Documen.jpg)
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/10/an-emergency-petition-14th-amendment-18.html
Showing posts with label CA8 14-1344. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CA8 14-1344. Show all posts
Monday, July 7, 2014
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Appellate Case: 14-1344 Page: 1-4 Date Filed: 03/06/2014 Entry ID: 4131229
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/10/an-emergency-petition-14th-amendment-18.html
Friday, February 14, 2014
2014 02-14-14 Briefing Schedule 14-1344 David Jeep v. The Tea Party/GOP/Republicans, et al.jpg
This BRIEF was filed March 6, 2014
Monday, February 10, 2014
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff vs. Tea Party / GOP / Republican Party, et al 4:13CV2089-DDN
Clerk of Court - James G. Woodward
St. Louis - Eastern Division
Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
St. Louis, MO 63102-1123
Re: Jeep v. The Tea Party, et al No. 4:13CV2089 DDN
Notice of Appeal
Dear People,
Please accept this notice of appeal as referenced above and included here.
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
“ Jeep v. The Tea Party, et al No. 4:13CV2089 DDN Notice of Appeal” dated Sunday, February 09, 2014
cc: My Blog - Tuesday, February 11, 2014, 3:42:22 PM
UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
FEDERAL COURT - St. Louis DIVISION
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff,
vs.
Tea Party / GOP / Republican Party, et al
All Defendants/Respondents are included and asserted liable, as GOVERNMENT actors, PARTY actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
Case #: 4:13CV2089-DDN
|
Notification of Appeal
I appeal two issues:
1. The unannounced appointment of John Andrew Ross District Judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri without prior LEGAL notice to the petitioner?
I make special NOTE that John Andrew Ross was a judicial member of the 21st District State Court of Missouri in 2003 when my Civil Rights were deprived by his THEN employee Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr. John Andrew Ross thus has at least a portion of the respondeat superior liability for his employee’s actions.
I currently have an action before the Federal Court, Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS, confirming and asserting this deprivation.
I OBJECT to John Andrew Ross’s participation in the above CURRENT Case #: 13CV2089-DDN not only because of his unannounced appointment but also his prior and CURRENTLY asserted LIABILITY issues in Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I make special NOTE that John Andrew Ross was a judicial member of the 21st District State Court of Missouri in 2003 when my Civil Rights were deprived by his THEN employee Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr. John Andrew Ross thus has at least a portion of the respondeat superior liability for his employee’s actions.
I currently have an action before the Federal Court, Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS, confirming and asserting this deprivation.
I OBJECT to John Andrew Ross’s participation in the above CURRENT Case #: 13CV2089-DDN not only because of his unannounced appointment but also his prior and CURRENTLY asserted LIABILITY issues in Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2. The judicial assertion of sophisticated[1] “absolute immunity” for all[2] asserted in the above referenced case is without constitutional merit.
I assert the respondents as “GOVERNMENT actors, PARTY actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors” clearly have a fiduciary responsibility and thus liability[3] for “my “property in rights.”[4] “My “property in rights”[5]has been deprived by the Defendant’s / Respondent’s refusal to support and defend the constitutional security of the 14th Amendment “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare is authorized by law, and therefore shall not be questioned.”
I assert the respondents as “GOVERNMENT actors, PARTY actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors” clearly have a fiduciary responsibility and thus liability[3] for “my “property in rights.”[4] “My “property in rights”[5]has been deprived by the Defendant’s / Respondent’s refusal to support and defend the constitutional security of the 14th Amendment “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare is authorized by law, and therefore shall not be questioned.”
At length, I appeal the judicial assertion of sophisticated[6] “absolute immunity” for all[7] as asserted in the above referenced case. Before out of court Article III benefaction of “absolute immunity” creates absolute power to the absolute corruption of the protection of Due Process of Law. That the court refuses to see this CONFIRMS the Article III court’s distinct “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”[8]
I realize I am just a SINGLE natural born citizen of the United States of America lawfully un-abridge-ably petitioning for a 1st and 7th Amendment[9] redress of a grievance, the deprivation of my constitutional[10] “property in rights.”[11] I stress as the Supreme Court has confirmed, “The essence of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected” (McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914)).
