Michael E. Gans, Clerk of Court
U. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329
St. Louis, MO. 63102-1123
Re: Case No. 14-1470 Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al
Petition for REHEARINg by panel, "en banc" of the 8th Circuit Court.
I realize the primary constitutional security of the preamble, "to establish Justice," is too much to ask of anyone burdened by the unconstitutional Article III Court's grant of "absolute immunity." The criminal conspiracy of the Black Robed Royalist Guild of Judges cannot allow anything that questions their "absolute immunity." They have proven over time that they cannot and SHOULD NOT BE trusted, Cruishank, Blyew, Plessy, and Lochner.
The Constitution clearly states that "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Clearly if indeed "absolute immunity" ever existed it was negated by "such Regulations as the Congress shall make" with reference to "Whoever, under color of any law" in § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (Title Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) and "Every person who, under color of any statute" in the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985).
In direct contradiction to the expressed limitations of the 5th Amendment's unreasonable prosecutions of "otherwise infamous crime" we have had the unjust persecution of African Americans in the "Jim Crow" era. Now with the CoEd Crow and GI Crow in the Jane Crow era we are to unjustly terrorize all males EVERY WHERE all the time. George F. Will's recent articles in the New York Post ("Colleges mad with political correctness over campus rapes") and Washington Post ("Colleges become the victims of progressivism") concur.
"The Cyclops syndrome: to see with only one eye, in only one dimension and only half of reality. Cyclops people stereotype the male by the actions of a minority, define the exceptions as the rule, ignore the majority, and ignore too the minority of female villains for a cleaner, clearer (supposedly) picture. Most murderers are male but most males are not murderers, and some women are. This is not rocket science. But misandry is less about reality than politics" ("Why Some People Have Issues With Men: Misandry" by Anthony Synnott, Ph.D.).
Alas I am civilized. I believe in the rule of LAW and OPPOSE the royalist assertion of "absolute immunity," in the constitutional, post divine right of the nobility, REAL WORLD!!!!
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. "PETITION FOR REHEARING BY PANEL "en banc" Rule 35A and 40A" Wednesday, June 11, 2014"
cc: My Blog – Monday June 9, 2014
United States Court of Appeals
For The Eighth Circuit
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: 14-1470
Petition for rehearing by Panel "en banc"
Rule 35A and 40A
I am herewith requesting an INDEPENDENT and ALTRUISTICAL, per the primary constitutional obligation "to establish justice," reconsideration of "the dispositive order" (Entry ID: 4161625) dated June 5, 2014 for Case No. 14-1470 as referenced above.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Monday June 9, 2014
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
David G. Jeep
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
 18 USC § 241 & 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
 Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, § 2
 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!