This BRIEF was filed March 6, 2014
Friday, February 14, 2014
Monday, February 10, 2014
Before out of court Article III benefaction of "absolute immunity" creates absolute power to the absolute corruption of the PROTECTION of Due Process of Law. That the court refuses to see this, CONFIRMS the Article III court's distinct "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
Clerk of Court - James G. Woodward
St. Louis - Eastern Division
Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
St. Louis, MO 63102-1123
Re: Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS
Notice of Appeal
Dear People,
Please accept this Notice of appeal as referenced abnove and included here.
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. “Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS Notice of Appeal” dated Sunday, February 09, 2014
cc: My Blog - Tuesday, February 10, 2014
UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
FEDERAL COURT - St. Louis DIVISION
|
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
|
Notification of Appeal
I appeal the judicial assertion of sophisticated[1] “absolute immunity” for all[2] as asserted in the above referenced case. Before out of court Article III benefaction of “absolute immunity” creates absolute power to the absolute corruption of the protection of Due Process of Law. That the court refuses to see this, CONFIRMS the Article III court’s distinct “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”[3]
The Article III court asserts two things in its denial of the motion for reconsideration:
1. “Although plaintiff’s “sense and reason” [4] argument is colorful, it does not provide the strong judicial precedent this Court’s jurisdictional opinion in this case.”
2. This Court’s findings that plaintiff’s assertions of a “government conspiracy” are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic and delusional.
Since the beginning of this issue in 2003 the self-serving Article III court has asserted “absolute immunity” thus empowering the court to act unrestrained by the “sense and reason” of the supreme law of the land. That is apparently TOO simple for the Article III court to see, limited by the Article III judiciary’s “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
I realize I am just a SINGLE natural born citizen of the United States of America lawfully un-abridge-ably petitioning for a 1st and 7th Amendment[5] redress of grievances, the deprivation of the constitutional[6] “property in rights.”[7] I stress as the Supreme Court has confirmed, “The essence of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected” (McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914)).
The “sense and reason” of Civilization, the Constitution and Civil Rights Act of 1871 (U.S.C 42 § 1983) clearly conflicts with the corrupt, malicious, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid assertion of ““difficult problems of proof,” and we must adhere to a “stringent standard of fault,” lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.”[8] Liability for the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the U.S.C. as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights could never collapse into respondeat superior. The sovereign’s liability for constitutional rights EXCEEDS respondeat superior liability. Strict absolute liability for rights is Civilization’s, the Constitution’s and §1983’s raison d'être![9] “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 (Civilization, the Constitution and) section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of (Civilization’s, the Constitution’s and) the statute's raisons d'etre.” [10]
I repeat because the Article III court refuses to acknowledge the common sense of the incontrovertible constitutional common law, as Martin Luther King first said, “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Clearly to any independent sane “reckonable”[11] reading of the record, the court is sincerely ignorant and conscientiously STUPID of the incontrovertible common law, Constitutional Law,[12] statute law,[13] and the facts of the case.[14]
The Court asserts Article III precedent subjugates the “reckonable”[15] “sense and reason”[16] of the incontrovertible common law, the Constitution for the United States of America ,[17] statute law,[18] and facts of the case.[19] I object, as one[20] of “We the People.” I would hope that an Article III court would know that since Commonwealth v. Hunt, 45 Mass. 111 (1842) the “Magna Carta of American trade-unionism,” the mere assertion of a conspiracy is not illegal. In today’s overly paranoid conspiracy laden world, I never asserted anything so colorfully maladjusted, neurotic, schizophrenic or trite as a “government conspiracy.” Conspiracy advocates are not always bad. I conspire everyday with like minded individuals to do right, “the time is always ripe to do right.” Again Martin Luther King, who has been here before, said:
“Some years ago Professor Bixler reminded us of the danger of overstressing the well-adjusted life. Everybody passionately seeks to be well-adjusted. We must, of course, be well-adjusted to avoid neurotic schizophrenic personalities, but there are some things in our world to which men of goodwill must be maladjusted. I confess that I never intend to become adjusted to the evils of segregation and the crippling effects of discrimination, to the moral degeneracy of religious bigotry and the corroding effects of narrow sectarianism, to economic conditions that deprive men of work and food, and the to the insanities of militarism and the self-defeating effects of physical violence.”
I refuse to be well-adjusted to “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Admittedly the individual moral degeneracy, ignorance and stupidity of EVIL is insidious throughout the neurotic[21] schizophrenic individual personalities in the Article III Judiciary. Nowhere is the moral degeneracy, neurotic, schizophrenic, individual ignorance and stupidity of “absolute immunity” “reckonablly”[22] provided for in common law post “Act of Parliament “Abolition of the Star Chamber”[23] (July 5, 1641) or The Constitution for the United States of America:
“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.”
Point in fact in opposition to the “reckonable”[24] individual “absolute immunity” of titles of nobility I submit, Publius, Federalist No. 39, “The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles” (footnotes added), James Madison said it best:
“Could any further proof be required of the republican[25] complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, [26] both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter.”
Given the clear an undisputed facts in this case, the violation of 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th and 14th Amendment rights I have a lawfully un-abridge-able 1st, 7th and 14th [27] Amendment right to submit the issue to a jury of my peers.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________________________
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
[1] “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)
[2] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) reaffirmed Judicially sophisticated “absolute immunity,” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) prosecutorial sophisticated “absolute immunity,” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) sophisticated “absolute immunity” for forced sterilization, “federal, state, and regional legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability for their legislative activities” 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 and sophisticated “absolute immunity” for “knowingly false testimony by police officers," and “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983).
[3] Martin Luther King Jr. Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
[5] Not to mention the 14th Amendment’s §5 assertion of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[6] 5th Amendment “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
[7] “Property” James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792, 27 March 1792
[8] Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson, Certiorari to the Supreme Court, No. 09–571. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 29, 2011
[9] "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)
[10] Parenthetical texted added for clarity Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 667 (1980)
[11] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[12] 5th and 14th Amendment right to reasonable probable cause and Due Process of law
[13] Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[14] See the exparte NOT “facially valid court order” of protection at the origin (2003) and center of this issue as provided with the original petition filed and dated 12-12-13 413CV2490 RWS (and also in 2007, 2008,.2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014) - Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, where the Judicial officer is restrained by statute to “for good cause shown in the petition” issue a warrant, was A FRAUD.
[15] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[17] 5th and 14th Amendment right to reasonable probable cause and Due Process of law
[18] Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[19] See the exparte NOT “facially valid court order” of protection at the origin (2003) and center of this issue as provided with the original petition filed and dated 12-12-13 413CV2490 RWS (and also in 2007, 2008,.2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014) - Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, where the Judicial officer is restrained by statute to “for good cause shown in the petition” issue a warrant, was A FRAUD.
[20] “It is the fact, clearly established, of injury to the complainant -- not to others -- which justifies judicial intervention. Williams v. Hagood, 98 U. S. 72, 98 U. S. 74-75; Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325, 114 U. S. 328-329; Tyler v. Judges, 179 U. S. 405, 179 U. S. 406; Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U. S. 51, 187 U. S. 60; Davis & Farnum v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207, 189 U. S. 220; Hooker v. Burr, 194 U. S. 415, 194 U. S. 419; Braxton County Court v. West Virginia, 208 U. S. 192, 208 U. S. 197; Collins v. Texas, 223 U. S. 288, 223 U. S. 295-296.” McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914)
[21] The neurotic assertion of potential baseless vexatious or calumnious accusation is without MERIT and shows the proponent to have too little faith in the sworn constitutional sovereign, “We the People” to whom they are bound by their oath of office.
[22] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[23] Act of Parliament “Abolition of the Star Chamber”[23] July 5, 1641, statute law in the realm of England, or dominion of Wales, that “repealed and absolutely revoked and made void” for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for “absolute immunity” in Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607). Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607) was NOT available to reasonably used as precedent for Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523 (1868), Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) and Stump v. Sparkman 435 U.S. 349 (1978). Per the Act of Parliament “Abolition of the Star Chamber”[23] July 5, 1641 Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607) had/HAS NO authority!!!!!!!!.
