Thursday, June 15, 2017

Justice Gorsuch - The Supreme Court’s confirmation bias of absolute immunity, as a conclusive presumption precedent, has for too long and too many times made manifest evil look accepted benign and inevitable e.g.,



Date of email request: June 16, 2017
Shipment Activity--------------------------- Location--------------------- Date & Time
-- ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------
Delivered------------------------ WASHINGTON, DC 20543 June 19, 2017 10:53 am 
Available for Pickup---------- WASHINGTON, DC 20543 June 19, 2017 10:45 am 
Arrived at Unit------------------- WASHINGTON, DC 20018- June 19, 2017 9:53 am   
In Transit to Destination--------------------------------------------- June 17, 2017 6:18 am   
Departed USPS Facility------ SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155-- June 16, 2017 8:47 pm   
Arrived at USPS Origin Facility SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155 June 15, 2017 8:53 pm  
Departed Post Office---------- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101-- June 15, 2017 6:02 pm   
Acceptance----------------------- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101-- June 15, 2017 2:27 pm
---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------
Expected Delivery Date: June 19, 2017
Updated Delivery Date: June 20, 2017
First-Class Mail®
Certified Mail


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES[1]
Justice Gorsuch (and clerk Lisa Nesbit)  c/o OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001

Re: David Gerard Jeep, and heir v. Government of the United States of America - Petition for a Writ of Certiorari UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT - Case No: 17-1246 - Mandate Filed: 05/22/2017 Entry ID: 4538537 – receipt of letter dated June 5 ,2017

Dear People:

Let us not kid ourselves this is and has been a criminal conspiracy for the deprivation of rights (18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights) since DAY ONE November 3, 2003.  Show me where, in the Constitution and laws, there is a conclusive presumption of absolute immunity - that sustains the non-exigent deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws on appeal?

This is and has been, from day one, November 3, 2003, a non-exigent "beyond debate"[2] "facially invalid court order"[3] issued "in the clear absence of all jurisdiction."[4] The fact – that the court order lacked the IV Amendment right to reasonable probable cause by such a wide margin that jurisdiction was not even an issue.  The lack of jurisdiction and the deprivation a right was "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right."[5]  But, I was a naive, uninitiated 47 year old natural born citizen who believed as a natural born American Citizen, I AT LEAST had rights[6] on appeal. 

To this day, I am haunted by the vivid memory of the confirming shrug from the Police Officer when I questioned it as served on November 3, 2003.  I am further haunted by the memory of the same confirming shrug when Commissioner[7] Jones first saw the absurdity of the court order on the bench November 20, 2003 as my attorney then highlighted and repeated his prior objections.

Again, let us not kid ourselves, you have the delegated authority and responsibility to "establish justice" empowered by the certain, supreme and universal:
"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."[8]

Again, let us not kid ourselves, with delegated authority and responsibility, the court has numerous times stepped outside the court's stated bureaucratic norms forming precedent as noted in my prior communication i.e., Clarence Earl Gideon's hand written petition.  Additionally as the court should be aware, I have with seven[9] prior petitions for certiorari complied completely as regards this clerical issue (And in case you did not retain any copies, copies are digitally available[10] on line, NO CHARGE at www.DGJeep.com).

Again, let us not kid ourselves, it is and ALWAYS has been
"a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded." [11]

Again, let us not kid ourselves, I have TWO, count them TWO, government funded psychological determinations of my COMPETENCY.  While this court and others have repeatedly and unreasonably asserted the INCOMPETENT insanity of the conclusive presumption of absolute immunity; notwithstanding the unavoidable certainty of human fallibility.  The court's many self-proclaimed reversals are confessions of the dearth of absolute finality and reason in the court's conclusive presumption of absolute immunity

I am writing this as a pro se[12] in forma pauperis complaint - letterform, to mitigate the potential for malicious, corrupt, incompetent, misinterpretation by this technically consumed want-a-be-legal[13] CRIMINAL[14] conspiracy against rights.[15]

Again, let us not kid ourselves, the court and the listed respondents in the instant case and in the seven prior petitions for certiorari, are openly supporting a corrupt or malicious and thus incompetent court system that denies the essential premise of the reasonableness on appeal of a "government of the people, by the people, for the people."  A "government of the people, by the people, for the people" perished shortly after Abraham Lincoln first described it in 1863 at Gettysburg. 

