Friday, August 17, 2012

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001

Re: Help

Dear Justice Ginsburg,
I submit this to you, because I believe you to possibly be the only Justice on the court, even though you are a listed respondent,[1] that can actually see through all the sophistry[2] to LIMIT the government originating with the Magna Carta's (§ 61) common law/sense general and indisputable axiom...  "it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded" therefore "every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." [3]  That is the raison d'ĂȘtre,[4] the reciprocal love of virtue,[5] for a democratic/republican constitution… the rule of law.
I realize that you have among your peers idiots that maintain that regulating 14% of the nation's commerce, health care, is not addressed by congress's enumerated necessary and proper[6] power to regulate Commerce among the several States[7] and in the same virtual breath they can assert that the right to sue our government in the respectful form of a petition[8] for a redress of a grievance for the conceded denial[9] of Due Process of Law that has resulted in the deprivation of life, liberty or property is without 1st and 7th Amendment remedy. 
Of course the normal humility that should govern anyone's action in a government founded on the principle that all men are created equal need not apply to those that have been unconstitutionally ennobled[11] by the SELF-PROCLAIMED grant of absolute immunity.  Chief Justice Roberts recently used the reference "embarrass the future."[12]  I would assert the assertion of absolute immunity criminally[13] embarrasses the future and the past of the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court has criminally, maliciously, dishonestly and incompetently usurped power setting the Judiciary and others[14] up as Nobility[15] with absolute immunity.  "Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility (i.e., absolute immunity). This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people."[16]
We have to remember the spring that motivated our founding fathers; it was not fear of lawlessness, but abuse of power and the allied love of virtue.  Yes they would have admitted a need for the deterrent of the law, but that was preceded and exceeded by the love of virtue that established the reciprocity of due process of law as the prerequisite for the punitive actions of the State to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.  The love of virtue is the belief in the inherent reciprocity of Due Process and a jury of your peers before the punitive deterrent.  With the application of absolute immunity in the Jane Crow[17] / Plea bargain[18] era the inherent reciprocity of due process of law and jury of your peers is no longer a requisite for society's judicial, prosecutorial or enforcement to arbitrarily if not randomly, deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.
Unbeknownst to the majority of Americans, the 99% percenters, the 1% has, with absolute immunity attached, made the United States of America, the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, into the least free, most fearful[19] and largest police state in the WORLD"With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners."[20]
Any help in expediting Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Case No.: 12-2345, Eastern Missouri U.S. District Court Case No.: 4:12-cv-703-CEJ to POSITIVE conclusion for the author/petitioner would be GREATLY appreciated.
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
cc:  My Blog - Friday, August 17, 2012, 3:28:20 PM

[1] If you would eliminate the institutional denial of what should be PUBLIC INFORMATION, as relates to the Supreme Court, from receipt of a new petition to final disposition, you would have a defense.  "We the People" are paying for it, we should have access to everything the court does!!!!!
[2] Paraphrased from a letter Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler (May 26, 1810), From "The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[4] "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. 656 (1980)
[5] "The Spirit of the Laws" a treatise on political theory published Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in 1748 defines three main political systems: republican, monarchical, and despotic.  For each form of government there is a spring that motivates behavior to support the system.  For democratic 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. A political system cannot last long if its spring is not in effect.
[6] Constitution for the United States of America, Section. 8., The Congress shall have Power To - Item 17. "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
[7] Constitution for the United States of America, Section. 8., The Congress shall have Power To - Item 2. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
[8] "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803).
[10] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]"  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[11] 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." 
You somehow 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 assert "the prohibition of titles of nobility" was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute 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 Nat "King" Cole violate the constitution?  No one is that petty.  Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[13] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, "This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S."
[14] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871), Pierson v. Ray - 386 U.S. 547 (1967), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976), and  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[15] Titles of Nobility are constitutionally prohibited. Ibid.
[16] FEDERALIST No. 84, Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788, BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON 
[17] The "Jane Crow" Era, the courts preference for a mother's/woman's rights over a father's/man's rights in Domestic Relation Law
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."
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,,The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08
[18] In the Jane Crow/plea bargain era, how does one fight the corrupt and malicious actions of a judge, the dishonesty and denial of exculpable evidence by prosecutors, the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" or "a frivolous exparte order of protection" in the Jane Crow family courts under color of law when the deal is controlled and slanted in favor of the largest malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent police state in the modern world.  Plea out now before trial to X years or we go for the maximum X plus 10 years, if not life in prison.  That is not a negotiation; that is an offer you can't refuse.
[19] Our streets are not 5 times as safe nor are they 5 times as unsafe, we have been manipulated by the FEAR mongers to FEAR ourselves without reason for the political POWER gain of our elected officials. 
[20] "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
E-mail is preferred,
(314) 514-5228

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