· Article I “An act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber.” “WHEREAS by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land:…
· § 9 of “but 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”
· Article III “Be it ordained and enacted by the authority of this present parliament, That the said court commonly called the star-chamber, and all jurisdiction, power and authority belonging unto, or exercised in the same court, or by any the judges, officers, or ministers thereof, be from the first day of August in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred forty and one, clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away and determined”
· § 3 “every article, clause and sentence in them, and every of them, by which any jurisdiction, power or authority is given, limited or appointed unto the said court commonly called the star-chamber, or unto all or any the judges, officers or ministers thereof, or for any proceedings to be had or made in the said court, or for any matter or thing to be drawn into question, examined or determined there, shall for so much as concerneth the said court of star-chamber, and the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void.”
The Act explicitly disbands the court for abusing said immunity, “repealed and absolutely revoked and made void” all prior precedent of the said court and judges.
[24] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[25] Footnote ADDED, ACKNOWLEDGING –
Article. IV., 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.
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.
[26] Footnote ADDED, 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[27] See the 14th Amendment’s congressional authorization under its §1 “No State shall” and §5 “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
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
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff vs. Tea Party / GOP / Republican Party, et al 4:13CV2089-DDN
Clerk of Court - James G. Woodward
St. Louis - Eastern Division
Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
St. Louis, MO 63102-1123
Re: Jeep v. The Tea Party, et al No. 4:13CV2089 DDN
Notice of Appeal
Dear People,
Please accept this notice of appeal as referenced above and included here.
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
“ Jeep v. The Tea Party, et al No. 4:13CV2089 DDN Notice of Appeal” dated Sunday, February 09, 2014
cc: My Blog - Tuesday, February 11, 2014, 3:42:22 PM
UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
FEDERAL COURT - St. Louis DIVISION
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff,
vs.
Tea Party / GOP / Republican Party, et al
All Defendants/Respondents are included and asserted liable, as GOVERNMENT actors, PARTY actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
Case #: 4:13CV2089-DDN
|
Notification of Appeal
I appeal two issues:
1. The unannounced appointment of John Andrew Ross District Judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri without prior LEGAL notice to the petitioner?
I make special NOTE that John Andrew Ross was a judicial member of the 21st District State Court of Missouri in 2003 when my Civil Rights were deprived by his THEN employee Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr. John Andrew Ross thus has at least a portion of the respondeat superior liability for his employee’s actions.
I currently have an action before the Federal Court, Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS, confirming and asserting this deprivation.
I OBJECT to John Andrew Ross’s participation in the above CURRENT Case #: 13CV2089-DDN not only because of his unannounced appointment but also his prior and CURRENTLY asserted LIABILITY issues in Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I make special NOTE that John Andrew Ross was a judicial member of the 21st District State Court of Missouri in 2003 when my Civil Rights were deprived by his THEN employee Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr. John Andrew Ross thus has at least a portion of the respondeat superior liability for his employee’s actions.
I currently have an action before the Federal Court, Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS, confirming and asserting this deprivation.
I OBJECT to John Andrew Ross’s participation in the above CURRENT Case #: 13CV2089-DDN not only because of his unannounced appointment but also his prior and CURRENTLY asserted LIABILITY issues in Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2. The judicial assertion of sophisticated[1] “absolute immunity” for all[2] asserted in the above referenced case is without constitutional merit.
I assert the respondents as “GOVERNMENT actors, PARTY actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors” clearly have a fiduciary responsibility and thus liability[3] for “my “property in rights.”[4] “My “property in rights”[5]has been deprived by the Defendant’s / Respondent’s refusal to support and defend the constitutional security of the 14th Amendment “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.” The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare is authorized by law, and therefore shall not be questioned.”
I assert the respondents as “GOVERNMENT actors, PARTY actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors” clearly have a fiduciary responsibility and thus liability[3] for “my “property in rights.”[4] “My “property in rights”[5]has been deprived by the Defendant’s / Respondent’s refusal to support and defend the constitutional security of the 14th Amendment “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.” The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare is authorized by law, and therefore shall not be questioned.”
At length, I appeal the judicial assertion of sophisticated[6] “absolute immunity” for all[7] as asserted in the above referenced case. Before out of court Article III benefaction of “absolute immunity” creates absolute power to the absolute corruption of the protection of Due Process of Law. That the court refuses to see this CONFIRMS the Article III court’s distinct “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”[8]
I realize I am just a SINGLE natural born citizen of the United States of America lawfully un-abridge-ably petitioning for a 1st and 7th Amendment[9] redress of a grievance, the deprivation of my constitutional[10] “property in rights.”[11] I stress as the Supreme Court has confirmed, “The essence of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected” (McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914)).
The “sense and reason” of Civilization, the Constitution and Civil Rights Act of 1871 (U.S.C 42 § 1983) clearly conflicts with the corrupt, malicious, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid assertion of ““difficult problems of proof,” and we must adhere to a “stringent standard of fault,” lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.”[12] Liability for the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the U.S.C. as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights could never collapse into respondeat superior. The sovereign’s liability for constitutional rights EXCEEDS respondeat superior liability. Strict absolute liability for rights is Civilization’s, the Constitution’s and §1983’s raison d'être![13] “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 (Civilization, the Constitution and) section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of (Civilization’s, the Constitution’s and) the statute's raisons d'etre.” [14]
I repeat, because the Article III court refuses to acknowledge the common sense of the incontrovertible constitutional common law, as Martin Luther King first said, “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Clearly to any independent sane “reckonable”[15] reading of the record, the court is sincerely ignorant and conscientiously STUPID of the incontrovertible common law, Constitutional Law,[16] statute law,[17] and the facts of the case.[18]
The Court asserts Article III precedent subjugates the “reckonable”[19] “sense and reason”[20] of the incontrovertible civilized common law, the Constitution for the United States of America ,[21] statute law,[22] and facts of the case.[23] I object, as one[24] of “We the People.” I would hope that an Article III court would know that since Commonwealth v. Hunt, 45 Mass. 111 (1842) the “Magna Carta of American trade-unionism,” the mere assertion of a conspiracy is not illegal. In today’s overly paranoid conspiracy laden world, I never assert anything so colorfully maladjusted, neurotic, schizophrenic or trite as a “government conspiracy.” Conspiracy advocates are not always bad. I conspire everyday with like minded individuals to do right, “the time is always ripe to do right.” Again, Martin Luther King, who has been here before said:
“Some years ago Professor Bixler reminded us of the danger of overstressing the well-adjusted life. Everybody passionately seeks to be well-adjusted. We must, of course, be well-adjusted to avoid neurotic schizophrenic personalities, but there are some things in our world to which men of goodwill must be maladjusted. I confess that I never intend to become adjusted to the evils of segregation and the crippling effects of discrimination, to the moral degeneracy of religious bigotry and the corroding effects of narrow sectarianism, to economic conditions that deprive men of work and food, and the to the insanities of militarism and the self-defeating effects of physical violence.”
I refuse to be well-adjusted to “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Admittedly the individual moral degeneracy, ignorance and stupidity of EVIL is insidious throughout the neurotic[25] schizophrenic individual personalities in the Article III Judiciary. Nowhere is the moral degeneracy, neurotic, schizophrenic, individual ignorance and stupidity of “absolute immunity” “reckonablly”[26] provided for in common sense or common law post “Act of Parliament “Abolition of the Star Chamber”[27] (July 5, 1641) and The Constitution for the United States of America:
“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.”
Point in fact in opposition to the “reckonable”[28] individual “absolute immunity” of titles of nobility I submit, Publius, Federalist No. 39, “The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles” (footnotes added), James Madison said it best:
“Could any further proof be required of the republican[29] complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, [30] both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter.”
Given the clear an undisputed facts in this case, now confirmed by the President Obama’s State of the Union Address, violation of the 14th Amendment rights I have a lawfully un-abridge-able 1st, 7th and 14th [31] Amendment right to submit the issue to a jury of my peers.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________________________
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
[1] “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)
[2] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) reaffirmed Judicially sophisticated “absolute immunity,” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) prosecutorial sophisticated “absolute immunity,” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) sophisticated “absolute immunity” for forced sterilization, “federal, state, and regional legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability for their legislative activities” 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 and sophisticated “absolute immunity” for “knowingly false testimony by police officers," and “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983).
