Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge[1] - Re: PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS‎ - Cause No. CR203-1336M - STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff, v. DAVID G. JEEP, Defendant

Certified Mail™ Label Number: 7013 2630 0002 2118 0040

July 14, 2014 , 10:05 am	Delivered	CAMDENTON, MO 65020

Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge[1]

c/o Jo McElwee, Circuit Clerk

1 Court Circle, Suite 8

Camdenton, MO 65020

(573) 346-4440

(573) 346-5422 (facsimile)

Re: PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS‎ - Cause No. CR203-1336M - STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff, v. DAVID G.  JEEP, Defendant

Dear Sir,

I remind you that your primary MORAL and CONSTITUTIONAL obligation, as a Judicial Officer, is to “establish Justice” under color of law.[2]  I realize We the People’s Supreme Court Certified[3] Constitutional Rights mean nothing in the face of irresoponcible expediency.  The morally bankrupt Black Robed Royalist unconstitutional judiciary assert they and others[4] cannot expediently, ENOUGH, be held accountable for malice, corruption or most devastatingly the “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”[5] of their incompetence.  

REGARDLESS, I assert that you should be a MORAL man of conscience, independently capable of taking RESPONSIBILITY for his actions regardless of the consequences.

But alas, I admit you are a member of the fetid Black Robed Royalist Guild of Judges that assert they cannot expediently function with culpability for the malice, corruption or most devastatingly the “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”[6] of their incompetence.

I have spent 11 years attempting to pro se re-establish myself, the result of yours and others[7] CRIMINAL ACTIONS[8] as regards the deprivation of rights in the above referenced case.  To establish your criminal[9] “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”[10] I site United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)[11]:

“The rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, arguably applies in three quite different situations. Each involves the discovery, after trial, of information which had been known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense.

In the first situation, typified by Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury. [Footnote 7]  ”[12]

As I made clear, in my POST trial motions for a miss trial dated Wednesday, 17-Mar-2004 prior to sentencing, the Prosecution withheld evidence, REQUESTED VIA PRETRIAL MOTION FOR SAME DATED WEDNESDAY, 03-SEP-2003, of the certified procedure for administering the field sobriety test that proved the false and thus perjured testimony[13] of self-professed incompetent Alex Little, Officer Badge #920 that clearly “affected the judgment of the jury”:

“(T)the Court has consistently held that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, [Footnote 8][14] and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. [Footnote 9] [15] It is this line of cases on which the (Page 427 U. S. 104) Court of Appeals placed primary reliance. In those cases, the Court has applied a strict standard of materiality not just because they involve prosecutor trial misconduct, but more importantly because they involve a corruption of the truth-seeking function of the trial process.”[16]

I am requesting, based on the undisputed incriminating court record

1.    A Writ of Habeas Corpus setting aside the DWI conviction - Case No.:CR203-1336M

2.    Removal of the 33 year old 1978 DWI conviction per Missouri Revised Statute 577.054[17]

3.    Your confession as to your and others criminal culpability and civil liability in the creation of the COURT RECORD for violation of the Federal statue 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law and Civil 42 USC § 1983 and 1985 - Civil Action for the Deprivation of rights under color of law respectively. 

“Sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”[18]

is NO excuse!

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.  All the evidence, as referenced above, is confirmed and PUBLICALLY available on my blog www.DGJeep.blogspot.com.

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

cc:  My Blog - Friday, July 11, 2014, 3:12:57 PM

---

[1] Originally sent First-Class Mail®, Certified Mail™ Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge, c/o Edith Katie Burkhart, Court Administrator, 437 W US Hwy 54, Camdenton, MO 65020 - Tuesday, July 08, 2014 http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2014/07/bruce-colyer-associate-circuit-judge.html

[2] Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 and Civil 42 USC § 1983 and 1985

[3] 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.”

[4] We the People have fallen under the despotic  spell of the self-servingly  constructed  “excess of power”  in the Supreme Court that has constructed  ABSOLUTE POWER  from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for  denial of INALIENABLE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 ) by “malicious or corrupt” judges(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) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)),  the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)),   the “knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),  the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid  actions  of federal, state, local, and regional legislators (Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138)  and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid  actions of “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983))   acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION  of inalienable rights under color of law.

[5] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King - Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3

[6] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Ibid.

