Justice is NOWHERE to be found in America Today

From:David G. Jeep Dave@DGJeep.com

To: Al Jazeera English press.int@aljazeera.net

Cc: 48 Hours <48hours@cbsnews.com>; Aaron Zitner <aaron.zitner@wsj.com>; Adam Liptak <Adam.Liptak@nytimes.com>; Adam Smith Foundation<info@adamsmithfoundation.com>; Amnesty International USA aimem-ber@aiusa.org MORE...

Justice is NOWHERE

to be found in

America Today

I feel I must take President Obama to task for his recent references to Justice.  I quote from his State of the Union Address, Tuesday, January 25, 2011: 

“America’s moral example must always shine for all who yearn for freedom, justice, and dignity.”

And again in President Barack Obama statement to reporters about Egypt, Friday, Jan. 28, 2011:

“What's needed right now are concrete steps that advance the rights of the Egyptian people, a meaningful dialogue between the government and its citizens and a path of political change that leads to a future of greater freedom and greater opportunity and justice for the Egyptian people.”

Justice is NOWHERE to be found in America today.  We the People of the United State of America live under the rule of ““absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335.  Thus we have no enforceable rights in America TODAY.

Despite what our Founding fathers thought, despite what the Supreme Court asserted in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137)”

“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.”

We the People do not have enforceable rights.  We the People cannot “claim the protection of the laws.”  We live under the dictatorial rule of the Supreme Court and “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”

This is INSANITY.  Do we have to set ourselves on fire to get our rights?  Do we have to riot in the streets to get our RIGHTS?  Do we have to move to another country before our own President will acknowledge RIGHTS?

Where do you go in America for the protection of the laws, the essence of civil liberty, the essence of any civilization?  What do we do?

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

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

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

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

I am not some crazy conspiracy fanatic, I do not see conspiracies everywhere.

I am not some crazy

conspiracy fanatic.

I am not some crazy conspiracy fanatic, I do not see conspiracies everywhere.  I have endured over 7 years of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[1], 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. [2]

My issues revolve around unconcealed corrupt actions of the police, the prosecutors and the judges.  This corruption was enumerated at or near the time of occurrence and the subsequent cover up of those, negligent, malicious and corrupt actions by a criminal conspiracy of deliberate depraved indifference to rights (Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights ). 

I do not see a conspiracy against rights in “Texan declared innocent after 30 years in prison.”  Eyewitnesses make mistakes there is no avoiding it.  It could be likened to a fact of life almost, “Eyewitness: How Accurate Is Visual Memory?”(60 Minutes) Now given that eyewitness testimony has made mistakes, we need to improve the way we utilize eyewitness testimony to establish guilt e.g., double blind[3] photo arrays, unbiased computer photo lineups.  As suggested by the 60 minutes story in North Carolina:

“showing victims lineup photos one at a time and emphasizing that the right answer may be none of the above, having lineups conducted by a person who doesn't know who the suspect is, or not by a person at all.

One system now used in a handful of cities is computer software Mike Gauldin helped develop to have a laptop conduct photo lineups.

But law professor Rich Rosen says that in the vast majority of places, there's been no reform, and that needs to change. "This is something that police officers can and should be in favor of," he told Stahl.” and other auditing measures.”[4] 

In my cases, I told the police officers, the prosecuting attorneys and the Judges they had made a mistake before we went to trial and then repeated it before sentencing in the form formal pretrial[5] and post trial motions[6] and objections.  Nonetheless the Police Officers, the Prosecuting attorneys and the Judge confirmed their criminality by purporting and/or allowing negligent, malicious, and corrupt testimony, thus criminal conspiracy of deliberate depraved indifference to rights.

There is no excuse for their undeniable CRIMINAL Conspiracy of depraved deliberate indifference to RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

[1] “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

[2] 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/).

[3] double-blind study - an experimental procedure in which neither the subjects of the experiment nor the persons administering the experiment know the critical aspects of the experiment; "a double-blind procedure is used to guard against both experimenter bias and placebo effects"

[4] Eyewitness: How Accurate Is Visual Memory? Lesley Stahl Reports On Flaws In Eyewitness Testimony That Lead To Wrong Convictions, March 8, 2009. It was updated on July 11, 2009

[5] Pretrial Motions in 26th District - September 16 and 30, 2003 Case No.:CR203-1336M, Tim Schlesinger Motion 12-5-03 (Jeep, Sharon vs. Jeep, David Cause No. 03FC-10670(M) Division No. 65)declares his pretrial motion of November 13, 2003.

