Friday, April 28, 2023

Corruptio optimi pessima,[11] ultimately it is going to be ugly.



Certified US Mail 7022 1670 0001 1516 2342
Your item was picked up at a postal facility at 7:00 am on May 4, 2023 in WASHINGTON, DC 20543..

Thursday, April 27, 2023


Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

Supreme Court of the United States

One First Street N.E.

Washington, DC 20543-0001

 

Re:     DGJeep v. United States (Petitions for Writ of Certiorari 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856) and DOJ report # 265705-BPB FOLLOW UP

 

Dear People,

 

Corruptio optimi pessima,[1] it is going to be ugly.  That is not a threat; that is a certainty.  Other than holding myself as an example of your undeniable corruption, writing letters and filing petitions, I will have nothing to do with it.  I want civil justice, not violence.  I have never owned a gun, never felt the need.

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy (Thomas Jefferson 1821)."  The hubris of "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."[2] Nonetheless, corruption of those we rely on is always the worst.

"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body (i.e., asserted absolutely immune) — working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

The germ of destruction of the current - prevailing - judiciary is in their corrupting hubris.  Roe was a judicious decision.  Dobbs was/is based on hubris alone.  Roe humbly and accurately asserted that no one knows when intrauterine life begins.  Roe did not force anyone into an abortion.  Dobbs presumptuously attempts to force itself intrauterine to force someone to bear an unloved child. 

If life was a finite commodity a case could be made for Dobbs.  But we live in a still growing Malthusian world of 8,000,000,000.  We can control population via pestilence and war, or we can control it via a civilized society's birth control and reasonable abortion.  To deny the scientific advancement of abortion, you would have to also deny the scientific advancement of Borlaug's[3] wheat that feeds Malthus's world.  A valid judicial decision would seek to sustain both human life and liberty.  Both life and liberty are required in equal ration for viability.  "Give me liberty or give me death."

As a school-boy I learned how the purportedly heroic Warren Court (October 5, 1953 – June 23, 1969 -- (15 years, 261 days)) lead the way on a renewal of Civil Rights e.g., Brown v. Board of Education (racial), Reynolds v. Sims (voting/representation), Miranda v. Arizona (criminal), Griswold v. Connecticut (birth control) and Roe v. Wade (reproductive) to overcome THEIR 100+ yeas of JUDICIAL hubris and corruption. 

We need to get away from the immoveable lifetime arbitrary judicial decree and return the fundamentals of liberty with the Magna Carta's (1215) iconic reference to 'the lawful judgment of peers' as a precondition for loss of life, liberty or property.  Juries for decades, if not centuries, have been able to decide based on the fair presentation of public trial specific evidence.  There is no need for the hubris of supposed learned men to tell us right from wrong. 

"Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps...." (Thomas Jefferson).

The germ of destruction of the current - prevailing – judiciary, again, is their throwback to corrupting judicial hubris.  As we re-establish our civil rights, post Dobbs.  We are going to look back at the inescapable corrupting hubris of the judiciary as a despotic oligarchy AND LEARN from our history.

For example, everybody knows the name Rosa Parks (December 1, 1955), fewer people know Ida B. Wells (May 4, 1884).  Rosa Parks lost her case at origination and through her appeals.  Ida B. Wells' won in her case 71 years prior (December 24, 1884), when the local circuit court granted her a $500 award.  If that had held, the world would NOW be a much different place.  Unfortunately, Ida B. Wells, on the appeal by the railroad, lost to the absolutely immune[4] judge made figment of law asserting "We think it is evident that the purpose of the defendant in error was to harass with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain a comfortable seat for the short ride."[5] 

The XIII Amendment was ratified and then proclaimed December 6, 1865.  The Civil Rights Act of 1866, pursuant to Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation made it a federal crime for anyone to deny the civil rights of any person (see 18 U.S. Code § 241 & 242).  The Supreme Court's self-serving judge made figment of law Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 523 523 (1868) created judicial ABSOLUTE CRIMINAL immunity.

The XIV Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868.  The Civil Rights Act of 1871, pursuant to Section 5. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation created a federal "civil action for deprivation of rights" (see 42 U.S. Code § 1983 & 1985). The Supreme Court's self-serving judge made figment of law Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 335 (1871) created judicial ABSOLUTE CIVIL immunity. 

The judge made figment of judicial criminal and civil absolute immunity, "working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the" slavery form which we had hoped to overcome.  The Supreme Court created and then sustained a sanctified slavery by a different name – Jim Crow – for 100 years.  We are still struggling beneath the corruption 158 years after winning the civil war.

After 230+ years of CORRUPT Supreme Court figment, open your eyes, do the RESEARCH!!!!!!!!

As examples of the Judicial sophistry/figment,[6] that has corrupted We the People's unalienable rights under color of law, I submit, Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7 (1868)[7] the origin of judicial criminal sophisticated/figment[8] "absolute immunity," Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872)[9] origin of sophisticated/figment Judicial civil "absolute immunity," Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871) sophisticated/figment "absolute immunity" for racially motivate mass murder, United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875)  sophisticated/figment deprivation of the 15th Amendment's Voting Rights protection with the subterfuges of poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) sophisticated/figment "absolute immunity" for racially motivated massacre (Colfax Riot/pogrom),


United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883) sophisticated/figment "absolute immunity" for the state's sanctioned kidnapping, assault and murder without regard to the 14th Amendment's security, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) creating sophisticated/figment racial segregation and the ongoing Jim Crow discrimination over the "necessary and proper" "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) separate and UNEQUAL, clarifying sophisticated/figment segregation over the necessary and proper "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875;  Lochner v. New York 1905, opposing the 40 hour work week, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) reaffirmed Judicial sophisticated/figment "absolute immunity," Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) prosecutorial sophisticated/figment "absolute immunity," Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) sophisticated/figment "absolute immunity" for forced sterilization, and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) sophisticated/figment "absolute immunity" for "knowingly false testimony by police officers," and "all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process."  If that is not ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of We the People's intent to establish justice, I cannot imagine what is.  There were several post 911 precedents that extended absolute immunity by adding a "super-duper" to "super-duper absolute immunity."  They slipped those in, fueled by the hate of the OTHER.

The Black Robed Royalist "absolutely immune" Judiciary with a few haters along for the ride have now created the "Jane Crow" era in domestic law.  In 1960 one in twenty kids grew up in a home without a father.  In 2014 that had risen to fewer than one in three.  In the United States TODAY, there are over SEVEN times as many kids today without fathers as there were in 1960. 

My son was taken, I was thrown out of my house, my car and everything I ever cared for in life was taken on two court dates November 3 and then 19, 2004.  There was no reasonable probable cause or due process of law.  While trying peacefully to regain my rights, I was impoverished, I was thrown in jail for 411 days, all again without probable cause or due process of law. 

I submit DGJeep[10] v. United States (Petitions for Writ of Certiorari 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856) and DOJ report # 265705-BPB for reconsideration without the self-serving judge made figment of law i.e., absolute criminal and civil immunity.

Corruptio optimi pessima,[11] ultimately it is going to be ugly.

If there is anything further, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

 

David G. Jeep

 

cc: Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor (Retired), Associate Justice , Anthony M. Kennedy, (Retired) Associate Justice , David H. Souter (Retired), Associate Justice, Stephen G. Breyer, (Retired), Associate Justice, Lisa Nesbit c/o Scott S. Harris Supreme Court Clerk, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski and Willie Geist - Morning Joe - MSNBC Network, Attorney General Merrick Garland, DOJ Civil Rights Division

      www.DGJeep.com, file



[1] Corruption of the best becomes the worst.

[2] John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton

[3] Nobel Peace Prize 1970 Norman E. Borlaug "having given a well-founded hope - the green revolution"

[4] Judicial ABSOLUTE CIVIL Immunity - Judicial ABSOLUTE CRIMINAL Immunity

[5] Chesapeake, O. & S. R. Co. v. Wells, 1887, p. 5.

[6] "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)

[7] Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) , asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was judicial sophistry at its finest, a judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary immunity from the UNQUALIFIED recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866 (18 USC §241-§242).

[8] Judicial sophistry is the "ABSOLUTE" WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.

[9] Likewise Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), also asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was a subterfuge to give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the UNQUALIFIED civil liability for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" enacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC §1983-§1985).

[10] It should be noted that my middle-class family roots had the Jeep name centuries in advance of the Willys Motor Co creation of their General Purpose (GP) for the U.S. Army.  My paternal grandfather was born 21 NOV 1888 • my father fought in WWII and drove / rode a GP.

[11] Corruption of the best becomes the worst.




Thanks in advance...

"Agere sequitur esse" ('action follows being')

David G. Jeep, Federal Inmate #36072-044 (formerly)

www.DGJeep.com - Dave@DGJeep.com

Mobile (314) 514-5228 leave message

 

David G. Jeep

1531 Pine St Apt #403

St. Louis, MO 63103-2547


Tuesday, April 25, 2023

This "Jane Crow" lynching has to STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! #METOO

This "Jane Crow" lynching has to STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO


As regards recent revelations of HIGH PROFILE sexual harassment issue - without considered Due Process, NO one can claim to REALLY know the facts!!  Use to be you could hang a Black man in the street on the basis of an accusation of his having just LOOKED at a white woman!!  Are we now going back there?