The “sense and reason” of Civilization, the Constitution and Civil Rights Act of 1871 (U.S.C 42 § 1983) clearly conflicts with the corrupt, malicious, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid assertion of ““difficult problems of proof,” and we must adhere to a “stringent standard of fault,” lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.”[12] Liability for the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the U.S.C. as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights could never collapse into respondeat superior. The sovereign’s liability for constitutional rights EXCEEDS respondeat superior liability. Strict absolute liability for rights is Civilization’s, the Constitution’s and §1983’s raison d'être![13] “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 (Civilization, the Constitution and) section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of (Civilization’s, the Constitution’s and) the statute's raisons d'etre.” [14]
I repeat, because the Article III court refuses to acknowledge the common sense of the incontrovertible constitutional common law, as Martin Luther King first said, “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Clearly to any independent sane “reckonable”[15] reading of the record, the court is sincerely ignorant and conscientiously STUPID of the incontrovertible common law, Constitutional Law,[16] statute law,[17] and the facts of the case.[18]
The Court asserts Article III precedent subjugates the “reckonable”[19] “sense and reason”[20] of the incontrovertible civilized common law, the Constitution for the United States of America ,[21] statute law,[22] and facts of the case.[23] I object, as one[24] of “We the People.” I would hope that an Article III court would know that since Commonwealth v. Hunt, 45 Mass. 111 (1842) the “Magna Carta of American trade-unionism,” the mere assertion of a conspiracy is not illegal. In today’s overly paranoid conspiracy laden world, I never assert anything so colorfully maladjusted, neurotic, schizophrenic or trite as a “government conspiracy.” Conspiracy advocates are not always bad. I conspire everyday with like minded individuals to do right, “the time is always ripe to do right.” Again, Martin Luther King, who has been here before said:
“Some years ago Professor Bixler reminded us of the danger of overstressing the well-adjusted life. Everybody passionately seeks to be well-adjusted. We must, of course, be well-adjusted to avoid neurotic schizophrenic personalities, but there are some things in our world to which men of goodwill must be maladjusted. I confess that I never intend to become adjusted to the evils of segregation and the crippling effects of discrimination, to the moral degeneracy of religious bigotry and the corroding effects of narrow sectarianism, to economic conditions that deprive men of work and food, and the to the insanities of militarism and the self-defeating effects of physical violence.”
I refuse to be well-adjusted to “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Admittedly the individual moral degeneracy, ignorance and stupidity of EVIL is insidious throughout the neurotic[25] schizophrenic individual personalities in the Article III Judiciary. Nowhere is the moral degeneracy, neurotic, schizophrenic, individual ignorance and stupidity of “absolute immunity” “reckonablly”[26] provided for in common sense or common law post “Act of Parliament “Abolition of the Star Chamber”[27] (July 5, 1641) and The Constitution for the United States of America:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Point in fact in opposition to the “reckonable”[28] individual “absolute immunity” of titles of nobility I submit, Publius, Federalist No. 39, “The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles” (footnotes added), James Madison said it best:
“Could any further proof be required of the republican[29] complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, [30] both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter.”
Given the clear an undisputed facts in this case, now confirmed by the President Obama’s State of the Union Address, violation of the 14th Amendment rights I have a lawfully un-abridge-able 1st, 7th and 14th [31] Amendment right to submit the issue to a jury of my peers.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________________________
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
[1] “We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice” (Thomas Jefferson, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)
[2] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) reaffirmed Judicially sophisticated “absolute immunity,” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) prosecutorial sophisticated “absolute immunity,” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) sophisticated “absolute immunity” for forced sterilization, “federal, state, and regional legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability for their legislative activities” 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 sophisticated “absolute immunity” for “knowingly false testimony by police officers," and “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983).
[3] 7th Amendment Jury Demand, Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[4] “Property” James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792
[5] “Property” James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792
[6] “We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice” (Thomas Jefferson, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)
[7] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) reaffirmed Judicially sophisticated “absolute immunity,” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) prosecutorial sophisticated “absolute immunity,” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) sophisticated “absolute immunity” for forced sterilization, “federal, state, and regional legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability for their legislative activities” 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 sophisticated “absolute immunity” for “knowingly false testimony by police officers," and “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983).
[8] Martin Luther King Jr. Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
[9] Not to mention the 14th Amendment’s §5 assertion of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[10] 5th Amendment “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
[11] “Property” James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792, 27 March 1792
[12] Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson, Certiorari to the Supreme Court, No. 09–571. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 29, 2011
[13] "Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre.” Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 656 (1980)
[14] Parenthetical texted added for clarity Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 667 (1980)
[15] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[16] 5th and 14th Amendment right to reasonable probable cause and Due Process of law
[17] Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[18] See THE ORIGINAL PETITION now confirmed by President Obama’s assertion in his State of the Union Address that respondents had “threaten(ed) the full faith and credit of the United States”
[19] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[21] 5th and 14th Amendment right to reasonable probable cause and Due Process of law
[22] Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[23] See THE ORIGINAL PETITION now confirmed by President Obama’s assertion in his State of the Union Address that respondents had “threaten(ed) the full faith and credit of the United States”
[24] “It is the fact, clearly established, of injury to the complainant -- not to others -- which justifies judicial intervention. Williams v. Hagood, 98 U. S. 72, 98 U. S. 74-75; Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325, 114 U. S. 328-329; Tyler v. Judges, 179 U. S. 405, 179 U. S. 406; Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U. S. 51, 187 U. S. 60; Davis & Farnum v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207, 189 U. S. 220; Hooker v. Burr, 194 U. S. 415, 194 U. S. 419; Braxton County Court v. West Virginia, 208 U. S. 192, 208 U. S. 197; Collins v. Texas, 223 U. S. 288, 223 U. S. 295-296.” McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914)
[25] The neurotic assertion of potential baseless vexatious or calumnious accusation is without MERIT and shows the proponent to have too little faith in the sworn constitutional sovereign, “We the People” to whom they are bound by their oath of office.
[26] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[27] Act of Parliament “Abolition of the Star Chamber”[27] July 5, 1641, statute law in the realm of England, or dominion of Wales, that “repealed and absolutely revoked and made void” for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for “absolute immunity” in Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607). Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607) was NOT available to reasonably used as precedent for Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523 (1868), Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) and Stump v. Sparkman 435 U.S. 349 (1978). Per the Act of Parliament “Abolition of the Star Chamber”[27] July 5, 1641 Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607) had/HAS NO authority!!!!!!!!.
· Article I “An act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber.” “WHEREAS by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land:…
· § 9 of “but the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments than by any law is warranted”
· Article III “Be it ordained and enacted by the authority of this present parliament, That the said court commonly called the star-chamber, and all jurisdiction, power and authority belonging unto, or exercised in the same court, or by any the judges, officers, or ministers thereof, be from the first day of August in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred forty and one, clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away and determined”
· § 3 “every article, clause and sentence in them, and every of them, by which any jurisdiction, power or authority is given, limited or appointed unto the said court commonly called the star-chamber, or unto all or any the judges, officers or ministers thereof, or for any proceedings to be had or made in the said court, or for any matter or thing to be drawn into question, examined or determined there, shall for so much as concerneth the said court of star-chamber, and the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void.”
The Act explicitly disbands the court for abusing said immunity, “repealed and absolutely revoked and made void” all prior precedent of the said court and judges.
[28] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[29] Footnote ADDED, ACKNOWLEDGING –
Article. IV., Section. 4 § 1. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
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.
[30] Footnote ADDED, 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 assert “the prohibition of titles of nobility’ was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute 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 Nat “King” Cole violate the constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[31] See the 14th Amendment’s congressional authorization under its §1 “No State shall” and §5 “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
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
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Friday, January 31, 2014
Jeep v. The Tea Party, et al No. 4:13CV2089 DDN Memorandum and Order to dismiss (Doc 6&7) dated 1-23-14
Clerk of Court - James G. Woodward
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
St. Louis, MO 63102-1123
Re: Jeep v. The Tea Party, et al No. 4:13CV2089 DDN
Memorandum and Order to dismiss (Doc 6&7) dated 1-23-14
Dear People,
I am at a loss? How did the above referenced case get reassigned from David D. Noce (DDN) - United States Magistrate Judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
to
John Andrew Ross District Judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri without appropriate prior LEGAL notice to the petitioner?
I make special NOTE that John Andrew Ross was a judicial member of the 21st District State Court of Missouri in 2003 when my Civil Rights were deprived by his THEN employee Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr. John Andrew Ross thus has at least a portion of the respondeat superior liability for his employee’s actions. I currently have an action before the Federal Court, Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS, confirming and asserting this deprivation.[1]
I OBJECT to John Andrew Ross’s participation in the above CURRENT referenced issue not only because of his unannounced appointment but also his prior and CURRENT LIABILITY issues in Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nonetheless I respond to WHOM IT MAY CONCERN as referenced above per the enclosed. 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. “Response to Memorandum and Order to dismiss (Doc 6&7) dated 1-23-14”
UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
FEDERAL COURT – Eastern DIVISION
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff,
vs.
Tea Party / GOP / Republican Party, et al
|
)
)
) ) )
|
Case No. 4:13CV2089 DDN
|
RESPONSE to whom it may concern.
Motion to dismiss as “patently meritless” is unfortified.