Per the court's CONSTRUCTED[16] conclusive presumption of absolute immunity as immoral precedent; "We the People," "sub silentio,"[17] relinquished a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" to the court to CONSTRUCT[18] a new supreme power - with the conclusive presumption of absolute immunity for the "malicious or corrupt" and thus incompetent judges.  The is started with Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871).  This then rendered ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" and the "very essence of civil liberty." 
"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection."[19] 
That is a false and unreasonable CONSTRUCTED[20] black robed royalist presumption. 

In 1868 the black robed royalist Article III Supreme Court first CONSTRUCTED[21] the conclusive presumption of absolute immunity in Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607).  Randall v. Brigham (1868) was judicial sophistry[22] at its timely finest, a judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary immunity from the recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 made it a CRIME for "Whoever, under color of any law…, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States."  Judicial liability for the crime was brought up extensively in the congressional debates and EXPRESSLY made part of President Johnson's Veto (March 27, 1866) - noted as "assailing the independence of the judiciary."  The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was quickly enacted over President Johnson's Veto, by the Senate on April 6, 1866 (votes 33 - 15) and then overridden by the House to become law on April 9, 1866 (votes 122 - 41). 

Likewise the judicial sophistry[23] of Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), also asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was a timely subterfuge to give the judiciary conclusive presumption of absolute immunity from the civil liability enacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1871.  Passed by the House on April 19, 1871 (votes 93–74) and by the Senate on April 19, 1871 (votes 36–13) and then signed into law by the newly elected President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871.

BOTH Randall v. Brigham (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher (1871) were based on the corrupt "black bag of tricks" assertion of Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607) as precedent.  What Randall and Bradley fail to tell you is that the "Star Chamber" was uber-emphatically abolished for CAUSE.  I quote from the Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber" July 5, 1641 "the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void."  The causes were MANY.  One of particular note to anyone that has suffered at the hands of the conclusive presumption of absolute immunity is "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.

Again, let us not kid ourselves, the court and your associates are deceiving yourselves.  Quoting Mr. Justice Jackson "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."[24]  Nothing humanly derived can be asserted as infallible or final; as the Supreme Court's own many reversals confirm.  The Supreme Court has beneficially, freely and repeatedly over ruled itself, thus abrogating a conclusive presumption of infallibility or finality for its precedent. 

The conclusive presumption of absolute immunity as PREMISED upon a need for independence to achieve justice, at best, supports a limited REASONABLE presumption, not an ever-increasing,[25] inescapable conclusive presumption of absolute immunityIf the asserted need for independence to "establish Justice" is not capable of reason on appeal in the face of self-serving malice, corruption and incompetence, IT IS CLEARLY ANTITHETICAL to a remedy for the injustice of malice, corruption and incompetence.

Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence, especially so when cooperating evidence has been provided and available for confirmation from DAY ONE! [26] (Response to MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dated 28, December, 2016 Case # 4:16-CV-810 CDP, CA8 Case: 16-3221, CA8 Case: 16-4253)[27]

If government is not responsible to their sovereign, "We the People," who do governments protect and serve?  The GOVERNMENT should have nothing to fear from a reasonable VII Amendment Due Process for the First Amendment's security - the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 
"In a properly functioning judicial system, Justice Gorsuch said at an event at Harvard University, "the government can lose in its own courts and accept the judgment of those courts.
"I know there is a lot of cynicism about government and the rule of law today," he said, "but I don't share it.""[28]
I agree.  That clearly defeats an assertion of immunity as a conclusive presumption in ALL government actions, including the conclusive presumption of judicial immunity and/or the unfavorable infliction of sovereign immunity. 

The Supreme Court's confirmation bias of absolute immunity, as a conclusive presumption precedent, has for too long and too many times made manifest evil look accepted benign and inevitable e.g.,

Ø  origination of "malicious or corrupt Judges" Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)

Ø  mass murder Blyew v. United States - 80 U.S. 581 (1871),
racial massacre/pogrom United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875),

Ø  Jim Crow Lynching Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883),

Ø  Reconfirmation of "malicious or corrupt Judges" Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967),

Ø  "prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976),

Ø  forced sterilization (Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)),

Ø  "knowingly false testimony by police officers" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983),

Ø  and absolute immunity for any malicious, corrupt or incompetent actions "for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)

Ø  "Jane Crow" Lynching (8th Circuit Court of Appeals case #07-2614, 08-1823, 09-2848, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435, 13-2200 David Jeep  vs.  Government of the USA and Kahn v. Kahn 21 F.3d 859, 861)

Ø  an un-remedied innocent man on death row for 15 years Connick v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011,


Ø  These do not even begin to describe the results of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission for the corrupt monetization of DEMOCRACY in the United States of America. 

The Supreme Court does this in spite of the sense and reason intent to "establish Justice" for all with Constitutional Law.  The uber-emphatically abolishment requirement of impeachment; make impeachment an impotent remedy.  We the People can do nothing.  The Supreme Court has unconstitutionally, maliciously, corruptly, incompetently and self-servingly awarded themselves the conclusive presumption of absolute immunity. and thus absolute power.

The Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn constitutional commission constructed the conclusive presumption of absolute immunity [29] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[30] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[31] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of due process governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity[32] as defined in We the People's constitution.[33]

To simply revisit the facts of the case at hand, from the instant of day one, Monday November 03, 2003 08:00 PM at the start of Monday Night Football - New England PATRIOTS v Denver BRONCOS[34] this has been FRAUD ON THE COURT[35] coram non judice, an infamously-scandalous, non-exigent, extra-judicial gravamen,[36] by omnipotent moral busybodies. [37]  More specifically, an unconstitutional, as noted via Supreme Court precedent, deprivation of the right to "reasonable probable cause" under color of law:

A.   an exparte non-exigent order of protection, listing only an alleged non-exigent misdemeanor traffic violation as unreasonable probable cause…

B.   a NOT "facially valid court order"[38] (PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003) Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 1978) - an INFAMOUSLY-SCANDALOUS, NON-EXIGENT, EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN

C.   that was issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,""[39] (PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003) Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam)) - an INFAMOUSLY-SCANDALOUS, NON-EXIGENT, EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN

D.   that over comes "difficult problems of proof" and "stringent standard of fault"[40] with the ubiquitous UNCONSTITUTIONAL "Jane Crow" fraudulent assertion of a Woman's "victimhood" at the expense of any Man's constitutional rights in legal disputes[41] an - INFAMOUSLY-SCANDALOUS, NON-EXIGENT, EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN

E.   that the facts[42] were and are "beyond debate"[43] "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,"[44] - an INFAMOUSLY-SCANDALOUS, NON-EXIGENT, EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN (i.e., the universal reckonable[45] understanding of the I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV Amendments).

If the reckonable Supreme Law of the Land, Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII & XIV, statutes 42 USC §1983&1985 Civil Action for the Deprivation of Rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI)'s imposition upon The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 1974 – more recently Joe Biden's Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) as currently funded in the Jane Crow era and numerous Article III precedents, as noted above do not restrict a judicial act's jurisdiction; the candid citizen must confess as rhetorically asserted by Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861), "We the People" "have ceased to be their own rulers" and "We the People" have resigned ourselves into the hands of an infamously-scandalous, non-exigent, extra-judicial group of "omnipotent moral busybodies," claiming delegated respondeat superior infamously-scandalous, non-exigent, extra-judicial authority, acting against our liberty at any time, for any reason without recourse to the due process of the Supreme Law of the Land.

I seek both injunctive relief and monetary damages, as an escalating amount, noted in the several prior petitions for writ of certiorari.

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:  First Class US Mail as indictments to the individual chambers 6/15/17 and after as money allows
       My Blog - Thursday, June 15, 2017, 3:06:21 PM


[1] I am sending this CERTIFIED US MAIL to the clerk, 6/13/17, and First Class US Mail to the individual chambers 6/13/17
[2] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[3]The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide REASONABLE probable cause for an ex parte order of protection.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03, there 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.". 
As an additional controlling relevant issue, Judge Goeke never provided due process to the petitioner.  Goeke signed the order and then handed the issue off to Family Court Commissioner Jones.  As a Family Court Commissioner, of LIMITED jurisdiction, Jones had no jurisdiction over the misdemeanor criminal issue:
[I]f a probate judge, with jurisdiction over only wills and estates, should try a criminal case, he would be acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction and would not be immune from liability for his action; on the other hand, if a judge of a criminal court should convict a defendant of a nonexistent crime, he would merely be acting in excess of his jurisdiction and would be immune.
Id. at 357 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 1099.. PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[4] If reason (reckonabilty) does not limit jurisdiction and probable cause, nothing can.
[5] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).
[6] I cite Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 163 (1803), "it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded."
[7] Commissioner Jones was a judge of limited jurisdiction.
[8] FEDERALIST No. 51 - The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments For the Independent Journal.  Wednesday, February 6, 1788. -by James Madison
[9] Petitions for writ of certiorari docketed as 15-8884, 14-10088, 14-5551, 13-7030, 13-5193, 11-8211 and 07-11115
[11] See also the I & VII Amendments and Title 42 42 U.S. Code § 1983 & 1985 Civil Action for the denial of rights.
[12] "The Court is and has been directed by rule, by precedent, by statute and the Constitution to accept the initial assessment of the in forma pauperis plaintiff's factual allegations, they must be weighted in the plaintiff's favor with the benefit of a liberal construction while "weighing weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff."
[13] There is nothing LEGAL about immunity.  Immunity is antithetical to the rule of law.  Absolute Immunity, as a "constructive power," has and will continue to QUASH the "raison d'être" for the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Constitution, Statute Law and inalienable rights/justice.
[15] "[A] pro se petitioner's pleadings should be liberally construed to do substantial justice." United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99, 108 (3d Cir. 1999).
[16] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[18] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[19] In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court."  (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803))
[20] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[21] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[22] "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)
[23] "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)
[24] Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 540 (1953) MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, concurring in the result.
[25] One need only look at the move from Superior Courts of record with general jurisdiction in Randall to absolute immunity "for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[26] Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)
[27] See also "Response to MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dated 28, December, 2016" Case # 4:16-CV-810 CDP CA8 Case: 16-3221, CA8 Case: 16-4253 dated Thursday, January 5, 2017.
[28] New York Times - POLITICS - "Gorsuch Rejects Doubts Over 'Rule of Law Today" By ADAM LIPTAK JUNE 3, 2017 https://nyti.ms/2rDt1qU
[29] "absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process."   Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[30] Alexander Hamilton June of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, The Federalist Papers No. 78, "The Judiciary Department"
[31] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983& 1985  The absence of exigent circumstances should be noted.
[32] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered.  I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for FOUR YEARS!  The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  The 7th Amendment secures the right to settle all suits: "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" assures justice as regards equity
[34] I apologize for the excess of information, but I have been RELIVING the instant EVERYDAY
[35] Fraud on the Court, in the sub judice, is where a Judge (who is NOT the "Court") has NOT supported or upheld the Judicial Machinery of the Court.
[36] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide REASONABLE probable cause for an ex parte order of protection.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge.   
[37] C. S. Lewis prescient assertion: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
[38]The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide REASONABLE probable cause for an ex parte order of protection.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03, there 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.". 
As an additional controlling relevant issue, Judge Goeke never provided due process to the petitioner.  Goeke signed the order and then handed the issue off to Family Court Commissioner Jones.  As a Family Court Commissioner, of LIMITED jurisdiction, Jones had no jurisdiction over the misdemeanor criminal issue:
[I]f a probate judge, with jurisdiction over only wills and estates, should try a criminal case, he would be acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction and would not be immune from liability for his action; on the other hand, if a judge of a criminal court should convict a defendant of a nonexistent crime, he would merely be acting in excess of his jurisdiction and would be immune.
Id. at 357 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 1099.. PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[39] If reason (reckonabilty) does not limit jurisdiction and probable cause, nothing can.
[40] "difficult problems of proof," and we must adhere to a "stringent standard of fault," lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.12 Bryan County, 520 U. S., at 406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392 - Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson,  Certiorari to the Supreme Court, No. 09–571. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 29, 2011
[41] ADDITIONALLY - the petitioner holds "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) 
[42] See Original Petition dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016, pages 26-33
[43] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[44] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).

"Agere sequitur esse" ('action follows being')
David G. Jeep, 
Federal Inmate #36072-044 (formerly)


PREFERRED - E-mail address - Dave@DGJeep.com

Mobile (314) 514-5228



David G. Jeep

GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999