Your Label Number
Service
Service Type: First-Class Certified Mail
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
------------------------------
Delivered WASHINGTON DC 20543 11/15/12 11:19am
Arrival at Unit WASHINGTON DC 20018 11/15/12 11:15am
Dispatched to Sort SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 11/09/12 4:39pm
Facility
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 11/09/12 9:38am
Reminder: Track & Confirm by email
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
------------------------------
Delivered WASHINGTON DC 20543 11/15/12 11:19am
Arrival at Unit WASHINGTON DC 20018 11/15/12 11:15am
Dispatched to Sort SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 11/09/12 4:39pm
Facility
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 11/09/12 9:38am
Reminder: Track & Confirm by email
Gail Johnson/S. Elliot, Clerk of the Court
c/o Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
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 Ms. Bader Ginsburg,
I am seeking a response to my letter as referenced above dated Tuesday, October 16, 2012.[1] Even though this has been an ongoing issue for more than nine years, this is still an emergency for me, time is of the ESSENCE!!!!
I first approached the Supreme Court on this issue in the spring of 2008.[2] I went to the Supreme Court only after realizing that the State courts were at fault and would never admit to their CORRUPTION. I was then maliciously or corruptly denied at the Supreme Court.
I was maliciously or corruptly arrested in March of 2009 for threatening Judges and held in my Government's custody for 411 days. During the corrupt incarceration I was thoroughly examined. I successfully asserted my competence with TWO psychological exams. The charges were dismissed in April of 2010[3] for failure on the Government's part to prosecute in a timely fashion, before I had the chance to EXPOSE the corrupt charges for what they were FRAUD on the COURT and violation of my right to openly criticize my Government.
After my release and in the interim I wrote several letters to SEVERAL people, yourself and the Supreme Court of the United States included. I again submitted a formal Petition for a Writ of Certiorari last year with 11-8211.[4] I was maliciously or corruptly denied "Apr 16 2012 Rehearing DENIED."
I am now back again as referenced above.
The case is and has been since its inception a clear and undisputed denial of the constitutionally secured Due Process[5] right to the constitutionally required reckonable[6] Exculpable Evidence[7] of Probable Cause.[8] Thus the Supreme Courts continued denial of rights is a FRAUD upon the COURT by an officer of the court. Fraud on the court by an officer of the court clearly, maliciously and/or corruptly and/or incompetently negates Justice, the court's raison d'être.[9]
Now the court's assertion in Owen v. City of Independence begs the question with its assertion of "section 1983 liability," because rights as defined Blackstone in English Common Law and then incorporated into Supreme Court precedent by Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 163 (1803) "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" is not only the raison d'être for "section 1983 liability," but the raison d'être for the Supreme Law of the Land. [10] The deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress is actionable under section 1983 liability" but also under 1st and 7th Amendment's protection and as COMMON LAW incorporated into Supreme Court precedent by Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 163 (1803).
My rights have been invaded by the fraud on the court instigated by an officer of the court and then sustained by subsequent the corrupt denials of my appeals to my Government via Petition[11] to the Supreme Court of The United States.[12]
Now I realize your time is being consumed by your hubris as regards yourself serving asserted jurisdiction[13] on issues where you have no reason to be involved, Same Sex Marriage as defined by recent state wide referendum. Talk about an invasion of liberty. How does the Supreme Court think they have anything restraining to say about this issue[14] AT ALL???? The blessings of liberty surly and definitely include the LIBERTY to love and LUST between consenting ADULTS!!!!!!!!!!
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. Letter dated Tuesday, October 16, 2012, 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, US Post Office Certified Delivery Label Number: 7012 1640 0000 7272 2100 I do not have the money to copy or send all the attachments, original 5 pages only. It is all on my blog www.DGJeep.blogspot.com
cc: My Blog - Friday, November 09, 2012, 11:41:47 AM
Monday, October 15, 2012
Gail Johnson/S. Elliot, Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the United StatesOne 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,[15] prosecutorial[16] or enforcement[17] powers.
By definition NO ONE can be immune from the reckonable[18] supreme Law of the Land.[19] 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,[20] prosecutorial[21] or enforcement[22] malice,[23] corruption or incompetence.[24]
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."[25]
"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,[26] and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court."[27] (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))[28]
Without the liberty to pursue civil Justice with the protection of the (reckonable[29]) 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[30] supreme Law of the Land[31] the Founding Fathers would have been and We the People are at the desecration of unrestrained sophistry which may serve any personal judicial,[32] prosecutorial[33] or enforcement[34] malice,[35] corruption or incompetence.[36]
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"[37] with their blanket grant of absolute immunity to the judicial,[38] prosecutorial[39] or enforcement[40] power for malice,[41] corruption or incompetence.[42]
10. That is not reasonable and in DIRECT and irrefutable contradiction of the opinion below[43] and is therefore an incredible,[44] fantastic or delusional scenario.[45]
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[46] EMERGENCY PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 9.34 years[47] 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
b. 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.
c. 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.
d. 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"
e. A copy of the transmittal letter dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012.
cc: My Blog - Friday, November 09, 2012, 11:41:47 AM
[1] Tuesday, October 16, 2012, 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, US Certified Mail Label Number: 7012 1640 0000 7272 2100, Delivered WASHINGTON DC 20543 10/22/12 11:05am
[2] See PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI 07-11115 dated Friday, May 16, 2008
[4] Docketed Petition for a Writ of Certiorari No 11-8211 dated Wednesday, January 11, 2012 02:02.02PM [5] The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings),substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
[6] Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[7] The Common Law v. Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83
[8] the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[9] "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 decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre. [Footnote 41] " Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 656 (1980)
[10] 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" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America.
[11] "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932). [9] "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 decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre. [Footnote 41] " Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 656 (1980)
[10] 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" 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" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
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 4.75 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.
[12] Pursuant to any reckonable interpretation of the Supreme Court in the seminal decision in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 163 (1803)
"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."
There was no such thing as Sovereign Immunity in "Great Britain" in 1803 and thus there is no foundation for it in common law now in a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Why would We the People have even written a constitution if it was ever our intent to grant immunity from our Supreme Law of the Land. And who in their right mind would even consider writing a law without enforcement provisions.
Edward R. Murrow's oft quoted remark comes to mind, "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular."
[13] Other than to assert the obvious that Contracts validated by the federal government and the states of Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Maine, Maryland, and Washington are valid in all states
[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 (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)
[17] 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)
[18] Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[19] Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[20] ""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"[19] Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[21] 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)[23] 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)
[24] 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 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.
[25] 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.[26] 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law… abridging the… the right of the people peaceably… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[28] 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.
[29] Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[30] Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[31] Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[32] ""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
[33] 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)
[35] 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)
[36] 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 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.
[37] Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883)
[38] ""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"[37] Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883)
-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[39] 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)
[41] 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)
[42] 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 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.
[43] From the United States District Court Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division case #4:12CV703 CEJ Doc #:5 filed 4/27/12[45] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[46] 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."
[47] 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
--
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
