Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri
Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse
111 South 10th Street
St. Louis, MO 63102-1125
Re: Jeep v. United
States of America, JURY DEMAND
Dear Sir,
I am herewith filing:
a. a complaint with JURY DEMAND dated Thursday, April 19, 2012 (18 pages)
b. a worksheet for escalating damages as referenced in the complaint
dated Thursday, April 19, 2012 (1 pages)
c. a MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT
dated Thursday, April 19, 2012 (2 pages)
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
enclosures
a.
a complaint with JURY DEMAND dated Thursday,
April 19, 2012 (18 pages)
b.
a worksheet for
escalating damages as referenced in the complaint dated Thursday, April 19,
2012 (1 pages)
c.
a MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FINAN-CIAL AFFIDAVIT dated Thursday, April 19,
2012 (2 pages)
In the U.S. District Court
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff/Petitioner,
vs.
President Barack
Hussein Obama, et al, Defendants/Respondents
US Supreme Court (Writ of
Certiorari 11-8211) Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony
Kennedy, and Chief Justice John
G. Roberts, The
Supreme Court
Chief United
States District Judge Eastern Missouri 8th Circuit
Catherine D. Perry
(8th
District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947 and 11-2425),
Mike Christian (FBI), Lyonel Mrythill (FBI), Chris Boyce (USMS),
Dan Bracco (FBI), Robert O’Connor (USMS) and Raymond Meyer (AUSA),
US Supreme Court (Writ of
Certiorari 07-11115) , Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony
Kennedy, and Chief Justice John
G. Roberts
8th District US
Court of Appeals (07-2614 & 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425),
Carol E. Jackson, US
District Court Judge, 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al (07-2614),
Scott O. Wright, Senior US
District Judge, 4:07-cv-0506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al (08-1823),
Commissioner Philip E.
Jones, Sr., Sharon G. Jeep (ex-wife), Kristen Capps (ex-step daughter), Joseph
A. Goeke , Robert S. Cohen , Michael T. Jamison , Emmett M. O’Brien , Steven
H. Goldman , Barbara W. Wallace , James R. Hartenbach , John A. Ross ,
Michael D. Burton , Larry L. Kendrick , Richard C. Bresnahan , Melvyn W.
Wiesman , Maura B. McShane , Colleen Dolan , Mark D. Seigel , Barbara Ann
Crancer , Mary Bruntrager Schroeder , Brenda Stith Loftin , Dale W. Hood ,
Thea A. Sherry , Gloria Clark Reno , John R. Essner , Ellen Levy Siwak ,
Patrick Clifford , Bernhardt C. Drumm , Dennis N. Smith , Judy Preddy Draper
, Sandra Farragut-Hemphill , Douglas
R. Beach , John F. Kintz , Gary M. Gaertner , Phillip E. Jones , Carolyn C.
Whittington , Tom W. DePriest , David Lee Vincent, St. Louis County and State of Missouri (4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 03FC-10670M
/ 03FC-12243),
Jack A. Bennett,
Associate Circuit Judge, Devin M. Ledom, Asst. Prosecuting Attorney, Alex
Little, Officer Badge #920, Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913, W. Steven Rives,
Prosecuting Attorney, W. James Icenogle, Prosecuting Attorney, Bruce Colyer,
Associate Circuit Judge, Jay Nixon Attorney General, State of Missouri,
Defendants/Respondents
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
Case No 4:12-cv-00703-CEJ
|
A First,[1] Fourth[2] and Seventh[3] Amendment based REPEATED Petition for suit in “the most humble terms”[4] “for a Redress of Grievances”and a Jury DEMAND[5]
1.
The respondents deprived the plaintiff of the
INDIVIDUAL security guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, by depriving him of his
INDIVIDUAL constitutional rights and then requiring him to overcome an
unrelated “stringent standard of fault”[6] and “difficult problems of proof”[7] with an otherwise unrelated group to sustain
the government’s liability for the grievance, the deprivation of individual
constitutional rights to wit: Per the ruling in CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON
(3/29/11) a plaintiff, purporting to be a victim of a crime,
must prove multiple other victims sustained the same criminal deprivation, via
the same criminal, in a timely fashion before liability and or redress can be
consider or established for the initiating individual plaintiff. This violates an individual’s right to the
equal protection[8] of the law by inserting this REQUIRED group
connection and or affiliation.[9] The Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant in
this case. It is Damages or nothing.[10]
2.
