Sunday, October 19, 2008

Terrorism 101, liberty must be refreshed... with the blood of patriots and tyrants - Revised 10-19-08

-->
Sun, October 19, 2008 3:51:57 PM
Terrorism 101, liberty must be refreshed... with the blood of patriots and tyrants - Revised 10-19-08

...
From:            David G. Jeep ...View Contact

To:    Mike Christian at 314-280-5222 FBI Report ; SAMUEL A. ALITO JR. ; RUTH BADER GINSBURG ; STEPHEN G. BREYER ; SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR ... more        

Cc:    Kenny Hulshof ; Jay Nixon ; Sarah Steelman ; Sarah Steelman ; Joe Biden ; Joe Biden ; Kit Bond ... more     

 Subject: Terrorism 101, liberty must be refreshed... with the blood of patriots and tyrants  - Revised 10-19-08

Mike & The Supreme Court,

The Tree of Liberty

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.[1]"
Due Process of Law is the guardian, the source and the agreed meeting place for all disputes concerning our liberty in a free and civilized society.  If we give up on Due Process of Law, the law of survival once again takes root, there are no holds barred, violence and destruction follow.  The Law as agreed by all in a free state, defines and gives width and breadth to our liberty. 
But when Due Process of Law is disregarded in a free and democratic union of equal persons; it is like breaking the back of the union.  It can not stand for long if at all.
As Thomas Jefferson said “A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the highest duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest.  The Laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.[2]”  This is about necessity.  This is about self-preservation; my son was taken from me illegally by the Black Robed Royals denial of my right to Due Process of Law.  This is about “saving our union” from the Royalist Black Robed judges bent on replacing Due Process of Law with their will alone.  Again, Thomas Jefferson “We have long suffered under the base prostitution of the law to party passion 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.[3] 
I want to say, first, last and always, I have attempted for FIVE years to peacefully assert my unalienable rights as a father, as a person, as a Citizen of the United States of America.  All I have ever asked for is Due Process of Law as defined by the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws: the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution and the US Code of Law Title 18 § 1621 Perjury generally, § 1622. Subornation of perjury, § 1623 False declarations before grand jury or court,  § 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights as declared on my Writ of Certiorari (07-11115) and in my 8th Circuit Court of Appeals action  (08-1832 Jeep v Bennett).  Without the “sovereign immunity” unconstitutionally asserted by the judiciary and others.
This did not start out as me against the world.  This started out as “the bright idea” of a disgruntled teenager and a green behind the ears traffic cop.  My ex-stepdaughter, cried “Wolf” over and over again until all around her were tired of her screams.  There was a family meeting, which she was privy to, her grandmother, her aunts and uncles, her mother, her father and I agreed she would move out on her own in the spring 2003, if she again flunked and/or dropped out of college in her fourth semester.  She flunked/dropped out.  She then moved out in the spring of 2003.  She was 20 years old.  This after nearly flunking out of her senior year in high school (2001) and subsequently flunking out of college four semester’s straight (2002 & 2003), incurring thousands of dollars debt, never even attempting to pay it back. 
Then in October 2003 after moving out,  after losing her job, her car broken beyond repair, her being thrown out of her friend’s mother’s 2 bedroom townhouse where she had been squatting rent free for four months with four of the friend’s family members I agreed to let her move back in under the same established and written rules[4] that were in effect when she flunked out her last semester in college and had moved out the previous spring (June 2003). 
My ex-wife, on the advice of her daughter, my ex-stepdaughter, then filed a fraudulent / bogus petition for an Ex-Parte Order of Protection in November 2003 i.e., “Everybody does it, the court is a push over, you need not even claim abuse to get a man thrown out of his own home.” 
IT CAN BE DONE; I AM LIVING PROOF!!!
I was literally blindsided by it.  I immediately consulted an attorney who told me the Order was deficient on the face of it.  It would never stand up in court; it asserted no probable cause, no issue.  But I assured him, I assure you there was no probable cause.  The court should never have accepted the application for the order; the application should never have been signed and ordered by a judge, and thus the police should never have enforced it.  We should not even have had to show up in court. 
Of course none of this was an issue in the Divorce, lol.  An Exparte Order of protection is “independent of any proceedings for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, separate maintenance and other actions between the parties and are in addition to any other available civil or criminal remedies, unless otherwise specifically provided herein[5].” I liken it to a foot race, where the referee breaks your leg at the start and then tells you, “Don’t worry this will not effect you legally”, but it is a given that you lose the race.  I legally lost the divorce, my son, and my home.   Does that sound anything like the outdated legal premise we are going to keep things “separate but equal”???[6]
I can get the school transcripts, I have signed letters of agreement and other supporting paperwork.  If I was or had been given a chance with Due Process of Law, in a court of law as defined by the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, I could prove the FRAUD that started it all.   Due Process of Law is not currently an assertable right in the U.S. of A.
My lawyer of record at the time of the Ex-Parte Order made the comment, after the fact, his mistake was in allowing me to even go to court on the issue.  He should never have let, the would be gold diggers have a shot at me.  I could not hold him responsible.  We were good honest people with nothing to hide.  We thought we had Due Process of Law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified into the US Code of Law as Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights to protect us, why should we worry.  The Law should not be about chicanery, sophistry unbridle enmity and falsehood.  The goal of Due Process of Law should be the unembellished truth.
But none the less my rights be dammed, my son was taken away, I was force out of my home and into appeal.
I learned the HARD WAY. As I can now prove and as I have stated over and over again, we do not have RIGHTS.  We, you, me and the guy or gal next to you are at the complete discretion of any would be judge, judge, policeman or prosecutor.  The first thing that happens is Due Process of Law is thrown out the window.  Your accused you have NO ENFORCABLE RIGHTS.  They can throw you in jail, they can take away your home, your son, everything you once held as sacred and all you can do is appeal.  Appeals are EXTRMELY costly and very time consuming to say the least.  But an appeal is a complete waist of TIME, if you allege a civil rights issue!!!!  We have no CIVIL RIGHTS in the court of the Black Robed Royalist.  Now I have spent 5 years appealing these issues to the Supreme Court of the United States.  The Supreme Court on October 6, 2008 denied my petition.  The Supreme concurs; we have no civil rights.
I did it “ProSe” because with $80,000 in my pocket I could not get a lawyer to stand up for my rights.  There is no REAL money in Civil rights.  It has cost me everything, my son, my home, my retirement, my career, EVERYTHING.  We have no rights after the Rehnquist Revolution.  We are at the discretion of the Royals in their Black Robes of “Sovereign Immunity.”
Everybody wants to curtail the rights of criminals, that is a given.  The problem is how do you do that without curtailing the rights of the “non-criminals” also?  And the ONLY answer to that question is Due Process of Law as defined by our rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.  In this country we have Rights.  A Right - something that one may properly claim as due i.e., “knowing the truth is her right”.  Rights are RIGHTS and everybody has them from cradle to grave, there is no getting around it.
The Warren Court, The Rehnquist Court
and the Current Supreme Court
The Warren Court sought to curtail Government Abuses of Civil rights by letting criminals go free with the exclusionary rule (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)).  If the only evidence had been obtained illegally, the criminals went free regardless.  Did that hurt the people that had illegally stolen said rights, the police, judges, and prosecutors…. NO.  That hurt society by allowing the criminal to go free, to do as they pleased once again. 
The Rehnquist Court reversed the Warren Court by formally allowing judges personal discretion as regards civil rights in general i.e., Due Process of Law, pretrial confinement, the exclusionary rule.  And now we live at the whim of judges, the Royals in Black Robes with their “Sovereign Immunity.”   We have no rights we can assert that take precedence over the whims of the Black Robed Royals.  And I can say indisputably, they abuse their power. 
In the generalities of common law, if your neighbor takes your property, that is a crime, theft.  If your neighbor locks you in his prison that is a crime, false imprisonment.
Again in the generalities of common law, if a Judge takes your property via Due Process of Law i.e., the rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, that is legal.  If a Judge locks you up in prison via Due Process of Law i.e., the rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, that is legal.
