Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: Your CLERK's DEADBEAT DODGE
Dear Mr. Roberts,[1]
I thought I had seen it all in THREE Petitions for Writ of Certiorari[2] to the Supreme Court. You must have taken these people to school in STUPIDITY with you! Your CLERKS, Ms. Gail Johnson and Ms. S. Elliott, acting in the name of Mr. William K. Suter, have stooped lowers than the LOWEST of dim witted DEADBEAT DEBTORS claiming they did not receive First-Class Certified Mail and leaving their voice mail FOREVER full so that they can assert they can not be reached by phone or First-Class Certified Mail.
I would if I had a CREDIBLE court system go over to the courthouse swear out a complaint. But the corrupt malicious and incompetent GUILD OF JUDGES has the FIX in already. No one questions anybody else's self-created, SELF-SERVING absolute immunity.
I had an hour and half meeting YESTERDAY with your attack dogs the US Marshall's Service. They apparently got copies of all the Mail, addressed to your clerks, that somehow your clerks NEVER RECEIVED???
I have to assume that your mail is not being screened for you. Not that it makes any difference at all, I never send mail just to you. I ALWAYS copy in the WORLD-WIDE-WEB as it were. Apparently your court clerks do not get the First-Class Certified Mail delivered to your office. They ask for responses and then ignorantly fail to follow up and acknowledge those very same First-Class Certified Mail responses.
It is kind of like the e-mail fiasco of a few weeks back with the head of the CIA… "If the head of the CIA's e-mail can be hacked what does that say for the rest of our rights to privacy?"
As we both know the TRUTH of the matter, unbeknownst to We the People, is that absolute immunity quashes the inalienable constitutional civil rights of American citizens every day in this country. Your inherited,[3] supported[4] and current[5] defense of absolute immunity is without basis in Common Law,[6] Supreme Court precedent,[7] Constitutional[8] or Statute Law.[9] It is unbridled corrupt, malicious and incompetent judicial hubris from a racially bigoted post-Civil War Supreme Court.
You expect those that oppose you to bow down to your superior title of nobility. I THINK NOT!!!!! I now refuse to even attempt to be civil to a pack of lying deadbeat dodge FRAUDS. When in fact, as has been the case for two hundred twenty-five years, titles of nobility have been unconstitutional.[10]
The truth of the Guild of JUDGE'S flagrant corruption, malice and incompetents covered up your on going effort to maintain ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from the Supreme Law of Land will very soon come crashing down on you like the perversion files of the Catholic Church and The Boy Scouts of America. The TRUTH will triumph in the end and if your legacy survives as anything more than infamous foot note to the end of the Absolute Immunity era I will be surprised!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"I Would Be Laughing at the Absurdity, If I was Not Already CRYING From The PAIN and HUMILIATION"[11] of your malicious, corrupt and incompetent actions. "The Most Corrupt Organization in the World is the United States of America's Justice department."[12]
See the copy of my First-Class Certified Mail [13] letter to your DEADBEAT CLERK dated Tuesday, December 18, 2012 on my blog.[14] I can't mail it to you STAMPS are too expensive for those of us that have been victimized by the corrupt, malicious, incompetent unconstitutional GUILD OF JUDGES!!!!!
Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Gail Johnson, Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: Reply to letters dated September 21, 2012, October 3, 2012 and Phone call of the morning of Monday, December 17, 2012 - return of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case #12-2435, AGAIN!!!!!!