[7] Missouri State Courts case no. 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243 (St. Louis, Judicial Circuit 21) and CR203-1336M (Camden, Judicial Circuit 26)…Missouri Court of Appeals (Eastern and Southern) case no. ED84021 and SD26269…United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and Western District of Missouri Federal Court – St. Louis Division Cases No. 4:07-CV-1116-CEJ, 4:07-cv-506-SOW (WD), 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 4:11-cv-00931-CAS, 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, 4:13-cv-360-ERW and 4:13CV2490-RWS… United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Case #07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435, 13-2200 and 14-1470…Docketed and denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193 & 13-7030

[8] Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242

[9] Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242

[10] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Ibid.

[11] TO BE CERTAIN THIS PRECEDENT IS NOT NEW IT HAD 28 YEARS OF STANDING IN 2003. 

[12] United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 103 (1976) emphasis and underlining added for clarity

[13] See page 83 and 84 of the Certified Trial transcript for the appeal S. D. No. 26269

[14] Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213; Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U. S. 28; Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264; Miller v. Pate, 386 U. S. 1; Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150; Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U. S. 637.

[15] See Giglio, supra at 405 U. S. 154, quoting from Napue, supra at 360 U. S. 271.

[16] United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 103 (1976) emphasis and underlining added for clarity

[17] Chapter 577-Public Safety Offenses-Section 577.054 Alcohol-related driving offenses, expunged from records, when--procedures, effect—limitations: After a period of not less than ten years, an individual who has pleaded guilty or has been convicted for a first alcohol-related driving offense which is a misdemeanor or a county or city ordinance violation and which is not a conviction for driving a commercial motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and who since such date has not been convicted of any other alcohol-related driving offense may apply to the court in which he or she pled guilty or was sentenced for an order to expunge from all official records all recordations of his or her arrest, plea, trial or conviction.

[18] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King - Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3

Certified Mail™ Label Number: 7013 2630 0002 2118 0040

Shipment Activity--------------------------- Location--------------------- Date & Time

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

Procsd thru USPS Srt Fac.-- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155--- July 11, 2014 9:30 pm

Depart USPS Sort Facility--- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155--- July 11, 2014 8:40 pm

Depart Post Office-------------- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101--- July 11, 2014 5:34 pm

Acceptance----------------------- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101--- July 11, 2014 2:33 pm

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

Expected Delivery Day: Monday, July 14, 2014

First-Class Mail^®

Certified Mail^™

Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge - PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS‎ - Cause No. CR203-1336M - STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff, v. DAVID G. JEEP, Defendant

Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge - Certified Mail™ Label Number: 7013 2630 0002 2118 0057

c/o Edith Katie Burkhart, Court Administrator

437 W US Hwy 54

Camdenton, MO 65020

 (573) 346-3600

(573) 346-2926 (facsimile)

 www.camdentoncity.com

Re:      PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS‎ - Cause No. CR203-1336M - STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff, v. DAVID G.  JEEP, Defendant

Dear Sir,

I have spent 11 years attempting to pro se re-establish myself, the result of yours and others CRIMINAL ACTIONS[1] as regards the deprivation of rights in the above referenced case.  To establish your criminal[2] "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"[3] I site United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)[4]:

"The rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, arguably applies in three quite different situations. Each involves the discovery, after trial, of information which had been known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense.

In the first situation, typified by Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury. [Footnote 7]  "[5]

As I made clear, in my POST trial motions for a miss trial dated Wednesday, 17-Mar-2004 prior to sentencing, the Prosecution withheld evidence, REQUESTED VIA PRETRIAL MOTION FOR SAME DATED WEDNESDAY, 03-SEP-2003, of the certified procedure for administering the field sobriety test that proved the false and thus perjured testimony[6] of self-professed incompetent Alex Little, Officer Badge #920 that clearly "affected the judgment of the jury":

"(T)the Court has consistently held that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, [Footnote 8][7] and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. [Footnote 9] [8] It is this line of cases on which the (Page 427 U. S. 104) Court of Appeals placed primary reliance. In those cases, the Court has applied a strict standard of materiality not just because they involve prosecutor trial misconduct, but more importantly because they involve a corruption of the truth-seeking function of the trial process."[9]

I am requesting, based on the undisputed incriminating court record

1.      A Writ of Habeas Corpus setting aside the DWI conviction - Case No.:CR203-1336M
2.     Removal of the 33 year old 1978 DWI conviction per Missouri Revised Statute 577.054[10]
   
3.     Your confession as to your and others criminal culpability and civil liability in the creation of the COURT RECORD for violation of the Federal statue 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law and Civil 42 USC § 1983 and 1985 - Civil Action for the Deprivation of rights under color of law respectively.  "Sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"[11] is NO excuse!
   

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.   All the evidence, as referenced above, is confirmed and available on my blog www.DGJeep.blogspot.com.

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

cc:  My Blog - Wednesday, July 09, 2014, 11:58:58 AM

Certified Mail™ Label Number: 7013 2630 0002 2118 0057

Expected Delivery Day: Thursday, July 10, 2014

Shipment Activity------------------------- Location------------------- Date & Time---

Depart USPS Sort Facility--- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155--- July 9, 2014 5:38 am

Processed USPS Sort Fac.- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155--- July 8, 2014 8:59 pm

Acceptance----------------------- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155--- July 8, 2014 4:45 pm

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

Date of email request: July 9, 2014

Expected Delivery Day: Thursday, July 10, 2014

First-Class Mail^®

Certified Mail^™

---

[1] Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242

[2] Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242

[3] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King - Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3

[4] TO BE CERTAIN THIS PRECEDENT IS NOT NEW IT HAD 28 YEARS OF STANDING IN 2003. 

[5] United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 103 (1976) emphasis and underlining added for clarity

[6] See page 83 and 84 of the Certified Trial transcript for the appeal S. D. No. 26269

[7] Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213; Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U. S. 28; Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264; Miller v. Pate, 386 U. S. 1; Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150; Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U. S. 637.

[8] See Giglio, supra at 405 U. S. 154, quoting from Napue, supra at 360 U. S. 271.

[9] United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 103 (1976) emphasis and underlining added for clarity

[10] Chapter 577-Public Safety Offenses-Section 577.054 Alcohol-related driving offenses, expunged from records, when--procedures, effect—limitations: After a period of not less than ten years, an individual who has pleaded guilty or has been convicted for a first alcohol-related driving offense which is a misdemeanor or a county or city ordinance violation and which is not a conviction for driving a commercial motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and who since such date has not been convicted of any other alcohol-related driving offense may apply to the court in which he or she pled guilty or was sentenced for an order to expunge from all official records all recordations of his or her arrest, plea, trial or conviction.

[11] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King - Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3

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

Thanks in advance,

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process

"Agere sequitur esse"

"Time is  of the essence"

David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com orDGJeep01@yahoo.com

(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep

GENERAL DELIVERY

Saint Louis , MO 63155-9999

Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY” [1]

Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has

“ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY” [1]

I, like most sane people, condemn the recent shootings in Tucson, Arizona.  The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty, I think reasonably, asks “What will change as a result of Tucson tragedy? Experience suggests, not much.”[2]  I have a different perspective than most; maybe I can offer a suggestion as to what should change.  I can, to some extent, understand the shooter.  Point in fact I have been arrested[3] for utilizing my Free Speech and talking about this understanding.[4]  In my perspective, there is cause for violence in America today and there will be more bloodshed unless we work toward a more CIVILIZED society.  Terrorism, Violence and Denial are weapons used by our court system promiscuously without regard and without accountability by way of “absolute immunity” in America TODAY. 

I believe in civilization.  I condemn the Tucson shootings because I believe in tolerance, I believe in peace; I believe in Justice; I believe in the Rule of Law, but I cannot do it alone. 

The American Court system, as ruled by the Supreme Court, does not support Justice and the Rule of Law.  Justice and the Rule of Law are now secondary to the rule of anarchy / monarchy by the grant of “absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[5] for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[6]  “Absolute immunity” for all is a prescription for ANARCHY; no one is responsible for his or her actions.  No one can be held accountable.  ANARCHY and Destruction are the unavoidable result!!!! 