[6] Tim Schlesinger Motion 12-5-03 (Jeep, Sharon vs. Jeep, David Cause No. 03FC-10670(M) Division No. 65), Wednesday, February 4, 2004, Motion for a Directed Verdict of Innocent in Favor of the Defendant Case No.:CR203-1336M, Monday, February 9, 2004 Motion to overturn the Verdict in favor of the Defendant Case No.:CR203-1336M

(see my blog for these items http://dgjeep.blogspot.com)

Why would anyone doing “honorable work”[1] need or even ask for immunity?

Justices of the Supreme Court

Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan

c/o Supreme Court of the United States

One First Street N.E.

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Re: Why would anyone doing “honorable work”[1] need or even ask for immunity? 

Dear Justices,

"He goes along, pretends to be a gentleman, pretends to be accommodative, pretends to be seriously committed to the law, and turns around, sending people, beating up people, using violence to coerce and to literally defend power for the sake of defending power."[2]  Is that why you do it, “power for the sake of defending power”?

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

“Time is of the essence”

Thank you in advance.

Thursday, December 29, 2010

David G. Jeep

c/o The Bridge

1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)

Voice mail (314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep

enclosure

Constitutional Inviolable and Inalienable RIGHTS and thus The Strict Liability for the Deprivation of Rights

cc:  file

Constitutional Inviolable and Inalienable RIGHTS

and thus

The Strict Liability for the Deprivation of Rights

Why would anyone doing “honorable work”[3] need or even ask for immunity?  Immunity from prosecution both Criminal and Civil violates the Constitution for the United States of America’s supremacy, Article. VI. § 2 "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" and the 1^st Amendment’s provision: “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

“We the People” sought to establish basic Inviolable and Inalienable RIGHTS i.e., “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” [4] We had suffered under absolute Despotism the divine right of the King.  “We the People” expressed this with The Declaration of Independence July 5, 1776:

“We 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.

“We the People” then further defined and codified those Rights into a Constitution for the United States of America.  “We the People” had suffered “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.” We sought to define and Codified Inviolable and Inalienable Rights into the Constitution for the United State of America to avoid “a long train of abuses and usurpations”:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” [5]

Who in their RIGHT mind would guarantee a basic Inviolable and Inalienable Bill of Rights with out establishing Strict Liability for the Deprivation of those Rights via Due Process of Law as enforcement???

The authors of The Constitution for the United States of America assured the rights with the 1^st Amendment’s provision: “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  Rights are not awarded for good behavior; rights are the warranty of what cannot be taken away by the State without cause as established by Due Process of Law. 

Basic Liberty requires as an essential element the ability to defend oneself against usurpers and seek the protection of the laws.  Absolute Immunity as illegally, unconstitutionally and criminally asserted by a royalist Supreme Court attempts to negate the STRICT LIBILTY assured by the Constitution for the United States of America’s Supremacy, Article. VI. § 2 "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" and the 1^st Amendment’s provision: “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”        

With Absolute Immunity for “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process.”[6]  “There is no safety for the citizen except in the protection of the (malicious and corrupt) judicial tribunals for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government professing to act in its name. There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime.”[7]

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

“Time is of the essence”

Thank you in advance.

Thursday, December 29, 2010

David G. Jeep

c/o The Bridge

1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)

Voice mail (314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep

cc:  file

---

[1] Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler issued the following statement on Wednesday in response to USA TODAY's investigation Updated 12/9/2010 11:11 AM “Justice in the balance”

[2] As seen in the New York Times MORGAN TSVANGIRAI, prime minister of Zimbabwe, on President Robert Mugabe

[3] Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler issued the following statement on Wednesday in response to USA TODAY's investigation Updated 12/9/2010 11:11 AM “Justice in the balance”

[4] Amendment IV to the Constitution for the United States of America.

[5] Article. VI. § 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America ratified June 21, 1788

[6] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)

[7] 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 (Non-italic, parenthetical and lined through editing added for clarity)