c/o Clerk of Court – J. G. Woodward
Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
REPEATED 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,
I realize that you may be so insulated that you do not even get these letters. That is your loss.
This has been 9 ½ years, I have suffered through 55,482 waking hours of the deprivation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights, 5 ½ years of homelessness, 411 days of illegal incarceration without bail and 2 psychological exams. I am not Johnny come lately to this issue. I am not some whiner… want-a-be, I have paid my DUES on this issue!!!! I am FULLY IRRETRIEVABLY COMMITTED.
I want to restate for the record, just who and what you are dealing with. On Monday November 03, 2003 08:00 PM I was served a warrant that lacked statutory and constitutional required probable cause for the charge on its face. I was illegally, unconstitutionally forced from my son, my home, my EVERYTHING. I hired an attorney to represent me. My attorney, as documented in the court record made pretrial constitutional objections to deficiencies of the warrant, it lacked probable cause. He was over ruled. There was a hearing Wednesday, November 19, 2003, my attorney of record again objected at the start of the hearing the warrant lacked statutory and constitutional required probable cause for the charge on its face. He was over ruled. The Judge denied me Due Process of Law found for the petitioner amending the petition on the fly. My attorney of record again objected to this now on the fly creation of as yet STILL unidentified probable cause. He was over ruled. My attorney of record immediately subsequent to the criminally fraudulent on the fly finding, a denial of Due Process, by the Judicial Officer filed two in righting multiple page motions politely and in Good Faith asking for the specifics of the undefined amended pleadings, to no avail.
I had borrowed money for the attorney to represent me through the hearing. I could not afford a professional appeal. I was penniless, homeless, being denied my son and without everything I had ever held dear in the world. I was a financial, physical and emotional ruin. I cried myself to sleep. I was being handed off between older and younger siblings who struggle to make a place for 48 year old unwanted full time house guest in their lives, to no avail.
I was forced into a contested divorce with the benefactor of all that had been illegally and unconstitutionally taken from me… my home, my son and who held hostage EVERYTHING I ever held dear in the world.
I petition the court asking for a hearing on the unconstitutional, illegal and JUST PLAIN wrong on the fly denial of Due Process, I was IGNORED. I had no money, pro se, I attempted to appeal the illegal, unconstitutional action in State Court. I was DENIED.
I struggled on emotionally and financially being forced to PAY support for my son, my home and my everything, that I no longer had. In 2006 after years of damage, having struggled through the CORRUPT CONTESTED divorce for over 2 years I saw the potential for the 14th Amendment with the Missouri Eastern District Federal Court intervention on the CLEAR denial of Due Process. I was denied. I took it to the 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals and was denied. I did this FIVE times, slightly different tacks[2] each time, through the Circuit Courts 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425 and 12-2435 asking for the details of the amended pleadings and then to be heard on the same to no avail. I went to the Supreme Court of the United States all five times, two petitioned were docketed, 07-11115 and 11-8211 all were ignored or DENIED by the DEADBEAT Supreme Court.
This has been 9 plus years, I have suffered through 9 ½ years of the deprivation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights, 5 ½ years of homelessness, 411 days of illegal incarceration without bail and 2 psychological exams. I am not Johnny come lately to this issue. I am not some whiner… want-a-be, I have paid my DUES on this issue!!!!
I got into a discussion online today and it got me to thinking. Your comment in your recent ruling, that I am appealing because "he disagrees with the outcome of proceedings initiated against him." And I agree 100%, if I had been awarded what I asked for in my divorce, my rights be dammed, I would not have an issue. I would have no reason to spend 9 ½ years fighting your corruption, malice and incompetents.
To this day 3,466 days after being served, I STILL HAVE never been provide PROBABLE CAUSE for the instigating unconstitutional warrant that denied me my son, my home, my everything. That INSTIGATION was a FRAUD, fraus omnia corrumpit.[3] That fraud but me at a DISADVANTAGE throughout my subsequent divorce. I was forced into a life or death struggle with the instigator of the FRAUD the recipient of my son, my home, my everything. Because of the denial, because of the fraud it was an EVIL unwarranted life or death struggle to say the least.
I would be willing to bet if Lucy Armstrong[4] was here you would say the same thing to her. Your family was murder before your eyes, but you are just complaining about the ruling in your case, that you the only eye witness to the MASS MURDER of your family is not allowed to testify. "The statute of Kentucky which was in existence when this indictment was found, and which denied the right of Lucy Armstrong, Richard Foster and Laura Foster to testify in the courts of the state enacted as follows:
"That a slave, negro, or Indian shall be a competent witness in the case of the commonwealth for or against a slave, negro, or Indian, or in a civil case to which only negroes or Indians are parties, but in no other case." "[5]
Justice has been quashed on the gallows trap door of absolute immunity. Your REFUSAL to see the criminal fraud and injustice in both the above referenced cases is an obscenity!!! A horrendous stain on American history!!!!