This is discrimination not based on a victim’s
affiliations i.e., political or social or religious, but on the lack of a
victim’s affiliation. It would be as if
when you were robbed, you not only had to find the robber, but you had to find
other victims who had also been robbed by the same robber in similar and timely
situation. The state has the obligation
to, per the 14th Amendment, enforce the law equally[11] without regard to affiliation or lack of
affiliation i.e., the first victim, the fourth victim and one hundred fourth
victim.
3.
I seek the Security of the Fourth Amendment to
the 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.” In the originating issues (2 each) My son, ALL my worldly property and my driving privileges
were seized, without probable cause[12] and a denial of Due Process of Law,[13] via fraud upon the court. The deprivations of rights were over my
attorney’s and my timely verifiable formal objections and motions, pre-trial,
at-trial, post-trial and in over 8 years of subsequent repeated petitions,
appeals and complaints for redress of grievances. Since the originating issues (Saturday May 17, 2003
01:00 AM) my INDIVIDUAL security has been deprived by the unconstitutional
requirement of proof requiring a GROUP affiliation to invoke the protection of
civil liability, criminal penalties and treaties made[14] as the supreme law of the land.
4.
Constitutional Rights are not vested in a
group! Constitutional Rights are vested
with and in the INDIVIDUAL PERSON without regard to affiliation or lack of affiliation.
5.
I site Bivens’s[15] implied cause of action for the
deprivation of the Fourth Amendment’s security for rights as applicable to the
Federal Government, the State Government, the Local Government and private
parties via the 14th Amendment.
The Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant in this case. It is Damages or nothing.[16]
6.
I seek the constitutionally required strict
scrutiny[17] for the Constitutionally Supreme Law of the
Land for the thus strict liability per the lawfully un-abridge-able right to
petition the government for a redress of grievances as provided for in the
First Amendment. I can and will JUSTIFY
my grievance for the deprivation of rights that instigated this issue in 2003
(see 8th Circuit court of Appeals Filings in 11-2425, 10-1947,[18] 08-1823 and 07-2614). I seek to establish the government’s
justifiable liability for the deprivation of rights under the Constitution (First
and Seventh Amendment), Statute Law (Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241
& 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) and
Treaties Made (“The
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” PART II, Article 2, Section 3., (a), (b) and
(c)). [19] The deprivations of rights were over my
attorney’s and my timely verifiable formal objections and motions, pre-trial,
at-trial, post-trial and in the nearly 8 years of subsequent repeated
petitions, appeals and complaints for redress of grievances.
7.
Justice does not require a shibboleth of
requisite terminology, a Latin writ to establish credibility.
8.
I site the Declaration of Independence as
Precedent for the Right to Petition as substantive justice
between the Government and the People. The Declaration of Independence : “In every stage of these
Oppressions We have Petitioned for
Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been
answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose
character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be
the ruler of a free people.”[20] Obviously The Colonist, and then subsequently
the authors of the constitution, were not content to just be filing petitions
they were looking for more - SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE between themselves and
the government of King George III and subsequently the Government of the
United states of America with the First Amendments’ security for a lawfully
un-abridge-able right to petition for a justifiable redress of grievances “Our
repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” The deprivations of rights, in the present
grievance were over my attorney’s and my timely verifiable formal objections
and motions, pre-trial, at-trial, post-trial and in 8 plus years of subsequent
repeated petitions, appeals and complaints for redress of grievances.
9. I
assert the Supreme Court precedent of Chief Justice John Marshall declaration:
“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. InGreat Britain
“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
Clearly in 1803 the Supreme Court
correctly and indisputably asserted “the right of every individual to
claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury”
and provided access to the indisputable remedy “the King himself (and
or the government) is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he
never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.”
10.
I assert my grievance is and has been the
deprivation of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United
States of America
11.