Dear People,
I realize this is a war of attrition, but the last word is what we both seek. If nine years of deprivation, 411 days of illegal incarceration and 5 years of homelessness do not prove the gravitas of my intent nothing will. You would prefer me to just fade away into the ether and never breathe a word about my loss. That AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
I sent my ORIGINAL Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to your office dated Friday, September 14, 2012.[15] It was delivered to your office First-Class Certified Mail Tuesday, September 18, 2012. I received a letter from Ms. S. Elliot's of your office dated Friday, September 21, 2012. I responded to Ms. S. Elliot's letter, First-Class Certified Mail, Wednesday, September 26, 2012.[16] I received your, Gail Johnson's, letter dated Wednesday, October 03, 2012 acknowledging all this. I responded to your, Gail Johnson, letter via First-Class Certified Mail Monday, October 15, 2012.[17] In that I had not received anything I sent a letter addressed to:
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
as a follow-up to my letter dated Monday, October 15, 2012 on Friday November 09, 2012 and delivered First-Class Certified Mail[18] to your office November 15, 2012, 11:19 am.
Additionally I sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, street addressed as above, dated Friday, November 30, 2012 delivered, First-Class Certified Mail, Wednesday, December 05, 2012 11:01am[19] following up on all prior communication in this regard.
I left several messages on Gail Johnson's phone 12/05/12 2:30 PM CST, 12/07/12 1:57PM CST, 12/07/12 2:30PM CST and 12/13/12 2:40PM CST (S. Elliot 12/04/12 12.27PM CST and 12/07/12 2:00PM CST). This morning 12/17/12 8:45AM CST, I finally called and got Ms. Johnson on the phone.
Now I responded to all Ms. Elliot's and Ms. Johnson's concerns in my First-Class Certified Mail delivered to your office 10/02/12 10:51am and 10/22/12 11:05am additionally my follow up letters as addressed above were delivered via First-Class Certified Mail 11/15/12 11:19am and 12/05/12 11:01am.
I realize you have no accountability to anyone, you assert the royalty of an unconstitutional title of nobility.[20] NONETHELESS I want to go on record, this is an ongoing[21] personal emergency and has been declared as such since the inception of the issue at the Supreme Court with Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 (See also Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211).
Your corrupt criminal cohorts somehow want to hide behind the shield of the unconstitutional assertion that liability requires "difficult problems of proof" [22] if not an impossibly "stringent standard of fault."[23] Why would We the People even have written or committed to a constitution if the right to an "ex industria, [24] power to enforce"[25] justice and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity were not secured by the inherent reciprocity of 1st [26]and 7th Amendment[27] de facto re-spondeat superior strict liability?[28] To say that "Give(n) a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice"[29] We the People should accept your shirking on behalf of my government's strict liability and responsibility for the deprivations of any reckonable[30] rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the supreme law[31] of the land is an incredible,[32] fantastic or delusional scenario![33]
It is only, "Give(n) a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice,"[34] reckonable[35] that the essence of the constitutional right to the protection of the law[36] is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected.[37] Any individual who is deprived of any reckonable[38] rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the supreme law[39] of the land, under authority of the government, state or federal, may properly complain that his constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities have been deprived.
The fraudulent deprivation of a justifiable "ex industria,[40] power to enforce"[41] my inalienable constitutional right to Due Process of Law[42] precludes any statute of limitations or issue of "vexatious"[43] or "calumnious"[44] actions as I cite in my current petition:
"The fraud exception to rei publicae, ut sit finis litium,[45] and nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadam causa[46] as noted in United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65 (1878) is applicable here "But there is an admitted exception to this general rule in cases where, by reason of something done by the successful party[47] to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial[48] or decision[49] of the issue in the case. Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court." Not only was the petitioner, the unsuccessful party, never given a chance to defend himself, he was never even given the specifics of the cause for the finding under which his son, his life and all his belongs were taken."[50]
For me this personal and has been a personal emergency for the past 9.60 years, 3,502 calendar days, 56,039 waking hours, 3,362,326 waking minutes, or 201,739,553 waking seconds, as of Monday December 17, 2012 11:08:49.12 AM CST.
