Robert O'Connor (by hand delivery)
Criminal Investigator U.S. Marshal Service
U. S. Department of Justice
111 South 10th Street, Suite 2-319
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone 314-539-2023
E-Mail: Robert.OConnor@USDOJ.gov
Re: The
“Jane Crow” era,
Jeep v. United States of America
Dear Mr. O’Connor,
I am back, same problem, same issue, new catch phrase / sound bite. As I said before, I
ain’t giving up. I got nothing but fight left, the government of the United States of America has taken EVERYTHING from me without the substantive and procedural protection for rights, Due Process of Law. They have, by disregarding my rights, my appeals, my petitions and my efforts, denied me my
First Amendment Right to a Redress of Grievances.
This time we are going to do it more sensibly, more organized if you will. I want my day in court! In this instance, you are the one that gets left holding the bag: for someone else’s negligence, incompetence, malice and corruption, sorry about that.
This is about the insidious malice and corruption in our court/justice/judicial system. It is still the same as during the “Jim Crow” era (
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)). When the emancipated persons could not get
equal protection of their
First Amendment Right to a Redress of Grievances from the then and STILL
corrupt courts. I refuse to believe that Thurgood Marshall was the first one to think of suing to redress the grievance for failure to provide the “equal” in “separate but equal.” I site
Ida B. Wells’ refusal to give up her seat on
May 4, 1884, a Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company conductor and two other men dragged Wells out of the car. She sued and won her case on December 24, 1884 when the local circuit court granted her a $500 settlement. The railroad company appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's ruling in 1885, concluding that, "We think it is evident that the purpose of the defendant in error was to harass with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain a comfortable seat for the short ride." Wells was ordered to pay court costs.” In 1885
Ida B. Wells was forced to the back of the train and she had to pay the
corrupt court costs for the privilege. Rosa Parks in 1955 was just the first one to garner mass support and not be forced to pay
corrupt court cost.
Now we are in the “Jane Crow” era when men cannot get access to the
corrupt court to redress their grievances regarding
equal protection of Due Process of the laws, discrimination with orders of protection and in divorce. I will have been at this seven years on November 3, 2010. I have given the Supreme Court a date of November 4, 2010. If I do not receive anything as regards a settlement by then, we are still at war
.
They leave me no choice but SELF DEFENSE in the face of their illegal, unconstitutional incompetent, malicious and corrupt actions. I restate my position
:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
person to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of this Person; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present Black Robed Royal Judiciary is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the Citizens of the United States of America. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:
I submit A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America “Opposed to Immunity” currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk’s office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. 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/) as ADDITONAL FACTS. We are all EQUAL.
We are all entitled to
equal protection of substantive and procedural
Due Process of the Law.
NO ONE, least of all Judges, has immunity from Due Process of the Law.
As I referenced previously with my appeals, my petition for a writ of certiorari and in my prior correspondents with you and because I know you never took the time to look at them, I NOW include for the record:
1. A copy of the trial transcript (SD26269.doc), where Officer Little gave false testimony
2. A copy of the
“U.S. Department of Transportation DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Participant Manual” 2002 Edition (NHSTA) Page VIII-11, Section 4. Test Conditions, Second Paragraph, last sentence that proves his testimony to be false. Note I asked specifically for this information in pretrial motions
.
3. A copy of the trial transcript (SD26269.doc) where Officer Taylor contradicts his prior sworn police report. He testified I did not blow for a continuous 15 seconds.
4. A copy of Officer Taylor’s sworn police report
dated 05-18-03. Taylor confirmed on page two of his sworn report, I blew for 15 seconds without stopping, “
Jeep started again watching his watch and stopped after blowing approximately 15 seconds.” No one can blow for 20 seconds without stopping. If it is attempted on the DATAMASTER as programmed for the State of Missouri (5/17/03) it will ALWAYS return an
“Invalid result” every-time. There is NO way, given the instructions in Taylor’s sworn police report, anyone could pass the test. Anyone following those instructions will fail with an
“Invalid result” every-time. The police report is consistent with verifiable facts, i.e., the
“invalid result”. Taylor’s sworn trial testimony is not is consistent with verifiable facts; it will not produce an
“invalid result”. He thus gave false testimony.
