Monday, April 4, 2016

“The Emperor Has No Clothes” The Black Robed Royalist Article III judiciary DOES NOT HAVE the proverbial “clothes” to cover the naked criminality[1] for the 12.89-years of malice, corruption, sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity[2] on this deprivation of rights issue.

USPO Tracking 9505510232576095060488
April 4, 2016 , 2:39 pm – Acceptance - SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101
April 7, 2016 , 10:58 am – Delivered - WASHINGTON, DC 20543

Michelle Marshall, Case Analyst 
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001

Re:   "The Emperor Has No Clothes"
         David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. United States - USAP8 15-3403

Dear Ms. Marshall,

I humbly submit, neither you nor the Black Robed Royalist Article III judiciary has the proverbial "clothes" to cover the naked criminality[1] for the 12.89-years of malice, corruption, sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity[2] on this deprivation of rights issue.  You and I both know that the Article III judiciary, with you as one of its agents, has been hairsplitting[3] obstructing justice[4] as regards their self-serving UNCONSTITUTIONAL assertion of "absolute immunity" as JUDGE-MADE-LAW since at least the post-civil war era.[5]

I humbly submit, I have, in the "Jane Crow"[6] era, been fighting this for 12.89+ years.  I spent 411 days unconstitutionally in jail (case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP - Federal Inmate #36072-044), I have been homeless for 8.41+ years, I have been through the Article III Judicial System 7 times and I have presented 6 DOCKETED AND DENIED Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States i.e., 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, 14-5551 and 14-10088!

I humbly submit, the issue in my case has been, a beyond doubt, facially IN-VALID court order from day one.  The police officer that served it, all too casually laughed.  The first judicial officer to hear it; was shocked by it.  But, they and everyone else in the last 12.89 years has unconstitutionally sustained it without any apparent culpability for their actions for the deprivation of rights, i.e. due process of law.  None had the courage of their convictions and I, as a result, have suffered from their conspiracy to the "deprivation of any rights."  On November 3, 2003 I was served and then held to answer a court order[7] WITHOUT REASONABLE PROBABLE CAUSE

We need Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, "People must be confident that a judge's decisions are determined by the law and only the law.  For a judge to be worthy of such trust, he or she must be faithful to the constitution[8] and to the statutes[9] passed by the congress.[10]

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary… A dependence on the people (with a 7th Amendment JURY) is, no doubt, the primary control on the government" (Federalist #51). 

I realize some people in the United States believe in Angels.[11] Neither James Madison nor I did or do!  I noted with my petition in the heading with the first endnote "Because I am a humble non-legal professional and I have been impoverished by this criminal issue I cite the potential for Harmless error - 28 USC § 2111."  All your issues are at best "Harmless error - 28 USC § 2111" and/or clerical issues.

Again, my case is as simple as it gets, on November 3, 2003 I was served and then held to answer a court order[12] WITHOUT REASONABLE PROBABLE CAUSE.  More specifically, in Article III Judicial speak, it was NOT a "facially valid court order,"[13] it was issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,""[14] that, it was facially INVALID, was "reckonablly"[15] "beyond debate"[16] "sufficiently clear" that every "reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right"[17] and that clearly made it coram non judice.

As regards your culpability, after further research I think I found the major source of our misunderstanding.  There were and are TWO "page 4 of 91" in my petition.  You turned to what you thought was page 5 and it was a repeat of 4.  It made no sense.  

If you flip to the two page fours in the returned document, one is now X out, but, as always, the page 5 of 91 follows logically and instructively.  See top of page 5 states, as it always has states: then see Table of Contents page 1, Ap-pendix – page 51-65, item 4 - then see pages 61, 62 and 63 of 91 in the petition.  It is there and has always been there as referenced “and included.”  

In that the jurisdictional statement page 5 is before the questions page 6 I provide a LOOSE COPY of the reordered Questions and Jurisdiction.  Not wanting to run the risk of my admitted fallibility and/or any unauthorized changes,[18] I assert, it only reasonable, to rely on you to stick it where you think it best fits. 
As regards your other issues, I respond with your quoted text and my parenthetical bolded and italicized answers in context:
1.    A reference to the opinions below. Rule 14.1(d).
The questions presented for review must be followed by the list of parties (if all do not appear on the cover (all parties are listed on the cover page)), table of contents (included), table of authorities/citations of the official and unofficial orders entered in the case/statement of the basis for jurisdiction, constitutional provisions, treaties, (as utilized they are listed in the table of contents see "REFERENCES - Historical, Constitutional And Statutory Provisions Involved - page 23-51 [internally as HCSPI]") etc., statement of the case (see "The Statement Of Case - page 6-11"), reasons for granting the writ (see Reasons For Granting The Petition - page 11-18), and the appendix. (see Appendix – page 51-65) Rule 14.1
2.    The appendix to the petition does not contain the following documents required by Rule 14.1(i):
The opinion of the United States district court must be appended from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. (see page 5's reference to appendix, see appendix item 4 - pages 61, 62 and 63 of 91 in the petition)
3.    A copy of the corrected petition must be served on opposing counsel.  (there is no need for correction everything but the now loosely provided copy of the questions and jurisdiction, see attached sworn affidavit enclosed)
4.    The petition exceeds the limit of 40 pages allowed. Rule 33.2(b). (see footnote on Table of contents page for 18 page total)
5.    You must provide an original and 10 copies of your petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Rule 12.2  (I herewith state that I AM A PRISONER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES' DEPRIVATION of RIGHTS and therefor impoverished and unable to provide the 10 copies – PLEASE NOTE - ALSO THAT IN THE LAST 5 PETITIONS I FILED NONE HAD THE 10 COPIES)[19].
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.     "Original - "A humble pro se EMERGENCY PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 12.84 years of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" dated Monday, March 14, 2016 "
b.     "revised pages 5 and 6"
c.     Solicitor General "PROOF OF SERVICE" affidavit

cc:  Donald B. Verrilli Jr., Solicitor General
       My Blog - Monday, April 04, 20163:40:29 PM

[1] Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 now codified into the US Code, 18 USC §241 §242
[2] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr. - Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
[3] "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." by Theodore Roosevelt, with an introduction to "Majority Rule And The Judiciary, An Examination Of Current Proposals For Constitutional Change Affecting The Relation Of Courts To Legislation" – By William L. Ransom Of The New York Bar, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons 1912 -Page 4-5
[6] The Jane Crow era, asserting Women's "victimhood" at the expense of Men's rights in legal disputes
[7] See Copy of Petition November 3, 2003 and Motion filed December 5, 2003 – Appendix Items 2&3, pages 53-60 of 91
[8] VII Amendment's, BICAMERAL, judge and jury constitutional remedy "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."
[9] Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 and § 2 Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified into the US Code, 18 USC §241 §242 and as 42 USC §1983 - §1985
[10] Merrick Garland, Supreme Court nominee, acceptance speech March 16, 2016
[11]  The belief in Angels, mass incarceration and EXCESSIVE defense spending are all related to the same fantasy!!!  "We (USofA) lead the world in only three categories: Number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies."  "The Most Honest Three Minutes In Television History" HBO's The Newsroom, starring Jeff Daniels as Will McAvoy, a network anchor Written by Aaron Sorkin
[12] See Copy of Petition November 3, 2003 and Motion filed December 5, 2003 – Appendix Items 2&3, pages 53-60 of 91
[13] The assertion of a misdemeanor an alleged traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte order of protection.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hereTHERE WAS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION for the stated charge.  "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003). 
[14] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[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] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[17] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011)), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).
[18] Rule 24. Briefs on the Merits: In General "The phrasing of the questions presented need not be identical with that in the petition for a writ of certiorari or the jurisdictional statement, but the brief may not raise additional questions or change the substance of the questions already presented in those documents."
[19] This should be moot in that you surely digitize the original for SANITIZED distribution ELECTRONICALLY 

Thanks in advance,
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep, Federal Inmate #36072-044
My E-mail addresses are or

(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
Saint Louis , MO 63155-9999

No comments: