Friday, July 12, 2013

President Barack Hussein Obama , forma securitatis, in both law and equity for RIGHTS

Shipment Activity--------------------------- Location--------------------- Date & Time
-- ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- -----------------------
Delivered---- WASHINGTON, DC 20500- July 17, 2013 3:07 am
Available for Pickup---------- WASHINGTON, DC 20500- July 16, 2013 12:29 pm
Arrival at Unit-------------------- WASHINGTON, DC 20018- July 16, 2013 12:09 pm
Depart USPS Sort Facility--- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155--------- July 11, 2013
Processed at USPS Origin Sort Facility-- ------------------------------------                        
      ----------------------------------- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155-- July 11, 2013 7:11 pm
Acceptance----------------------- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155-- July 11, 2013 11:46 am
---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------
Expected Delivery By:
July 15, 2013
First-Class Mail®

Certified Mail

President Barack Hussein Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500-0001

Re:Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193, Jeep v. Obama/Government U.S.
      forma securitatis,[1] in both law and equity for RIGHTS

Dear Mr. Obama,

Why would anyone commit to a contract much less a Constitution without a specified ex industria power to reciprocal forma securitatis for its enforcement?  It is transparently axiomatic that any agreement among men imposes an ex industria power to enforce the forma securitatis.  The chosen pacific forma securitatis under We the People's constitutional agreement is Due Process in both law and equity.  The default forma securitatis is war.  Absolute immunity for the forma securitatis, in both law and equity, QUASHES basic inalienable human rights.

I doubt I am the first supporter to petition/sue you while you have been in office.  I would assert that I am the only supporter to suffer through 10 years of deprivation, 5 years homeless, 411 days in jail, 2 psychological competency exams and been through the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals seven times (case #07-2614, 08-1823, 09-2848, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200), with two prior docketed and denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court (07-1115 and 11-8211) while you have been in office.  I further admit that even though I have, several times, written to you on this issue you may, for bureaucratic reasons, not be aware of the specifics of the issue.  Nonetheless you are the executive of the government and thus have the executive duty for the Constitution's forma securitatis.  Specifically I refer to the duty as specified under the Constitution for the United States of America, Article. II., Section. 3., to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

If you have studied the evolution of Constitutional legal precedent, I am sure you are aware of the two seminal Supreme Court precedents regarding "absolute immunity" and their timely proximity to the ex industria statute law specifically called out in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.[2] They were criminal "absolute immunity," Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7 (1868) suspiciously subsequent to § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) and civil "absolute immunity," Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 (1871) suspiciously subsequent to the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985).  As an example of the "absolute immune" confirmation bias of precedent that makes manifest evil look accepted benign and inevitable, I would site 100 plus years of Jim Crow Lynching (1864-present), Jane Crow Lynching (1974-present) and John Marshall Harlan's (1833 – 1911) Dissent in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883) defending the "sense and reason" of the amended Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil Rights Act of 1964).

I supported your recent refusal to defend DOMA.[3] The defeat of DOMA at the Supreme Court was roundly applauded.  That affected maybe 4% of the population.  When the ex industria statute law for the forma securitatis for rights was passed by Congress and then defeated by the Supreme Court post-Civil War that affected 12.7% of the total population, nearly 50% in the more critical states of Louisiana and Mississippi.  That was a bad THING.  Now I ask you to NOT defend the grant of absolute immunity.  This will affect 100% of the population.  I doubt there ever was or even could be a more incredible,[4] fantastic or delusional scenario[5] than the malicious, corrupt, dishonest or incompetent grant of "absolute immunity."[6] 

Why would anyone commit to a contract much less a Constitution without a specified ex industria power to reciprocal forma securitatis for its enforcement?  Just imagine how different post-Civil War America would have been if the freed slaves could have actually gotten the ex industria power to reciprocal forma securitatis for rights.  And I do not care what REVISIONIST HISTORY says We the People invested over a half million lives to rid our Constitution and our Country of slavery, "the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law."[7]

The Supreme Court, a lawfully delegated authority, acting under a sworn to lawful constitutional commission has unlawfully awarded themselves and others "absolute immunity"[8] from the forma securitatis, in both law and equity for RIGHTS i.e., their "facially"[9] "reasonable"[10] reckonable[11] constitutionally commissioned raison d'ĂȘtre[12].  It would be an incredible,[13] fantastic or delusional scenario[14] to assert that anyone could have "absolute immunity" from forma securitatis for the Constitution.  It is axiomatic as Alexander Hamilton articulated:
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  No legislative[15] act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.  To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[16] (i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[17])
The judiciary has done this by unlawfully denying the constitutional forma securitatis of governmental accountability, 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[18]

