Shipment Activity--------------------------- Location--------------------- Date & Time
Posted Friday January 04, 2013 4:52pm
-- ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------
Delivered------------------------- WASHINGTON DC
20543---- 04/24/13 10:48am
Arrival at Unit-------------------- WASHINGTON
DC 20018----- 04/24/13 10:35am
Dispatched to Sort-------------- SAINT
LOUIS MO 63101------ 04/19/13 4:52pm
Facility
Acceptance----------------------- SAINT
LOUIS MO 63101------ 04/19/13 4:29pm
---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------
Expected
Delivery By:
April
22, 2013
First-Class
Mail®
Certified
Mail™
Andrew Downs, Clerk of the Court
THE DEADBEAT - Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Case 12-2435 David Jeep vs. Barack Obama (a.k.a. David Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America)
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, dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012" – A FAILURE to COMMUNICATE!!!!!
Dear Mr. Downs,
I regret to inform you that you have WORK to do!
Neither the "Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States" (effective February 16, 2010) or Office of the Clerk's "GUIDE FOR PROSPECTIVE INDIGENT PETITIONERS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI" (dated October 2012) are at issue here. I complied with those rules, as I have SEVERAL times before with my original submission and revised petition as referenced above. I admit on the original submission there was a typographical error as to the properly brought case from the lower court, Eight Circuit Court of Appeals Case 12-2435. I corrected that with the revised petition dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012 First-Class Mail® Delivered October 02, 2012, 10:51 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20543 Certified Mail™ (#70121010000144212589) and never acknowledged by the Clerk's Office. It is available as submitted on my blog (at http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012/09/revised-humble-pro-se-emergency.html). I would resend it here, but alas I am indigent and without the basic necessities of life i.e., food and clothing and thus unable to afford the added postage.
Beyond that I assert the "sense and reason"[1] of Gideon[2] v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) and my repeatedly confirmed indigent Pro-Se status; I am as the DIRECT result of the corruption, malice and incompetence ubiquitous within this issue unable to financially acquire Professional Representation. You and your corrupt, malicious dishonest and incompetent co-conspirators know the proverbial deck has been stacked against the constitutional intent, "sense and reason"[3] to "establish Justice" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" in "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority" and statute law Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 by the Supreme Court's malicious, corrupt, incompetent and ubiquitous grant of ABSOLUTE POWER using ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt"[4] judges, the "malicious or dishonest"[5] prosecutor, the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[6] and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[7] actions by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[8] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[9]
Now the Supreme Court's self-serving assertions have been allowed to stand as law. But precedent does not make law. There is a difference! The Constitution REQUIRES that ALL civil disputes be submitted to a 7th Amendment Jury.
I include by reference here my letters dated Friday, January 4, 2013 to Gail Johnson, Clerk of the Court[10] and Monday, March 18, 2013 to Andrew Downs, Clerk of the Court,[11] both delivered First-Class Mail® Certified Mail™.
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, April 19, 2013, 3:08:04 PM
[2] Gideon's ORIGINAL handwritten pro-se indigent petition was not in compliance with the "Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States." Regardless of the Courts decision, the courts consideration of Gideon's issue set precedent for the blanket unimpeachable requirements of the "Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States."
[4] 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.
[5] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[6] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[7] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[8] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[9] "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.
E. Richard Webber
c/o Clerk of Court - James G. Woodward
St. Louis - Eastern Division
Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
St. Louis, MO 63102-1123
Re: Motion for reconsideration - David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs. Government of the United States of America, et al, 4:13-cv-00360-ERW
Dear Mr. Webber,
There are not constitutionally sanctioned titles of nobility in this country and while it seems trivial even to me, somehow your ilk has derived ABSOLUTE POWER using ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt"[1] judges, the "malicious or dishonest"[2] prosecutor, the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[3] and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[4] actions by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[5] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[6]
Your reference, for my heir's sake, to the dollar amount of damages is an escalating amount e.g., as of Friday April 19 2013 12:12 PM the amount is $208,114,000.00. And if you deny this motion, please add your name as a respondent.
I ask you to reconsider your error, We the People incorporated ourselves into a government to "establish Justice" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" in "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." Just Post Civil War we backed that up with the more explicit Federal Statute Law that expressly nullified any prior common law assertions with Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242. To assert absolute immunity for the "malicious or corrupt"[7] judges, the "malicious or dishonest"[8] prosecutor, the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[9] and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[10] actions by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[11] acting under color of law is completely without reason.
As regards your assertion Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) I have to ask who in their RIGHT mind would give up their Constitutional Civil Rights in any case, but much more importantly when the dispute revolves around not only your own life, liberty or property but that or your heirs life, liberty or property. Kahn v. Kahn is an open example of your disregard for the intrinsic requirement of your oath "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Clearly to any reckonable[12] reading of the 14th Amendment requirement "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," Kahn v. Kahn can not hold when there is a deprivation of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and "equal protection of the laws."
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, April 19, 2013, 3:24:41 PM
[1] 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.
[2] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[3] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[4] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[5] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[6] "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.
[7] 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.
[8] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[9] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[10] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[11] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[12] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
--
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
