Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Chief United States District Judge
Catherine D. Perry
111 South 10th Street, Suite 14.182
St. Louis, MO 63102-1125
This is corruption on a massive scale
Dear Chief Judge Ms. Perry,
I wrote to you last week regarding a request for a Judicial Inquiry. I am now motivated to beg for HELP!!!!!!!! This will be my fourth Thanksgiving of homelessness. I sometimes cry myself to sleep at night, a 54-year-old man. This struggle for my inviolable and inalienable rights has taken everything. I am destitute. I live on the street and in homeless shelters. I am literally and figuratively on my last leg. I have endured 7 years of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration, two psychological examinations, and three years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America.
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.
Reply to: Dave@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep
cc: e-mailed to a select group of favorites
This is corruption on a massive scale
The Right to petition for a Redress of Grievances
The “Jane Crow” era, Jeep v. United States of America
I assert and agree with Lord Acton (1887): "I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge (our Government) Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it." (emphasis and non-italic parenthetical text added)
Immunity, be it judicial, prosecutorial or witness (police), by definition is diametrically opposed to the Rule of Law.
American’s assume they have the protection of the law, the Rule of Law, as asserted by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803):
“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.”
They are unfortunately woefully mistaken. We do not live under the Rule of Law as written in our constitution and laws as assumed by 99.999999% of the people in the United States of America. Judges have awarded themselves, absolute immunity, from the constitution and laws via their Judge Made Law first in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) and then subsequently and specifically as regards the equal protection of the laws, or equal rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and the laws under he Blessings of Liberty.
“The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.”
“This immunity (absolute impunity) 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 “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, 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 upon its proper construction, no personal liability 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
“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 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).
The issue in Connick v. Thompson (09-571), a current Supreme Court case, is a simple one. Given that no one on this planet is divine or omniscient, the assumption of innocence is not a right it is an invincible maxim: "Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. - The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof." The universal Ends of Justice thus REQUIRE the accused be informed thoroughly of the charges against him. Any surprise or denial in the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence attempts to defeat an invincible maxim. Surprise, how can someone prove the negative when they are not sure of what the negative is?
The universal Ends of Justice via logical consideration requires affording the accused a fair chance to defend themselves. Denial of exculpable evidence defeats the ends of Justice. And if there is exculpable evidence, why is the prosecution persecuting the accused anyway?
That brings us to the REAL issue, Immunity and the Right of Redress as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. The right of redress has for TOO long been denied Citizens of the United States of America.
We hold a “4-Year-Old Can Be Sued.” We can bail out the automaker’s to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence, malice and corruption of “our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants” and compensate the victims?
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, established the right of redress:
“If we, our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.”
It was assumed by the Barons, that the King, his chief justice (judges), his officials, or any of his servants might offend and there would need to be a right of redress.
The 1st Amendment to the Constitution as the “supreme Law of the Land” requires that the Courts afford “We the People” consideration and thus Due Process of Law as regard “Congress shall make no law… abridging the… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It was assumed by the Founding Fathers, the newly formed Government would from time to time screw up and be liable to the Citizen for a redress of grievances. The founding Fathers had learned from the experience of history from the time of Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) to the writing of the constitution (1787):
“If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
The “auxiliary precautions” precluded the grant of ABSOLUTE immunity to anyone.
Judicial Power, the administration of Justice, per Article III of the Constitution for the United States of America is to submit to the Rule of Law not declare immunity from it: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties….” This is in addition to the Judiciary’s oath of Office:
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Justice under the law was important to the founding fathers. The Declaration of Independence was based on the pursuit of Justice under the law to over come “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”. James Madison wrote:
“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. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.”
The grant of absolute immunity is incompatible with the ends of Justice because it necessitates a known fallacy i.e., divinity or omniscience. No one on this planet is divine or omniscient.
The Supreme Court obviously knew better in 1882. The Supreme Court confirmed the protection of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws in 1882:
“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.” United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) @ Page 220.
Again the Supreme Court obviously knew better in 1932:
“If this extreme position could be deemed to be well taken, it is manifest that the fiat of a state governor (a state judge, a state prosecutor, a police officer, a spouse, a federal officer,) and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases, the futility of which the state may at any time disclose…
There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution. When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state (ANY) power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the federal judicial power extends (Article III, § 2), and, so extending, the Court has all the authority appropriate to its exercise.” (emphasis and non-italic parenthetical text added) Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932) Page 287 U. S. 397-398.