Plaintiff response:
1. I stress as I did in the original petition, “All Defendants/Respondents are included and asserted liable, as PARTY LEADER actors, GOVERNMENT actors and as INDIVIDUAL persons - Defendants/Respondents.” Of course per the Black Robed Royalist judiciary, no one can be held accountable to anything it is ‘absolute immunity” for ALL!!!!!
The listed defendants were at the FOREFRONT “threaten(ing) the full faith and credit of the United States” as now PUBLICALLY confirmed by President Obama in his State of the Union Address dated January 28, 2014.
The listed defendants were at the FOREFRONT “threaten(ing) the full faith and credit of the United States” as now PUBLICALLY confirmed by President Obama in his State of the Union Address dated January 28, 2014.
2. I stress as I did in the original petition, “My “property in rights”[2] has been deprived by the Defendant’s / Respondent’s refusal to support and defend the constitutional security of the 14th Amendment “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare is authorized by law, and therefore shall not be questioned.”
Clearly the Tea Party / GOP / Republican Party, et al “threaten(ed) the full faith and credit of the United States” as now PUBLICALLY confirmed by President Obama in his State of the Union Address dated January 28, 2014.
Clearly the Tea Party / GOP / Republican Party, et al “threaten(ed) the full faith and credit of the United States” as now PUBLICALLY confirmed by President Obama in his State of the Union Address dated January 28, 2014.
3. As regards the straw man attempt at humor as regards the reference to the American Civil War and Egyptian Pyramids, I would be happy to provide additional precedential and historical support, but first please address the issues of clear intent as to the 14th Amendment’s timely constitutional precedential protection and relation to the CIVIL WAR as it’s raison d'être and the HISTORICAL proof of self-serving tyrannical avariciously driven monetary policy of ancient Egypt or any or all of feudal European history that constitutional Republican Form of Government[3] by definition opposes.
4. As additional note the amount of actual damages, punitive, damages and how to allocate them is an issue for a 7th Amendment Jury DEMAND. “In civil cases the judge only decides whether a claim is valid and assesses damages, grants an injunction or orders some other form of redress to the plaintiff, unless a jury has been empanelled to make these decisions.”
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
______________________________________________
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
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
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs. Tea Party / GOP / Republican Party, et al Case No. 4:13CV2089 DDN
UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
FEDERAL
COURT – Eastern DIVISION
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff,
vs.
Tea Party / GOP / Republican Party, et al
Tea Party
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann,
Chairperson Tea Party Caucus United States House of Representatives
Senator Rand Paul, Chairperson Tea Party Caucus United States Senate
GOP / Republican Party
Congressman John Boehner (R) - Republican Speaker of the House,
Senator Mitch McConnell (R) Republican
Senate Minority Leader
All
Defendants/Respondents are included and asserted liable, as Party LEADER actors, GOVERNMENT
actors and as INDIVIDUAL persons
Defendants/Respondents
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
Case No. 4:13CV2089 DDN
|
I. Jurisdiction:
I assert Grounds and Federal Jurisdiction under Title 28, Part IV, Chapter
85, Section § 1331. Federal question: “The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.”
This is based on a 7th Amendment Jury Demand.
An EMERGENCY[1]
Petition for the protection of the law i.e., 14th Amendment, 18 USC §241 - §242
Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law and 42 USC §1983 - §1985
Civil action for deprivation of rights
II. Plaintiff
David
G. Jeep
GENERAL
DELIVERY
St.
Louis, MO 63155-9999
Phone
314-514-5228
E-mail
Dave@DGJeep.com
III. Defendant(s) /
Respondent(s)
The Tea Party / GOP / Republicans, et
al
Tea Party (http://www.teaparty.org/)
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue #190 Suite 428
Washington, D.C. 20004
(714) 796-1776
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Chairperson Tea Party Caucus United States
House of Representatives
2417 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2331 / http://bachmann.house.gov/
Senator Rand Paul, Chairperson Tea Party Caucus United States Senate
124 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510
Phone: 202-224-4343
/ http://www.paul.senate.gov/
Republican National Committee, Inc. (GOP)
310 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
202-863-8500 / http://www.gop.com/
John Boehner (R) - Republican Speaker of the House
H-232 The Capitol
Washington D.C. 20515
P: (202) 225-0600
Mitch McConnell (R) Republican Senate Minority Leader
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2541
All
Defendants/Respondents are included and asserted liable, as Party LEADER actors, GOVERNMENT
actors and as INDIVIDUAL persons
Defendants/Respondents
IV. Statement of Claim:
I
am petitioning the Government of the United States of America for protection of
the law. My “property in rights”[2]
has been deprived by the Defendant’s
/ Respondent’s refusal to support and defend the
constitutional security of the 14th Amendment “The validity of the public debt
of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment
of pensions and bounties
for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
questioned.” The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called
the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare is authorized by law, and therefore
shall not be questioned.