The anarchy of “absolute immunity” raises its ugly head in society at large.  Our trendsetters and cult heroes today operate with the “absolute immunity” of fame.  Their every move is revered, mimic and adored.  American Society puts too much emphasis on the media darlings of the moment and holds too little value for the enduring standards of the past.  We allow our children, without the wisdom of our past experience, to put the trendsetters up on pedestals and worship them as if they were GODS.  They are not GODS; they are not super human, THEY ARE NOTHING more than human just like ALL the REST OF US.  We need to normalize our perceptions of these people and bring our children’s perceptions of them back down to terra firma.  They are ALL human; they all have their human foibles, their human appetites and their human fallibility.  A bad thought or word from them or someone else in the in-crowd is not a death sentence.  We need to RE-establish a belief in our commonality, the common law of humanity.  We all share the same origin, the same fundamental human desires we need to believe in each other’s validity as equals, without the too overpowering whims of transient popular trends or the unreasonable assertion of “absolute immunity.” 

The Rule of Law, Fundamental Civil Constitutional Rights are damned in today’s American Court System and Society.  In the courts this is a massive criminal conspiracy against rights.  It is just a matter of time.  I am not some crazy spewing swill about some personal issue.  I have been fighting this blatant denial of rights for 7 years.

There is no such thing as strict scrutiny for fundamental constitutional human rights in American Courts today much less strict liability.  If you are not rich, cool or an acknowledged minority you can be denied fundamental constitutional human rights by all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[7].  There is NO accountability for Fundamental Civil Constitutional Rights.  I say again, per the Supreme Court’s rule, there is “absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[8] therefore all persons have “absolute immunity” for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[9]  Unavoidable human error, be it malicious, corrupt or negligent is all covered-up by the blanket of “absolute immunity.”  It is as if we have somehow regressed to the Dark Ages.  We are being forced to accept rule of the King without complaint or redress.[10]

The Court System pays lip service to rights and excuses this malice corruption and negligence, for what they call the greater good, the euphemistic assertion of their “honorable work.”  They assert that these illegal, unconstitutional, and destructive actions were “in the heat of battle” that  “the violations were not deliberate” “not malicious evil wrongdoing.”[11]  The perpetrators are excused because of their “honorable work.”  Their victims are left to deal with the loss of life, liberty or property.  To make our public servants accountable for “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”[12] is toooo much to ask, per the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Civilization is by definition an agreement between unrelated persons to acknowledge and protect each other’s fundamental rights, for the greater good.  The first such agreements were between persons in a cave and allowed for the cohabitation of caves e.g., it was agreed between cavepersons that to allow for each other to sleep soundly through the night, the greater good, there would need to be a law, no attacking while someone was asleep in the cave.  To make the agreement workable all parties to the agreement were given equal protection of the laws.  To allow “absolute immunity” from the deprivation of rights negates the essence of Civilization, “the protection of the laws.”[13]  No one can sleep soundly in his or her cave.

Today in American Courts we do not have EQUAL PROTECTION of DUE PROCESS of the LAWS as we have been taught, as we all assume.  Most of us just have not been randomly selected for the deprivation yet.  We do not have protection of the Bill of Rights, all we have is lip service.  The Supreme Court has said “All persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” have “absolute immunity”; they are excused for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[14]  They do not even have to acknowledge their illegal, unconstitutional, corrupt, malicious or negligent actions they have “absolute immunity.”  And no one else within the self-serving self-sustaining criminal conspiracy against rights will pursue their co-conspirators’ illegal, unconstitutional, criminal, corrupt, malicious or negligent actions.  It is a MASSIVE self-serving, self-sustaining conspiracy against rights, they ALL have “absolute immunity.”  The USA Today found in their research for the “Federal prosecutors series,” “"The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.”[15]

The victims of the deprivation of rights are left to dangle in the wind, damaged and desperate, without access to Constitutional Law,[16] Statute Law[17] or Common Law.[18]  Equal Protection and Due Process of Law are overwhelmed by the all POWERFUL Supreme Court’s grant of “absolute immunity” to all. 

When true criminals rights have been disregarded, the Supreme Court has granted “absolute immunity” for criminals.  Criminals can use the exclusionary rule[19]to exclude incriminating evidence acquired via the deprivation of rights.  But for the innocent person whose rights have been deprived by the officers of the government professing to act in its name there is no redress.  “There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime.”[20]

The shootings in Tucson, while tragic, reassert the undefeatable human condition.  There are no absolutes.  NO ONE IS 100% SAFE, No one has absolute immunity.  The only way to even approach 100% SAFE is to work toward Justice, the Rule of Law, and defend the RIGHTS of EVERY PERSON EQUALLY.  If we do not do that, they can and will come at us in the night while we sleep, the cave, the law, society’s norms offers us no protection. 

