Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
------------------------------
Delivered WASHINGTON DC 20543 10/22/12 11:05am
Delivered WASHINGTON DC 20543 10/22/12 11:05am
Notice Left (No WASHINGTON
DC 20543 10/21/12 12:43pm
Authorized Recipient Available)
Authorized Recipient Available)
Arrival at Unit WASHINGTON
DC 20018 10/21/12 11:42am
Depart USPS Sort WASHINGTON
DC 20066 10/18/12
Facility
Facility
Processed at USPS WASHINGTON
DC 20066 10/17/12 7:21pm
Origin Sort Facility
Origin Sort Facility
Dispatched to Sort SAINT
LOUIS MO 63101 10/15/12 5:38pm
Facility
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 10/15/12 1:44pm
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 10/15/12 1:44pm
Reminder: Track & Confirm by email
Date of email request: 10/15/12
Date of email request: 10/15/12
Expected Delivery By:
October 18, 2012
October 18, 2012
Certified Mail™
Gail Johnson/S. Elliot, Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: Reply to letters dated October 3, 2012 and September 21, 2012 and return of Writ of Certiorari on Appeal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case #12-2435
Dear People,
I am as requested responding to Gail Johnson's letter dated October 3, 2012 and received Friday October 12, 2012:
1. As regards Ms. Johnson's request for a "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" I am responding, as she stated in her letter dated October 3, 21012, "You may use the enclosed form." So as referenced by Ms. Johnson in her letter I am again enclosing A "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012, notarized 7 pages.
2. As regards Ms. Johnson's stated issues of compliance with rule 14, the two questions are listed on pages 4 & 5 of 27 on the signed notarized and dated petition dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012, as previously submitted on the same date, concisely as I am humanly possible to state the issues. The Issues are a reference to Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, 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"
3. The Lower opinions deny that any Judge is restrained by "the supreme Law of the Land" for two reasons, both stemming from the self-serving award of absolute immunity by the Supreme Court to the Supreme Court and its lower subservient judicial,[1] prosecutorial[2] or enforcement[3] powers.
By definition NO ONE can be immune from the reckonable[4] supreme Law of the Land.[5] Therefore the reference to Kahn v. Kahn 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) and Pen v. United States 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003) do not hold.
4. Clearly from the undisputed facts of the case, see page 8 of 27 of the signed notarized and dated petition dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012 as previously submitted on the same date, "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 fraudulently infamous crimes fraudulently combined into one while being denied the most basic elements of Due Process of Law, Probable cause and Exculpable evidence."
5. "Due Process of Law, Probable cause and Exculpable evidence" are NOT, as referenced in the petition dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012 as previously submitted on the same date, an ambiguous text, to be explained by sophistry into any meaning which may serve any personal judicial,[6] prosecutorial[7] or enforcement[8] malice,[9] corruption or incompetence.[10]
6. "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."[11]
"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,[12] and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court."[13] (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))[14]
Without the liberty to pursue civil Justice with the protection of the (reckonable[15]) laws civilization breaks down and we are back at the entrance to the cave fighting violently for the survival of the fittest.
7. Without a reckonable[16] supreme Law of the Land[17] the Founding Fathers would have been and We the People are at the desecration of unrestrained sophistry which may serve any personal judicial,[18] prosecutorial[19] or enforcement[20] malice,[21] corruption or incompetence.[22]
8. "Fairness of procedure is "due process in the primary sense." Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 281 U. S. 681. It is ingrained in our national traditions, and is designed to maintain them. In a variety of situations, the Court has enforced this requirement by checking attempts of executives, legislatures, and lower courts to disregard the deep-rooted demands of fair play enshrined in the Constitution."
"[T]his court has never held, nor must we now be understood as holding, that administrative officers, when executing the provisions of a statute involving the liberty of persons, may disregard the fundamental principles that inhere in 'due process of law' as understood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
One of these principles is that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without opportunity, at some time to be heard. . . ."
The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 189 U. S. 100-101.
"[B]y 'due process' is meant one which, following the forms of law, is appropriate to the case, and just to the parties to be affected. It must be pursued in the ordinary mode prescribed by the law; it must be adapted to the end to be attained; and wherever it is necessary for the protection of the parties, it must give them an opportunity to be heard respecting the justice of the judgment sought."
Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U. S. 701, 111 U. S. 708, Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 161-163 (1951)
9. The Supreme Court has embarrassed itself in the extreme by disregarding the CLEAR "sense and reason of the law"[23] with their blanket grant of absolute immunity to the judicial,[24] prosecutorial[25] or enforcement[26] power for malice,[27] corruption or incompetence.[28]
10. That is not reasonable and in DIRECT and irrefutable contradiction of the opinion below[29] and is therefore an incredible,[30] fantastic or delusional scenario.[31]
I am, again, as requested responding to S Elliot's letter dated September 21, 2012:
1. A copy of the transmittal letter dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012.
2. A copy of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division MEMEORANDUM AND ORDER (Doc#5) and ORDER OF DISSMISSAL (Doc#6) both dated 04/27/12 as regards case 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, 5 pages.
3. A "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012, notarized 7 pages.
4. Revised "A humble pro se[32] EMERGENCY PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 9.34 years[33] of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 27 pages, dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012.
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
a. A copy of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division MEMEORANDUM AND ORDER (Doc#5) and ORDER OF DISSMISSAL (Doc#6) both dated 04/27/12 as regards case 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, 5 pages.
b. A "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012, notarized 7 pages.
c. Revised "A humble pro se EMERGENCY PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 9.34 years of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 27 pages"
d. A copy of the transmittal letter dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012.
cc: My Blog - Tuesday, October 16, 2012, 11:07:03 AM
[1] ""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 (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[2] 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)
[3] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truth finding 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)
[5] Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[6] ""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 (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[7] 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)
[8] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truth finding 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)
[9] Paraphrased from a letter (May 26, 1810) Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From "The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[10] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[11] James Madison, FEDERALIST No. 51, "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments" For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, February 6, 1788.
[12] 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law… abridging the… the right of the people peaceably… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[13] 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."
[14] The oath office requires that if sued in the respectful form of a petition (1st Amendment right to petition), never fail to comply with the judgment of a 7th Amendment civil court.
[17] Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[18] ""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 (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[19] 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)
[20] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truth finding 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)
[21] Paraphrased from a letter (May 26, 1810) Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From "The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[22] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[24] ""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 (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[25] 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)
[26] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truth finding 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)
[27] Paraphrased from a letter (May 26, 1810) Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From "The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[28] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[29] From the United States District Court Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division case #4:12CV703 CEJ Doc #:5 filed 4/27/12
[30] "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!!!!!
[31] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[32] Because I am a humble non-legal professional and I have been impoverished by this criminal issue I cite the potential for Harmless error - 28 USC § 2111, "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."
[33] 9.34 years, 3,407 calendar days, 54,519 waking hours, 3,271,161 waking minutes, 196,269,665 waking seconds, as of Thursday September 13, 2012 12:01:37.51 PM
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
