David G. Jeep
v.
United States of America, et al[1]
A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
I am worn out; the 7-year long battle of attrition has nearly defeated me. I am filing this petition as a pro se petitioner, a natural born Citizen of the United States of America. My CONSTITUTIONAL rights are fully vested and have been since my birth, July 18, 1956, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America. Now I realize you see your job as DENYING every possible petition that you get as your MAIN job. That essentially is the problem with America today; we have no protection for our rights. We do not have the Protection of the Laws. We have people like yourselves that would prefer to see the slow creep of corruption consume the good rather than do your job, defend the constitution and stand up to the malice and corruption and fight for the RIGHT!!!!!!!!!
I admit this is an imperfect attempt. I am human. You could find grounds to deny this petition because of misspellling. You could find grounds to deny this petition because of bad form or a typographical error. I Can't say it has never happened. I am sure if you hold true to form, you will find some reason to look the other-way and cover up your ongoing criminal conspiracy, the denial of “We the People’s” rights privileges and immunities as secured by the constitution and laws.
But if you are truly diligent and concerned about defending “We the People”, via the Constitution please do something positive and fight the malice and corruption. It is gaining momentum. That being said I submit the following imperfect flawed human attempt to thwart the forces of evil, a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in support of “We the People” in a cause of action opposed to Absolute Judicial Impunity.
My rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and laws of the United States have been criminally[2] denied via the Supreme Court’s Judicial, Prosecutorial, Police, FBI, USMS, AUSA and private corruption, malice, incompetence and intimidation. I claim the protection of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments, Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law, Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights and common law.
I site Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) as precedent for the lack of professionalism in this petition. As I understand it, his petition was a handwritten petition from his jail cell. I am hopefully not that bad off, but I am an amateur. I do not have the professional nor clerical skill of an attorney to work with. Nor at this point do I have the will to try. I am indigent, as Gideon was, and have been made so by the denial of my rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and laws. I have been unable to find a lawyer with guts enough to take on the criminal, unconstitutional assertion of Judge made law, absolute impunity. Their fear is understandable because of the judicial history for malice, corruption, incompetence and intimidation.
Additionally I ask you to accept this Petition for a Writ of Certiorari per the United States Code of Law Title 28 § 2111 Harmless error:
“On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”
For information only I include U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947[3].
The case has not even been considered based on its merits. The Judiciary has, without a petitioner’s remedial due process right to be heard on the corruption, malice, incompetence and intimidation, DENIED the petitioner’s inviolable Due Process Civil Right. To this point it has been asserted that the proposed allegation of corruption, malice, intimidation and incompetence would not make the declaration good. That is Sophistry of the highest order.
The assertion of absolute judicial immunity always goes back to Floyd v. Barker. The assertion in Floyd and Barker, 12 Co. Rep. 23, 77 Eng. Rep. 1305 (K. B. 1607) is NOT that judges are entitled to immunity. The decision in Floyd v. Barker asserts that the “Star Chamber” had no jurisdiction over the Common Law and Equity Judges. In the “Star Chamber” there was no protection of the law; a plaintiff had no rights. The “Star Chamber” claimed authority that it did not have. Lord Coke in Floyd v. Barker put the “Star Chamber” in its place. At the time there was no definitive constitution in place that defined and limited government, democratic constitutional government did not exist. By 1641 the “Star Chamber” had been completely discredited, it had become clear the “Star Chamber” was a corrupt political weapon of the privileged, not a court of Justice. The “Star Chamber” has since become a symbol for the misuse and abuse of power.
Furthermore in Floyd and Barker Lord Coke stated that the only conspiracy action that would lie against a Judge would be one perpetrated outside the court. I quote “subornation of witnesses, and false and malicious prosecutions, out of Court, to such that he knows will be indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful conspiracy.[4]” The Judges, defendants, Bennett, Colyer, Goeke, Jones and Jeep conspired outside the court, outside of procedural and substantive protection of Due Process[5]. It was “an unlawful conspiracy” and “coram non judice”[6] The Judges, defendants, Bennett, Colyer, Goeke, Jones and Jeep conspired outside the court, beyond even the extended yet defined limits of an ex parte order, to charge and punish the Petitioner Jeep with abuse, without the requisite “Probable Cause.” This was a criminal Judicial conspiracy to violate the petitioner’s 4th Amendment Right, “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects… no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” and the petitioner’s right to the protection of the law, per statute “for good cause shown in the petition[7]”, there was NONE.
That was a conspiracy outside the court to defraud the petitioner. So I assert Floyd and Barker to establish judicial liability, not to deny it. Although my research on the subject is by no means authoritative I would also like to assert that Lord Coke would NEVER assert absolute immunity. Lord Coke was a staunch defender of the rule of law in the face of royal absolutism. I cannot imagine that he would assert Absolute Immunity for himself and or others.
The Justice branch has for too long used sophistry to cover up judicial culpability. The “Star Chamber” was set up to attempt the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes. Its scope and its procedures were never clearly defined. It degraded into a corrupt and malicious political tool and was ultimately discredited and disbanded. It was a failure, but the problem that instigated its creation did not go away.
In Floyd and Barker Lord Coke’s ruling from within the “Star Chamber” attempted to define its task and limit its jurisdiction. It was not that he believed that Judges could do no wrong. It was his belief that the only entity capable of calling a Judge’s action into question was the King himself. I quote “for the judges of the realm have the administration of justice, under the King[8], to all his subjects… they are only to make an account to God and the King[9] and not to any suggestion in the Star-Chamber.[10]” How does that now translate into democratic constitutional rule? We have no King. Who has the right and the OBLIGATION to oversee Judges in a democratic constitutional government of laws.
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense 1776 answered that question: “But where, says some, is the King of America? I'll tell you… In America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law OUGHT to be King; and there ought to be no other.[11]” “We the People” passed a law in 1871 the remedial statutory Civil Rights statute, § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 -- the forerunner of § 1983”:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”
It clearly an unequivocalbly states the Kings/Laws intent. The Judges and the Justice Department need to enforce Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights per Article Article III. § 2. “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties”. The Sophistry asserted by the Judiciary is that they are answerable to NO Law they are immune.
I am herewith asking the court to reconsider their corrupt, malicious, incompetent and intimidating precedent of absolute immunity for judicial acts and the trickle down immunity it generates for others. Remove the sophism and the irony of the malice, corruption, intimidation and incompetence is unmistakable: those who are the guardians, the Judges, of the Constitution are themselves privileged to violate it with corrupt, malicious, incompetent and intimidating impunity.
“We the People,” as individual victims, should not be asked to bear the burden of irreparable injury and the prosecution for the criminal[12] denial of our inviolable rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution and laws. “We the People” pay taxes to establish the government of “We the People” as defined by our rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United States.
“We the People” have rights in this country. The denial of those rights is WELL DOCUMENTED as actionable at common law[13], constitutional law[14], criminal statutory law[15] and civil statutory law[16]:
“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. 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.
In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law… "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...[17]"
The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 (1803) @ Page 5 U. S. 163
I have to ask as John Marshall Chief Justice of the Supreme Court did in 1803: “Is it to be contended that the heads of departments[18] are not amenable to the laws of their country?
Whatever the practice on particular occasions may be, the theory of this principle will certainly never be maintained[19].
No act of the Legislature (, executive or judiciary) confers so extraordinary a privilege, nor can it derive countenance from the doctrines of the common law. After stating that personal injury from the King[20] to a subject is presumed to be impossible, Blackstone, Vol. III. p. 255, says… "but injuries to the rights of property can scarcely be committed by the Crown without the intervention of its officers, for whom, the law, in matters of right, entertains no respect or delicacy, but furnishes various methods of detecting the errors and misconduct of those agents by whom the King has been deceived and induced to do a temporary injustice."” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 (1803) @ Page 5 U. S. 165
“We the People” have been “deceived and induced” with judicial sophistry to the “temporary injustice” for the full burden of liability for the corruption, malice, intimidation and incompetence of the Judiciary deceitful sophism of Judicial Absolute Immunity since 1871. This injustice has been perpetrated by a self-admitted corrupt, malicious and incompetent Justice Department over the Supremacy of the Constitution, the remedial statutory Civil Rights statute § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 -- the forerunner of § 1983 and common law of the “We the People.”
The sophism, purporting judicial absolute immunity, is based on the fallacy connecting immunity with the independence essential to the separation of powers. The separation of powers, does not require Judicial immunity. If it did the essence of civilization, The Protection of Laws, would be unattainable. That is obviously and irreconcilably, a self serving sophism.
The separation of powers is a model for the governance of democratic states. The normal division of branches is into an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. The branches are separated and independent of each other by Rule of Law. All the branches are ruled by and are subject to the Constitution as the paramount Rule of Law. All the branches operate under delegated authority derived from the Constitution, the rule of law. “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.[21]” Therefore when any of the branches of Government deny a citizen’s rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United States their actions are criminal. Their actions should be adjudged void and compensation ought to be awarded to the injured party for redress of grievances per the First Amendment, Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights and Common Law.
Our Government is founded on our Constitution, Rule of Law. All of civilization is based on the Rule of Law. In monarchies the people surrender their will to the prerogative of the King in return for the King’s presumed benevolence and protection as the Rule of Law. In Democracies of free and equal persons we establish the rule of law through the agreed written Constitution establishing the limits and responsibilities of government as the Protection of the Law. To for go the Protection of the Law by allowing immunity from the law is to negate the intended purpose of Civilization. If in a monarchy the King does not provide protection and / or benevolency, the Protection of the Law, he or she is over thrown and replaced. In a democracy of free and equal persons, “We the People” have established Due Process of Law to secure the Protection of the Law.
The Essence of Civilization is the establishment of the Rule of Law in place of the inherent anarchy of the survival of the fittest or the yet to be sustainable benevolent dictatorship. Immunity from the Rule of Law as a requirement for departmental independence is a sophism that is antithetical to the essence of civilization, The Protection of the Laws.
Thomas Jefferson said it first and best:
“We have long suffered under the base prostitution of the law to party passion 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[22]” (emphasis added) corruption, intimidation and incompetence.
Because of this sophistry and unmerited impunity, the Judges have for the last 140 years intimidated all who oppose them. One needs just look at the recurrent theme in the precedent. In Bradley v. Fisher, 137 Wall. 335 (1872) a Judge is allowed to nearly destroy an attorney’s livelihood with the malice, corrupt, incompetent and intimidating denial of Due Process of Law as affirmed by the Supreme Court precedent, acknowledging the bad act as a factual certainty. In Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) a Judge demands a Defense Attorney “be brought before him, without regard to decorum” and the United States Marshall Service, under color of law goes out and physically accosts their victim and literally drags him into court kicking and screaming, again as affirmed by the Supreme Court precedent, acknowledging the bad act as a factual certainty. Criminal intimidation is at the root of the judicial malice, corruption, incompetents and impunity.
Questions
I. Immunity is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the Rule of Law. The sophism that asserts Immunity from the Rule of Law as a requirement for the Constitutional Separation of Powers is inherently flawed in a democratic society of free and equal persons based on the Rule of Law and not of men. Will you the Supreme Court abolish Absolute Immunity and establish as the rule of precedent “Professional Good Faith Immunity” as the professional standard for all persons acting under color of law?
A. “Professional Good Faith Immunity” would protect the diligent, honest and competent good faith efforts of any person to be fair and unbiased under the Constitution and Laws, while providing a civil and criminal remedy for the victims, of malice, corruption incompetence and intimidation as required by common law[23], constitutional law[24], criminal statutory law[25] and civil statutory law[26].
