UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Eighth Circuit
|
vs.
Government (corporation) of the United States of America, et al Defendants/Respondents
|
)
)
)
)
)
|
Circuit Appeal Case #: 15-3403
District Case #: 4:15CV1533HEA
|
PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
I.
Per RULE 35A and RULE 40A, I David G. Jeep PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Circuit Appeal Case #: 15-3403
(Cross-References: FRAP 35; 8th Cir. R. 4OA(b). and FRAP 27, 32(b), 35, 40; 8th Cir. R. 27A.)
I ask how reckonablely[1] speaking can constitutional wording, intent and understanding of “No State shall make or enforce any law” and “any person” in the 14th Amendment, non-exigent, have ANY EXCEPTIONS?
How can any person’s[2] reckonable[3] "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[4] of the United States of America
and
immunity for the "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America" under color of JUDGE MADE[5] law BOTH BE CONSTITUTIONAL?[6]”
___________________________________________________
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
______________________________________________
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
[1] "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)
[2] “This argument (Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011) with respect to volume of traffic seems to us to be without merit. It makes the constitutional right depend upon the number of persons who may be discriminated against, whereas the essence of the constitutional right is that it is a personal one.” McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914)
[3] "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)
[4] § 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) & The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 USC §1983 - §1985)
[5] a) Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) - William O. Douglas dissenting "It is one thing to say that the common law doctrine of judicial immunity is a defense to a common law cause of action. But it is quite another to say that the common law immunity rule is a defense to liability which Congress has imposed upon "any officer or other person" as in Ex parte Virginia, or upon "every person," as in these cases."
b) Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983))Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 564 (1967), the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions of “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process”
c) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)),
d) Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) “the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor”,
e) Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) the “knowingly false testimony by police officers"
f) 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) the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions of federal, state, local, and regional legislators
g) Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9, 112
h) Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 where liability for individual rights was reduced from what should have been Strict Liability to somewhere less than respondeat superior liability.
i) Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011)- Decided May 31, 2011
[6] Martin Luther King, Jr. knew when he said… "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
No comments:
Post a Comment