Wednesday, November 5, 2014

NOT SURE WHAT WORLD both of you have been living in? A Petition for Rehearing - Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-5551 David Jeep v. Government of United States



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

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001


Re: A Petition for Rehearing - Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-5551 David Jeep v. Government of United States

Dear Mr. Obama,

I stress, as always, "Time is of the essence."  I spent 411 days in jail, I am impoverished and have been homeless for 7.00 years in this 11.48 year effort.[1] 

NOT SURE WHAT WORLD both of you have been living in?

Barack, you recently asserted, the surely rhetorical, because it had to be a purposefully UTTERLY FALSE statement[2] before the United Nations- "Because we hold our leaders accountable,[3] and insist on a free press[4] and independent judiciary?[5]

You Justice Ginsburg, an extraordinary samurai for justice, have been able to avoid the only honorable alternative, seppuku,[6] for your association with the sincerely ignorant, conscientiously stupid, malicious and corrupt Black Robed Royalist GUILD OF JUDGES,[7] not sure how?.

We the People cannot hold our leaders[8] or our JUDICIARY accountable because they have UNCONSTITUTIONALLY self-servingly awarded themselves and others the MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity," criminal and civil, for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." 

WE DO NOT HOLD OUR LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE.

The attempt, last fall (November 2013), putting the "validity of the public debt authorized by law"[9] in jeopardy, potentially destroying the economy with the government shutdown is but one contemporaneous example.[10] 

This has ignorantly, stupidly, criminally and maliciously manifested itself in the judge made law of Jim Crow, Liberty of Contract, exclusionary rule,[11] MARTIAL LAW of Jane Crow, FORCED Plea Bargain, MARTIAL LAW in the WORLD-WAR on Drugs[12] and organized crime, GANG Land style violence exported to Central America and Middle East (Afghanistan opium production) [13] that threatens not only our neighbors but our moral authority in the world at large.

We the People's Constitution clearly states:

"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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." [14]

We the People have no way of binding our judiciary or our leaders, because our Black Robed Royalist UNCONSTITUTIONAL Judiciary self-servingly asserts the MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity" for any and all JUDICIAL actions regarding "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."  That defeats the Constitution's raison d'être to "establish Justice" under "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."  The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly en banc disregarded our founders VII Amendment remedy for "a tribunal without juries, which will be a Star-Chamber as to Civil cases[15]"….  OUR BLACK ROBED ROYALIST UNCONSTITUTIONAL JUDICIARY CANNOT BE BOUND. 

Thomas Jefferson originally stated the issue in 1821:

"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible(i.e., unrepresentative[16]body - working like gravity by night and day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." --Thomas Jefferson [17]

Abraham Lincoln, at his first inaugural, stated the problem AGAIN as it had fomented the secession of the South and the coming Civil War as regards their predecessor, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 19 (1856):

"At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." [18]

If there is only one thing you read this YEAR, as an AFRICAN AMERICAN and a person establishing justice, I would ask you toplease, PLEASE read MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 1883, after more than 600,000 deaths in the civil war to establish the XIII, XIV and XV Amendments… AND THEN CONSIDER WHERE "We the People" would be had "WE THE PEOPLE" prevailed in 1883 with the constitutionally authorized congressionally approved and passed "necessary and proper"[19] ex industriastatute law the 1875 Civil Rights Act,[20] 1866 Civil Rights Act, [21] and 1871 Civil Rights Act[22]!!!!!!! (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/12/if-there-is-only-one-thing-you-read.html ).

Or as Teddy Roosevelt, again restated the problem in response to the Supreme Court's REPEATED seemingly undefeatable unjust insistence on the self-serving fascist "Liberty of Contract" asserted in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905):

"The constitution is the property of the people, not of any one class of the people. Its proper administration and interpretation concern immediately and vitally the people as a whole… Our prime concern is to get justice. When the spirit of mere legalism, the spirit of hair-splitting technicality, interferes with justice, then it is our highest duty to war against this spirit, whether it shows itself in the courts or anywhere else.  The judge has no more right than any other official to be set up over the people as an irremovable and irresponsible despot.

But where… the courts have delivered absurd and iniquitous decisions against the interests of the people in various constitutional cases… what is needed is not to recall the judge to private life, but to make his decision—or the constitution as he interprets it—square with justice and common-sense…

It is the people, and not the judges, who are entitled to say what their constitution means, for the constitution is theirs, it belongs to them and not to their servants in office- any other theory is incompatible with the foundation principles of our government. If we, the people, choose to protect (constitutional inalienable rights) tenement-house dwellers in their homes, or women in sweat-shops and factories, or wage earners in dangerous and unhealthy trades, or if we, the people, choose to define and regulate the conditions of corporate activity, it is for us, and not for our servants, to decide on the course we deem wise to follow. We cannot take any other position without admitting that we are less fit for self-government than the people of England, of Canada, of France, who possess and exercise this very power."