5. A copy of the petition for an order of protection filed 11/03/03. It does not list any “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation
” i.e., “first hand abuse”. What it lists is an inadmissible
hear-say allegation of a bad-act regarding a court appearance from a month prior and 150 miles away, where the alleged victim, by her own admission, was NOT EVEN PRESENT and where the judge eventually, all though unknown at the time of the hearing (11/19/03), would recuse himself
for his thus admitted bad act.
This was trial by ambush, there was no probable cause, and there was no presentment of the charges. The malicious and corrupt Judges, Goeke and Jones, just made it up as they went along,
without regard to my Constitutional
VI and
V Amendment rights.
Nearly seven years after the hearing I still do not know specifically what I was charged with. I was never provided the presentment of the charges, even after the malicious and corrupt finding. My attorney, Mr. Schlesinger, at the time filed two timely motions for that information subsequent to the illegal, unconstitutional, malicious and corrupt judicial finding. Both motions were ignored. It boggles the mind, where is the substantive and procedural protection, Due Process of Law????? I quote from the trial transcript (ED84021.doc):
“
MR. SCHLESINGER: I renew my objection to all the testimony about physical abuse, physical harm, and threatened harm, based on it being (infamous and)
outside the scope of the pleadings (i.e., presentment of charges
)
.
COMMISSIONER JONES: Overruled.
The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced. The Court does find the allegations of the amended petition to be true. The Court does enter a full order of protection against the Respondent. This order will supercede the ex parte order of protection entered in this cause on the 3rd day of November and serves to terminate that order.
The Respondent should not use, attempt to use, or threaten to use physical force against the Petitioner that would be reasonably expected to cause her bodily harm, should not stalk, abuse, threaten to abuse, molest, or disturb her peace wherever she may be found. He also shall not communicate with her in any manner or through any means.
And he is also further restrained from the residence at 16325 Centerpointe Drive in Wildwood, Missouri 63040.
This order will expire the 19th day of November, the year 2004.”
I lost my son, my home everything I cared about. My son, my home everything I cared about was put under the authority of my NEW found worst enemy, Sharon G. Jeep, my now ex-wife.
That was THE most difficult year of my life. While handicapped by an unconstitutional, illegal, unfounded court order I was dragged through a divorce. That produced a biased, unconstitutional, illegal, and unfounded Divorce Decree that attempted to permanently institute the fraud, corruption and malice into a Court Ordered Property Settlement and Custody Order that I have been appealing for nearly 7 years, since it’s issue.
That was trial by ambush, via a FRAUDULENT INFAMOUS charge, with the aid and oversight of a judicial officer. That was a court-assisted CRIME, NOT substantive and procedural due process of law. The Amendment V “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a
presentment” was specifically included into the Bill of Rights to preclude this.
I paraphrase here, but I think it is germane: “
It is fair to say that the average jury (or the public at large)
, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these (constitutional)
obligations (to tell the truth)
, which so plainly rest upon the (Judges, witnesses, Police and)
prosecuting attorney, will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, (unconstitutional actions)
and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused, when they should properly carry none.” (Non-italic, parenthetical text added for clarity)
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) Page 295 U. S. 88.
A slim, I know, chance at Justice is all I have LEFT. I literally have nothing left to loose.
My ex-wife, two police officers and three prosecuting attorneys are clearly guilty of presenting fraudulent evidence; there can be no question of that. Numerous Judges
along the way have been made aware of this fact and have not done their job,
equal protection of the laws, i.e., Justice “
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties.” BUT, the Supreme Court says everyone
is immune from being accountable for OUR Civil Rights. I have no RIGHTS at all!! YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!!
They can say anything they want to take away your son, your home, everything in life you care about… convict you, the probable cause does not even have to pertain to the charge.