You want to assert the judicial
sophistry[3]
that the Fourteenth Amendment’s assertions[4]
were put there to reassure veterans of the Civil War. WRONG!
The Defendants/Respondents want to believe that the Civil War Era
citizen was economically ignorant? That
is so FAR WRONG it is almost laughable.
Those who had lived through the Civil War had REAL LIFE experience with
the economic failure of a Government to support its legal tender. The "Greyback" (Confederate States
of America dollar) had JUST COLLAPSED!!!!
“The terms “Greenback” / "Greyback" refers to legal tender,
printed in green/grey on one side and issued by the United States of America
and the Confederate States of America, respectively during the American Civil
War. Neither the “Greenback” issued by
the United States of America nor the “Greyback” issued by the Confederate
States of America were backed by the conventional gold or silver standard but
by the credibility i.e., the validity, of the said Governments.”[5]
You want to assert “absolute
immunity” for the malicious, corrupt, sincerely
ignorant and conscientiously stupid[6] actions[7]
of federal, state, local, and regional legislators[8]
that is in direct opposition to The Constitution as the Supreme Law of the
Land. “Absolute Immunity” is
diametrically opposed to The Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.
The Defendants/Respondents,
FEAR MONGERS, want us ARMED and READY, via District of Columbia v. Heller, for
the inevitable conflict they are FOMENTING with the promulgation of FEARFUL
MISINFORMATION being funded by Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission. They want to destabilize the
economy by crashing the currency based on a refusal to honor the Fourteenth
Amendment, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized
by law, “The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or
"Obamacare", is a United States federal statute LAW,” shall not
be questioned.
The FEAR MONGERS don’t care who wins as long as the War or UPHEAVAL or depression creates a DEMAND for a HARD
CURRENCY again! So we can go back to
building their pyramids![9] Neither The Egyptian Pyramids, The Palace of
Versailles, The Taj Mahal or The Biltmore Estate did a DAM thing for the
SLAVES that built them![10] I refuse to be a slave. I am and always have been a fully vested
natural born citizen of these United States of America!
V. Relief:
I
seek damages and injunctive relief.
I
seek injunctive relief in the form of an immediate constitutionally authorized continuing
order to increase the government spending limit to include all current “public
debt of the United States, authorized by law.”
I
seek actual damages in the Amount $16.6999 trillion the current national
debt. I seek punitive damages in the
amount of $33.39998 trillion to assure that this NEVER happens again!!!!
VI.
Money Damages:
I
seek actual damages in the Amount $16.6999 trillion the current national debt, based on the originally filing Tuesday, October 15, 2013. The Defendant’s / Respondent’s refusal to support
and defend the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by
law put an unwarranted/unconstitutional/treasonous[11]
question in our creditor’s perception that will
never be overcome. Thus I am
seeking REAL security from the Defendants / Respondents for that loss of confidence, a result of this
“new” perception.
I seek
punitive damages in the amount of $33.39998 trillion to assure that this NEVER happens
again!!!!
VII.
Current Status:
Do
you maintain that the wrongs alleged in the compliant are continuing to occur
at the present time YES [X]
While
the DEBT crisis that fomented the original complaint, dated Tuesday, October
15, 2013, has been averted. I maintain
that the Defendants/Respondents are conspiring to put My “property
in rights”[12] “The
validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law” again in
January 2014.
I
include and make a part of this petition a “MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT” signed and dated Tuesday, November 12, 2013.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct.
Signed this Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
______________________________________________
David
G. Jeep
GENERAL
DELIVERY
Saint
Louis, MO 63155-9999
E-Mail
Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314)
514-5228
[1] While the then, Tuesday, October 15, 2013,
crisis has been averted, the issue still lingers for next year.
[2] “Property”
James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792
[3] Judicial
sophistry is the “ABSOLUTE”
WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[4] Passed by
Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868
[6] Incompetence
is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of
dishonesty, malice and corruption.
Martin Luther King said it better, “Nothing
in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious
stupidity” (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
[7] The denial
of the “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by
law, “the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called
the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare,” shall not be questioned.”
[8] “are entitled to absolute immunity” 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
[9] “The Gold
Standard is what built the Pyramids” http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2011/10/gold-standard-is-what-built-pyramids.html
[10] “A Balanced
Budget for America?” http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012/07/balanced-budget-for-america.html
[11] The Defendants/Respondents acted TEWASONOURSLY
against their oath of office and against the Constitution - Oath of Office: “I
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me
God.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)