In the current "Jane Crow" era you may not be lynching people in the street any more but the defacto effect is the same; if suicide (Kentucky lawmaker Dan Johnson fatally shot himself Wednesday), destruction of careers (Franken), legacies (Rose and Conyers), family relations (DGJeep and others), finances (DGJeep and others), and personal lives (DGJeep and others) is the RESULT - WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW!

I  (DGJeep) have been impoverished by my 14 year effort, I have been homeless for over 10+  years, I have been through the Federal District and Circuit courts 12 times and to the Supreme Court of the United States 7 times.  I spent 411 days in Jail, before all charges were dismissed.  I have submitted to - TWO psychiatric exams - both confirming my SANITY and my COMPETENCY!!!!  I doubt the absolutely corrupt Black Robed Royalist Judiciary could, en masse, say the same.  While social momentum is super-charging the Jane Crow LYNCHING right now. Lynching has been unconstitutionally tolerated, if not promoted, by the absolutely corrupt Black Robed Royalist Judiciary during the Jim Crow era, and the Juvenile Crow era.  Lynching is raising its ugly serpentine head again in the current Jane Crow era.  This is all impotently confirmed by prior Supreme Court precedent acknowledging the issue:

"(H)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 (Crow, Jane Crow and Jim Crow) courts...." "Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy (, a minority or a Man)  does not justify a (lynching or) kangaroo court…." (In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967),18)." 
 David Jeep  vs.  Philip Jones, Sr.;
 David Jeep  vs.  Jack Bennett;
 David Jeep  vs.  United States;
 David Jeep  vs.  Jack Bennett;
 David Jeep  vs.  Barack Obama, President;
 David Jeep  vs.  Barack Obama;
 David Jeep  vs.  Government of the USA;
 David Jeep  vs.  The Tea Party/GOP/Republicans;
 David Jeep  vs.  Government of United States;
 David Jeep  vs.  Government of United States;
 David Jeep  vs.  Government of United States;
 David Jeep  vs.  Government of the U.S.A.;

Jane Crow, Juvenile Crow and Jim Crow  are all based on the conviction / lynching by infamous accusation without access to 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment's SECURED Justice with the equal protection of due process of law.


Again, use to be you could lynch a black man in the street for the allegation alone, that he looked at a white woman.  We invested 600,000 American lives on the Civil War battle field, untold thousands of lives during "Jim Crow" and 150 years to establish the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection of the Due Process of Law.

Purely politically speaking RIGHT NOW without DUE PROCESS OF LAW - these assertions of sexual harassment are all just feeding the monster of Trump/Russian active measures / Trump #fakenews (propaganda machine).  We need the 14th amendment to establish equal protection of due process of law.

I realize "Jane Crow" may not be the current highbrow gender issue of the moment, but it is life threatening and destroying the elemental American family structure!


This is no more a Man's problem than racism in America is a MINORITY's problem. This is society's problem and both sides have to do some give and take off of the old established veritas.


#Metoo - In defense of of 99.9999% of men that are not Harvey Weinstein







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

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

The FACTS of MY Case Are Without Question!

 


The FACTS of MY Case Are Without Question!

 

The FACTS of MY case are without question - my liberty rights, my paternity rights, my property rights, were unconstitutionally deprived on November 3. 2003, 7:55pm CT.  On the ex parte order of abuse in question, there was NO claim of abuse and there has never been any claim or substantiation of abuse before or since. THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION on fraud or the deprivation of constitutional rights.  I have been fighting to regain "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" relentlessly since.[1]  The UNDISPUTED issue is and has always been – a flagrantly, infamous, fraudulent, non-exigent, extra-judicial (coram non judice) court order:

   

1.       a fraud (fraus omnia corrumpit[2]) on the court by an officer of the court (FRCP 60(d)(3))[3]


2.       a NOT "facially valid court order"[4] (Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) - 


3.    that was reckonably[5] 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)


4.   "beyond debate" (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. _(2015))


5.     "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)[6]

 

Congress and the Supreme Court are very much historically aware of judicial culpability in the deprivation of rights, "The congressional purpose[7] seems to me to be clear- NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. A condition of lawlessness existed in certain of the States under which people were being denied their civil rights. Congress intended to provide a remedy for the wrongs being perpetrated. And its (US Congress 1871) members were not unaware that certain members of the judiciary were implicated in the state of affairs which the statute(s) (now codified as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &; 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985) was intended to rectify…. Mr. Rainey of South Carolina noted that "[T]he courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity.  Congressman Beatty of Ohio claimed that it was the duty of Congress to listen to the appeals of those who, by reason of popular sentiment or secret organizations or prejudiced juries or bribed judges, [cannot] obtain the rights and privileges due an American citizen. . . ."  MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967)

 