“
It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an Order of Protection (209A), if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house…
Long-term emotional damage to children's fathers -- surely not good for children -- often begins with a restraining order…
"A man against whom a frivolous Order of Protection (209A) has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect... It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."”
I will be walking into the Federal Court house unarmed and attacking with my bare hands. Now it is not my wish or intention to do anyone any harm. If you are open to a negotiation to limit this to the use of symbolic force, I am open to suggestions. This letter may be enough in and of itself to get me arrested in today’s exaggeratedly sensitive world. I fully expect to be arrested
. I have nowhere to go, no home, no career, no possessions, no family to go home to.
I have but the will that says hold on and the intent to fight for my inviolable rights even though I carry no weapons.
As a side bar, for the record, as you know we have been before. Additionally apart from the current issue, I was on a plane on 9/11/01 about to land at BWI, 30 miles away from and 30 minutes after the terrorist hit the pentagon. I flew again two days later, 9/13/01, to BWI. I flew again on two days later, 9/15/01, back to Saint Louis. I flew at least twice a week, every week for the next four months. I refuse to be afraid. You give into fear and the despots and fear-mongers win. I refuse to be afraid.
The Supreme Court as
the Grantor is attempting to cover up their undeniable human fallibility via fiat by awarding themselves as
the Grantee “absolute immunity.” They have forgotten their purpose as the “Justice Department”. I quote from James Madison in the Federalist papers to remind them and you:
“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.” When they can take away everything you ever cared about with a surprise infamous charge over timely objections and appeals to redress, appeals to sanity, appeals to
lex terra get no response. We are left at the entrance to the primordial cave fighting hand and fist for dominance. “
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 governments are to afford that protection.” Society descends into anarchy when the Protection of the Laws, the essence of civil liberty is denied.
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”
Dave@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep
cc: Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr. (1st class U.S. Mail)
President Barack Hussein Obama, “
I've had it up to here”
(1
st class U.S. Mail)
Richard G. Callahan, U.S. Attorney Eastern District of Missouri (by hand delivery)
Adam Liptak, New York Times Washington, D.C. (1st class U.S. Mail)
e-mailed to a select group of favorites
file
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS SOUTHERN DISTRICT
STATE OF MISSOURI, )
Respondent, )
v. ) S. D. No. 26269
DAVID G. JEEP, )
Appellant. )
IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION
The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge
STATE OF MISSOURI, )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Cause No. CR203-1336M
DAVID G. JEEP, )
Defendant. )
TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL
ALEX LITTLE, called as a witness in behalf of the STATE, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JEEP: Excerpt starting page 84
Q. The walk-and-turn and the balance test, the standards for applying that test, do they reference anything about footwear?
A. Yes. They say that if a person has on footwear that has like greater than four-inch heels, then you can allow them to take their footwear off, if they want to, to perform the test.
Q. Is it a four-inch heel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Or a two-inch heel?
A. It's a--If I'm not mistaken, it's a four-inch heel.
Q. Do you have that in writing anywhere?
A. Not on me now, no.
MR. JEEP: Do you have that? I asked for this earlier, Judge. No one was able to present me with it or they told me to look for it, and I looked under the NHTSA, I called NHTSA, they wanted me to buy it from them--
THE COURT: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. No.
MR. JEEP: Excuse me. They--The--
THE COURT: You asked the question, he's answered it.
MR. JEEP: Okay.
BY MR. JEEP:
Q. There's no place where this is standardized? Do you have in your--in writing anyplace?
A. I would assume I had it with the information that they gave me in the academy.
Q. Okay. And you think it's four-inch?
A. Yes, sir.
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS SOUTHERN DISTRICT
STATE OF MISSOURI, )
Respondent, )
v. ) S. D. No. 26269
DAVID G. JEEP, )
Appellant. )
IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION
The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge
STATE OF MISSOURI, )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Cause No. CR203-1336M
DAVID G. JEEP, )
Defendant. )
TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL
TIM TAYLOR, called as a witness in behalf of the STATE, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JEEP: Excerpt starting page 118
Q. I mean that's what you said. I blew for 15 seconds. How did you know I was blowing 15 seconds?
A. Approximately 15 seconds.
Q. Approximately 15 seconds. Okay.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. So I did have a solid tone for approximately 15 seconds?
