Certified U.S. Mail to: John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer June 11, 2018 at 6:30 am - Delivered - WASHINGTON, DC 20543
Certified U.S. Mail to: Chief Judge Rodney W. Sippel c/o Clerk of Court – G. J. Linhares U.S. District Court for the Eastern Districtof Missouri, MOED delivered to an agent at on in SAINT LOUIS, MO 63102.
Tracking Number: 70170190000030070449
Certified U.S. Mail to: Chief Judge Lavenski R. Smith c/o Clerkof Court - Michael E. Gans Eighth CircuitCourt of Appeals, CA8 delivered to an agent at on in SAINT LOUIS, MO 63102.Tracking Number: 70170190000030070456
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
Again, you are all criminals.  I know it, you know it and EVERYONE will soon recognize your 44 year RICO #METOO conspiracy against rights! To quote a recently oft quoted precedent "nemo iudex in causa sua" - MOST DEFINTIELY no one has the right to create, binding for all others, a precedent for "absolutum sui ipsius dono fuerunt."
With my Friday, May 25, 2018 letter I made a clerical error - I sent you two "Case: 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ Doc. #: 1-2 Filed: 06/07/07 Page: 3 of 4 Page ID #: 10" as pages 5 and 7 of 8. I am now correcting that ERROR, see everybody makes them and if you catch them right away there is little or no issue.
I here with include a new replacement page "Case: 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ Doc. #: 1-2 Filed: 06/07/07 Page: 1 of 4 Page ID #: 8" to replace my page 5 of 8 from my Friday, May 25, 2018 letter. This could easily be confirmed with a direct look at the filing on PACER.
The criminally forced conspiratorial timing of this letter and the Friday, May 25, 2018 letter goes to further prove that there is a criminal conspiracy against rights stemming from the District Courts to the Supreme Court. The 8th Circuit's efforts of delay are revealed by their refusals to even consider the issue, submitted Thursday, December 21, 2017, for nearly six months, until Wednesday May 30, 2018, when they got wind that I had called them out as CRIMINALS, as stated above. The conspirator's plan is to delay everything into the Supreme Court's summer session so they can hide their corruption with the indiscriminate trash dump of the Supreme Court's first or second TRASH DUMP order of the year in October.
Furthermore for all you Domestic Relations EXCEPTION fans in the 8th Circuit - "Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference" subject to the XIV Amendment's protection i.e., "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" thus a very much a FEDERAL issue (28 U.S. Code § 1443) has always existed. But especially so since the FEDERAL funding of "The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act" (CAPTA) in 1974 thru to the recent reauthorization of ''Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005," 44 years to 2018. This FEDERALLY funded WITCH-HUNT has produced the Jane Crow horrific injustice Fathers are now forced to endure.
In the Jane Crow era Fathers/men UNCONSTITUTIONALLY have no rights to the equal protection of life, liberty, or property, with due process of law. This is just like the Supreme Court's CRIMINAL African America Jim Crow victims with Blyew (mass murder), Cruikshank (pogrom), and the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883). While not as lethal as Jim Crow lynching Jane Crow's proverbial lynching is every bit as destructive to the America Family. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Pro se pleadings are always to be construed liberally and expansively, affording them all opportunity in obtaining substance of justice, over technicality of form. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938); Picking v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 151 F.2d 240 (3rd Cir. 1945); Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 1081, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972); Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (6th Cir. 1972); and, etc., etc., etc., practically ad infinitum.
If the court can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax or sentence construction, or a litigant's unfamiliarity with particular rule requirements. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); McDowell v. Delaware State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir. 1996); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3rd Cir. 1992); Then v. I.N.S., 58 F.Supp.2d 422, 429 (D.N.J. 1999); and, etc., along with numerous similar rulings.
When interpreting pro se papers, this Court is required to use its own common sense to determine what relief that party either desires, or is otherwise entitled to. S.E.C. v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992). See also, United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3rd Cir. 1999) (court has a special obligation to construe pro selitigants' pleadings liberally); Poling v. K. Hovnanian Enterprises, 99 F.Supp.2d 502, 506-07 (D.N.J. 2000); and, etc.
Indeed, the courts will even go to particular pains to protect pro se litigants against consequences of technical errors if injustice would otherwise result. U.S. v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d 1243 (D.C.Cir. 1996). Moreover, "the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the allegations provide for relief on ANY possible theory." (emphasis added) See, e.g., Bonner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1975), Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1974), Thomas W. Garland, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 596 F.2d 784, 787 (8th Cir. 1979), Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 201-02, 106 S.Ct. 2841, 92 L.Ed.2d 140 (1986), Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 116 F.3d 1364, 1369 (11th Cir. 1997), O'Boyle v. Jiffy Lube International Inc., 866 F.2d 88 (3rd Cir. 1989), and etc., etc., etc.
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
David G. Jeep
enclosure ("Case: 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ Doc. #: 1-2 Filed: 06/07/07 Page: 1 of 4 Page ID #: 8" to replace my page 5 of 8 from my Friday, May 25, 2018 letter)
 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.
 How many lives/families are to be ruined by sensationalized assertions, without due process of law.
 "Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself," – DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, 4 days before Nixon resigned. I know you have attention span problems, but it's the first sentence: https://www.justice.gov/file/20856/download …(Senator Ed Markey @SenMarkey)
 Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir. 2000)
 "Jane Crow" is REAL! With the birth rate down by 48% since 1960 and teen pregnancy down by 65% just since 1990 -- single motherhood is UP by 700% since 1960. 40% of all births in the United States of America were to single mothers in 2015 v 1960's 5%. Why? In the "Jane Crow" era "MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY AMERICAN DOMESTIC RELATION LAW."