Wednesday, November 16, 2016

The uneducated white male in the Jane Crow era has come full circle and become victim, a “class of human beings in practical subjection to another class with power in the latter to dole out to the former just such privileges as they may choose to grant.”

Clerk of the Court,
United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
Saint Louis, MO 63102-1125
Re: "NOTICE OF APPEAL"– 4:16-CV-810 CDP - Recusal and Petition - "ABSURDITY DOCTRINE"
Dear People:


It has come to pass as the 1st Mr. Justice Harlan prophesied dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883), 62 - the uneducated white male in the Jane Crow era has come full circle and become victim, a "class of human beings in practical subjection to another class with power in the latter to dole out to the former just such privileges as they may choose to grant."  In 1883 Mr. Justice Harlan prophesied:

"Today it is the colored race which is denied, by corporations and individuals wielding public authority, rights fundamental in their freedom and citizenship. At some future time, it may be that some other race will fall under the ban of race discrimination. If the constitutional amendments be enforced according to the intent with which, as I conceive, they were adopted, there cannot be, in this republic, any class of human beings in practical subjection to another class with power in the latter to dole out to the former just such privileges as they may choose to grant. The supreme law of the land has decreed that no authority shall be exercised in this country upon the basis of discrimination, in respect of civil rights, against freemen and citizens because of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude. To that decree -- for the due enforcement of which, by appropriate legislation, Congress has been invested with express power -- everyone must bow, whatever may have been, or whatever now are, his individual views as to the wisdom or policy either of the recent changes in the fundamental law or of the legislation which has been enacted to give them effect."

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.     "Notice of Appeal"
cc:  My Blog - Wednesday, November 16, 2016, 3:06:22 PM



[1] Paraphrased, a quote from United States Marine Corps Lieutenant General "Chesty" Puller (June 26, 1898 – October 11, 1971) who fought guerrillas in Haiti and Nicaragua, and fought in World War II and the Korean War.


UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
FEDERAL COURT - St. Louis DIVISION
_____________________________________________________________________




David G. Jeep and heir, PETITIONERS
v.
The Government of the United States of
America, et al, Defendants/Respondents 



Case # 4:16-CV-810 CDP
CA8 Case: 16-3221






_____________________________________________________________________

                                                                             I.     NOTICE OF APPEAL:

______________________________________________________________________
THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE is the natural inalienable spring and the preexisting raison d'être for all rights, any reasonable common law, constitutional law, statute law and judge made law.  "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."[1]

The denial of the original petition and "plaintiffs motion for recusal" are both manifestly corrupt, unconstitutional, criminal and/or ignorant.  The denial of the original petition and "plaintiffs motion for recusal" are based on respondent's fraud, and as we all know fraus omnia corrumpit.

The ABSURDITY Doctrine[2] is crucial to any reasonable discussion of the original petition and the "plaintiffs motion for recusal."  The ABSURDITY DOCTRINE has its roots in the earliest and most essential origins of Justice, language, human relations, common law, constitutional law, statue law and Judge made law

A.   ABSURDITY DOCTRINE

It is ABSURD to think that sovereign agency is immune and unfettered by We the People's constitution and equity.[3]  If that were the case, why waste the parchment? 

The Constitution would be ABSURD, not even a proverbial "parchment guarantee," without the Article. VI. declaration, "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."  Judges are thus bound by the constitution. 

It is ABSURD to think of impeachment as the only security for an individual's constitutional rights - "that form of accountability is too weak, as it posits an uberempathetic voting population so concerned for the rights of others that they will vote on the basis of policies that do not impact their own lives. This is just too fanciful (as Jim Crow, Juvenile Crow and now Jane Crow have proved). Virtual representation cannot be effective if it depends on heroic assumptions of empathy, just as our early countrymen recognized by placing the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV and writing McCulloch with virtual representation in mind."[4]  150+ years of Jim Crow under the Judge made law of Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) has un-arguably proved that!

It is ABSURD to assert that "domestic relations" statute law and/or its judge made law progeny[5] are not bound by the 14th amendment's assertion "No State shall make or enforce ANY LAW which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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."  Without exigency, and there never was an expressed exigency in this issue, rights cannot be taken without methodical "equal protection" of due process of law.

The Constitution's bed-rock binding instrument is due process of lawDue process of law is not a tyrant's instrument.  Due process of law is the constitution's self-representative bicameral, judge and jury, check on both authority and liberty.  "Absolute immunity" as judge made law has, not since the Abolition of the Star Chamber July 5, 1641,[6] been reasonably tenable.