I am filing this as, a grievance, to and for the
government in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against The United States of America
Government in the person of its “public Ministers”[26] at the highest ministerial[27] levels of the Executive,[28] Justice[29] Departments and other listed defendants both
government and private. The
ministerial[30] grant of “Absolute
Immunity” [31] is a massive, at the highest levels,
ministerial unconstitutional “unlawful Conspiracy”[32] “out of Court”[33] to obfuscate “false and malicious
Persecutions.” [34] The Justice Department, The Judiciary, The
President have NO POWER to ministerially[35] grant themselves or others “Absolute Immunity”[36] form the denial of rights
they are constitutionally sworn and obligated to secure for We the People at
large. This involves the
President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, as an
individual and as a public Minister responsible for the enforcement and prosecution
of the laws for the United States of America
Government - Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy,
and Chief Justice John
G. Roberts, the Supreme Court of the United States of America, as
individuals and as public Ministers for the Judicial enforcement of the laws of
the United States of America Government,”[37] and others, both government and private, listed
as defendants. The pleading, the
jurisdictional statement, the issue is in opposition to the ministerial[38] policy, “Absolute Immunity,” adopted,
supported and executed at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive and
Justice Departments; “Absolute Immunity” is REPUGNANT to the
Constitution,[39] Statute Law and Treaties[40] Made [41] as “the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding,” per Constitution
for the United States of America Article. VI., second paragraph.
12.
I assert that Immunity
is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the Rule of Law. “We the People,” a government
of the people, by the people, for the people have civilized ourselves by
establishing the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. Immunity for “the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”[42] denies “We the People” the limited government,
“protection of the laws,”[43] and very essence of civilization we sought to
secure. “Absolute Immunity”
a ministerial[44] policy adopted, supported and enforced at the
highest ministerial levels of the Executive and Justice Departments is
repugnant to the Rule of Law, the Constitution,[45] Civil[46] and Criminal[47]statute
law, treaties[48] made and the essence of civilization, the
protection of the law. I
petition the President of the United States of
America as the executive in charge and The
Supreme Court Justices as the highest judicial ministerial levels of the
FEDERAL, STATE and Local Government of the United
State of America ... “The executive Power shall be vested in a
President of the United
States of America
13.
Immunity, as ministerially created law out of
self-serving desire and then applied without constitutional or statute law
authorization, is repugnant to the constitution, statute law, treaties made[56] and the very essence of civilization. And the current attempt by the Supreme Court
in CONNICK, DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) to limit liability via a
shibboleth laden labyrinth of UNEQUAL protection is definitely verifiable NOT “good Behaviour.[57]”
14.
I am petitioning for the protection of the laws
and a redress of grievances resultant from the denial of the protection of the
laws.
15.
I have been to the Missouri State Court, The
Missouri State Court of Appeals, United States Eastern Missouri 8th
District Court, 8th United States Court of Appeals, Supreme Court,
Attorneys General (State and Federal), Governor State of Missouri and President of the United States of America and
been denied.[58]
16.
I seek the protection of the laws. More specifically I seek the constitutionally
required strict scrutiny[59] for the protection of the laws as
defined by my 1st,
4th,
5th,
6th
and 14th
Amendment RIGHTS as Constitutionally the supreme Law of the land. Additionally I seek the protection of the
laws for the strict liability for rights with the First
Amendment, a lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition for a
redress of grievances, Civil and Criminal statute Laws, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Civil action for deprivation of rights and Title
18, U.S.C., Section 242, Criminal Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law,
and treaties made, “The
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” [60]
17.
I site Marbury v.
Madison, 5 U.S. Great
Britain
18.
I have been denied the protection of the laws
because of “Absolute Immunity”[62] as currently held as a self-serving
ministerial policy adopted at the highest levels of the Executive and Justice
Departments. I have been denied the protection of the laws via agents
(local Police, State Police, FBI, and USMS) and the courts (Local, State,
Federal and Supreme) and public Ministers (Attorneys General (State and
Federal), Governor and President) in numerous prior petitions, complaints,
pleadings, appeals and motions on file with this court and others. (Petition for
a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America "Opposed to
Immunity" currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk's office, 8th
District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern
District of Missouri No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M
/ 03FC-12243, Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District ED84021, U.S.
District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al,
4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to
the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M,
Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court
Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/). The Exclusionary Rule is
irrelevant in this case. It is Damages
or nothing.[63]
19.
Self-serving “Absolute Immunity”
ministerially granted by “public Ministers” [64] for “public Ministers” is repugnant to a democratically established
limited constitutional government. There
are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility[65] 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."
20.
These issues arise from a series of 2003
incidents where the Plaintiff, David G. Jeep was held to answer on two infamous
charges, “false and malicious Persecutions,”[66] without any verifiable definitive probable
cause, much less proof of any wrong doing.
The Judges, the Prosecutors, the Police and the then petitioner, Sharon
G. Jeep and Kristen M. Capps, all withheld exculpable material.[67] The
Police (Alex Little, Officer Badge #920, Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913) City of
Osage Beach Case and prosecutors Devin M. Ledom, Asst. Prosecuting Attorney, W.
Steven Rives, Prosecuting Attorney, W. James Icenogle, Prosecuting Attorney State
of Missouri, Camden County, 4:07-cv-0506-SOW / CR203-1336M presented false
information and withheld exculpable material.[68]. My Ex-wife Sharon G. Jeep, with the oversight
of two judges, knowingly applied for and received a fraudulent ex parte Court Order without any probable cause
in St. Louis County
21.
The defendants
unconstitutionally and illegally took my son, my home, my EVERYTHING. Because of absolute immunity I
have had NO REDRESS to the protection of the laws. “Absolute Immunity” is an unconstitutional and criminal policy
adopted at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive and Justice
Departments of the United States of America for “deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”[70] I have endured
over 8.93 years (3,259 days +/-) of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal
incarceration[71] (where I was humiliated with the denial of the
most basic of liberties - regularly and repeatedly subjected to strip
searches), two psychological examinations, and 4.45 years of abject poverty,
homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of
America.
22.
The Defendant’s originating ministerial actions
in 2003 were unconstitutional and unauthorized by any constitutional source,
statute law or treaties made. These
ministerial actions were and ARE
criminal. The actions denied the
plaintiff the protection of the laws i.e., they violated the plaintiff’s 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment Rights as secured by the Constitution
for the United States of America, Civil (Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Civil action for deprivation of rights) and Criminal (Title
18, U.S.C., Section 242, Criminal Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law)
laws and treaties[72] made.
23.
I am herewith making formal application, seeking
redress for my grievances, the originating actions in 2003 (Saturday May 17,
2003 01:00 AM) and the subsequent denials per, in ascending chronological
order, the Magna Carta § 61 (1215),[73] Floyd and Barker (1607), The Declaration of
Independence (1776), the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United
States of America (1789),[74] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 (1871), Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 (1871) and treaties made,
“The International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[75]”
(as adopted by the United Nations[76] on 12/16/66, and signed by the United
States on October 5, 1977). I would say
there is a consistent trend toward and for substantive justice between
the Governed and Government.
24. We
the People now live at the discretion of the ABSOLUTE POWER of
the judiciary that has been criminally created from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
for the “malicious or corrupt” judges,[77] the “malicious or dishonest”
prosecutor, [78] the “knowingly false testimony by police
officers"[79] and “all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest
and incompetent[80])
persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial
process” [81] acting under color of law to
wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION. The ABSOLUTE POWER enable by the “deliberate usurpation”[82] of ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY by the Supreme Court for itself and others has enable ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.
25. The Supreme Court,
a delegated authority, under and criminally contrary to a
sworn to constitutional commission, has awarded themselves and others “absolute
immunity”[83] from said constitutional commission to “do
not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”[84] i.e., the “deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
States of America”[85] by DENYING the
constitutional checks and balances of We the People with the assurance
of governmental accountability 1st and 7th Amendment Justice,
law and equity?[86]
26. The
Constitution for the United
States of America Article. VI. Second
paragraph –
“This Constitution (I. ) , and the Laws (II.) of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made (III.), or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United
States
I. Constitution
-
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
First
Amendment’s lawfully un-abridge-able right:
“Congress
shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.”
II. Law:
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND
WELFARE CHAPTER 21--CIVIL RIGHTS SUBCHAPTER I—GENERALLY Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of
rights: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to 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.
TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. A Conspiracy
against rights -- If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten,
or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or
District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to
him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having
so exercised the same.
They shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from
the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping
(they stole
everything and then kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to
commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced
to death.
III. All Treaties made – secures us:
“The International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[88]” as adopted by the United Nations[89] on 12/16/66, and signed by the
United States on October 5, 1977 secures for Each State Party to the
present Covenant i.e., The United
States of America:
PART II, Article 2,
Section 3.
Each State Party
to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized
are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the
violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right
thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative
authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system
of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall
enforce such remedies when granted.
27.
In every stage of these Oppressions I have
Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: My repeated Petitions have
been answered only by repeated injury. A President, A group of Judges or
Judicial Process whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a
Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.[90] Verifiable NOT “good Behaviour![91]”
28.
By reference I include my blog www.dgjeep.blogspot.com
29.
I seek damages
and injunctive relief, noting that criminally[92] offending Judicial Officers were involved, as
follows:
I. Injunctive
relief to overturn and expunge the DWI Conviction (Case # , CR203-1336M) and remove all reference of
it from my Driving Record and the 33 year old 1978 DWI conviction.[93]
II. Injunctive
relief to overturn all orders of protection between Sharon G. Jeep and David G.
Jeep and remove all record of them (Case No.: 03FC-10670M).
III. Injunctive
relief to overturn the subsequent and coupled Property and Custody Order (Case
No.: 03FC-12243) currently in effect between David G. Jeep and Sharon G. Jeep
as regards the joint marital property as of November 3, 2003 and the custody of
the Minor Child Patrick Brandon Jeep (DOB 12/22/94) and remand it to a new
judge for resettlement based on this ruling.
IV. Actual
Damages in the amount of:
Fifty
Million Dollars and No Cents-----------------------------$50,000,000.00[94]
One Hundred
Million Dollars and No Cents--------------- $100,000,000.00[97]
30.
I am homeless, destitute and unable to pay any
filing fee for this JURY DEMAND.
31.
Do I have to light myself on fire in the street
to get the rights granted by my creator to all men, like the Tunisia suicide
protester Mohammed Bouazizi?
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Signed this Thursday April 19, 2012
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
_________________________________________
David G. Jeep
David G. Jeep
c/o
The Bridge
E-Mail
Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314)
514-5228
[1] “Congress shall make no law abridging the
right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.”
[2] 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.
[3] Amendment 7 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.
[4] The Declaration of
Independence: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 17 76, The unanimous Declaration of the
thirteen united States of America
[5] Amendment 7 the right of trial by jury
shall be preserved
[6] CONNICK v. THOMPSON 563 U. S. ____
(2011), Opinion of the Court Page 18
[7] CONNICK v. THOMPSON 563 U. S. ____
(2011), Opinion of the Court Page 18
[8] “nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws” AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified
July 9, 1868.
[9] “falls below the
evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society”
We are de-evolving as a society back to the Divine Right of Kings
[10] “Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the
crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For
people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing.” Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
@ Page 403 U. S. 410
[11] 14th Amendment “nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
[12] In 08-1823 (proof of the police standard)
proved the probable cause to have been incompetently determined and 07-2614
probable cause was never even provided, much less proven, over my and my
attorney’s pretrial, at trail and post trial objections.
[13] I was denied exculpable material in both
08-1823, proof of the police standard, and 07-2614, probable cause so as to
defend myself against the charge. Over my attorney’s and my timely verifiable
formal objections and motions, pre-trial, at-trial, post-trial and subsequent
repeated appeals and complaints for redress of grievances.
[14] “The Treaty “The International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights” is presented for both its binding force as "Supreme
Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in reason, to help
understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a law of reason
freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a basis for the
organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was less compelling
when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies together under one
Constitution?” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV .
( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[15] Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S.
388 (1971), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that an
implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment
freedom from unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by federal
agents.
[16] “Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the
crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For
people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing.” Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
@ Page 403 U. S. 410
[17] Strict Constitutional SCRUTINY is worthless
without commensurate and credible strict liability for RIGHTS, privileges and
immunities secured by the constitution.
[18] It should be noted that 10-1947 was filed
after the initial denial of Writ of Certiorari 07-11115. It was filed based on the refusal of Federal
Government agents (FBI and USMS) to investigate or enforce the blatant denial
of Civil Rights in 07-2614 (03FC-10670M) and 08-1823 (CR203-1336M)
[19] “The Treaty “The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights” is presented for both its binding force as
"Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in
reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a
law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a
basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was
less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies
together under one Constitution?” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV .
( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[20] The Declaration of
Independence: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 17 76, The unanimous Declaration of the
thirteen united States of America
[22] For the sake of brevity in 07-2614 I was held
to answer and infamous charge without having been provided probable cause. At trial the pleading was amended into and
order without explanation or definition and I was then denied my Due Process
right to heard on the amended undefined order.
In 08-1823, the police presented verifiable FALSE INFORMATION at arrest
as probable cause and at trial over my pretrial, at trial and post trial
objections. Both cases exemplify “Fraud on the Court” and a deprivation of 4th,
5th, 6th and 14th Amendment Rights. As a remedy I seek the protection of the
First amendment’s security of a justifiable redress of grievances
as a lawfully un-abridge-able right with a seventh amendment Jury Demand.
[23] It should be noted that 10-1947 was filed
after the initial denial of Writ of Certiorari 07-11115. It was filed based on the refusal of Federal Government
agents (FBI and USMS) to investigate or enforce the blatant denial of Civil
Rights in 07-2614 (03FC-10670M) and 08-1823 (CR203-1336M)
[24] Strict Constitutional SCRUTINY is worthless
without commensurate and credible strict liability for RIGHTS, privileges and
immunities secured by the constitution.
Justice without equity consideration attached impoverishes the victim
before even being able to seek redress.
[27] 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 their MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[30] 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 their MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[31] “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
[32] 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.”
[35] 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 their MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[36] “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
[38] 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 their MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[39] Justice is the end of civil government the end
of civil society and is secured by intention of We the People
in the preamble to the constitution to “establish Justice.” 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. 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!
[40] “The Treaty “The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights” is presented for both its binding force as
"Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in
reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a
law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a
basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was
less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies
together under one Constitution?” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV .
( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[41] Article. VI., 2nd paragraph
“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”.
[44] 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 their MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[45] Justice is the end of civil government the end
of civil society and is secured by intention of We the People
in the preamble to the constitution to “establish Justice.” 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. 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!
[48] “The Treaty “The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights” is presented for both its binding force as
"Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in
reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a
law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a
basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was
less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies
together under one Constitution?” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV .
( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[52] “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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding.” Article. VI. Second paragraph, The Constitution for
the United States of America
ratified June 21, 1788
[54] “The Treaty “The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights” is presented for both its binding force as
"Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in
reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a
law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a
basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was
less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies
together under one Constitution?” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV .
( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[55] “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 (1803)
[56] “The Treaty “The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights” is presented for both its binding force as
"Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in
reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a
law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a
basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was
less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies
together under one Constitution?” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV .
( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[57] 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”
[58] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America
[59] Strict Constitutional SCRUTINY is worthless
without commensurate and credible strict liability for RIGHTS, privileges and
immunities secured by the constitution.
[60] “The Treaty “The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights” is presented for both its binding force as
"Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in reason,
to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a law of
reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a basis for
the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was less
compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies together
under one Constitution?” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV .
( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[61] Neither Sovereign Immunity (Marbury
v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 Page 5 U. S. 163) nor Absolute
Judicial Immunity (Lord Coke Floyd
and Barker (1607)) preexisted the Modern Supreme Courts
self-serving ministerial assertion of it.
[62] “Immunity is DIAMETRICALLY
opposed to the Rule of Law” and it is a self-serving policy adopted
at the highest levels of the Executive and Justice Departments.
[63] “Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the
crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For
people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing.” Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
@ Page 403 U. S. 410
[65] 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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[67] Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), The court held
that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process "where the
evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment"
[68] Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), The court held
that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process "where the
evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment"
[72] “The Treaty “The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights” is presented for both its binding force as
"Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in
reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a
law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a
basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was
less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies
together under one Constitution?” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV .
( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[73] The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government,
established the right of redress:
“If we, our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants
offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the
peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the
kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by
seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own
person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such
redress as they have determined upon.”
[74] Amendment I,
Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
[75] “The Treaty “The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights” is presented for both its binding force as
"Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in
reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a
law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a
basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was
less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies
together under one Constitution?” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV .
( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[76] “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
[77] 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.
[80] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is
covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[81] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S.
345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for “all persons -- governmental
or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”
[82] “And
the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important
constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments
in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in the other,
would give to that body 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. While this ought to remove all apprehensions on the
subject, it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the
Senate a court for the trial of impeachments.” 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, 17 88 stated that
impeachment was to be used as an integral check for “Judicial Authority”
[83] “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)
[84] 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”
[85] 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.
[86] 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.
[87] Non italic parenthetical text, emphasis and
underlining added for reference clarity
[88] “The Treaty “The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights” is presented for both its binding force as
"Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in
reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a
law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a
basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was
less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies
together under one Constitution?” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV .
( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[89] “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
[90] Adapted from The Declaration of
Independence: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 17 76, The unanimous Declaration of the
thirteen united States of
America
[91] 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” “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
577.054. 1. After a period
of not less than ten years, an individual who has pleaded guilty or has been
convicted for a first alcohol-related driving offense which is a misdemeanor or
a county or city ordinance violation and which is not a conviction for driving
a commercial motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and who since
such date has not been convicted of any other alcohol-related driving offense
may apply to the court in which he or she pled guilty or was sentenced for an
order to expunge from all official records all recordations of his or her
arrest, plea, trial or conviction.
[94] This amount is escalating based on the most
recent denial in the 8th Circuit Court of appeals Tuesday June 14,
2011 12:00.00 AM see attached spread sheet dated Thursday April 19, 2012
[95] As regards Punitive Damage, without punitive
damages the federal/state/local electorate may assume the risk. Is that not what the racist did with “Jim
Crow.” The Racist succeeded with “Jim
Crow” because the odds of the risk were on their side with Judicial
Immunity attached to their like minded criminal judges. The assumption of RISK has to be deterred by
the potential for open ended punitive damages and the 7th Amendment. Let’s not let the same thing happen with “Jane
Crow,” sexual discrimination in Family for the Mother over the Father, as
we did with “Jim Crow.”
[96] 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.”
Not to mention “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
[97] This amount is escalating based on the most
recent denial in the 8th Circuit Court of appeals Tuesday June 14,
2011 12:00.00 AM see attached spread sheet dated Thursday April 19, 2012
| ||||||
| Waking Seconds | Rate | Totals | ||||
| Loss of unrestricted Driving Privileges | 187,810,375 | $ 0.016015612 | $ 3,007,898.09 | |||
| Loss of career potential WORK as related to driving | 139,601,575 | $ 0.031601280 | $ 4,411,588.44 | |||
| Loss of custody of my son | 177,972,775 | $ 0.069735301 | $ 12,410,985.08 | |||
| Alienation of affection immediate family | 139,601,575 | $ 0.013102970 | $ 1,829,195.21 | |||
| Alienation of affection immediate Friends | 139,601,575 | $ 0.012332207 | $ 1,721,595.49 | |||
| Loss of Little League, Cub Scouts, Pinewood Derby, Boy Scouts, 3 years of High School Memories | 177,972,775 | $ 0.064461203 | $ 11,472,339.15 | |||
| Loss of possessions | 177,972,775 | $ 0.031649279 | $ 5,632,709.93 | |||
| Homelessness less Jail | 70,020,775 | $ 0.069585073 | $ 4,872,400.72 | |||
| Jail Time | 23,707,200 | $ 0.076858535 | $ 1,822,100.65 | |||
| Loss of Sleep, Humiliation, Pain and Suffering | 187,810,375 | $ 0.050994250 | $ 9,577,249.13 | |||
| Punitive Damages | $ 56,758,061.88 | |||||
| Legal Fees as a percentage of Punitive Damages | $ 56,758,061.88 | |||||
| Tuesday, June 14, 2011 | 4.25000000% | $ 6,158,856.67 | ||||
| Thursday April 19 2012 03:19 PM | $ 176,433,042.30 | |||||
| $ 176,433,000.00 | ||||||
