Tuesday, February 15, 2011

You are not acting in good faith. You have no moral ascendancy. Your refusal makes you culpable for your CRIMINAL actions.


111 South 10th Street, Suite 14.182
St. Louis, MO 63102-1125

Re: Autocratic rulers in the Gulf and the United States of America
       Your Maginot Line will not hold, I carry no weapons

Dear Ms. Perry,
This imbroglio is not of your making but you support and defend the "sacred values" of your "tribal-moral community"[1] illicitly without regard to your solemn oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."[2]    The Constitution of the United States of America specifically precludes the grant of Nobility, absolute immunity, TWICE.[3]  You fraudulently assert you are not obligated under color of law, The Constitution for the United States of America, to disavow the "Title of Nobility" granted by ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.  You unlawfully support the MASSIVE ALL POWERFUL CONSPIRACY against rights.  That is CRIMINAL DENIAL and you KNOW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The First Amendment and "§ 1983" cause of action gives me the clear CONSTITUTIONAL right to redress for my grievances.  I asserted and reassert now Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622 (1980) gives you the clear mandate to protect rights and assure redress for their deprivation.  You are bound by your oath of office to the constitution:
"Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Page 445 U. S. 656.
"We believe that today's decision, together with prior precedents in this area, properly allocates these costs among the three principals in the scenario of the § 1983 cause of action: the victim of the constitutional deprivation; the officer whose conduct caused the injury; and the public, as represented by the municipal entity. The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury. The offending official, so long as he conducts himself in good faith, may go about his business secure in the knowledge that a qualified immunity will protect him from personal liability for damages that are more appropriately chargeable to the populace as a whole. And the public will be forced to bear only the costs of injury inflicted by the
"execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy. "" Page 445 U. S. 638
Your refusal to enforce CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS per Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622 (1980) makes you derelict and criminal in your sworn duty.  This precedent, Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622 (1980), was directed at the Eighth Circuit and is binding to you as a Judge of the Eighth Circuit.  You and your cohorts in the Eighth Circuit have refused your duty to provide the Protection of Laws via Supreme Court Precedent, the Constitution, your oath of OFFICE and the natural common law. I know you would prefer that I call someone else out for this issue, but it is ALL YOURS.
You are not acting in good faith.  You have no moral ascendancy.  Your refusal makes you culpable for your CRIMINAL[4] actions.  And you will be held to strict scrutiny and strict liability[5] for your OATH of office to "support and defend" constitutional rights.
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:  e-mailed to a select group of favorites
       file


Autocratic rulers in the Gulf and the United States of America
The King can do not wrong
"We can't win the future with a government of the past."
PRESIDENT OBAMA, in his State of the Union address.

"We the People of the United States of America" live under the autocratic rule of the Judiciary.  They assert that they can do no wrong.  Justice William O. Douglas in his dissent said it best:
 "The argument that the actions of public officials must not be subjected to judicial scrutiny because to do so would have an inhibiting effect on their work is but a more sophisticated manner of saying "The King can do no wrong."" Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Page 386 U. S. 565
As the UNDISPUTED COURT RECORD CONFIRMS!  I was ILLEGALLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY held to answer on TWO infamous charges without probable cause, much less proof of any wrongdoing.  It was and continues to be a criminal denial of rights.[6]  I was and have been objecting, appealing and pointing out this criminal deprivation virtually every second since.  The courts refused to listen; they all have self-proclaimed immunity, the massive criminal conspiracy against rights is all-powerful.  "There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime."[7]  Is the anarchy, the violence of Tucson, Virginia Tech, Kirkwood City Hall all we have left?  Is there no defeating the criminal conspiracy against rights, "absolute immunity"?
They took my son, my home, my EVERYTHING.  Because of your criminal denials and criminal assertion of absolute immunity I have had NO REDRESS to the protection of the laws.[8]  I have endured over 7 years of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[9], two psychological examinations, and over three years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America.[10]  Am I the crazy one?? I am the one that stood up to the CRIMINAL, the UNCONSTITUTIONAL, the CORRUPT, the MALICIOUS and the NEGLIGENT.  The COURT RECORD confirms the criminality, the corruption, the malice and the negligence of the depraved deliberate indifferent criminal conspiracy against rights.[11]

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)


[1] "If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community," Dr. Haidt said. "They'll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they'll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value." It's easy for social scientists to observe this process in other communities, like the fundamentalist Christians who embrace "intelligent design" while rejecting Darwinism. But academics can be selective, too, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan found in 1965 when he warned about the rise of unmarried parenthood and welfare dependency among blacks — violating the taboo against criticizing victims of racism.
"Moynihan was shunned by many of his colleagues at Harvard as racist," Dr. Haidt said. "Open-minded inquiry into the problems of the black family was shut down for decades, precisely the decades in which it was most urgently needed. Only in the last few years have liberal sociologists begun to acknowledge that Moynihan was right all along."  "Social Scientist Sees Bias Within" By JOHN TIERNEY, New York Times February 7, 2011
[2] § 3331. Oath of office An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
[3]  Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph  "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States"
and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility"
[4] Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
[6] Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
[8] Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, or the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 
[10] 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/).

--
Thanks in advance,
"We live in a Lawless Society...
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G.Jeep  
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

Every American Journalist ought to be ASHAMED of themselves

Every American Journalist ought to be
ASHAMED of themselves

FOX News has sullied the good name of American Journalism.  On Sunday before the Super Bowl, controversial Fox News host Bill O'Reilly interviewed President Barack Obama at the White House. They talked about Egypt, healthcare, and taxes, but toward the end of the interview, O'Reilly asked the president, "Does it disturb you that so many people hate you?"

Obama chuckled and fielded the question adroitly, "You know, the truth is that the people—and I'm sure previous presidents would say the same thing, whether it was Bush or Clinton or Reagan or anybody," he said. "The people who dislike you don't know you."
"But they hate you," O'Reilly pushed.

"The folks who hate you, they don't know you. What they hate is whatever fun-house mirror image of you that's out there, and they don't know you," Obama said. "And so, you don't take it personally."

But the question was false!!  The premise of the question, "many people hate you" is unsupported in the REAL world.  Yes there are people out there that hate Obama.  There are people out there that hate me, that hate you, but there ARE not "many people."  It was a loaded question; loaded with FRAUD!!!!!!!!!  It is called begging the question.[1]  There are not so many people that hate our president that it should be a topic for a Super Bowl Interview.  Relatively speaking Mr. Obama's approval rating has been going up not down.   

But that was just the last in a line of I think libelous acts by FOX News.  Media Matters for America, an online watchdog group, published FOX NEWS INSIDER: "Stuff Is Just Made Up" February 10, 2011 7:20 am ET by Eric Boehlert.  In the VERY good article Mr. Boehlert exposes FOX for what they are FRAUDS!!!!!!!!!!!

They don't report the news they make it up to fit their agenda.  And the credible Journalist let them get away with it because they are too lazy to do their jobs.  It is oh so SAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)


[1] Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition  to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.


--
Thanks in advance,
"We live in a Lawless Society...
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G.Jeep  
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

A Balanced Budget for America?


A Balanced Budget for America?
"We can't win the future with a government of the past."
PRESIDENT OBAMA, in his State of the Union address.


       I would debate whether a balanced budget is actually a good thing for America.  Inflation is a GOOD thing.  Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) in his Communist Manifesto (1848) predicted that the Proletarians would revolt to throw off the Bourgeois.  Now with the fall of the Soviet Union and the Communist Block it is thought that Marx’s prophecy will never come to fruition.  

I have to disagree.  It has ALREADY happened.  The only exception being the Proletarians did not use conventional weapons, they used Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild’s weapon:

"Give me control over a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its laws.
Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild (1818 –1874)

     “We the People” threw off the Bourgeois by taking away the gold standard with the “greenback” (1862).  Abraham Lincoln was the first president to use INFLATION to the good and issue a paper currency — the “greenback” (1862) — that wasn’t backed by gold or silver.  He did this to finance the Civil War and free the slaves.  Almost as was predicted by Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) in his Communist Manifesto (1848) again except for the fact that we were using a different nomenclature.  “We the People” redistributed the wealth by creating inflation.
 
     Free Enterprise v. Communism is all about nomenclature.  Cornelius Vanderbilt (1794–1877), a contemporary of Karl Max (1818–1883), Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild (1818 –1874) and Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865), was an American entrepreneur.  At the time of his death he was reportedly the richest man in America.  Today he is still believed to have been the richest man EVER in America.  Relatively speaking he was richer that Bill Gates is today, by a factor of 3.345.  His fortune was estimated at $100,000,000.  The Gross Domestic Product for the United States of America in 1877 was $8,520,000,000.  That meant that as a percentage of GDP, relative wealth, Vanderbilt was worth 1.2121% of GDP.  If you compare that to Bill Gates today $53,000,000,000 v. GDP (2010) of $14,623,900,000,000 (+/-); Gates is worth 0.3624% of GDP.  Vanderbilt as a percentage of GDP v Gate as a percentage of GDP, 1.2121% of GDP 1877 v 0.3624% of GDP 2011: Vanderbilt was (1.2121% / 0.3624%) 3.345 times as rich as Gates relatively speaking.  

     Now Vanderbilt was not a bad man, he was a self made man of his era.  Unlike Mr. Gates he left 95% of his fortune intact to his son.  So I ask where did it go.  Most of it disappeared into inflation in the subsequent 134 years.  We the People redistributed the wealth by “control over a nation’s currency.”  In the 134 years (1877-2011) between Vanderbilt’s death and today we have diluted his wealth by printing money and CREATING new wealth ($14,623,900,000,000 / $8,250,000,000= 1,773) by a factor 1,773.  So if Vanderbilt had taken his wealth (not his greenbacks) and just put it in his mattress, his 1877 wealth would be worth $56,414 ($100,000,000/1,773) today.    
 
      We have achieved the results of Marx via the weapon of Rothschild and redistributed the wealth without any wars, without any blood shed, without the micro management of Communism.  That is a GOOD thing.   

     IF Abraham Lincoln had not printed the “greenback,” USING INFLATION, we might still have ethnic slavery.  If Franklin D. Roosevelt had not started printing money, USING INFLATION, with the New Deal we might today still be economic slaves to the robber barons, Vanderbilt.  That is how “We the People,” unbeknownst to ourselves, redistributed wealth and brought about the prophecy of Marx without the blood shed, the denial of human rights, and the micro-management that bankrupt the Communist Block.
 
      I see no reason to hamstring ourselves today to balance the budget based on government cut backs.  Yes there is such a thing as hyperinflation,[1] we are not there yet.  And to try to intimidate the American voting Public into thinking that we are on the verge of hyperinflation is a misrepresentation of the facts.  Tax increases while maintaining the government safety net would be a better solution to ward off the possibility of hyperinflation.  “We the People” have government safety net because we have discovered through trial and error that without a safety net the haves tend to push the have-nots over the cliff to protected their vested interests.  The GREAT DEPRESSION and the New Deal taught us that didn’t it?

     
    Our current economic issue is the direct result of 30 years of the GOP’s deregulation in the Banking Industry and TAX cutting.  Bankers were able to create an over-inflated international housing bubble with unregulated government insured loans. 

    “We the People” have taken it on the chin and burst the over-inflated bubble.  “We the People” are now in the process of RE-regulating the Banking Industry to hopefully avoid a repeat of this problem. 

    Now the GOP (Republicans) will tell you that Government action is not to be trusted.  Government’s efforts to correct a wrong will always result in over regulation and wasted resources.  And to some extent that is correct.  Not because it is a government effort though.  Government’s flaws are the result of Government’s limited resources, humanity.  Anything done via humanity will be flawed as an unavoidable result of human fallibility.  A government of the people, by the people and for the people is, to date, the BEST way to get the onerous work of regulation done.  Laissez-faire de-regulation is a seductive theory but if our current economic issues, the result of banking DE-regulation, have taught us anything, “We the People” need government’s mutually agreed authority to REGULATE and thus keep the GREED of “We the People” in check. 

       We can eliminate the Bush era tax cuts and go a LONG way to balancing the Budget and avoiding the possibility of hyperinflation.  Inflation is a GOOD thing.
Think about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



A
  B
  C
      D
1

Fortune
GDP
  Relative
  Wealth
2
Gates
$53,000,000,000
$14,623,900,000,000
     0.36%
3
Vanderbilt
     $100,000,000
         $8,250,000,000
     1.21%
4




5
134 Year Inflation Rate
      C2 / C3
1,773

6
V Discounted by Inflation
      B3 / D5
$56,414

7
Vanderbilt v Gates
      D3 / D2
3.345

8

9

10





PS:
             Imagine if we had not invented inflation and held to the gold standard and balanced budgets.  The Vanderbilt's would be sitting on an even larger percentage of GDP now.  Balanced budgets and the gold standard are what created the Pyramids, the Taj Mahal, the Palace of Versailles and the Biltmore estate,[2] monuments to the individual at the expense of the "We the People."

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)


--
Thanks in advance,
“Time is of the essence"
David G.Jeep  
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316


[1] In economics, hyperinflation is inflation that is very high or "out of control".
[2] The Biltmore Estate was built on the proceeds of Cornelius Vanderbilt, but it would have gone on and on like Royal Dynasty without the advent of INFLATION.

We are exporting our Prohibition Gangland Violence to Mexico

We are exporting our Prohibition Gangland Violence to Mexico
"We can't win the future with a government of the past."
PRESIDENT OBAMA, in his State of the Union address.
      After several decades, Drug Laws have become a failure in North America and elsewhere, as drug smuggling, growing, and refining become widespread and organized crime takes control of the distribution. Does this remind you of Prohibition?  Sometimes violent Growers, Producers and Distributors in Mexico, South America and the Caribbean flourish as their products are illegally imported to the U.S.  The Mexico - Texas and California borders have become notorious as a haven for Drug Violence.  “More than 12,000 people have died this year (2010) in Mexico's drug war.[1]  “More than 30 business and civic groups took out full-page advertisements in newspapers pleading with the country's leaders to bring the mayhem under control.[2]


     We are EXPORTING violence to Mexico to prolong the ill-fated attempt to cure Drug abuse by making Drug use a CRIME instead of treating the victims.  With Drug Law enforcement we are halfway between Harry J. Anslinger[3] and Stanton Peele.[4]  We are still too close to the hysteria of Anslinger’s Reefer Madness[5] and have not yet come to the true understanding of Peele’s “The Meaning of Addiction”.[6]  We are dragging Mexico, South America and large portions of Europe down with us in this ill-advised Drug Law / War of Addiction.

     On a separate note, I would contend that we do not have any individual rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY" for the deprivation of rights; but that is another story.

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)




[1]MEXICO UNDER SIEGE:  More than 12,000 killed in Mexican drug war this year, officials say” December 16, 2010|By Ken Ellingwood, Los Angeles Times
[2] ibid.
[3] Harry Jacob Anslinger (May 20, 1892 – November 14, 1975) held office as the first Commissioner of the Treasury Department's Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) on August 12, 1930 until 1962. One of his first major accomplishments was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
[4] Stanton Peele, Ph. D., J.D., (born January 8, 1946) is a licensed psychologist, attorney, practicing psychotherapist and the author of books and articles on the subject of alcoholism, addiction and addiction treatment.
[5] Reefer Madness (originally released as Tell Your Children) is a well known 1936 American exploitation film revolving around the melodramatic events that ensue when high school students are lured by pushers to try "marihuana" — from a hit and run accident, to manslaughter, suicide, attempted rape, and descent into madness.  Such education-exploitation films were common in the years following adoption of the stricter version of the Production Code in 1934. Other films included Esper's Marihuana (1936) and Elmer Clifton's Assassin of Youth (1937), and the subject of cannabis was particularly popular in the hysteria surrounding Anslinger's 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.
[6] Peele admits to an Unconventional View; you have to approach his work with an open mind.  Peele’s seminal work is “The Meaning of Addiction” (1985/1998).

How to Control Health Care Costs?

-->
How to Control Health Care Costs?
"We can't win the future with a government of the past."
PRESIDENT OBAMA, in his State of the Union address.

There are two ways to control Health care cost, the first, as I am sure, Mr. Krugman, you will agree is via a single payer government controlled program.  That, at best, is only a patch on the problem; nonetheless a VERY NECESSARY stopgap measure. 

The second more difficult and more systemic problem is in synchronizing demand with supply

The demand, at present, is driven by “We the People’s” fear driven irrational ignorance.  To put it simply  “We the People” can not get enough Health Care.  We are too paranoid about the unknown.  “We the People” are nearly hypochondriacs.  We will grow out of it, although it may take decades.

The supply is controlled by a self-sustaining cartel of elite educational institutions.  There were, for 2009-2010 school year 
Applications
Applicants
Admissions
580,304
42,742
18,668

14
31
per AAMC Data Book (http://www.aamc.org/publications) and on the AAMC FACTS website (http://www.aamc.org/facts)

There are 31 applications made for every admission and 2 applicants for every admission and a cost of $160,000 for a Medical School Education.  This does not even include those that were intimidated by the 1/31 odds of admission based on the expense of making an admission.  Most Applicants spend approximately $4,000 to apply to 32 schools (+/-) at $130/application. 

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the median tuition in 2010-2011 was $28,685 at a public institution and $46,899 at a private institution. Note that tuition does not include books, lab fees, etc. In 2010-2011 the median total cost of attendance was $49,298 and $66,984 for public and private universities, respectively.  In 2010, the median debt at graduation was $150,000 at public institutions, $180,000 at private, and $160,000 combined.
We need to DOUBLE the number of Doctors.  We need to INCREASE supply to meet the demand to lower the COST.  We are not getting the cream of the crop; we are perpetuating the Cartels self-servings interest, limited supply subject to an irrational OVERWHELMING demand.  We need to be opening up NEW medical schools in advance of NEW hospitals.
On a separate note, I would contend that we do not have any individual rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY" for the deprivation of rights; but that is another story.

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)