II. Will you the Supreme Court disavow all Judge made law that is intrinsically contradictory to the overt expressed intent of “we the People” in the constitution and laws of the United States, e.g.:
A. Any precedent that circumvents the “expansive sweep[27]” and remedial intent of § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 -- the forerunner of § 1983:
1. "This act is remedial, and in aid of the preservation of human liberty and human rights. All statutes and constitutional provision authorizing such statutes are liberally and beneficently construed. It would be most strange and, in civilized law, monstrous, were this not the rule of interpretation… as are meant to protect and defend and give remedies for their wrongs to all the people.[28]"
2. Specifically enforce the reference to “Every person who, under color of any…” as it was clearly intended “Every person” no exceptions.
3. Specifically the archaic redundant requirement for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in advance of any remedial action under Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights. A requirement for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in advance negates the remedial aid authorized by Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.
B. Any precedent that selectively denies and or selectively enforces the 14th Amendment’s protection, “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?
1. Such as the denial of 14th Amendment’s protection in family law.
I assert RICO[29] protection for the ongoing criminal intimidation and denial of civil rights. As a result of the denial of the rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United Sates of America, I seek a redress of grievances from the United States of America per the First Amendment to the Constitution, specifically the Supreme Court:
I. Injunctive relief to overturn and expunge the DWI Conviction (Case # CR203-1336M) and remove all reference of it from my Driving Record and the 32 year old 1978 DWI conviction[30].
II. Injunctive relief to overturn all orders of protection between Sharon G. Jeep and David G. Jeep and remove all record of them (Case No.: 03FC-10670M).
III. Injunctive relief to overturn the subsequent and coupled Property and Custody Order (Case No.: 03FC-12243) currently in effect between David G. Jeep and Sharon G. Jeep as regards the joint marital property as of November 3, 2003 and the custody of the Minor Child Patrick Brandon Jeep (DOB 12/22/94) and remand it to a new judge for resettlement based on this ruling.
IV. Actual Damages in the amount of:
Fifty Million Dollars and No Cents-------------------------------------------- $50,000,000.00
V. Punitive damages. In the amount of:
One Hundred Million Dollars and No Cents----------------------------- $100,000,000.00
I sent a copy of this petition via US mail, prepaid to:
Solicitor General of the United States
Room 5614, Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W
Washington, D. C. 20530–0001
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Monday, August 09, 2010
Signature of Plaintiff
_________________________________________
David G. Jeep
[1] For a complete list of the Defendants please see U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947
[3] State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).
[6] Coram non judice, Latin for "not in the presence of a judge," is a legal term typically used to indicate a legal proceeding without a judge, with improper venue, or without jurisdiction.
[8] Article III. § 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties
[12] Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 242. CRIMINAL Deprivation of rights under color of law
[13] See The Commentaries on the 18th-century common law of England (and thus America) by Sir William Blackstone, originally published by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, 1765-1769. Specifically Blackstone as quoted in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 (1803) @ Page 5 U. S. 163
[14] Right of redress as assured by the 1st Amendment Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[15] Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 242. CRIMINAL Deprivation of rights under color of law
[17] Blackstone’s common law reference sounds a lot like the verbiage of Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[19] Over the assertion of the Supreme Court in 1803, the Supreme Court in 1871 with “Bradley” established ABSOLUTE IMPUNITY for the Judiciary.
[20] “In America THE CONSTITUTION IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other” paraphrasing Common Sense by Thomas Paine Published in 1776 challenged the authority of the British government and the royal monarchy..” I would note that personal injury by the Constitution is IMPOSSIBLE in our democratic constitutional government, but injuries to the rights of property can scarcely be committed by the Constitution without the intervention of its officers, for whom, the law, in matters of right, entertains no respect or delicacy, but furnishes various methods of detecting the errors and misconduct of those agents by whom the CONSTITUTION of the “We the People” have been deceived and induced to do a temporary injustice.
[21] The Federalist No. 78, The Judiciary Department, Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788 by Alexander Hamilton
[22] May 26, 1810 a letter Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From “The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[23] See The Commentaries on the 18th-century common law of England (and thus America) by Sir William Blackstone, originally published by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, 1765-1769. Specifically Blackstone as quoted in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 (1803) @ Page 5 U. S. 163
[24] Right of redress as assured by the 1st Amendment Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[25] Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 242. CRIMINAL Deprivation of rights under color of law
[28] Representative Shellabarger, in 1871, the author and manager of the bill in the House, explained in his introductory remarks the breadth of construction that the Act was to receive.
[29] The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or 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.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The Honorable William K. Suter, Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First St., NE
Washington, DC 20543
Re: A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Give me Liberty or Give me Death
Dear Mr. Suter,
Please accept the enclosed Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. It is not a perfect, but it does represent to the best of my limited ability as to the issue. I include:
1. (12 Copies, 9 page each) Petition Writ of Certiorari wit Certificate of Service to the Solicitor General.
2. (1 copy) In forma pauperis Financial Certification.
3. (1 copy, 9 pages each) Immunity is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the Rule of Law
I am not the idiot here; I know what immunity is. I know the difference between immunity and departmental independence. The Judiciary does not need immunity from the rule of law to establish itself as an independent branch of the government under the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America. Neither of the other two branches of Government needs immunity from the rule of law.
Give me Liberty of give me Death!!! I refuse the offer of life without the guarantee of liberty and the protection of the laws required to sustain it, 7 years is long enough to wait.
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
“Time is of the essence”
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
enclosure:
cc: file
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Solicitor General of the United States
Room 5614, Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W
Washington, D. C. 20530–0001
Re: Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
Dear People,
As referenced above please find the enclosed Petition for a Writ of Certiorari titled David G. Jeep v United States of America, et al dated Tuesday, August 10, 2010.
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
“Time is of the essence”
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
cc: file
Friday, August 20, 2010
Ms. Gail Johnson
c/o The Honorable William K. Suter, Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First St., NE
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: David G. Jeep v. United States of America, et al
Response to letter dated August 17, 2010 received August 19, 2010
Dear Ms. Johnson,
I am in receipt of your letter dated August 17, 2010. I would think that by now you are in receipt of the in forma pauperis Financial Certification I had inadvertently not included in my original petition you reference as postmarked August 10, 2010. I discovered my error and mailed the in forma pauperis Financial Certification subsequently, you should have received it by now. It was postmarked August 11, 2010. To be sure, please find:
1. (1 copy) in forma pauperis Financial Certification (second copy dated 8-20-10).
2. (12 Copies, 9 page each) Petition Writ of Certiorari with Certificate of Service to the Solicitor General, stamped received Clerk Supreme Court U.S. August 17, 2010 – Note all issues of rule 14.1 (a, d, e, g & h) were addressed to the best of my pro se natural born son of natural born citizen biological parents citizen’s ability in my original petition. No attorney would, will or could safely take on the self-admitted corrupt, malicious and incompetent judiciary[1] even when I had money to pay.
3. (1 copy, 9 pages each) Immunity is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the Rule of Law, received Clerk Supreme Court U.S. August 17, 2010.
4. My original letter of transmittal dated August 10, 2010, stamped received Clerk Supreme Court U.S. August 17, 2010
5. Copy of the letter, dated August 10, 2010, transmitting to the Solicitor General’s Office, received Clerk Supreme Court U.S. August 17, 2010.
Again, I am sorry for the confusion.
I am indigent, as I have been for the last THREE years, HOMELESS. I carry my belongings on my back. I do not have the capacity to maintain files, reproduce or transmit copies of the court decisions that have put me in this position. I have to struggle to come up with postage. I have computer access at the local library to generate this correspondence. For information only I include via reference, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947[2]. These should be easily accessible to you via PACER. I can not get access to PACER, I do not have the necessary credit to establish myself. This indigence is the DIRECT result of the criminal denial of Justice as defined by my civil right to Due Process of law in violation of the rule of law, specifically as referenced in my Petition and as required by common law[3], constitutional law[4], criminal statutory law[5] and civil statutory law[6]. I am figuratively and literally down to my last farthing.
In our Constitution’s preamble the foremost goal stated is “to establish Justice[7]”. We do not have Justice in this country. “We the People” are subject to the tyrannical immune rule of the shameless self-admitted malicious, corrupt, incompetent and intimidating Judiciary with their hubris and sophistry uninhibited. I quote from the self professed corrupt, malicious and incompetent precedent “This (absolute impunity) immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly” (Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) @ page 349), (Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ page 554) and (Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991))… Therefore a malicious and corrupt (as noted above) “judge of a criminal court, invested with general criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed within a certain district, should hold a particular act to be a public offense, which is not by the law made an offense[8], and proceed to the arrest and trial of a party charged with such act, or should sentence a party convicted to a greater punishment than that authorized by the law[9] upon its proper construction, no personal liability[10] to civil action for such acts would attach to the judge” Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 335 (1871) Page 80 U. S. 352… The result is “There is no safety for the citizen except in the protection of the (malicious and corrupt) judicial tribunals for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government professing to act in its name. There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime.” (Non-italic parenthetical text and lined through editing added for clarity)(United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) , Page 106 U. S. 219) (Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) @ 403 US 394-395). What Justice can there be with a self-admitted malicious, corrupt, incompetent and intimidating Judiciary, all sophistry aside?
“Justice” as defined and purportedly provided by the self-admitted corrupt, malicious and incompetent Judiciary is too abstract a term to be of any use. No one has its protection nor can anyone assuredly avoid its capricious, corrupt, malicious and incompetent wrath. Without established predicable justice liberty is beyond reach.
Give me Liberty or give me Death!!! I refuse the offer of life without the guarantee of liberty and the protection of the laws required to sustain it, 7 years is long enough to wait. I dare say, for me, this will all be over by November 4, 2010… one-way or another.
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
“Time is of the essence”
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
enclosure: as noted above
cc: file
[1] I note the dissenting opinions in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 335 (1871), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), and Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) ABSOLUTE judicial immunity has never been a settled, established, uncontested precedent as asserted by the criminal self-serving precedent of the past majorities on the Supreme Court. When the Defendants in both 07-2614 and 08-1823 acted without informed credible probable cause their actions were outside the court, outside of procedural and substantive Due Process and thus coram non judice.
[2] State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, the subsequent and linked Property and Custody Order (Case No.: 03FC-12243), Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
[3] See The Commentaries on the 18th-century common law of England (and thus America) by Sir William Blackstone, originally published by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, 1765-1769. Specifically Blackstone as quoted in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 (1803) @ Page 5 U. S. 163
[4] Right of redress as assured by the 1st Amendment Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[7] “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
[8] “The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact” A Judge made law the repeal of the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws, US Constitution Section 9 - No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
[9] “the practice of arbitrary imprisonments” A Judge made law the repeal of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, US Constitution Section 9 - The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
[10] “no personal liability” A Judge made law the repeal of the Constitutional prohibition for a Title of Nobility. Immunity is in fact a Title of Nobility in the terminology of Colonial Times and the Constitution of the United States of America
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: David G. Jeep
To: Pam Agathen
Sent: Fri, September 3, 2010 3:32:42 PM
Subject: A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, David G. Jeep v. United States of America, et al
Fri, September 3, 2010 3:34:29 PM
...
From:
|
David G. Jeep
| |
To:
|
Tami Abdollah
|
Thanks in advance,
"We live in a Lawless Society...
Time is of the essence".
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
Dave@DGJeep.com
DGJeep@DGJeep.com