B.   FRAUD

The Fraud Upon the Court, as documented in the seven original petitions, was and is an all-corrupting force (fraus omnia corrumpit).  The current fraud of absolute immunity arises from the now knowingly erroneous statement in Bradley and Fisher 1871 (based on Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607)) and "Against the consequences of their erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort."[7]  As we all now know the "numerous remedies" alluded to never existed!  The assertion of "numerous remedies" is in and of itself a Fraud Upon the Court.  For innocent people, as the 2nd Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring in Bivens said "Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing."[8]

The originating Fraud Upon the Court forced upon the instant innocent petitioner, was initiated and served November 3, 2003 with the "beyond debate" NOT "facially valid" ABSURD ex parte court order "in the complete absence of all jurisdiction."  The "beyond debate" NOT "facially valid" ABSURD ex parte court order stripped petitioner of his son, his home and everything he once held dear.  He was thrown out on the street - homeless - left to the resulting and still evident overwhelming poverty and post-traumatic-stress.

The "beyond debate" NOT "facially valid" ABSURD ex parte court order "in the complete absence of all jurisdiction," fraudulently and commensurately empowered the respondents gender biased subsequent divorce action.  Here I have to assert the thin skull" doctrine in that the not facially valid court order and the subsequent divorce are inextricably related.

Fraud Upon the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the "Court") does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court. The Court is an unbiased, but methodical "creature" which is governed by the Rule of Law... that is, the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Evidence, all which is overseen by Constitutional and statute law.  The Court can ONLY be effective, fair and "just" if it is allowed to function as the laws proscribe.  The sad fact is that in MOST Courts across the country, from Federal Courts down to local District courts, have judges who are violating their oath of office and are NOT properly following these rules, and THIS is a Fraud upon the Court, immediately removing jurisdiction from that Court, and vitiates (makes ineffective - invalidates) every decision from that point on.  ANY JUDGE WHO DOES SUCH A THING IS UNDER MANDATORY, NON-DISCRETIONARY DUTY TO RECUSE HIMSELF OR HERSELF FROM THE CASE, and this rarely happens unless someone can force them to do so with the evidence of violations of procedure and threat of losing half their pensions for life which is what can take place.  In any case, it is illegal, and EVERY CASE WHICH HAS HAD FRAUD INVOLVED CAN BE RE-OPENED AT ANY TIME, BECAUSE THERE IS NO STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS ON FRAUD.

C.   Facts of the INSTANT CASE

Fathers as individuals have been ABSURDLY relegated to sub-class parental status,"[9] too long ago at the beginning of the Jane Crow era.[10] 

"On November 3, 2003 petitioner was served "under color of law" with an obviously (ABSURD) "beyond debate" NOT "facially valid" gender biased Black Robed Royalists' ex parte court order of protection (03FC-10670M).  The clearly NOT "facially valid" (ABSURD) ex parte court ordered of protection, unreasonably (4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment) and unusually (8th Amendment) listed a misdemeanor traffic violation as its only "probable cause"" (a trespass[11]).[12]  This criminal fraud then unconstitutionally empowered a gender biased divorce action (03FC-12243)." 

On appeal the petitioner states he has been restrained from custody of his son, his home and his possessions for 13 years by this ABSURD racketeering[13] assertion of absolutely immunity by the Black Robed Royalist criminally asserted power both inside and outside the state of Missouri.  This goes to satisfy racketeering "activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce."

Article III precedent is without credible force in that it is and has been fraudulently twisted by "the spirit of mere legalism, the spirit of hair-splitting technicality," to obstruct We the People's constitutional attempt to establish justice
"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."[14]

As further proof of the racketeering[15] based conspiracy against rights, petitioner states that he has presented the above ABSURD and undisputed deprivation of rights, completely outside the Article III "Black Robed Royalist" delegated authority i.e., completely outside of the Article III jurisdiction, to the Article III "Black Robed Royalist" delegated un-republican and racketeering based conspiracy against rights seven times prior through to the Supreme Court of the United States of America (see Petition of Certioraris 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088 and 15-8884).

There can be no - non-exigent exception to the 14th Amendment's security - "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.[16]  Any and all non-exigent exception is without merit. 

"The judge has no more right than any other official to be set up over the people as an (unrepresentative,) irremovable and irresponsible despot. He has no more right than any other official to decide for the people what the people ought to think about questions of vital public policy…." [17]  There was never any exigent probable cause even alleged by any of the respondents.

