Shipment
Activity-------------------------- Location--------------------- Date & Time
Posted Friday January 04, 2013 4:52pm
-- ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------
Delivered-- WASHINGTON
DC 20543-- 01/09/13 10:54am
Notice Left (No------------------ WASHINGTON
DC 20543----- 01/09/13 10:54am
Authorized Recipient Available)
Dispatched to Sort Facility--- SAINT
LOUIS MO 63101------- 01/04/13
5:37pm
Acceptance----------------------- SAINT
LOUIS MO 63101------- 01/04/13 4:52pm
---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------
Expected
Delivery By:
January
7, 2013
First-Class
Mail®
Certified Mail™
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,[1] Phone call of the morning of Monday, December 17, 2012 and most recently a letter dated December 27, 2012 – A FAILURE to COMMUNICATE!!!!!
Dear Ms. Johnson,
I am in receipt of your[2] letter dated Thursday December 27, 2012. What we have here is a failure to communicate. I use the reckonable[3] English language; I am FORCED to assume you use some sort of legalistic sophistry[4] beyond reckonable[5] comprehension to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions"[6] and deprivations of your "unlawful Conspiracy"[7] before "out of Court" [8] that denies access to the 1st and 7th[9] Amendment jury trial demand at the onset of Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case #12-2435.
I assert there are none so blind as those that refuse to see. In a continuing, NINE year, ongoing good faith effort I AGAIN[10] attempt to bring you to a reckonable understanding I quote "It is my belief that there are "absolutes" in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put then on purpose by men who knew what words meant, and meant their prohibitions to be "absolutes.""[11] It is unreasonable,[12] an incredible,[13] fantastic or delusional scenario[14] "too extravagant to be maintained"[15] to assert that your self-serving grant of absolute immunity[16] to yourself and others is more powerful than the reckonable[17] reasonable absolutes you are required by precedent and statute law to enforce under Article III, §1 & 2 and Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph of the Constitution.
The Fourth Amendment provides for the absolute prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. "(I)if it is unreasonable,[18] it is absolutely prohibited… Likewise, the provision which forbids warrants for arrest, search or seizure without "probable cause" is itself an absolute prohibition."[19]
"The Eighth Amendment forbids "excessive bail," "excessive fines," or the infliction of "cruel or unusual punishments."" The cruel and unusual taking of my son, my home… my EVERYTHING for an unrelated alleged misdemeanor traffic offense exceeds the reckonable[20] constitutional prohibition of the infliction of "cruel or unusual punishments."
"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." The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 189 U. S. 100-101. How can anything be fair due process when the accused is given neither the chance to be heard nor the specific finding?
For the record, I note and take exception to YOUR refusal to see the self-serving criminal and civil fraud in this deprivation i.e., the denial of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States."[21]
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.
Per We the People's Justice and Liberty sanctioned under Article III, §1 & 2 and Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph of the Constitution, YOU and your criminal co-conspirators are bound UNDER Federal Statute 28 USC § 2111 Harmless error i.e., 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. I do not have the financial ability to continue your cost prohibitive paper shuffling war of attrition. You have access to the undisputed court record UNDER Federal Statute 28 USC § 2111, that given my repeatedly verified in forma pauperis and my unanswered original prior notarized First-Class Certified Mail, dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012[22] "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" and notarized petition unequivocally proves the allegation and thus the declaration of fraud, corruption, and malice.
Now admittedly you and your imbecilic self-serving criminal co-conspirators assert that given any "allegation would not make the declaration good."[23] The argument is a sham using synonyms. Based on the only reckonable understanding of the argument the "allegation" is synonymous with the object of the conclusion the "declaration." If we were to take the argument as valid a proof, given the allegation of A, as a given premise, would not conclude the declaration of, the given premise, A. While admittedly self-serving it is absurd "too extravagant to be maintained"[24]. Bradley goes on to assert in support of failed logic "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"[25] I do not see how the denial of due process as secured by the constitution can "benefit" the public. The "independence of the judges" was always to be inescapably limited by the Supreme Law of the Land i.e., "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."[26] AND I do not see how the denial of constitutionally secured rights could ever be considered a "vexatious actions." That was, is and ALWAYS will be, to any sane person, a reckonable false argument, a series of inherently self-contradictory logical fallacies.
For self-serving criminal reasons, you refuse to see it, this embarrasses[27] the past and the future of the Supreme Court of the United States as defined by Article III, §1 & 2 of the Constitution.
This personal injustice originated, as you well know[28] almost ten years ago on Saturday morning, May 17, 2003, with a now repeatedly verified criminally fraudulent arrest[29] in Osage Beach, Missouri. The Osage Beach crime was then fraudulently[30] and irrelevantly used as probable cause for a thus criminally fraudulent ex-parte order of protection, lacking probable cause on the face of it. The fraudulent petition, lacking relevant probable cause, as required by State Of Missouri statute[31] law and the 14th Amendment's requirement of the states for Due Process of Law – Probable Cause, was served Monday, November 03, 2003.[32] The warrantless fraudulent criminally corrupted judicial court order was FRAUDULENTLY applied for by Sharon G. Jeep and Kristen Capps, FRAUDULENTLY ordered served by Judge Joseph A. Goeke and then FRAUDULENTLY ordered heard and ruled on by Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr.[33] on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 over the timely repeated PRE-trial, AT-trial and POST-TRIAL in court formal verbal and written constitutionally based objections to the respondents' fraud[34] at every timely level on all issues by the then victim/now petitioner. The then victim, now petitioner, was NEVER given the specifics of the charge nor allowed to be heard on said specifics.[35] These two fraudulent criminally corrupted combined issues took my son, my home… my EVERYTHING!!!!! The now petitioner was left destitute, penniless with little more than clothes on his back to struggle through the post-traumatic stress[36] of being fraudulently adjudicated of two infamous crimes, spousal abuse and drunk driving while fighting in Civil Court to defend himself against the recipient of my son, my home… my EVERYTHING!!!!! You and your criminally corrupt co-conspirators, just refuse to see the reckonable[37] culpability of criminal fraud by officers of the court. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see!!!!!
Expending thousands of dollars in legal fees, my entire life savings, and two years I tried to bring this fraudulent criminal judicially sanctioned malice and corruption to light and to justice to no avail in the state courts. I was then forced penniless and pro se in forma pauperis to attempt to bring this fraudulent criminal judicially sanctioned malice and corruption to light in the federal courts first under 42 USC § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115) and then most recently under 1st and 7th Amendment Constitutional substantive justice[38] issue for protection of the law (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211).
Now if I lived in a rational country this would never have gotten this far, at best my first motion/petition to the presiding judge in 2004, would have brought me access to justice via Due Process of Law. But we do not live in a rational country based on a Due Process of law. Our Country is run by self serving criminals that have awarded themselves absolute immunity from the Supreme Law of Land. Immunity from the law of the land negates the protection of the law, the raison d'être[39] for a constitution, courts, government… for Civilization.[40]
Irrational lawless behavior by Government gives justification to the otherwise irrational behavior of the governed/victims.[41] The common law of an eye for an eye resumes its place as controlling the interests of free persons. I leave that open to your imagination, in that I am WELL past making threats!!!!!
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
cc: My Blog - Friday, January 04, 2013, 4:18:45 PM
[1] Ms. Johnson's letter of this date, while acknowledging its existence and her receipt of it did not take into account the clearly reckonable - questions, jurisdictional statement, "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" and notarized revised petition sent in response to Ms. Elliot's September 21, 2012 dated letter.
[2] Although I am addressing Ms. Johnson in this letter the pronouns you or your are meant to refer in a generic sense to my Government, the respondent, as authorized by Article III, §1 & 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America
[4] "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice" (Thomas Jefferson, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)
[6] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) Was never a grant of "Absolute Immunity" there was always "; but if" attached. "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."
[7] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)
[8] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)
[9] 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 5 + 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.
[10] See numerous communication to YOU regarding Petitions for Writ of Certiorari for FIVE Eight Circuits 07-2614 David Jeep vs. Philip Jones, Sr.; Jeep, David, 08-1823 David Jeep vs. Jack Bennett; Jeep, David, 10-1947 David Jeep vs. Jack Bennett; Jeep, David, 11-2425 David Jeep vs. Barack Obama, President; Jeep, David, 12-2435 David Jeep vs. Barack Obama; Jeep, David, (See also Petitions for Writs of Certiorari 07-11115 and 11-8211)
[12] "This is too extravagant to be maintained." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 179 (1803). "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." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 657 (1980). "MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. I do not think that all judges, under all circumstances, no matter how outrageous their conduct, are immune from suit under 17 Stat. 13, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court's ruling is not justified by the admitted need for a vigorous and independent judiciary, is not commanded by the common law doctrine of judicial immunity, and does not follow inexorably from our prior decisions." Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 558 (1967)
[14] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[16] I wld have almost accepted without question good faith immunity, if they had offered a solution 8 years ago or there had ben exigent circustances expressed.
[18] It is clearly unreasonable for declared probable cause to be irrelevant to the charge.
[21] 18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law, 42 USC § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights, 1st Amendment and 7th Amendment.