A. No. Actually your take (phonetic spelling) cut out during the 15 seconds.
Q. The tape (phonetic spelling) cut out?
A. Your breath sample.
Q. So it wasn't 15 seconds; how long was it approximately?
A. You blew approximately for 15 seconds.
Q. Okay. So I blew for approximately 15 seconds at a solid tone?
A. No. There was--There was a break in--
Q. How long of a solid tone did I blow for approximately?
A. I really don't recall.
Q. Was there a break in the 15 seconds? Did I stop and start in the 15 seconds?
A. Yes.
Q. That's not what your--I mean you stated here in your supplement report here--have you read it right here, this last sentence, "Jeep started the test, watching his watch. After blowing for approximately 15 seconds"--
A. Uh-huh.
Q. So I blew 15 seconds, but it wasn't a blow; it was a--
A. I don't think I stated that it was a continuous blow for 15 seconds, no.
Q. Okay. So it was just a blow, I guess. I don't know--We don't know what it was. Start and stopped. Okay.
And you also said that I blew earlier on in his--in one of these instances, huffing and puffing for five seconds approximately each time?
A. I don't know--
Q. Earlier testimony.
A. --know what you mean by huffing and puffing.
Q. Well, I mean you said I blew, starting and stopping approximately five--five seconds each time.
A. Approximately five seconds. About the longest
that you would blow was approximately five seconds, yes.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
President Barack Hussein Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500-0001
Re: The
“Jane Crow” era,
Jeep v. United States of America
A letter to Robert O'Connor, U.S. Marshal Service dated October 21, 2010
Dear Barack,
Not sure how or if you want to deal with this. I am as you can see also in contact with your appointee Richard G. Callahan, U.S. Attorney Eastern District of Missouri.
Please give the enclosed your consideration along with my submission
Jeep v. United States of America, a petition for a writ of certiorari. As you can see, from the enclosed letter, it is an on going issue.
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”
Dave@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep
cc: file
enclosure
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr.
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: The
“Jane Crow” era,
Jeep v. United States of America
A letter to Robert O'Connor, U.S. Marshal Service dated October 21, 2010
Dear Mr. Roberts,
Please give the enclosed your consideration along with my prior submission Jeep v. United States of America, a petition for a writ of certiorari. As you can see, from the enclosed letter, it is an on going issue.
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”
Dave@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep
cc: file
enclosure
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Richard G. Callahan
U.S. Attorney Eastern District of Missouri United States Attorney
Thomas Eagleton U.S. Courthouse
111 S. 10th Street, 20th Floor
St. Louis, MO 63102-1125
Telephone: 314.539.2200
Fax: 314.539.2309
TDD: 314.539.7690
Re: The
“Jane Crow” era,
Jeep v. United States of America
A letter to Robert O'Connor, U.S. Marshal Service dated October 21, 2010
Dear Mr. Callahan,
You are somewhat of a late invitee to this issue, for that I apologize. The Office you now head is not. I have had several contacts with your office. I note the approximate dates of prior communications 10-20-06, 08-11-08 and my arrest in March of 2009 (Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP). You should have paperwork on it all. As you can see, from the enclosed letter, it is an on going issue.
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”
Dave@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep
cc: file
enclosure
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Adam Liptak
The New York Times
1627 I St NW, Ste 700
Washington, DC 20006-4007
(202) 862-0300
Re: The
“Jane Crow” era,
Jeep v. United States of America
A letter to Robert O'Connor, U.S. Marshal Service dated October 21, 2010
Dear Mr. Liptak,
You are somewhat of a late invitee to this issue, for that I apologize. As you can see, from the enclosed letter, it is an on going issue.
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”
Dave@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep
cc: file
enclosure
