Wednesday, January 22, 2014

“Motion for Reconsideration, Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS“”

Rodney W. Sippel

c/o Clerk of Court - James G. Woodward

111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300

St. Louis, MO 63102-1123

Re:Mistaken Reference to Prisoner Status, Appeal Letter dated 1/14/14

Motion for Reconsideration, Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS

Dear Sir,

I hold you and your ilk in contempt. I make no apologies for it. "Allegiance and protection are reciprocal rights."[1] After 10 years[2] - devoid of protection - of malicious, corrupt, "sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid"[3] deprivation of rights there is no avoiding contempt. Nonetheless I am the helpless individual victim unable to overcome the "difficult problems of proof"[4] asserted by CRIMINALS[5] - left only the 1^st and 7^th Amendment[6] lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition[7] for redress of grievances.

I first, make NOTE, I am not a prisoner, this would be obvious to anyone that had actually looked at the petition, the case file or the Petitioner's ADDRESS. Your Appeal Letter dated 1/14/14 seems to have been written by someone, maybe like yourself, who is unaware of the facts. But alas, I know what and who I am dealing with. I was at onetime, 3 years ago, a Federal Prisoner (2009-2010). While I was a prisoner, I appealed my confinement. The charges were dismissed before I was able to fully assert my case.

I am enclosing as referenced above a "Motion for Reconsideration."

I STRESS, as we both know, the corruption, malice, "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"[8] of "absolute immunity" is DESTINE to fail and fail tragically for those that have supported and maintained it. History will exact a humiliating castigation. The only issue is how many lives will be damage, if not destroyed in the struggle.

I wanted to go on record, again, giving you a chance to use the courage of "judicial independence" afforded by your lifetime appointment for the altruistic good it was, albeit foolishly, intended – to "establish Justice."[9]

"Courage is an inner resolution to go forward despite obstacles; Cowardice is submissive surrender to circumstances. Courage breeds creativity; Cowardice represses fear and is mastered by it. Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency ask the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular?

But conscience ask the question, is it right? And there comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right."[10]

As opposed to the cowardice of the promulgation of self-serving "absolute immunity" for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[11] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [12] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers,"[13] the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[14] actions[15] of federal, state, local, and regional legislators"[16] and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[17] actions of "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [18] acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION[19] of inalienable rights under color of law.

As an example, just think where we would be today if We the People's constitutionally authorized ex industria[20] statute laws[21] and Justice Harlan's independent COURAGEOUS altruistic insuperable dissent in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883) and Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 551 (1896) had held the day instead of being quashed by 100 years of COWARDLY corrupt, malicious, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid Black Robed Royalist judicial toadies.

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

enclosure

a. "Motion for Reconsideration, Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS""

cc: My Blog - Wednesday, January 22, 2014, 3:31:05 PM

[1] Senator Trumbull as quoted in "HISTORY OF THE THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES" By WILLIAM H. BARNES, A.M., NEW YORK HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, 1868.

[2] Missouri State Courts case no. 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243 and CR203-1336M… Missouri Court of Appeals case no. ED84021 and SD26269… United States Eastern and Western District of Missouri Federal Court – St. Louis Division Cases No. 4:07-CV-1116-CEJ, 4:07-cv-506-SOW, 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 4:11-cv-00931-CAS, 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, and 4:13-cv-360-ERW… United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Case #07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200…Docketed and denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-1115, 11-8211, 13-5193 & 13-7030 not to even mention 411 days in jail on a charge the Federal Courts declined to prosecute No. #4:09-cr-00659-CDP, Habeas Cases 4:09-CV-831 CAS, 4:09-MJ-1052 TIA, 09-2848 David Jeep vs. United States!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[3] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963

[4] Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

[5] Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court Five, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[6] 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 5.69 years!!!! (as of Saturday July 13 2013 02:30 PM) The 1^st 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 7^th 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.

[7] "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 (1803)

[8] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963

[9] "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." Constitution for the United States of America adopted on September 17, 1787, ratified June 21, 1788.

[10] Martin Luther King Jr.

[11] 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.