[22] You still have this someplace. You never responded directly to the ORIGINAL dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012. Delivered per:
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
[23] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[25] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[26] Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph of the Constitution for the United States of America
[28] See numerous communication to YOU regarding Petitions for Writ of Certiorari for FIVE Eight Circuits 07-2614 David Jeep vs. Philip Jones, Sr.; Jeep, David, 08-1823 David Jeep vs. Jack Bennett; Jeep, David, 10-1947 David Jeep vs. Jack Bennett; Jeep, David, 11-2425 David Jeep vs. Barack Obama, President; Jeep, David, 12-2435 David Jeep vs. Barack Obama; Jeep, David, (See also Petitions for Writs of Certiorari 07-11115 and 11-8211)
[29] See Eight Circuit Court of appeals case 08-1823. It started as incompetents, but evolved into fraud on the court when TWO police officers were allowed to present false testimony on the stand under oath in front of the Jury over the pre-trial, at-trail and post-trial objections of the victim. The Evidence Thursday, October 21, 2010, http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2010/10/evidence-thursday-october-21-2010.html
[30] without basis in reason or fact, see the established undisputed in the evidence in the court record appeal 08-1823
[31] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, where he is tasked by statute to "for good cause shown in the petition", issued a warrant without any probable cause. A Judges' power is necessarily limited by the Constitution and statute. A Judge can not issue a warrant without probable cause. Not only did the petition for an Ex-Parte Order of protection not list any abuse, what it did list was third party description of an incident in traffic court that was being handled by another geographical JURISDICTION, 150 miles away and different subject matter jurisdiction by a judicial officer that subsequently recused himself for his bad act.
For Judge Goeke to even list it as a probable cause violated the respondents right to the elementary principles of procedural due process.
[32] The hand written fraudulent petition for an ex parte order, has been an integral part of EVERY case I have filed, see numerous communication to YOU regarding Petitions for Writ of Certiorari for FIVE Eight Circuits 07-2614 David Jeep vs. Philip Jones, Sr.; Jeep, David, 08-1823 David Jeep vs. Jack Bennett; Jeep, David, 10-1947 David Jeep vs. Jack Bennett; Jeep, David, 11-2425 David Jeep vs. Barack Obama, President; Jeep, David, 12-2435 David Jeep vs. Barack Obama; Jeep, David, (See also Petitions for Writs of Certiorari 07-11115 and 11-8211) see also The Evidence Thursday, October 21, 2010 http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2010/10/evidence-thursday-october-21-2010.html
[33] In the Jane Crow era this UNCOSNTITUTIONAL ruling over timely repeated objections where I was stripped of my son, my own flesh and blood, my paternity rights, my home, family heirlooms, photographs/memories, all my worldly possessions, my constitutionally SECURED rights and quite literally left on the side of the road for dead is flagrantly fraud on the court by ruling:
"MR. SCHLESINGER:
I renew my objection to all the testimony… being outside the scope of the pleadings.
COMMISSIONER JONES:
Overruled.
The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced. The Court does find the allegations of the amended petition to be true. The Court does enter a full order of protection against the Respondent. This order will supercede the ex parte order of protection entered in this cause on the 3rd day of November and serves to terminate that order.
The Respondent should not use, attempt to use, or threaten to use physical force against the Petitioner that would be reasonably expected to cause her bodily harm, should not stalk, abuse, threaten to abuse, molest, or disturb her peace wherever she may be found. He also shall not communicate with her in any manner or through any means.
And he is also further restrained from the residence at 16325 Centerpointe Drive in Wildwood, Missouri 63040.
This order will expire the 19th day of November, the year 2004."
(IN THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DIVISION 65, Commissioner Phillip Jones, Presiding, SHARON JEEP, Petitioner, v. DAVID JEEP, Respondent. Cause No. 03FC-010670, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 page 96 of the TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL, E. D. No. 84021) After repeated post trial request I was never allowed the amended pleading nor was I allowed my Due Process right to be heard on them
A Judge's finding can not amend the pleading during a hearing on that pleading or due process of law is meaningless. This kidnapping and theft of all my worldly property was and continues to be devastating and a flagrant denial of Due Process rights e.g., say we try you for petty theft, but find you guilty of murder?
[34] Fraus omnia corrumpit is a Latin legal maxim which means "fraud corrupts everything."
[36] "A man against whom a frivolous Order of Protection (209A) has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect... It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."" Sheara F. Friend, as quoted in "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire. That describes my first year under an order of protection perfectly!!!!!!!!!!
[38] 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.
[39] "Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 656 (1980)
[40] "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. 137 (1803)(Page 5 U. S. 163)
[41] See The Declaration of Independence dated July 4, 1776
--
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