"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." [18]

D.   BLACK ROBED ROYALISTS "RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION" CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS


"The father was relegated to sub-class parental status."[20] That relegation is an un-equal protection of the law as proscribed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.  This was accomplished, in the Jane Crow era, by the use of "De Facto Degenerate Precedent."

Lord Acton in 1871 asserted, the often quoted: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely[21]"

The FACTS of my case force me to rephrase Lord Acton, "absolute immunity"[22] is a "De Facto Degenerate Precedent".  "Absolute immunity" is a malevolent contract with the malicious, corrupt and incompetent proponents at the expense of We the People, thus utterly incompatible with justice.

If justice were the REAL goal of the Black Robed Royalists; as it should be, when the injustice of a deprivation of rights was exposed, the Article III judiciary would move immediately to remedy it.  But today the Black Robed Royalists "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization" is self-servingly upholding a conspiracy against rights[23] that supports De Facto Degenerate Precedent and prefers to look the other way, excuse the deprivation of rights rather than remedy them - De Facto Degenerate Precedent.

Even the good persons within the Black Robed Royalists' "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization" conspiracy against rights[24] are asked to OVERLOOK their brethren's malice, corruption, and incompetents for the self-serving good of the conspiracy.

To state it another way, the Black Robed Royalists "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization" is self-servingly upholding a conspiracy against rights,[25] with their "un-enacted "policy" of "absolute immunity" i.e.:

"This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it: "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.""[26]

By doing this at the expense of We the People's intent to "establish Justice" the Black Robed Royalists "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization" self-serving conspiracy against rights[27] sinks to the lowest, DEGENERATE[28] level to cover up the malicious, corrupt and incompetent rather than doing their jobs promoting the establishment of JUSTICE with a remedy!

The Black Robed Royalist "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizational" conspiracy against rights protects their own, and SELF-SERVINGLY will not allow their "absolute immunity" to be questioned at the expense of the We the People as their victims.  

For example, in my case, the Black Robed Royalists "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizational" conspiracy against rights have for over THIRTEEN years and 7 trips to the Article III Supreme Court been fully aware of the fraud upon the court and "the complete absence of all jurisdiction" in the sub judice's injustice, but has repeatedly refused a remedy.   They assert to allow a just remedy, for the undisputed deprivation rights, would over ride their "absolute immunity" and render them impotent. 

You have to ask yourself, how can the denial of Justice be integral to the Article III raison d'être the establishment of justice?

The Black Robed Royalist's "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizational" conspiracy against rights today assert they need to degenerate to "absolute immunity" to "established Justice."  They assert, they cannot "establish justice" because to do so would be in breach of "absolute immunity" and render them without authority.  This assertion negates their raison d'être to "establish Justice."

A Constitutional Article III judiciary has "delegated authority" to "establish Justice" dependent upon their "good behavior."  When and if they assert "absolute immunity" in the face of reasonable "probable cause" of their NOT "good behavior" they thus relinquish their "delegated authority" and all protection of the law.
"Absolute immunity" is an unrepresentative and "un-enacted "policy" proclamation by the Black Robed Royalist, who uniquely benefit from their self-legislation, which does and should suffer the presumption of reckless-illegitimacy."[29]

For over THIRTEEN years now, I have had and have been presenting undisputed evidence of a conspiracy against rights.  I have SEVEN times presented this evidence to the unconstitutional Black Robed Royalist, posing as our Article III Judiciary.  I have presented SEVEN docketed and denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Black Robed Royalist, would be Supreme Court of the United States.

Rather than acting as empowered by the Constitution to "establish Justice" and remedy the injustice, the Black Robed Royalists' "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization" has refused to act to "establish justice" and has instead been self-servingly covering the deprivation of rights by asserting "absolute immunity" as an unrepresentative and "un-enacted "policy" proclamation by the Black Robed Royalist, who uniquely benefit from their self-legislation, which does and should suffer the presumption of reckless-illegitimacy."[30]

Now with the evidence in hand of the THIRTEEN + year struggle I can state without hesitation, the Black Robed Royalists' Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization in a conspiracy against rights has degenerated its noble purpose, to "establish justice," into the degenerating self-serving "absolute immunity."
Where "absolute immunity" was proposed to enable the judicial independent freedom to establish Justice.  It has now degenerated its noble purpose into denial of justice to maintain the un-republican, self-serving and impossible human infallibility.

If the true resolve of "absolute immunity" had ever been utilized, the first judge to have been presented this undisputed issue would have acted in the interests of justice to remedy it and NOT have covered the Black Robed Royalist denial justice. 