The Tucson shooter has been described as a “nihilistic 'paranoid outcast'”.  We have to admit it; WE failed him.  He felt alone in a crowded room, he most likely had no concept of what normal was, he could not sense the equal protection of the laws.  He seems to have seen everyone as a threat.  He was at WAR with everyone.  There was no place he felt safe.  He felt trapped in a corner.  We as a country and a society have to admit that we created him.  He may have been to some extent an aberration but he was a product of our CIVILIZATION, as clearly as our racist, our neo-Nazis, our reactionaries, our Democrats, our Republicans, our wheat, our Chevrolets and our apple pie.

I have experienced the isolation; the deprivation of rights can create.  I have always valued life, believed in my son and thought myself to be a loyal American.  I have always believed in peace, believed in the Rule of Law, believed in our Constitutional Rights, believed in the Equal Protection of the Laws.  Yet I have to admit I have contemplated violence in the extreme. 

BUT, my country has abandoned me.  I do not have the protection of the laws.  I have been forced out, isolated.  I am alone.  I am homeless.  I have been backed into a corner.  I was 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.[21]    I was and have been objecting, appealing and pointing out this criminal deprivation virtually every second since.  The courts refuse 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.”[22]  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 absolute immunity I have NO REDRESS to the protection of the laws.[23]  I have endured over 7 years of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[24], 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.[25]  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.[26] 

What we need to do is RE-establish a solemn respect for Fundamental Constitutional Civil Rights in our Court system and work to re-establish tolerance and solemn respect for Fundamental Constitutional Civil Rights in our society for all persons equally.  We need to make all persons feel secure in their own space, in public, in their caves, in our country and in our society.

“In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights.  With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.” Carl Sagan

Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has

“ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY”

We pay lip service. We say we oppose bullying, we say we stand for equal protection of the law and fundamental constitutional civil rights, we say we believe in our commonality but when push comes to shove we look the other way and allow absolute immunity to those that we KNOW are doing wrong. 

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

---

[1] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871)(origination), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) (Judges), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors) and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (all persons)

[2] Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty ONLINE Monday, January 10, 2011,

[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] The Kirkwood City Council shooting occurred on February 7, 2008, in Kirkwood, Missouri, United States; a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri in St. Louis County. A gunman went on a shooting rampage at a public meeting in the city hall, leaving six people dead and two others injured. Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton shot one police officer with a revolver across the side street from city hall and took the officer's handgun before entering city hall.   “Why did Cookie snap?”

[5]  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335

[6] Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights

[7]  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335

[8]  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335

[9] Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights

[10] Or will we come to Justice William O. Douglas’s realization in his dissent from Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)?

“The argument that the actions of public officials must not be subjected to judicial scrutiny because to do so would have an inhibiting effect[17] on their work is but a more sophisticated manner of saying "The King can do no wrong." Chief Justice Cockburn long ago disposed of the argument that liability would deter judges:

"I cannot believe that judges . . . would fail to discharge their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths and consciences . . . from any fear of exposing themselves to actions at law. I am persuaded that the number of such actions would be infinitely small, and would be easily disposed of. While, on the other hand, I can easily conceive cases in which judicial opportunity might be so perverted and abused for the purpose of injustice as that, on sound principles, the authors of such wrong ought to be responsible to the parties wronged. Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, L.R. 5 Q.B. 94, 110 (1869) (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting)". (Page 386 U. S. 565-566)

[11]“Bill Weigel, president of the National Organization of Bar Counsel, an association of state disciplinary officials.” As quoted “States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do.” USA Today

[12] Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights

[13] “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.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

[14] Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights

[15] “Federal prosecutors likely to keep jobs after cases collapse” Brad Heath and Kevin McCoy, 12/10/10 USA TODAY

[16] The right of redress as assured by the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution

[17] Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights

[18] “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.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

[19] The Exclusionary Rule (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)) was never the fix it was intended to be.  Even less so now (Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S.Ct. 2159 (June 15, 2006) & Herring v. United States No. 07-513 (January 14, 2009)) than when it was originally created as Judge made law in 1961.

[20] United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) , Page 106 U. S. 219 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) @ 403 US 394-395

[21] 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.

[22] United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) , Page 106 U. S. 219 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) @ 403 US 394-395

[23] 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 1^st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 

[24] “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

[25] 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, 8^th 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/).

[26] Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights