "the prohibition of titles of nobility' was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of theabsolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.
There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law?  Did NatKing Cole violate the constitution?  No one is that petty.  Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[21] "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 (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[22] 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"
[23] 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
[24] 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.
[25] 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 despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
[26] "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
[27] 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.
[28] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[30] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[31] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[32] Justice without regard to equity 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.
[33] 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.
[34] "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
[35] 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."
[39] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[40] "And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments… upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations." Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 81, "The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 stated that impeachment was to be used as an integral check for "Judicial Authority"
[42] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[43] 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
[44] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[45] 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.
[46] "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
[48] 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) non italic parenthetical text added fro clarity.
[49] "4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case" "Citing cases dating back as far as 1928, a New York State Supreme Court Justice has ruled that a young girl accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence."  Justice Paul Wooten of the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, New York Times, New York edition, Published: October 28, 2010, A version of this article appeared in print on October 29, 2010, on page A24 By Alan Feuer
[50] "Mark Zandi the chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "Dr. Zandi's analysis found that the cost of rescuing the industry, across all aid programs would be at minimum $75 billion, and maybe go as high as $120 billion or more."
[51]  Cost of War in Iraq $804,350,051,831, Cost of War in Afghanistan $537,364,138,152 Total Cost of Wars Since 2001$1,341,714,189,983
Please enable Javascript for the counter to update.
[52] "Recovery Bill Gets Final Approval" The New York Times, A version of this article appeared in print on February 14, 2009, on page A15 of the New York edition.
[53]  "Bailout Plan: $2.5 Trillion and a Strong U.S. Hand" The New York Times, By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and STEPHEN LABATON Published: February 10, 2009
[54] Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61)
[58] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211
[59] "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

--
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