"The Earth and everything that's in it": November 4, 2012

Friday, November 9, 2012

c/o Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Re: Writ of Certiorari on Appeal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case #12-2435

Your Label Number

Service

Service Type: First-Class Certified Mail
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivered WASHINGTON DC 20543 11/15/12 11:19am
Arrival at Unit WASHINGTON DC 20018 11/15/12 11:15am
Dispatched to Sort SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 11/09/12 4:39pm
Facility
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 11/09/12 9:38am
Reminder: Track & Confirm by email

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gail Johnson/S. Elliot, Clerk of the Court
c/o Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001

Re: Reply to letters dated October 3, 2012 and September 21, 2012 and return of Writ of Certiorari on Appeal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case #12-2435

Dear Ms. Bader Ginsburg,

I am seeking a response to my letter as referenced above dated Tuesday, October 16, 2012.[1] Even though this has been an ongoing issue for more than nine years, this is still an emergency for me, time is of the ESSENCE!!!!

I first approached the Supreme Court on this issue in the spring of 2008.[2] I went to the Supreme Court only after realizing that the State courts were at fault and would never admit to their CORRUPTION. I was then maliciously or corruptly denied at the Supreme Court.

I was maliciously or corruptly arrested in March of 2009 for threatening Judges and held in my Government's custody for 411 days. During the corrupt incarceration I was thoroughly examined. I successfully asserted my competence with TWO psychological exams. The charges were dismissed in April of 2010[3] for failure on the Government's part to prosecute in a timely fashion, before I had the chance to EXPOSE the corrupt charges for what they were FRAUD on the COURT and violation of my right to openly criticize my Government.

After my release and in the interim I wrote several letters to SEVERAL people, yourself and the Supreme Court of the United States included. I again submitted a formal Petition for a Writ of Certiorari last year with 11-8211.[4] I was maliciously or corruptly denied "Apr 16 2012 Rehearing DENIED."

I am now back again as referenced above.

The case is and has been since its inception a clear and undisputed denial of the constitutionally secured Due Process[5] right to the constitutionally required reckonable[6] Exculpable Evidence[7] of Probable Cause.[8] Thus the Supreme Courts continued denial of rights is a FRAUD upon the COURT by an officer of the court. Fraud on the court by an officer of the court clearly, maliciously and/or corruptly and/or incompetently negates Justice, the court's raison d'être.[9]

Now the court's assertion in Owen v. City of Independence begs the question with its assertion of "section 1983 liability," because rights as defined Blackstone in English Common Law and then incorporated into Supreme Court precedent by Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 163 (1803) "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" is not only the raison d'être for "section 1983 liability," but the raison d'être for the Supreme Law of the Land. [10] 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 is actionable under section 1983 liability" but also under 1^st and 7^th Amendment's protection and as COMMON LAW incorporated into Supreme Court precedent by Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 163 (1803).

My rights have been invaded by the fraud on the court instigated by an officer of the court and then sustained by subsequent the corrupt denials of my appeals to my Government via Petition[11] to the Supreme Court of The United States.[12]

Now I realize your time is being consumed by your hubris as regards yourself serving asserted jurisdiction[13] on issues where you have no reason to be involved, Same Sex Marriage as defined by recent state wide referendum. Talk about an invasion of liberty. How does the Supreme Court think they have anything restraining to say about this issue[14] AT ALL???? The blessings of liberty surly and definitely include the LIBERTY to love and LUST between consenting ADULTS!!!!!!!!!!

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

"Time is of the essence"

David G. Jeep

enclosure

a. Letter dated Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Reply to letters dated October 3, 2012 and September 21, 2012 and return of Writ of Certiorari on Appeal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case #12-2435, US Post Office Certified Delivery Label Number: 7012 1640 0000 7272 2100 I do not have the money to copy or send all the attachments, original 5 pages only. It is all on my blog www.DGJeep.blogspot.com

cc: My Blog - Friday, November 09, 2012, 11:41:47 AM

Monday, October 15, 2012

Gail Johnson/S. Elliot, Clerk of the Court

Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001

Re: Reply to letters dated October 3, 2012 and September 21, 2012 and return of Writ of Certiorari on Appeal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case #12-2435

Dear People,

I am as requested responding to Gail Johnson's letter dated October 3, 2012 and received Friday October 12, 2012:

1. As regards Ms. Johnson's request for a "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" I am responding, as she stated in her letter dated October 3, 21012, "You may use the enclosed form." So as referenced by Ms. Johnson in her letter I am again enclosing A "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012, notarized 7 pages.

2. As regards Ms. Johnson's stated issues of compliance with rule 14, the two questions are listed on pages 4 & 5 of 27 on the signed notarized and dated petition dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012, as previously submitted on the same date, concisely as I am humanly possible to state the issues. The Issues are a reference to Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby"

3. The Lower opinions deny that any Judge is restrained by "the supreme Law of the Land" for two reasons, both stemming from the self-serving award of absolute immunity by the Supreme Court to the Supreme Court and its lower subservient judicial,[15] prosecutorial[16] or enforcement[17] powers.

By definition NO ONE can be immune from the reckonable[18] supreme Law of the Land.[19] Therefore the reference to Kahn v. Kahn 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8^th Cir. 1994) and Pen v. United States 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8^th Cir. 2003) do not hold.

4. Clearly from the undisputed facts of the case, see page 8 of 27 of the signed notarized and dated petition dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012 as previously submitted on the same date, "The case in chief, in 2003 (03FC-010670) and 2004 (CR203-1336M) in the State Courts of Missouri I was charged and held on TWO fraudulently infamous crimes fraudulently combined into one while being denied the most basic elements of Due Process of Law, Probable cause and Exculpable evidence."

5. "Due Process of Law, Probable cause and Exculpable evidence" are NOT, as referenced in the petition dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012 as previously submitted on the same date, an ambiguous text, to be explained by sophistry into any meaning which may serve any personal judicial,[20] prosecutorial[21] or enforcement[22] malice,[23] corruption or incompetence.[24]

6. "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."[25]

"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,[26] and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court."[27] (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))[28]

Without the liberty to pursue civil Justice with the protection of the (reckonable[29]) laws civilization breaks down and we are back at the entrance to the cave fighting violently for the survival of the fittest.

7. Without a reckonable[30] supreme Law of the Land[31] the Founding Fathers would have been and We the People are at the desecration of unrestrained sophistry which may serve any personal judicial,[32] prosecutorial[33] or enforcement[34] malice,[35] corruption or incompetence.[36]

8. "Fairness of procedure is "due process in the primary sense." Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 281 U. S. 681. It is ingrained in our national traditions, and is designed to maintain them. In a variety of situations, the Court has enforced this requirement by checking attempts of executives, legislatures, and lower courts to disregard the deep-rooted demands of fair play enshrined in the Constitution."

"[T]his court has never held, nor must we now be understood as holding, that administrative officers, when executing the provisions of a statute involving the liberty of persons, may disregard the fundamental principles that inhere in 'due process of law' as understood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

One of these principles is that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without opportunity, at some time to be heard. . . ."

The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 189 U. S. 100-101.

"[B]y 'due process' is meant one which, following the forms of law, is appropriate to the case, and just to the parties to be affected. It must be pursued in the ordinary mode prescribed by the law; it must be adapted to the end to be attained; and wherever it is necessary for the protection of the parties, it must give them an opportunity to be heard respecting the justice of the judgment sought."

Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U. S. 701, 111 U. S. 708, Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 161-163 (1951)

9. The Supreme Court has embarrassed itself in the extreme by disregarding the CLEAR "sense and reason of the law"[37] with their blanket grant of absolute immunity to the judicial,[38] prosecutorial[39] or enforcement[40] power for malice,[41] corruption or incompetence.[42]

10. That is not reasonable and in DIRECT and irrefutable contradiction of the opinion below[43] and is therefore an incredible,[44] fantastic or delusional scenario.[45]

I am, again, as requested responding to S Elliot's letter dated September 21, 2012:

1. A copy of the transmittal letter dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012.

2. A copy of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division MEMEORANDUM AND ORDER (Doc#5) and ORDER OF DISSMISSAL (Doc#6) both dated 04/27/12 as regards case 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, 5 pages.

3. A "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012, notarized 7 pages.

4. Revised "A humble pro se[46] EMERGENCY PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 9.34 years[47] of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 27 pages, dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012.

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

"Time is of the essence"

David G. Jeep

enclosure

b. A copy of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division MEMEORANDUM AND ORDER (Doc#5) and ORDER OF DISSMISSAL (Doc#6) both dated 04/27/12 as regards case 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, 5 pages.

c. A "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012, notarized 7 pages.

d. Revised "A humble pro se EMERGENCY PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 9.34 years of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 27 pages"

e. A copy of the transmittal letter dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012.

cc: My Blog - Friday, November 09, 2012, 11:41:47 AM

[1] Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Reply to letters dated October 3, 2012 and September 21, 2012 and return of Writ of Certiorari on Appeal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case #12-2435, US Certified Mail Label Number: 7012 1640 0000 7272 2100, Delivered WASHINGTON DC 20543 10/22/12 11:05am

[2] See PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI 07-11115 dated Friday, May 16, 2008

[3] We live in a Lawless Society via Eastern District Court of Missouri Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP Document #78, Attachments #(1) Exhibit, time stamped 3/25/2010, 5:30 PM CDT
[4] Docketed Petition for a Writ of Certiorari No 11-8211 dated Wednesday, January 11, 2012 02:02.02PM [5] The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings),substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
[6] Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[7] The Common Law v. Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83
[8] the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[9] "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 decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre. [Footnote 41] " Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 656 (1980)
[10] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America.

[11] "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America

Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for 4.75 YEARS!

The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The 7th Amendment secures the right to settle all suits: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law" assures justice as regards equity.

[12] Pursuant to any reckonable interpretation of the Supreme Court in the seminal decision in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 163 (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."

There was no such thing as Sovereign Immunity in "Great Britain" in 1803 and thus there is no foundation for it in common law now in a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Why would We the People have even written a constitution if it was ever our intent to grant immunity from our Supreme Law of the Land. And who in their right mind would even consider writing a law without enforcement provisions.

Edward R. Murrow's oft quoted remark comes to mind, "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular."

[13] Other than to assert the obvious that Contracts validated by the federal government and the states of Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Maine, Maryland, and Washington are valid in all states

[14] Supreme Court to Begin Weighing Gay Marriage Cases, New York Times, By Adam Liptak, Published: November 7, 2012

[15] ""It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"

-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)

[16] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
[17] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truth finding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)

[18] Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[19] Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America

[20] ""It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"

-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)

[21] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)

[22] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truth finding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[23] Paraphrased from a letter (May 26, 1810) Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From "The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[24] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."

As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.

[25] James Madison, FEDERALIST No. 51, "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments" For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, February 6, 1788.
[26] 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law… abridging the… the right of the people peaceably… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[27] 7th Amendment, "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
[28] The oath office requires that if sued in the respectful form of a petition (1^st Amendment right to petition), never fail to comply with the judgment of a 7^th Amendment civil court.
[29] Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[30] Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[31] Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[32] ""It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"

-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871

[33] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)

[34] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truth finding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983
[35] Paraphrased from a letter (May 26, 1810) Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From "The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[36] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."

[38] ""It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"

-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)

[39] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)

[40] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truth finding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[41] Paraphrased from a letter (May 26, 1810) Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From "The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[42] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."

[43] From the United States District Court Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division case #4:12CV703 CEJ Doc #:5 filed 4/27/12

[44] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[45] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[46] Because I am a humble non-legal professional and I have been impoverished by this criminal issue I cite the potential for Harmless error - 28 USC § 2111, "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."
[47] 9.34 years, 3,407 calendar days, 54,519 waking hours, 3,271,161 waking minutes, 196,269,665 waking seconds, as of Thursday September 13, 2012 12:01:37.51 PM

--

Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor 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

Monday, November 5, 2012

Globalization is Normalization

Globalization

Normalization

I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Cloths"

AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??

"A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is

a country in which nobody[1] is ever truly safe."[2]

Monday, November 05, 2012, 3:35:43 PM

"The Prosecution Rests, but I Can't"[3]

Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

When you pour a liquid into an irregular space the liquid naturally flows into all corners at a fixed level to normalize itself.

America has to realize that we have had it better than the rest of the world for a LONG time. And the globalization of the world economy is NORMALIZING. We can not sit on our wealth and expect the rest of the world to be at our beck and call[4] forever. They are hungry. They want their share. To get it they are competing in the market place, making QUALITY products that we want better, faster and less expensively than the Fat and Happy Americans.

Now if this was 200 or maybe even just 100 years ago, in a world without the nuclear bomb, they might very well be invading our shores.

There is no Job Creator in the world than can over come this force of nature. There is no dam that will hold forever without maintenance. Economically speaking the competitive dam we have been using is not holding, the world is now building QUALITY products better, faster and less expensively than the Fat and Happy Americans.

By the virtually the same token, the Judiciary has to realize that absolute immunity is inconsistent with the nature of the human experience. ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity,[5] in a government of free and equal persons on THIS PLANET!!!!!

ANY assertion of governmental ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, acknowledging un-avoidable human fallibility, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity, in a government of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!

The ministerial[6] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[7] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[8] "before out of Court"[9] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[10]

"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." I say it NOW, Monday, November 05, 2012!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [11] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[12].

How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[13] condoned and supported by Supreme Court precedent be constitutional in a SANE government of the people, by the people and for the people?

This is a massive malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[14] self-serving conspiracy against rights!!!

Historically, the claim of precedent and / or consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Absolute Immunity even in the supreme Court has NEVER been established without, in most cases, multiple dissenting opinions.

To assume that the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution of the United States of America as the supreme Law of the Land, intended sub silentio to exempt[15] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[16] prosecutorial[17]and enforcement[18] power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[19]

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[20]

This embarrasses the future and the past[21]

There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[22] We the People incorporated ourselves, in 1788, into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity with a lawfully un-abridge-able right of the people to justifiably petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[23]

How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[24] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[25] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[26] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1^st and 7^th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[27]

We the People have fallen under the despotic[28] spell of the concentrated power[29] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[30] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[31] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [32] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[33] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[34]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [35] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[36]

See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211 Jeep v. Obama

I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Cloths." AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??

Impeach[37] the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[38]

for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[39] and

"fraud upon the court."

Before they have a chance to screw-up Healthcare for

100 years!!!!!!

Impeach the current Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[40]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[41] with their deprivation of substantive 7^th Amendment[42] justice between the government and the people, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011!!!

Judicial modesty is one of the best possible qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice, a position that offers so much untrammeled power and brings so much temptation along with it.

Anyone that questions this should read "INHERENTLY UNEQUAL, The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court, 1865-1903" by Lawrence Goldstone and / or The shifting wind : the Supreme Court and civil rights from Reconstruction to Brown by John R. Howard. "Six million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.—more than were in Stalin's gulags."[43]

The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people. We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"[44]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[45] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[46] "The Exclusionary Rule," "Grounds for Impeachment."

Most of the 99% of Americans have not had the pleasure and are silently intimidated by the prospect of being dragged through our corrupt COURTS kicking and screaming!!!!!! I have been kicking and screaming for nearly 9 years.[47] I have suffered through 411 days of illegal incarceration, 5 years of homelessness and two psychological examinations. I ask you to review Jeep v Obama 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals case #11-2425, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947," Jeep v Bennett 08-1823, "Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and the most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211."

We hold a "4-Year-Old Can Be Sued."[48] We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. [49] We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. [50] We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. [51] We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. [52] But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence, malice and corruption of "our chief justice (judges), our officials (prosecutors), or any of our servants (law enforcement)" [53] and compensate the victims?

That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have referenced "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process," in several of my papers, I do so only because the facts of the case in "To Kill a Mocking Bird" are generally known. The abuses are happening EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE Mr. Thompson (No. 09–571),[54] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [55] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[56] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[57] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[58] PROVES "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evidence as posted on this blog
Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211

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

Monday, November 05, 2012, 3:35:43 PM, 2012 11-00-00 Globalizatioin is Noralizatin REV 01.doc

David G. Jeep

c/o The Bridge, 1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred) www.DGJeep.blogspot.com

(314) 514-5228

[1] "And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun." 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM e.g., George Bush's false representations of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi - Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis.

[2] "Damages" By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, at 7:22 PM ET underlining and foot note added

[3] Mr. Thompson in the New York Times in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

[4] Meaning: To be at someone's beck and call is to be entirely subservient to them; to be responsive to their slightest request.

Origin: 'Call' is used here with its usual meaning. 'Beck' is more interesting. The word, although it has been in use in English since the 14th century, isn't one that is found outside the phrase 'beck and call' these days. It is merely a shortened form of 'beckon', which we do still know well and understand to mean 'to signal silently, by a nod or motion of the hand or finger, indicating a request or command'.

[5] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into homelessness for FIVE YEARS! The 1^st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 7^th Amendment's secures the right to settle all disputes/suits: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law" assures justice as regards equity.

[6] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law. For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.

[7] "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335

[8] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) "Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy."

[9] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

[10] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607)

[11] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967)

[12] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394

[13] Incompetence is the most insidiuos and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishoesty, malice andcorruption. As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."

[14] Incompetence is the most insidiuos and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishoesty, malice andcorruption. As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."

[15] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!

[16] ""It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"

-- and the leave was refused" (Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Law Reports Exchequer 220) Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)

[17] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)

[18] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[8] by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)

[19] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)

[20] Aldous Huxley

[21] "embarrass the future" ALBERT W. FLORENCE, PETITIONER v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF BURLINGTON ET ALCite as: 566 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 ROBERTS, C. J., concurring 'Embarrass the Future'? By LINDA GREENHOUSE New York Times, Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Minnesota, 322 U.S. 300 (1944)

[22] There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity," 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." Additionally I cite Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 as further timely clarification of the supreme law of the land:

"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility(i.e., absolute immunity). This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people."

You some how want to argue that "the grant of Nobility" was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility? That would undermine Free-Enterprise.

Anyone that wants to assertion "the prohibition of titles of nobility' was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of theabsolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.

There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law? Did NatKing Cole violate the constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[23] Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[24] "absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335

[25] Alexander Hamilton June of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, The Federalist Papers No. 78, "The Judiciary Department"

[26] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 The absence of exigent circumstances should be noted.

[27] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for FOUR YEARS! The 1^st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 7^th Amendment secures the right to settle all suits: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law" assures justice as regards equity.

[28] Montesquieu in his "De l'Espirit des Lois" (1748) (The Spirit of the Law) defines three main kinds of political systems: republican, monarchical, and despotic. Driving each classification of political system, according to Montesquieu, must be what he calls a "principle". This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior on the part of the citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make it function smoothly. For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics), this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. For monarchies, the spring is the love of honor -- the desire to attain greater rank and privilege. Finally, for despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler. We the People have currently despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!

[29] "All 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 that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton, John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston: Beacon Press, p. 364

[30] "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 the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.

[31] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.

[32] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[33] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[34] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!

[35] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"

[36] "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 the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.

[37] "And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments… upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations." Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 81, "The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 stated that impeachment was to be used as an integral check for "Judicial Authority"

[38] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

[39] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity

[40] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" Yes it is spelled wrong in the Constitution

[41] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[42] Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

[43] The Caging of America, Why do we lock up so many people? by Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, January 30, 2012

[44] "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335

[45] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[46] Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts stated: "Now, it is an effectual denial by a State of the equal protection of the laws when any class of officers charged under the laws with their administration permanently, and as a rule, refuse to extend that protection. If every sheriff in South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) refuses to serve a writ for a colored man, and those sheriffs are kept in office year after year by the people of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), and no verdict against them for their failure of duty can be obtained before a South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) jury, the State of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), through the class of officers who are its representatives to afford the equal protection of the laws to that class of citizens, has denied that protection. If the jurors of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) constantly and as a rule refuse to do justice between man and man where the rights of a particular class of its citizens are concerned, and that State affords by its legislation no remedy, that is as much a denial to that class of citizens of the equal protection of the laws as if the State itself put on its statute book a statute enacting that no verdict should be rendered in the courts of that State in favor of this class of citizens. " Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 334.( Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 177) Senator Pratt of Indiana spoke of the discrimination against Union sympathizers and Negroes in the actual enforcement of the laws: "Plausibly and sophistically, it is said the laws of North Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) do not discriminate against them; that the provisions in favor of rights and liberties are general; that the courts are open to all; that juries, grand and petit, are commanded to hear and redress without distinction as to color, race, or political sentiment." "But it is a fact, asserted in the report, that of the hundreds of outrages committed upon loyal people through the agency of this Ku Klux organization, not one has been punished. This defect in the administration of the laws does not extend to other cases. Vigorously enough are the laws enforced against Union people. They only fail in efficiency when a man of known Union sentiments, white or black, invokes their aid. Then Justice closes the door of her temples." Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 505. (Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 178) non italic parenthetical text added fro clarity.

[47] 9.12 years, 3,330 calendar days, 53,287 waking hours, 3,197,196 waking minutes, 191,831,788 waking waking seconds, as of Thursday June 28, 2012 10:54:41.35 AM

[48] "4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case" "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

[49] "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."

[50] Cost of War in Iraq $804,350,051,831, Cost of War in Afghanistan $537,364,138,152 Total Cost of Wars Since 2001$1,341,714,189,983

Please enable Javascript for the counter to update.

[51] "Recovery Bill Gets Final Approval" The New York Times, A version of this article appeared in print on February 14, 2009, on page A15 of the New York edition.

[52] "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

[53] Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61)

[54] Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011

[55] Smith v. Cain, No. 10-8145

[56] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011

[57] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211

[58] "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners" and you have the moronic audacity to ask why???? "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

--
Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor 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