Teddy Roosevelt proposed a system of Supreme Court Override that would take two years after a ruling.  What the Founder's proposed was the security that was asserted as essential by the enactment of the VII Amendment.  "We the People" would not have to circumvent a prerogative court[23] i.e., "a tribunal without juries, which will be a Star-Chamber as to Civil cases[24]" because of the VII Amendment's security!!!!!!!

To hear the Supreme Court tells us, via their unrestricted MARTIAL LAW of absolutely immune power, We the People, ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, "intended sub silentio"[25] to trade the "King can do no WRONG" for the MARTIAL LAWof ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the "malicious or corrupt" judges Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872)[26] origin of sophisticated[27]Judicial civil MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity ," Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871) sophisticated MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity " for racially motivate mass murder, United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875) sophisticated deprivation of the 15thAmendment's Voting Rights protection with the subterfuges of poll taxesliteracy tests, and grandfather clauses, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) sophisticated MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity " for racially motivated massacre (Colfax Riot/pogrom), United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883) sophisticated MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity " for the state's sanctioned kidnapping, assault and murder without regard to the 14th Amendment's security, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) creatingsophisticated racial segregation and the ongoing Jim Crow discrimination over the "necessary and proper" "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) separate and UNEQUAL, clarifyingsophisticated segregation over the necessary and proper "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) reaffirmed Judicial sophisticated MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity," Lochner v. New York 198 US 45, 76 (1905) the sophisticated denial of social evolution and an attempted return to economic feudalism at the hands of the moneyed elite i.e., "A constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory."  Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976)prosecutorial sophisticated MARSHAL LAW OF "absolute immunity ," Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) sophisticated MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity " for forced sterilization, and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) sophisticated MARSHAL LAW OF "absolute immunity " for "knowingly false testimony by police officers," and "all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process" to renderABSOLUTE CORRUPTION[28] of INALIENABLE RIGHTS under color of law.

OUR FREE PRESS, with Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n (No. 08–205) and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm'n (12-536) is bought and paid for by deep-pocket special interests.

Our INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY asserts a need to disregard all accountability to function on our behalf, "It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions."[29]  I have always wondered how that supersedes the Constitution's raison d'être to "establish Justice" under "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."

What are they hiding behind the deprivation of rights i.e., the denial of Due Process; their raison d'être to constitutionally "establish Justice?" Are they making so many sincerely ignorant, conscientiously ignorant, malicious and/or corrupt rulings that the accountability of Due Process is unenforceable?  Is the Black Robed Royalist judiciary trying to say that the accountability of Due Process of Law for themselves is impossible and therefore the Constitution's raison d'être to "establish Justice" is impossible.  Are they trying to say that "We the People are dupes, too stupid to see that any attempt at the XIV Amendment's prohibition "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" is impossible without a commensurate grant of MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity" for the same for our Justice System.  That is an inherent contradiction e.g., like making a contract, I want to pay you to build me a house that I fully admit you cannot build

That is insanity!!!!!!!!!!

We the People actually enacted "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; - THAT - the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."[30]  Further clarifying that "We the People" would not have to circumvent "a tribunal without juries, which will be a Star-Chamber as to Civil cases[31]" because of the VII Amendment's security!!!!!!!

You think the so-called independent judiciary has gotten us this far, why should we change?  YOU ARE CLEARLY IGNORANT of what the INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY has done e.g., Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7 (1868)[32] the origin of judicial criminalsophisticated[33]  MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity," Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872)[34] origin of sophisticated Judicial civil  MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity ," Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871) sophisticated MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity " for racially motivate mass murder, United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875) sophisticated deprivation of the 15th Amendment's Voting Rights protection with the subterfuges of poll taxesliteracy tests, and grandfather clauses, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) sophisticated MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity " for racially motivated massacre (Colfax Riot/pogrom), United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883) sophisticated MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity " for the state's sanctioned kidnapping, assault and murder without regard to the 14th Amendment's security, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) creating sophisticated racial segregation and the ongoing Jim Crow discrimination over the "necessary and proper" "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) separate and UNEQUAL, clarifying sophisticated segregation over the necessary and proper "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) reaffirmed Judicial sophisticated MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity," Lochner v. New York 198 US 45, 76 (1905) thesophisticated denial of social evolution and an attempted return to economic feudalism at the hands of the moneyed elite i.e., "A constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory."  Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) prosecutorial sophisticated MARSHAL LAW OF "absolute immunity ," Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) sophisticated MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity " for forced sterilization, and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) sophisticated MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity " for "knowingly false testimony by police officers," and "all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process."   If that is not ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of We the People's intent to establish justice, I cannot imagine what is.