[3] 7th Amendment Jury Demand, Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[4] “Property” James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792
[5] “Property” James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792
[6] “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)
[7] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) reaffirmed Judicially sophisticated “absolute immunity,” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) prosecutorial sophisticated “absolute immunity,” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) sophisticated “absolute immunity” for forced sterilization, “federal, state, and regional legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability for their legislative activities” 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 and sophisticated “absolute immunity” for “knowingly false testimony by police officers," and “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983).
[8] Martin Luther King Jr. Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
[9] Not to mention the 14th Amendment’s §5 assertion of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[10] 5th Amendment “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
[11] “Property” James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792, 27 March 1792
[12] Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson, Certiorari to the Supreme Court, No. 09–571. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 29, 2011
[13] "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)
[14] Parenthetical texted added for clarity Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 667 (1980)
[15] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[16] 5th and 14th Amendment right to reasonable probable cause and Due Process of law
[17] Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[18] See THE ORIGINAL PETITION now confirmed by President Obama’s assertion in his State of the Union Address that respondents had “threaten(ed) the full faith and credit of the United States”
[19] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[21] 5th and 14th Amendment right to reasonable probable cause and Due Process of law
[22] Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[23] See THE ORIGINAL PETITION now confirmed by President Obama’s assertion in his State of the Union Address that respondents had “threaten(ed) the full faith and credit of the United States”
[24] “It is the fact, clearly established, of injury to the complainant -- not to others -- which justifies judicial intervention. Williams v. Hagood, 98 U. S. 72, 98 U. S. 74-75; Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325, 114 U. S. 328-329; Tyler v. Judges, 179 U. S. 405, 179 U. S. 406; Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U. S. 51, 187 U. S. 60; Davis & Farnum v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207, 189 U. S. 220; Hooker v. Burr, 194 U. S. 415, 194 U. S. 419; Braxton County Court v. West Virginia, 208 U. S. 192, 208 U. S. 197; Collins v. Texas, 223 U. S. 288, 223 U. S. 295-296.” McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914)
[25] The neurotic assertion of potential baseless vexatious or calumnious accusation is without MERIT and shows the proponent to have too little faith in the sworn constitutional sovereign, “We the People” to whom they are bound by their oath of office.
[26] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[27] Act of Parliament “Abolition of the Star Chamber”[27] July 5, 1641, statute law in the realm of England, or dominion of Wales, that “repealed and absolutely revoked and made void” for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for “absolute immunity” in Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607). Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607) was NOT available to reasonably used as precedent for Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523 (1868), Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) and Stump v. Sparkman 435 U.S. 349 (1978). Per the Act of Parliament “Abolition of the Star Chamber”[27] July 5, 1641 Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607) had/HAS NO authority!!!!!!!!.
· Article I “An act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber.” “WHEREAS by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land:…
· § 9 of “but 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”
· Article III “Be it ordained and enacted by the authority of this present parliament, That the said court commonly called the star-chamber, and all jurisdiction, power and authority belonging unto, or exercised in the same court, or by any the judges, officers, or ministers thereof, be from the first day of August in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred forty and one, clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away and determined”
· § 3 “every article, clause and sentence in them, and every of them, by which any jurisdiction, power or authority is given, limited or appointed unto the said court commonly called the star-chamber, or unto all or any the judges, officers or ministers thereof, or for any proceedings to be had or made in the said court, or for any matter or thing to be drawn into question, examined or determined there, shall for so much as concerneth the said court of star-chamber, and the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void.”
The Act explicitly disbands the court for abusing said immunity, “repealed and absolutely revoked and made void” all prior precedent of the said court and judges.
[28] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[29] Footnote ADDED, ACKNOWLEDGING –
Article. IV., 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.
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.
[30] Footnote ADDED, 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[31] See the 14th Amendment’s congressional authorization under its §1 “No State shall” and §5 “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)