THE GRAVITAS OF THE PERSONAL[8] ISSUE IS BEYOND QUESTION, IT TOOK AWAY PETITIONER'S SON, HOME, CAR AND EVERYTHING HE ONCE HELD DEAR IN THE WORLD.  Thus, the issue could never be construed as vexatious[9] nor is the ongoing fight against flagrant injustice "continual Calumniations"[10] nor could a near 20 year struggle against injustice be construed as an inconsequential "short ride."[11] 


At issue – a flagrantly, infamous, fraudulent, non-exigent, extra-judicial (coram non judice) COURT ORDER - a fraud (fraus omnia corrumpit[12]) on the court by an officer of the court (FRCP 60(d)(3))[13] - a NOT "facially valid court order"[14] - that was reckonably[15] issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"[16] "beyond debate"[17] - "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates"[18]  a right that right.[19] [20] [21] [22] [23]


Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!


“Jane Crow” discrimination is REAL.  In 1960 5% (one in twenty) children had no Father in the home.  In 2014 40% (eight in twenty) children have no father at home.  In my LIFETIME a 700% increase, that my Son and I HAD NO SAY IN. (The Fracking Boom, a Baby Boom, and the Retreat From Marriage" - Freakonomics – NPR - July 5, 2017, "Women just aren’t that into the ‘marriageable male’ anymore, economists say" Washington Post - By Danielle Paquette - May 16, 2017, “Male Earnings, Marriageable Men, and Nonmarital Fertility: Evidence from the Fracking Boom” Melissa S. Kearney & Riley Wilson - May 2017).

  Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!

  


Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!

  


Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!

 

 

Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!



[2] fraus omnia corrumpit - "Fraud corrupts all." - A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision or arbitral award. THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION on fraud or the deprivation of constitutional rights.

[3] Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - "set aside a judgment for fraud on the court"

[4] 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.  

[5] 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)

[6] "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."

[7] Jim Crow and/or Jane Crow

[8] While the petitioner asserts this is not necessarily an isolated Jane Crow issue, it is a uniquely flagrant "first impression" and PERSONAL for the petitioner.  Per McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914) " The essence of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected"

[9] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 348 and 349

[10] Floyd and Barker. (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I - In the Court of Star Chamber. - First Published in the Reports, volume 12, page 23.

[11] Ida B. Well v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad - Tennessee Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's ruling in 1887. It concluded, "We think it is evident that the purpose of the defendant in error was to harass with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain a comfortable seat for the short ride."[Southwestern Reporter, Volume 4, May 16–August 1, 1887.

[12] fraus omnia corrumpit - "Fraud corrupts all." - A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision or arbitral award.

[13] Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - "set aside a judgment for fraud on the court"

[14] 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.   (Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003))

[15] 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)

[16]  (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)

[17] (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. _(2015))

[18] Anderson v. Creighton483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011) - "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."

[19] While the petitioner asserts this is not necessarily an isolated Jane Crow issue, it is a uniquely flagrant "first impression" and PERSONAL for the petitioner.  Per McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914) " The essence of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected"

[20] Ida B. Well v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad - Tennessee Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's ruling in 1887. It concluded, "We think it is evident that the purpose of the defendant in error was to harass with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain a comfortable seat for the short ride."[Southwestern Reporter, Volume 4, May 16–August 1, 1887.

[21] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 348 and 349

[22] Floyd and Barker. (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I - In the Court of Star Chamber. - First Published in the Reports, volume 12, page 23.

[23] "The congressional purpose (now codified as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &; 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985) seems to me to be clear- NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. A condition of lawlessness existed in certain of the States under which people were being denied their civil rights. Congress intended to provide a remedy for the wrongs being perpetrated. And its (US Congress 1871) members were not unaware that certain members of the judiciary were implicated in the state of affairs which the statute(s) (now codified as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &; 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985) was intended to rectify…. Mr. Rainey of South Carolina noted that "[T]he courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity.  Congressman Beatty of Ohio claimed that it was the duty of Congress to listen to the appeals of those who, by reason of popular sentiment or secret organizations or prejudiced juries or bribed judges, [cannot] obtain the rights and privileges due an American citizen. . . ."  MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967) THE GRAVITAS OF THE PERSONAL ISSUE IS BEYOND QUESTION, IT TOOK AWAY PETITIONER'S SON, HOME, CAR AND EVERYTHING HE ONCE HELD DEAR IN THE WORLD.  Thus the issue could never be construed as vexatious nor is the ongoing fight against flagrant injustice "continual Calumniations" nor could a near 20 year struggle against injustice be construed as an inconsequential "short ride."


Thanks in advance...

"Agere sequitur esse" ('action follows being')

David G. Jeep, Federal Inmate #36072-044 (formerly)

www.DGJeep.com - Dave@DGJeep.com

Mobile (314) 514-5228 leave message

 

David G. Jeep

1531 Pine St Apt #403

St. Louis, MO 63103-2547