The People of Ferguson Missouri and I have lived under the reign of MARTIAL LAW in the WORLD-WAR on Drugs[35] and theMARSHAL LAW of JANE CROW DISCRIMINATION[36] for TOO LONG!!!!!

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:  Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Solicitor General
       My Blog - Tuesday, October 15, 2013, 9:32:16 AM


[1] As of Monday Tuesday November 04, 2014 01:36 PM
[2] Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly - United Nations General Assembly Hall - New York City, New York - 10:13 A.M. EDT September 24, 2102.
[3] Everybody but the individual citizen has ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from the rule of law. This is in DIRECT conflict with "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" adopted by the United Nations on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States  on October 5, 1977 - PART II, Article 2, Section 3. "Each State Party  to the present Covenant undertakes: (a)  To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding  that the violation has  been committed by persons acting in an official  capacity;
[4] Our Press is bought and paid for, See Citizen's United
[5] the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby
[6] Just Kidding - Seppuku ("stomach-cutting", "abdomen-cutting") is a form of Japanese ritual suicide by disembowelment. Seppuku was originally reserved only for samurai.
[7] Justice Anthony Kennedy reference as to how you all look out for each other's INTEREST.  This in spite of your oaths to support and defend the constitution. 
[8] The Republican Attempt to CRASH the economy by holding the "public debt of the United States, authorized by law" hostage comes to mind.  See UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, No: 14-1344 David Gerard Jeep Appellant v. The Tea Party/GOP/Republicans, et al. Appellees - Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis (4:13-cv-02089-DDN)
[9] AMENDMENT XIV Section 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. See also
[10] Eighth Circuit Appeal Case No. 14-1344 David Jeep v. The Tea Party/GOP/Republicans, et al
[11] For innocent people the "exclusionary rule" is irrelevant, it is the VII amendment or nothing.
[12] "The Butterfly Effect of Bad Science e.g., Ferguson Missouri"
[13] If "We the People" had been required to do a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit controlled substances as we were for the XVIII Amendment and the Repeal of same with the XXI Amendment.  The displaced bureaucrats would not have free reign to institutionalize the BAD SCIENCE of drug addictions.  
[14] Constitution for the United States of America, Article. VI. § 2
[15] Origins of the Bill of Rights,  By Leonard W. Levy, page 228
[16] "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" Constitution for the United States of America, Article IV , Section 4, § 1
[17] As quoted into the Congressional Record Senate Vol. 152, Pt. 1 page 80-81, Mr. Santorum and Bergh, 15:331. 1821.
[18] Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Monday, March 4, 1861
[19] Not only was it necessary and proper under any reasonable reading of rights granted to all persons, but it was additionally sanctioned under the final section of the XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments, "The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." it was also additionally authorized ORIGINALLY by Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, § 3 "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." And Article. VI. §2 "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby"
[20] Now Codified into Statute law as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
[21] § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27. (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866.  An excerpt from his remarks attached to his veto "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without invading the immunities of… the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order." "It is, therefore, assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment, for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose." See also BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460 U. S. 359 (1983)
[22] Originally enacted as The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 USC §1983 - §1985). The author of § 1 clearly stated the relationship between the two Acts in introducing the 1871 measure:
"My first inquiry is as to the warrant which we have for enacting such a section as this [§ 1 of the 1871 Act]. The model for it will be found in the second section of the act of April 9, 1866, known as the 'civil rights act.' That section provides a criminal proceeding in identically the same case as this one provides a civil remedy for, except that the deprivation under color of State law must, under the civil rights act, have been on account of race, color, or former slavery. This section of the bill, on the same state of facts, not only provides a civil remedy for persons whose former condition may have been that of slaves, but also to all people where, under color of State law, they or any of them may be deprived of rights to which they are entitled under the Constitution by reason and virtue of their national citizenship." BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460 U. S. 357 (1983)
[23] A prerogative court is a court through which the discretionary powers, privileges, and legal immunities reserved to the sovereign were exercised.
[24] Origins of the Bill of Rights,  By Leonard W. Levy, page 228
[25]  "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction, directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]"  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[26] Likewise 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 UNQUALIFIED civil liability for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" enacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC §1983-§1985).
[27] "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." (The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS" To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)
[28] "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.
[30] Constitution for the United States of America, Article. VI. § 2
[31] Origins of the Bill of Rights,  By Leonard W. Levy, page 228
[32] Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) , asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was judicial sophistry at its finest, a judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary immunity from the UNQUALIFIED recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866 (18 USC §241-§242).
[33] "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." (The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS" To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)
[34] Likewise 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 UNQUALIFIED civil liability for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" enacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC §1983-§1985).
[35] "The Butterfly Effect of Bad Science e.g., Ferguson Missouri"
[36] Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-5551 David Jeep v. Government of United States











--
Thanks in advance,
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com orDGJeep01@yahoo.com

(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis , MO 63155-9999
Post a Comment