We the People have fallen under the despotic[19] spell of the concentrated power in the Supreme Court[20] that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[21] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[22] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [23] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[24] and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[25] by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [26] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[27]

The undisputed, undisputable FACTS of my case concern a fraudulent [28] NOT "a facially valid court order."[29] The issuing Judicial Officer did not facially have "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation"[30] for the stated charge[31] and thus it was "taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction."[32]  Clearly too any facially[33] reckonable[34] reading of Due Process rights, reasonable probable cause is a prerequisite for government action/jurisdiction.  There are "absolutes" in our Bill of Rights, and they were put there on purpose by "men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be "absolutes."[35] 

In the 9.58 years[36] since, there has never been any mention of "exigent circumstances" nor "good faith" mistakes.  The order stands on its own, brazenly, NOT a "facially valid court order."[37]  Since this is a civil domestic issue and has been ongoing for 9.58 years, "the "exclusionary rule"[38] is simply irrelevant... it is damages or nothing."[39]  Since 2003 the Commissioner Jones and the original petitioner Sharon G. Jeep both contradicted their original assertions, although neither took the "Good Faith" requisite of RESPONSIBILITY!!! 

Now if you could somehow get past the constitutional security of REASONABLE probable cause and thus the prohibition of a "general warrant," which you cannot.  The 8th Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments" for an alleged, later disproven,[40] misdemeanor traffic violation precludes the imposed punishment, the ongoing deprivation of my home, my son, my paternity, my liberty… my everything.

Do we live under a reckonable facially reasonable rule of law or under the despotic dictatorial prerogative of the Black Robed Royalist Judiciary???
 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

a.     "Supreme Court docketed Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193"
b.     " search results for Jeep's petitions 07-11115, 11-8211 and 13-5193"

cc:  Donald B. Verrilli Jr., (via e-mail
       My Blog - Friday, July 12, 2013, 9:06:00 AM

[1] "A radical solution was thus proposed in clause 61 of the charter, known as the security clause (forma securitatis)." Matthew Strickland, 'Enforcers of Magna Carta (act. 1215–1216)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press. [, accessed 10 July 2013]
[2] "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The grant of ex industria power by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments
[3] The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C)
[4] JUSTICE MARSHALL dissenting, Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)
[5] "fantastic or delusional scenarios" Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[6] "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
[7] CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U. S. 26 (1883) MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting.
[8] "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
[9] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[10] Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
[11] "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)
[12] "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)
[13] Justice Thurgood Marshal dissenting, Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[14] "fantastic or delusional scenarios" Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[15] Based on the Constitution's Article I section 7&8 it was mistakenly and naively assumed that only the Legislature could enact Law.  I would assert it is axiomatic that all "delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void" the legislative (Article I), executive (Article II) and judiciary (Article III).
[16] 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"
[17] 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
[18] 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.
[19] Montesquieu in his "De l'Espirit des Lois" (1748) (The Spirit of the Law) defines three main kinds of political systems: republican, monarchical, and despotic.  Driving each classification of political system, according to Montesquieu, must be what he calls a "principle". This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior on the part of the citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make it function smoothly. For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics), this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. For monarchies, the spring is the love of honor -- the desire to attain greater rank and privilege. Finally, for despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler.    We the People currently have a despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
[20] "There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton, John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston: Beacon Press, p. 364
[21] "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.
[22] 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.
[23] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[25] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption.  Martin Luther King said it better, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963). 
As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series").  The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[26] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[27] "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.
[28] The fraud exception to rei publicae, ut sit finis litium, and nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadam causa is self evident, the "sense and reason" of a Supreme Law of The Land.  You assert judicial interpretation.  Here we agree 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 to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial or decision 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.
[29] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[30] The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
[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] Mireles v. Waco,502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam)
[33] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[35] Hugo Black is Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. This article was delivered as the first James Madison Lecture at the New York University School of Law on February 17, 1960. Reprinted from NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Vol. 35, April, 1960.
[36] As of Saturday June 01, 2013 12:05.68 PM
[37] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[38] In criminal case the "exclusionary rule" is an obfuscation of the Government's Article III vicarious liability for due Process rights.
[39] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971) "Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing."
[40] United States v. Agurs - 427 U.S. 103 (1976) "typified by Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury. [Footnote 7] In a series of subsequent cases, the Court has consistently held that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, [Footnote 8] and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury."


Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
E-mail is preferred,
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316