[12] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[13] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[14] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963

[15] The recent Government Shut Down comes to mind, but the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court had already handed our legislators absolute immunity for their legislative actions, Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997).

[16] Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138

[17] 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.

[18] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"

[19] "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.

[20] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 34 (1883)

[21] Now codified into the U.S. Code as 18 USC §241 - §242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law and 42 USC §1983 - §1985 Civil action for deprivation of rights

UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF

MISSOURI

FEDERAL COURT - St. Louis DIVISION

David G. Jeep, Plaintiff,

vs.

Government of the United States of America, et al

All Defendants/Respondents are included and asserted liable, as GOVERNMENT actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors

Case No: 4:13CV2490 RWS

Motion for Reconsideration

I am herewith requesting you to INDEPENDENTLY and ALTRUISTICALLY per your constitutional obligation "to establish justice" reconsider your "Memorandum and Order" (Documents 8&9) dated January 14, 2014 as regards the above referenced petition.

I would request you INDEPENDENTLY address the NEW and unique specific issues in my ORIGINAL petition and "Motion for Reconsideration," many of these issues have never been presented prior, not regurgitate the CLEARLY irrelevant, fraudulent, corrupt, malicious, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid stare decisis of the too distant past. I humbly apologize for not having addressed the facially invalid premise in Kahn v. Kahn earlier.

I. Kahn v. Kahn 21 F.3d 859, 861

Who in their right mind, other than a lazy self-serving Black Robed Royalist Judge, would give up their constitutional rights as regards their home, their papers and their CHILDREN in a domestic relations issue? Not only is Kahn v. Kahn facially contradictory to the "sense and reason"[1] of the Constitution for the United States of America it clearly ignores the 14^th Amendment's[2] incorporation of the Federal Constitution's "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" upon the States. Who was it that decided We the People should forgo the 5^th and 7^th Amendment[3] security for domestic relations issues, surely not the victims of the deprivation? The only beneficiaries are the slovenly slothful Black Robed Royalist Federal Judiciary.

Not only direct constitutional issues but Kahn v. Kahn is in direct conflict with the "sense and reason"[4] of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) and last year's striking down of the Defense of Marriage Act with United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) where BOTH statutes and precedents asserted Federal Constitutional authority over Domestics Relations.

II. PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

The Government's case is based on the "Jane Crow"[5] fraudulent[6] combination in 2003 (03FC-010670), an ex parte NOT "facially valid court order"[7] of protection and 2004 (CR203-1336M),[8] an unconstitutional misdemeanor traffic ticket/conviction based on a willful violation of "the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83… the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury"[9] in the State Courts of Missouri.

I was charged and held on TWO infamous crimes fraudulently,[10] unreasonably and unconstitutionally combined[11] into one while being denied the most basic elements of Due Process of Law,[12] credible probable cause[13] and exculpable evidence.[14]

The "Jane Crow"[15] fraudulent[16] ex parte NOT "facially valid court order"[17] of protection (2003, 03FC-010670) listed NO REASONABLE PROBABLE CAUSE.

Clearly the 4^th Amendment's requirement for reasonable probable cause[18] limits jurisdiction for a "facially valid court order"[19] or it is without efficacy or authority.[20] The issuing Judge (Goeke) did not have "facially" reasonable probable cause[21] for the stated charge[22] it was fraudulent[23] and not a "facially valid court order."[24] "Reasonable probable cause" [25] is a requirement for "facially valid" jurisdiction per reason and the 4^th Amendment. Thus:

Ø the original order of,

Ø the original service of,

Ø the original hearing for,

Ø and all the subsequent findings in favor of

the unwarrantable, unconstitutional and NOT "facially valid court order"[26] were taken in "a complete absence of all jurisdictions."[27]

Additionally all Federal Court Constitutional findings on appeal in favor of the NOT "facially valid court order,"[28] after being made aware of the constitutional issues, were, are and have been felonious,[29] if not treasonous, violations of their oath of office "to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic"[30] that ALL federal officers and Article III Judicial Officers are bound by.[31]

A facially invalid court order is NOT controlled by PENN v. U.S. A "facially valid court order"[32] per PENN v. U.S. is required for its controlling authority.

Any combination of a NOT "facially valid court order"[33] and a unconstitutional[34] misdemeanor traffic ticket or conviction from a different subject matter jurisdiction (abuse v. traffic), a different geographical jurisdiction (Camden County {26^th Judicial Circuit Court State of Missouri} v St. Louis County {21st Judicial Circuit Court State of Missouri} 176 miles apart) and under a different judicial officers (Judges Bennett and Colyer {26^th Judicial Circuit Court State of Missouri} v Commissioner Jones {21st Judicial Circuit Court State of Missouri}) personal jurisdiction violates the "Equal Protection"[35] of "Due Process of Law"[36] if not the "cruel and UNUSUAL"[37] prohibition of the 8^th Amendment.

III. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 328 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 32 (1992)

Neither my requested 5^th and 7^th Amendment[38] petition for a jury trial nor my remedy for the 10 plus years deprivation and struggle to regain my "property in rights"[39] are "fantastic or delusional"[40] in light of the CLEARLY "incredible,"[41] "fantastic or delusional"[42] 10 plus year assertions by the Black Robed Royalist Guild of Judges.

First off why would We the People say we want a Republican form[43] of government, constitutionally prohibiting the divine right of the nobility,[44] if it was our intent to replace "the King can do no wrong" with "absolute immunity" for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[45] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [46] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers,"[47] corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[48] actions[49] of federal, state, local, and regional legislators are entitled to absolute immunity"[50] and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, "sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid"[51] actions of "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [52] acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION[53] of inalienable rights under color of law.

The Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber" July 5, 1641 §9, "sense and reason," "the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments than by any law is warranted" shows the originating precedent, Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607), for "absolute immunity," Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871) to have been fraudulent and thus unavailable. Judges were and ARE "limited by the statute" and are not at liberty "to make decrees (or precedent) for things having no such authority" i.e., "absolute immunity." Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871) were not only FRAUDULENT, but blatantly "sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid"[54] if not maliciously and corruptly motivated by the, then recent, ex industria [55] constitutionally authorized statute law.[56] Mens rea is thus established for the criminal Fraus omnia corrumpit -"Fraud corrupts all" a principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision

The Judicial sophistry [57] of "absolute immunity" creates "absolute power" "before out of court"[58] to the FRAUDULENT ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION [59] of We the People 's unalienable rights under color of law... the AUDACITY of the INSANITY, ignorance and stupidity IS a "fantastic or delusional"[60] scenario. "Even if the doctrine had existed in common law, constitutional supremacy dictates that it must bow before the American idea of procedural justice embodied in the guarantee of due process." [61]

The protection of the law is and always has been the "raison d'être"[62] for the Constitution as Amended, Civil Rights Act of 1866,[63] Civil Rights Act of 1871[64] and Civil Rights Act of 1964.[65]

The Federal Court in essence, numerous times,[66] has confirmed my case by asserting "as these officials are entitled to absolute immunity" "before out of court."[67] Any assertion of "absolute immunity" "before out of court,"[68] in the post "divine right of the nobility,"[69] REAL WORLD of human fallibility, is inherently UNREASONABLE and confirms the party making the inherently UNREASONABLE assertions of infallibility to be "sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid"[70] and any resultant scenario to be "incredible,"[71] "fantastic or delusional."[72]

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signed this Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Signature of Plaintiff(s)

________________________________________________________

David G. Jeep

GENERAL DELIVERY

Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999

E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)

(314) 514-5228

[1] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

[2] "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." Adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of "We the People" on June 21, 1788.

[3] AMENDMENT V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AMENDMENT VII "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."

[4] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

[5] "Jane Crow" is the result of the perversion of justice fomented by the pervasive misandry in the Family Courts. "Jane Crow" started with the unequal protection in "The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in 1974 (P.L. 93-247) and its flagrant pervasive abuse is documented across the country "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08. http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/1974/12/jane-crow-era.html

^{^[6]} Fraus omnia corrumpit -"Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision

[7] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[8] An unwarrantable charge of DWI, supported only by deprivation of exculpable evidence and Provably falsified police testimony and police reports.

[9] "the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury." United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 103 (1976)

[10] 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." This describes ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY'S effect PERFECTLY.

[11] Combining the TWO, punishing with one law, while holding me on the other charge violates the 8^th amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments."

[12] 5^th and 14^th Amendments

[13] 4^th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[14] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, ." United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 103 (1976)

[15] "Jane Crow" is the result of the perversion of justice fomented by the pervasive misandry in the Family Courts. "Jane Crow" started with the unequal protection in "The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in 1974 (P.L. 93-247) and its flagrant pervasive abuse is documented across the country "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08. http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/1974/12/jane-crow-era.html

^{^[16]} Fraus omnia corrumpit -"Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision

[17] "we have not hesitated to extend absolute immunity to other officials for acts taken pursuant to a facially valid court order." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003). Facially being the operative word.

[18] 4th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[19] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[20] see the subject ex parte "facially invalid court order" of protection dated November 3, 2003, the complete Commissioner's (Jones) UNWARRANTED hearing transcript and the post-trial motions declaring the hearing UNCONSTITUTIONAL are also available in the court record. They confirm the prior coram non judice, extrajudicial act.

[21] 4th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[22] An assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not meet the standard of "reasonable probable cause" for the stated charge.

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."

[23] 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." This describes ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY'S effect PERFECTLY.

[24] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[25] 4th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[26] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[27] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[28] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[29] 18 USC §241 - §242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law is clearly a felony under 18 USC § 3559(a)(5)- Sentencing classification of offenses,

[30] 5 USC § 3331 - Oath of office

[31] 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.

[32] "we have not hesitated to extend absolute immunity to other officials for acts taken pursuant to a facially valid court order." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003). Facially being the operative word.

[33] "we have not hesitated to extend absolute immunity to other officials for acts taken pursuant to a facially valid court order." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003). Facially being the operative word.

[34] "the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83… the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury" ." United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 103 (1976)

[35] 14^th Amendment

[36] 5^th and 14^th Amendments

[37] "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." 8^th Amendment.

[38] AMENDMENT V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[39] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792

[40] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 328 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 32 (1992)

[41] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)

[42] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)

[43] Section. 4.

§1.The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

[44] There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity," Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility." Additionally I cite Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 as further timely clarification of the supreme law of the land:

"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility(i.e., absolute immunity). This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people."

You some how want to argue that "the grant of Nobility" was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility? That would undermine Free-Enterprise.

Anyone that wants to assert "the prohibition of titles of nobility' was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.

There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law? Did Nat "King" Cole violate the constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[45] 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.

[46] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[47] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[48] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963

[49] The recent Government Shut Down comes to mind, but the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court had already handed our legislators absolute immunity for their legislative actions, Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997).

[50] Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138

[51] 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).

[52] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"

[53] "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.

[54] 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).

[55] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 34 (1883)

[56]Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was Judicial sophistry[56] at its finest, a judicial subterfuge, to give the judiciary immunity from the recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law). Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), also asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was a subterfuge to give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the civil liability enacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (Now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights).

[57] "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)

[58] "but if he (a Justice sworn to do Justice) hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial" Floyd and Barker., (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber., The Reports, volume 12, page 23.

[59] "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.

[60] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 328 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 32 (1992)

[61] Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987) Page 463

[62] MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. "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. 656 (1980)

[63] Now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

[64] Now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

[65] The purpose of the first section of the act of Congress of March 1, 1875, was to prevent race discrimination in respect of the accommodations and facilities of inns, public conveyances, and places of public amusement. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

[66] See the stipulated case in Document 8 of the court file. And the

[67] "but if he (a Justice sworn to do Justice) hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial" Floyd and Barker., (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber., The Reports, volume 12, page 23.

[68] "but if he (a Justice sworn to do Justice) hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial" Floyd and Barker., (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber., The Reports, volume 12, page 23.

[69] There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity," Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility." Additionally I cite Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 as further timely clarification of the supreme law of the land:

[70] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

[71] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)

[72] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)

--
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

"The Earth and everything that's in it"

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

“Motion for Reconsideration, Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS“”

Motion for Reconsideration

No comments: