Friday, May 25, 2018

You are all criminals. [1] I know it, you know it and EVERYONE will soon recognize your RICO[2] #METOO[3] conspiracy against rights!

Friday, May 25, 2018
John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan,
Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001

Chief Judge Rodney W. Sippel
c/o Clerk of Court – G. J. Linhares
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, MOED
111 South 10th Street
St. Louis, MO 63102

Chief Judge Lavenski R. Smith
c/o Clerk of Court - Michael E. Gans
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, CA8
Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse
111 South 10th Street
St. Louis, MO. 63102

Re: 17-3681 (CA8) 4:17-cv-02690-AGF (MOED) David Jeep v. Govt. United         States of America and SEVEN prior Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States of America 15-8884, 14-10088, 14-  5551, 13-7030, 13-5193, 11-8211 and 07-11115

Dear People,
You are all criminals. [1] I know it, you know it and EVERYONE will soon recognize your RICO[2] #METOO[3] conspiracy against rights!  If cromwellian[4] immunity ever had any authority at all - it was to expedite justice in the face of otherwise self-incriminating unwarranted injustice rather than be forced to OBSTRUCT justice for all time in the face of otherwise self-incriminating unwarranted injustices.  Any and all immunity you assert is thus negated by 14 years of "deliberate indifference" to remedy a known injustice.

On November 3, 2003 a conspiracy of extra-judicial actors kidnapped[5] my son, stole my home, my car - MY EVERYTHING!! 

The undisputed evidence of this criminal kidnapping and thieving order was issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"[6] and is attached here - as originally presented to the federal court nearly 11 years ago, "Case: 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ Doc. #: 1-2 Filed: 06/07/07 Page: 1 thru 4 PageID #: 8."

I am not some adolescent whining simpleton spurned lover without a credible grievance, set on mass murder, I have been to the Supreme Court pro se seven times in ten years with UNQUESTIONED proof of extra-judicial criminal misconduct.  You all have culpability as listed respondents/defendants in my many petitions - that are now before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals – Eastern District of Missouri as referenced above (CA8 #17-3681).

"Jane Crow" discrimination is REAL!  Fathers are disfavored in American domestic relations courts.  With the birth rate trending down by 48% since 1960 and teen pregnancy trending down by 65% just since 1990 -- single motherhood is trending UP by 700% since 1960 (40% of births were to single mothers in 2015 v. 1960's 5%).[7]  Fathers are being unconstitutionally forced to abdicate their paternity rights.  Per the report's authors,[8] these figures stand without regard to race or income.

I am admittedly the "greater fool" who believes he can succeed where others have failed.  After fourteen years - with ten years homeless, 411 days in jail and seven trips to the Supreme Court of the United States - I STILL BELIEVE - I can convince the courts that the Judiciary's cromwellian asserted "absolute immunity" DEFEATS the Constitution's raison d'ĂȘtre - security for "the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  The issue (November 3, 2003) is and has always been:
·         an infamously-scandalous, non-exigent, extra-judicial UNCONSTITUTIONAL gravamen,
·         a NOT "facially valid court order"[9] (Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) -
·         that was reckonably[10] issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"" (Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003))
·         "beyond debate" (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. _(2015))
·         "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right" (Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011)).[11]
·         that kidnapped my son, took away my home, my car and everything I once held dear. 
I was then forced into the Article III poser's domestic relations court where I had fewer resources and rights than a so called "nigger" in a "Jim Crow" Alabama jail lynched for merely looking at a white woman.

I currently live in a homeless shelter.  I will have been homeless for eleven years this fall.  I missed my son's, grade school graduation, his driver's license, his high school graduation, eleven Christmases and untold family celebrations and tragedies.  You see, as a man who believes he has inalienable due process of law rights, I am a homeless and penniless embarrassment! 

I am online constantly, via free public sources, trying to advance my issue via social media online publicity.  I, as a card carrying pacifist[12] - I am constantly harassed by gun's rights activist.  I argue that NOWHERE within the founding father's Constitution for the United State of America was there any accommodation for violent overthrow.  The second amendment is not an insubordinate Constitutional means of over throwing the Constitution. 

The Constitution provides for "due process of law," with a jury of your peers as a remedy for any individual's claim against the government and Article V for any democratic/representative remedies/changes to the Constitution.

Similarly nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision for immunity from the Constitution.  So when a person, such as myself, asks for a remedy from – an infamously-scandalous, non-exigent, extra-judicial UNCONSTITUTIONAL gravamen, - a NOT "facially valid court order" (Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) - that was reckonably[13] issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"" (Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) - "beyond debate" (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. (2015)) - "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right" (Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011)). that CRIMINALLY kidnapped my son and took away my home, my car and everything I once held dear, there should due process, with a VII Amendment remedy.

If the evidence was not ALWAYS irrefutable, if there was a shadow of doubt, I might be crazy for having invested so much in this issue.  But the evidence has always been irrefutable and without a shadow of any doubt. 

So I ask you who is right, the crazy cromwellian absolutely-immune insubordinate reading of the fanatic's II Amendment or my due process, VII amendment subordinate reading of the ENITIRE Constitution?  They both cannot exist in the same country, either we have the rule of law or rule of the gun!

Thank you in advance.
  
David G. Jeep

David G. Jeep
enclosure
cc: file












[2] The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.
[3] How many lives/families are to be ruined by sensationalized assertions, without due process of law.
[4] When Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) dies England foolishly re-established the monarchy because they knew no better way.  Our leaders today do not have the right to re-establish the nobility nor the absolute immunity the nobility enjoyed.  Today in the United States of America we have a constitution that prohibits re-establishment of the nobility and their absolute immunity - with the assurance / guarantee of due process of law for all disputes governmental, public and private.
[5] 18 U.S. Code § 241&242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law  "if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap… , they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
[6]  Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[7] "Male Earnings, Marriageable Men, and Nonmarital Fertility: Evidence from the Fracking Boom" by Melissa S. Kearney, Riley Wilson - NBER Working Paper No. 23408 - Issued in May 2017 - NBER Program(s):   CH   EEE   LS   PE - Per a new paper by Andrew Cherlin, professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University and Melissa Kearney, professor of economics at University of Maryland this 700% increase is across economic and racial lines.  See also - "Women just aren't that into the 'marriageable male' anymore, economists say" Washington Post - By Danielle Paquette - May 16, 2016 - "The Fracking Boom, a Baby Boom, and the Retreat From Marriage" Freakonomics – NPR - July 5, 2017
[8] Andrew Cherlin, professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University and Melissa Kearney, professor of economics at University of Maryland
[9] 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.  You could as easily pull anyone over for failure to use your blinker and then charge them with BANK ROBBERY, because obviously they were fleeing.
[10] If reason (reckonabilty) does not limit jurisdiction with probable cause, nothing can."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)
[11] "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 Jones first saw the absurdity of the court order on the bench November 20, 2003 as my attorney then highlighted as he repeated his prior objections."
[13] If reason (reckonabilty) does not limit jurisdiction with probable cause, nothing can."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)


"Agere sequitur esse" ('action follows being')
David G. Jeep, 
Mobile (314) 514-5228

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