I HAVE BEEN BROKEN, BLOODIED AND LEFT FOR DEAD ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, BUT I HAVE NEVER BEEN BEATEN!

Petitioner again appeals the District Court's "Black Robed Royalist" un-republican, racketeering based conspiracy against rights actions in Jeep v Government of the United States et al, Case # 4:16-CV-810 CDP as completely outside of We the People's republican, constitutional Article III jurisdiction.

E.   QUESTION PRESENTED

How can the unreasonable, corrupt, malicious and incompetent trespass of stripping any person of their child, everything in the world they ever held dear and being thrown out on to the street homeless without "probable cause," not be a condemnation of justice?  Much less a violation 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments and then being forced into a broadly similarly corrupt, malicious and incompetent Article III system distorted by the cliché "Jane Crow" - NOT "equal protection of the law?"
_____________________________________________________________________

                                                                             II.     CURRENT STATUS:

______________________________________________________________________
The deprivation is ongoing and the damages, stated as an escalating amount on the enclosed spreadsheet[31] reflect this.  Yes my son who was 8 years old when this started on November 3, 2003 (Judge Goeke's NOT "facially valid court order" "in the complete absence of all jurisdiction") and turned 21 on December 22, 2015, I have lost his irretrievable childhood.  The Pain and suffering has not abated and NEVER WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_____________________________________________________________________
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Signature of Plaintiff(s)

______________________________________________
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO  63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com  and David.G.Jeep@gmail.com  (preferred)