If the asserted need for judicial independence has any authority at all, and that is a very big IF, judicial independence should be able to overcome the "confirmation bias" of precedent that makes manifest evil look accepted benign and inevitable.
The quote from Martin Luther King says it all "To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it."
The massive on going manifest evil in the clearly criminal Federal Judiciary's conspiracy[6] against rights, is not only an accomplice to the EVIL but has BOTH mens rea[7] and actus reus[8] for their manifest evil actions! The assertion of the potential of "continual calumniations"[9] and "vexatious actions"[10] does not excuse the denial of rights,[11] the raison d'être[12] for their existence. Any asserted need for judicial independence was NEVER to include independence from Supreme Law of the Land:
"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" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America.
I realize a decision in favor of the petitioner would require exertion of necessary and proper authority from the federal Judiciary under color of law, but that is exactly what the 14th Amendment requires by asserting that No State Shall.[17]
The assertion in Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (1903) that the Federal Judiciary does not have the resources or the responsibility is just FALSE. Not only does the Federal Judiciary have the delegated constitutional authority to enforce the 14th Amendment on the states, that is "the sense and reason of the law,"[18] its "raison d'être."[19]
What does a pacifist do that has been denied his basic human rights? I have been to the CORRUPT DEADBEAT Supreme Court of the United States 5 times!!!! I am FULLY IRRETRIEVABLY COMMITTED. I am now looking for a public precipice from where I might sacrifice my body flambé to EXPOSE the manifest evil in the assertion of absolute civil and criminal immunity. Should I wait for you to arrest me and then force a feeding tube down my throat like a GITMO prisoner?
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
David G. Jeep
enclosure
a. "Copy handwritten ORIGINAL petition dated November 3, 2003"
[1] Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), US civil rights leader
[2] I started with 18 U.S.C. § 242, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, I asked the FBI to investigate as per the stated responsibility for Civil Rights, I used BIVENS V. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U. S. 388, I used 1st and the 7th Amendment, I most recently used First Amendment, Bivens Action (No. 12–222. Oravec v. Cole) & Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[3] fraus omnia corrumpit - fraud unravels all - Once a contract is affected by fraud, all bets are off.
[4] The murder (Lucy Armstrong) for which the defendants were convicted, and as they now sought to show illegally, had been one of peculiar atrocity. A number of witnesses testified that on a summer evening of 1868 (August 29), towards eleven o'clock, at the cabin of a colored man named Jack Foster there were found the dead bodies of the said Jack, of Sallie Foster his wife, and of Lucy Armstrong, for the murder of whom Blyew and Kennard stood convicted; this person, a blind woman, over ninety years old, and the mother of Mrs. Foster; all persons of color; their bodies yet warm. Lucy Armstrong was wounded in the head; her head cut open as with a broad-axe. Jack Foster and Sallie, his wife, were cut in several places, almost to pieces. Richard Foster a son of Jack, who was in his seventeenth year, was found about two hundred yards from the house of his father, at the house of a Mr. Nichols, whither he had crawled from the house of his father, mortally wounded by an instrument corresponding to one used in the killing of Lucy Armstrong, Jack and Sallie Foster. He died two days afterwards from the effects of his wounds aforesaid, having made a dying declaration tending to fix the crime on Blyew and Kennard. Two young children, girls, one aged ten years and the other thirteen (this last, the Laura Foster above mentioned), asleep in a trundle-bed, escaped, and the latter was a witness on the trial.
Evidence was produced on the part of the United States that a short time previous to the murder, Kennard was heard to declare, in presence of Blyew,
"that he [Kennard] thought there would soon be another war about the niggers; that when it did come, he intended to go to killing niggers, and he was not sure that he would not begin his work of killing them before the war should actually commence." Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 584 (1871)
[6] See the listed respondents in the original petition on appeal 12-2435
[7] The Legal Latin for "guilty mind"
[8] The Legal Latin for "guilty act"
[11] Justice William O. Douglas dissenting in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 565 (1967)confirmed this "I cannot believe that judges . . . would fail to discharge their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths and consciences . . . from any fear of exposing themselves to actions at law. I am persuaded that the number of such actions would be infinitely small, and would be easily disposed of."
Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, L.R. 5 Q.B. 94, 110 (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting).
[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] 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 "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." Do not try to argue with John Marshal that the "sense and reason" of a petition is the same thing as a suit. "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
[14] Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 and 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."
[15] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242
[16] § 2 of the 1866 Act, § 1 of the 1871 Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as 18 U.S.C. § 242, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 respectively):
[17] Amendment XIV, Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868., Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."
[19] "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)
--
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 Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