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 MEMORANDUM 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 follow up letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts dated Friday, November 30, 2012 (4 pages)
e. A copy of the follow up letter to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thursday, November 08, 2012 (3 pages)
f. A copy of the transmittal letter dated Monday October 15, 2012 (pages 5)
g. A copy of the transmittal letter dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012. (stamped received Oct 3-2012 by the Office of the Clerk Supreme Court US)
h. SPREADSHEET for escalating Damages - Monday December 17, 2012 03:04:46.82 PM ( 1 page)
i. Damages and Injunctive Relief Monday December 17, 2012 03:04:46.82 PM (2 pages)
cc: My Blog - Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 4:00:52 PM
[1] I cannot call you Chief Justice, even this reference to it makes me SICK TO MY STOMACH!!!! The Supreme Court has with its self-serving creation of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for itself and its sycophants, judicial (""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 potential denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence (HOW do the judges justify independence from the Supreme Law land they WERE TO BE BOND BY?) 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), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) & Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)), prosecutorial (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)), enforcement (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)) and miscellaneous henchman ("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. 335 (1983))
[2] 07-11115, 11-8211 and NOW Petition for Writ of Certiorari on Appeal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case #12-2435
[3] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)
[4] Supported by the impeachable Supreme Court FIVE in the "7th Amendment 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!!!"
[5] ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges, the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent ) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.
[6] Floyd and Barker (1607), "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."
[7] Marbury v. Madison - 5 U.S. 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. """
[8] 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.
[9] The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, enacted April 20, 1871, over the specific expressed objections to judicial, legislative and ministerial officer's liability of President Johnson's Veto
[10] 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." Additionally I cite Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 as further timely clarification of the supreme law of the land:
"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."
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 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your Label Number
|
Service
|
Status of Your Item
|
Date & Time
|
Location
|
Features
| |
First-Class Mail®
|
Dispatched to Sort Facility
|
December 18, 2012, 7:11 pm
|
SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155
|
Expected Delivery By:
December 21, 2012 Certified Mail™ | ||
Acceptance
|
December 18, 2012, 1:12 pm
|
SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155
|
[14] http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-supreme-court-would-have-you.html At the bottom of the post.
[15] Stamped received by the OFFICEOF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT U.S. dated Sep 19 2012
Label Number: 7012 1010 0001 4416 3690
Service Type: First-Class Certified Mail
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivered WASHINGTON DC 20543 09/18/12 10:57am
Notice Left (No WASHINGTON DC 20543 09/18/12 10:52am
Authorized Recipient Available)
Arrival at Unit WASHINGTON DC 20018 09/18/12 10:38am
Dispatched to Sort SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 09/14/12 3:28pm
Facility
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 09/14/12 1:38pm
[16] Label Number: 7012 1010 0001 4421 2589
Service Type: First-Class Certified Mail
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivered WASHINGTON DC 20543 10/02/12 10:51am
Arrival at Unit WASHINGTON DC 20018 10/02/12 10:47am
Dispatched to Sort SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 09/27/12 5:30pm
Facility
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 09/27/12 11:58am
Label Number: 7012 1640 0000 7272 2100
Service Type: First-Class Certified Mail
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice Left (No WASHINGTON DC 20543 10/21/12 12:43pm
Authorized Recipient Available)
Arrival at Unit WASHINGTON DC 20018 10/21/12 11:42am
Depart USPS Sort WASHINGTON DC 20066 10/18/12
Facility
Processed at USPS WASHINGTON DC 20066 10/17/12 7:21pm
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
[18] Label Number: 7012 1010 0001 4421 3654
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
[19] Label Number: 7012 1010 0001 4421 4590
Service Type: First-Class Certified Mail
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivered WASHINGTON DC 20543 12/05/12 11:01am
Notice Left (No WASHINGTON DC 20543 12/05/12 10:55am
Authorized Recipient Available)
Arrival at Unit WASHINGTON DC 20018 12/05/12 10:31am
Dispatched to Sort SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 11/30/12 5:30pm
Facility
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 11/30/12 12:43pm
[20] 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." Additionally I cite Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 as further timely clarification of the supreme law of the land:
"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."
