Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Civil RIGHTS
Jim Crow, Jane Crow, Plea Bargain and Exclusionary Rule Eras
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193, Jeep v. Obama/Government U.S. Change of address
Dear Mr. Holder,
"Immunity is given to crime,[1] and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193, Jeep v. Obama/Government U.S. proves it, Monday, June 10, 2013! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.[2] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in Congress (1871)[3] at the inception of the Jim Crow Era and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985).
"With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners. We currently incarcerate 756 inmates per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the average worldwide of 158 for every 100,000."[4] I refuse to believe our Justice System is FIVE times better than the rest of the developed world. If my experience is representative I would assert it is FIVE times worse. You want to promote Civil Rights and prosecute the crimes[5] for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States?"[6]
In the Jane Crow Era[7] prosecute the "malicious or corrupt" [8] Judge that EVERYDAY authorizes "facially" [9] fraudulent[10] invalid court orders/warrants.
In the Plea Bargain Era[11] prosecute the "facially" "malicious or dishonest"[12] Government Attorneys that everyday knowingly[13] "withhold exculpable evidence"[14] from their innocent victims or "knowingly[15] false testimony by police officers."[16]
In the Exclusionary Rule Era[17] prosecute whenever and where ever there is "facially" malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[18] deprivations of rights by any "persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." [19]
A judicial officer's "facially" [20] fraudulent[21] invalid court order/warrant,[22] a "facially" "malicious or dishonest"[23] Government Attorney's knowingly[24] withholding "exculpable evidence"[25] and the "facially" "knowingly[26] false testimony by police officers"[27]are all uncontested fact in the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193, Jeep v. Obama/Government U.S.
We the People have fallen under the despotic[28] spell of the concentrated power in the Supreme Court[29] that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[30] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[31] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [32] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[33] and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[34] actions by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [35] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[36]
The undisputed, undisputable FACTS of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193, Jeep v. Obama/Government U.S. started with a fraudulent [37] NOT "facially valid court order."[38] The issuing Judicial Officer combined two unrelated issues and did not facially have "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation"[39] for the stated charge[40] and thus it was "taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction."[41] The prosecuting attorney withheld exculpable evidence of established police procedure that had been specifically request in pretrial motions. The police knowingly perjured themselves by denying established police procedure and their OWN prior statements. Clearly too any facially[42] reckonable[43] reading of Due Process rights, reasonable probable cause is a prerequisite for government/judicial 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."[44]
Please note my new mailing address:
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
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 - Sunday, August 04, 2013, 2:35:10 PM
[1] § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242):
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, 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 or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
[2] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967)
[3] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[4] "Why We Must Fix Our Prisons", By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009, U.S. Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: February 29, 2008, Our Real Prison Problem. Why are we so worried about Gitmo? Newsweek by Dahlia Lithwick Published June 5, 2009
[5] § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242):
[6] 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law
[7] Jane Crow @ www.DGJeep.blogspot.com
[8] 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.
[9] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[10] 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)
[11] In the Plea Bargain Era, where 95% of case never come to trial, exculpable evidence is all too easily concealed.
[12] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[13] Ibid. United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals seven times – two prior Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
[14] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
[15] Ibid. United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals seven times – two prior Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
[16] 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."
[17] The Exclusionary Rule does nothing to punish the criminal perpetrator of the "deprivation of rights." And for Innocent People, "the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For Innocent People, "it is damages or nothing." Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971)
[18] 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 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.
[19] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[20] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[21] 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.
[22] United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals seven times, ibid.
[23] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[24] Ibid. United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals seven times – two prior Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
[25] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
[26] Ibid. United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals seven times – two prior Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
[28] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[29] "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
[30] "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.
[31] 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.
[32] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[33] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[34] 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). Ibid.
[35] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[36] "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.
[37] The fraud exception United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65 (1878) ibid.
[38] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[39] The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
[40] 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.
[41] Mireles v. Waco,502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam)
[42] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[44] 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.
--
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
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