[1] FEDERALIST No. 50 "Periodical Appeals to the People Considered" From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 5, 1788. by James Madison
[2] Words are unless there meaning has reasonable consistent not-ABSURD meaning.
"In 1765, Blackstone made several references to absurdity as justifying either a deviation from literal meaning or the voiding of an act of Parliament with regard to absurd consequences. He noted: "As to the effects and consequence [of statutes], the rule is, that where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received sense of them." 1 WILuAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND *61 (1st ed. 1765) [hereinafter BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES]. Later in the same volume, when describing the principal "rules to be observed with regard to the construction of statutes," id. at *87, Blackstone noted: "[I]f there arise out of [acts of parliament] . . . any absurd consequences, manifestly contradictory to common reason, they are, with regard to those collateral consequences, void," id. at *91" ABSURDITY AND THE LIMITS OF LITERALISM: DEFINING THE ABSURD RESULT PRINCIPLE IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION* Veronica M. Dougherty 1994
"if in any case the plain meaning of a provision, not contradicted by any other provision in the same instrument, is to be disregarded, because we believe the framers of that instrument could not intend what they say, it must be one in which the absurdity and injustice of applying the provision to the case would be so monstrous that all mankind would without hesitation unite in rejecting the application." Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. 122 (1819), 203.
"The common sense of man approves the judgment mentioned by Puffendorf, that the Bolognian law which enacted, "that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity," did not extend to the surgeon who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street in a fit. The same common sense accepts the ruling, cited by Plowden, that the statute of ist Edward II, which enacts that a prisoner who breaks prison shall be guilty of felony, does not extend to a prisoner who breaks out when the prison is on fire - "for he is not to be hanged because he would not stay to be burnt." And we think that a like common sense will sanction the ruling we make, that the act of Congress which punishes the obstruction or retarding of the passage of the mail, or of its carrier, does not apply to a case of temporary detention of the mail caused by the arrest of the carrier upon an indictment for murder."
"[I] t is a venerable principle that a law will not be interpreted to produce absurd results. "The common sense of man approves the judgment mentioned by Puffendorf, that the Bolognian law which enacted 'that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity,' did not extend to the surgeon who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street in a fit. The same common sense accepts the ruling, cited by Plowden, that the statute of 1st Edward II, which enacts that a prisoner who breaks prison shall be guilty of felony, does not extend to a prisoner who breaks out when the prison is on fire-'for he is not to be hanged because he would not stay to be burnt."'" (KMart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281,325 (1988) (Scalia,J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting United States v. Kirby, 74 U.S. 482, 487 (1868)).)
[3] From this method of interpreting laws, by the reason of them, arises what we call equity; which is thus defined by Grotius, ``the correction of that, wherein the law (by reason of its universality) is deficient''. For since in laws all cases can not be foreseen or expressed, it is necessary, that when the general decrees of the law come to be applied to particular cases, there should be somewhere a power vested of defining those circumstances, which (had they been foreseen) the legislator himself would have expressed. And these are the cases, which according to Grotius, ``lex non exacte definit, sed arbitrio boni viri permittit'' (the law does not define exactly, but leaves something to the discretion of a just and wise judge).
Equity thus depending, essentially, upon the particular circumstances of each individual case, there can be no established rules and fixed precepts of equity laid down, without destroying it's very essence, and reducing it to a positive law. And, on the other hand, the liberty of considering all cases in an equitable light must not be indulged too far, lest thereby we destroy all law, and leave the decision of every question entirely in the breast of the judge. And law, without equity, though hard and disagreeable, is much more desirable for the public good, than equity without law: which would make every judge a legislator, and introduce most infinite confusion; as there would then be almost as many different rules of action laid down in our courts, as there are differences of capacity and sentiment in the human mind. (Commentaries on the Laws of England: In Four Books; Volume 1 - By Sir William Blackstone)
[4] "EQUALITY IN THE WAR ON TERROR" 2007 Stanford Law Review Volume 59, Issue 5  – by Neal Katyal Page 1387
[5] Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) ("The domestic relations exception . . . divests the federal courts of jurisdiction over any action for which the subject is a divorce, allowance of alimony, or child custody.").
[6] The Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber"[6] July 5, 1641, 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 be 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).
[10]Juvenile Crow, Jane Crow and Jim Crow "Court history has again demonstrated that unbridled discretion, however benevolently motivated, is frequently a poor substitute for principle and procedure. In 1937, Dean Pound wrote: "The powers of the Star Chamber were a trifle in comparison with those of our juvenile courts...." http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2016/08/juvenile-crow-jane-crow-and-jim-crow.html   http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/search/label/Jane%20Crow
[11] "Forcing me into an un-justice, unequal, and unconstitutional Black Robed Royalists' system; where my unconstitutional, fraudulent and criminal adversaries / respondents had been empowered by possession of everything that had been taken from me, my son, my home, everything in the world I once held dear." Original Petition dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016 IV. Facts of the case:, D. THE CURRENT EXISTENCE OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES page 10 of 33
[12] See the last seven pages of the original petition dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016.
[13] 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS, 18 U.S. Code § 1962 - (d) and § 1964 - Civil remedies.
[14] FEDERALIST No. 50 "Periodical Appeals to the People Considered" From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 5, 1788. by James Madison
[15] 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS, 18 U.S. Code § 1962 - (d) and § 1964 - Civil remedies.
[16] The Domestic Relation is disavowed by the statute in question:
"All proceedings under sections 455.010 to 455.085 (This includes Protective Orders Section 455.035) are independent of any proceedings for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, separate maintenance and other actions between the parties and are in addition to any other available civil or criminal remedies, unless otherwise specifically provided herein." (L. 1980 S.B. 524 § 13)
The Statue, Protective Orders Section 455.035, itself disavows the "domestic relation exception" and invites other remedies. 
[17] "Majority Rule And The Judiciary, An Examination Of Current Proposals For Constitutional Change Affecting The Relation Of Courts To Legislation" an introduction by Theodore Roosevelt, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons 1912 -Page 4-5
[18] "Majority Rule And The Judiciary, An Examination Of Current Proposals For Constitutional Change Affecting The Relation Of Courts To Legislation" an introduction by Theodore Roosevelt, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons 1912 -Page 4-5
[19] Paraphrased, a quote from United States Marine Corps Lieutenant General "Chesty" Puller (June 26, 1898 – October 11, 1971) was a who fought guerrillas in Haiti and Nicaragua, and fought in World War II and the Korean War.
[21] Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887 published in Historical Essays and Studies, edited by J. N. Figgis and R. V. Laurence (London: Macmillan, 1907)
[22] PER CURIAM - Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9 - "A long line of this Court's precedents acknowledges that, generally, a judge is immune from a suit for money damages. See, e.g., Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988); Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985); Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980); Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719 (1980); Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Pierson [502 U.S. 9, 10]   v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). [ Footnote 1 ] Although unfairness and injustice to a litigant may result on occasion, it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 347 (1872)." - [ Footnote 1 ] The Court, however, has recognized that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability, Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 348 -349 (1880), or from a suit for prospective injunctive relief, Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 536 -543 (1983), or from a suit for attorney's fees authorized by statute, id., at 543-544.
[28] to fall below a normal or desirable level in physical, mental, or moral qualities; deteriorate: The morale of the soldiers degenerated, and they were unable to fight.
[31] Dated Monday June 06, 2016 12:00:00.01 AM




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 (formerly)
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com or Dave@DGJeep.com 


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