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 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[21] See the enclosed updated escalating damages and injunctive relief. dated Monday December 17, 2012 03:04:46.82 PM
[24] With contrivance or deliberation; designedly; on purpose. Seel Kent,Comm. 318; Martin v. Hunter, 1 r Wheat. 334, 4 L. Ed. 97. (Black's Law Dictionary)
[26] Amendment I,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[27] 7th Amendment's security "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."
[28] In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability.
[29] SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting) United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 "It is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. 453 (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct (probable casue) is forbidden." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954). See Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391-393 (1926); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 405 U. S. 162 (1972); Dunn v. United States, ante at 442 U. S. 112-113. So too, vague sentencing provisions may pose constitutional questions if they do not state with sufficient clarity the consequences of violating a given criminal statute. See United States v. Evans, 333 U. S. 483 (1948); United States v. Brown, 333 U. S. 18 (1948); cf. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399 (1966)." (Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis)
[30] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[31] 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.
[32] "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!!!!!
[33] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[34] SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting) United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 "It is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. 453 (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct (probable casue) is forbidden." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954). See Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391-393 (1926); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 405 U. S. 162 (1972); Dunn v. United States, ante at 442 U. S. 112-113. So too, vague sentencing provisions may pose constitutional questions if they do not state with sufficient clarity the consequences of violating a given criminal statute. See United States v. Evans, 333 U. S. 483 (1948); United States v. Brown, 333 U. S. 18 (1948); cf. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399 (1966)." (Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis)
[35] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[36] "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)) Sovereign immunity does not exist for rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the supreme law of the land
[37] "It is the fact, clearly established, of injury to the complainant -- not to others -- which justifies judicial intervention. Williams v. Hagood, 98 U. S. 72, 98 U. S. 74-75; Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325, 114 U. S. 328-329; Tyler v. Judges, 179 U. S. 405, 179 U. S. 406; Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U. S. 51, 187 U. S. 60; Davis & Farnum v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207, 189 U. S. 220; Hooker v. Burr, 194 U. S. 415, 194 U. S. 419; Braxton County Court v. West Virginia, 208 U. S. 192, 208 U. S. 197; Collins v. Texas, 223 U. S. 288, 223 U. S. 295-296." McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 162 (1914)
[38] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[39] 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.
[40] With contrivance or deliberation; designedly; on purpose. Seel Kent,Comm. 318; Martin v. Hunter, 1 r Wheat. 334, 4 L. Ed. 97. (Black's Law Dictionary)
[42] See the facts of the case as originally submitted in Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals cases 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425 and 12-2435. I was deprived of the exculpable evidence of probable cause on a warrant that deprived me unconstitutionally of my Paternity, property and liberty.
[43] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871) "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," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor
[44] Floyd and Barker (1607) "And those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual Calumniations," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor.
[45] It is for the public good that there be an end of litigation.
[46] No-one shall be tried or punished twice in regards to the same event, "double jeopardy."
[47] The combination of the TWO issues into one created the DEVASTATION in my life. The successful parties to the suit include the Judge Goeke, Commissioner Jones, Sharon G. Jeep and Kristen Capps in 03FC-010670 and Judge Bennett's conspiracy, Judge Colyer, The Prosecutors (denial of exculpable evidence) and Police Officers (false testimony) in CR203-1336M.
[48] Probable cause is the most essential of all exculpable evidence. How can you have a trial when there is no viable probable cause provided (Eighth Circuit court of appeals case 07-2614 (4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243))?
[49] Eighth Circuit court of appeals case 08-1823 (4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M) where the prosecutors denied pretrial motions for exculpable evidence (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 87 (1963), "We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.")
[50] See item 12 on pages 17 and 18 of 27 on the signed notarized and dated petition Wednesday, September 26, 2012, as previously submitted on the same date.
--
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