In 1935 the Supreme Court accurately described one aspect of the issue, but failed to provide a remedy:
“The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the prosecuting attorney, will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused, when they should properly carry none.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
But the Supreme Court denies “We the People” a redress of grievances for the denial.
Due Process of Law as defined by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963):
“We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Page 373 U. S. 87
clearly requires the state to present all it’s evidence, incriminating and exculpatory, to the accused prior to the trial. But the Supreme Court denies “We the People” a redress of grievances for the denial.
Justice, per the Constitution, requires the State to provide the accused with “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation ” via a warrant and the evidence with the “presentment” of the charges via “Due Process of Law”.
Now granted this all makes things difficult for the Judges, Prosecution and Police. But, that is why they get paid. Why we call it work instead of vacation. To date “We the People” have determined our “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” as the best way to avoid “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”
Probable cause is not just a fill in the blank. Due Process is not an ambush. Surprise evidence has no place in the prosecution of the law. All witness have to be held accountable for the veracity of their testimony under a democratically limited government of equal persons. Due Process is a search for the TRUTH. In that search, during that search the accused is to be granted access to all the evidence, incriminating and exculpatory, so that they can make their defense of the “negative.”
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) and . Their JOB is to administer Justice per our rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. They should NEVER have been allowed to grant themselves absolute IMMUNITY from the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. This by definition goes against “auxiliary precautions”  we have instituted, our rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. In 1967 that was the remnants of the Jim Crow laws. They have been utilizing that lack of restraint with the “Jane Crow” discrimination in Family Law and in their establishment of
This is a massive corrupt conspiracy to deny rights. Per the 1st Amendment, statutory civil law and criminal law “We the People” have a right recourse. But per Judge Made Law, Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 335 (1871), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors) and “We the People” have NO RECOURSE!!!!
We can sue a 4 year old. We can bail everybody out. But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence, malice and corruption of “our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants” and compensate the victims?
That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jeep v. United States of America is a flagrant case of Judicial, Prosecutorial and Police negligence, malice and corruption. It is time to over rule Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) and . Judges, Prosecutors and Police work for “We the People.” It is time “We the People” had our rights per the 1st Amendment to the Constitution “Congress shall make no law… abridging the… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Justice REQUIRES it and “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.”
Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan
c/o The Clerk’s Office, Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: Letter to Catherine D. Perry, dated November 23, 2010
Just so no one can ever say I did not inform you of the case against you. I submit that the ruling in to the Constitution and thus your oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”
“We the People” established our constitution to establish the RULE of LAW to limit our government. You have corrupted that attempt by the self serving grant of absolute impunity.
I submit the following letter, e-mail to Chief United States District Judge Catherine D. Perry Eastern District of Missouri. She is at the FRONT lines of the defense of your CORRUPTION.
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.
Reply to Dave@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep
cc: Adam Liptak
 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America “Opposed to Immunity” currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk’s office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- 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/).
 The Court’s criminal bias for a woman’s rights over a man’s rights with unequal protection of the Law, family law.
 “Why We Must Fix Our Prisons”, By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009, U.S. Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By Adam Liptak, Published: February 29, 2008, Our Real Prison Problem. Why are we so worried about Gitmo? Newsweek by Dahlia Lithwick Published June 5, 2009
 “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08
 Immunity is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the Rule of Law Tuesday, August 10, 2010
 “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.
 “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.
 ibid., 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823
 TESTILYING: POLICE PERJURY AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT, (67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1037) by Christopher Slobogin Copyright
 “Citing cases dating back as far as 1928, a New York State Supreme Court Justice has ruled that a young girl accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence.” Justice Paul Wooten of the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, New York Times, New York edition, Published: October 28, 2010, A version of this article appeared in print on October 29, 2010, on page A24 By Alan Feuer
 “Mark Zandi the chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “Dr. Zandi’s analysis found that the cost of rescuing the industry, across all aid programs would be at minimum $75 billion, and maybe go as high as $120 billion or more.”
 “Bailout Plan: $2.5 Trillion and a Strong U.S. Hand” The New York Times, By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and STEPHEN LABATON Published: February 10, 2009
 The Declaration of Independence: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
 TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241 “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;... They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, 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.”