Once more in the generalities of common law if a Judge takes your son/property via THE DENIAL of Due Process of Law i.e., THE DENIAL of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, that is THEFT and also a crime per Title 18 § 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law.  If a Judge locks you up in prison via THE DENIAL of Due Process of Law i.e., THE DENIAL the rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, that is THEFT and also a crime per Title 18 § 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law
A Judge’s power comes from the rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.   If they operate outside of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States they are just as much a criminal if not more so than a thief in the night with a gun.[7]
And it follows that any victim of a crime has the common law civil right to sue for the damages resulting from the criminal act i.e., for those acting “under color of law” Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
What the Warren Court and the Rehnquist Court should have done and the Current Supreme Court should do now is enforce the laws already on the books, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified into the US Code of Law as Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights and associated Criminal and Civil Laws assuring Civil Rights.  This would in effect nullify “the “sovereign immunity” unconstitutionally asserted by the judiciary” and return the civil rights to “We the People”.  It would make it profitable to establish and reinforce the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. 
So yes illegally obtained evidence could be used at the discretion of a judge, but also the one who broke the law by obtaining or fabricating the evidence illegally could and should be punished criminally and civilly as well.  As regards the potential for a Criminal to thus profit from the crime, again Common Law would dictate that any monies acquired be forfeit to the actual victims of the crime and/or a general fund for that purpose.  Criminals can not be allowed to profit by their crimes.  This would in effect clear up the issue and allow for the assignment blame where it belongs on both parties.   We can not allow the police, the prosecutors or the JUDGES to disregard OUR RIGHTS!
I was reading a book by Alan Dershowitz; he related the change in the way pretrial confinement was being handled.  When we had rights, a judge always had to set reasonable bail commensurate with the crime.  But in the new era without rights a Judge need no longer set bail if he believes the innocent until proven guilty suspect maybe a risk to society.  And given that the elected Judge has the choice between setting bail, allowing a suspect his rights and potentially risking a mistake or keeping the suspect in jail.  Most judges do not allow bail and keep the suspects confined and thus do not risk the political fall out of having been wrong.  Thus too many suspects are being denied bail because of the self-serving overly conservative viewpoint of judges.  
I am now aware and ashamed that the Civil Rights Act of 1871, was never let out.  I was unaware and am now ashamed that we have allowed nearly 140 years of Civil Rights abuse and this law has had so little use.  Now I am not claiming any broad based discrimination in my case, what has created my issues are incompetence, fraud and the accompanying criminal cover-up.   My cases are the exception if anything to the rule for civil rights issues, but I am sure my cases are not without companions. If the Federal Courts had ENFORCED the Civil Rights Act of 1871, let the Free Enterprise system take care of its own and made it profitable for lawyers to look after the rights of the newly emancipated African Americans, we would not have had near the issues with Racial in equality, Discrimination, Racial Violence, Jim Crow, Internment of the Japanese during WWII, Separate but Equal: Segregation in the Public Schools, Civil Rights Riots of the 60’s, the Rodney King, Los Angeles riots of 1992 or MY PROBLEMS.  I can assure you that the judges, the prosecutors and the police would be well trained as to the rights of the Citizens they are all sworn to protect and serve.  It is amazing what profit and loss can make happen.
One of the purported reasons for not allowing the Civil Rights Act of 1871 for general use is that it would open up an unwanted “can of worms”.  Nobody wants a can of stinky old worms but that does not make the problem go away.  This can of worms has been kept under wraps for 140 years, and it is about to explode all over.
Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a “Murrah Federal Building[8]
“We the People” have waited long enough.  Statistically there are undeniably abuses from sheer incompetence.  Hiding the issue behind a wall of immunity does not make the issue go away, it just cover up the problem and forces it into a critical mass.  Everybody knows those acting under color of law[9] are subject to human fallibility just like the rest of us.  Should the those acting “under color of law” be allowed to continue to live in the unreal world of immunity at the expense of their unwitting victims???  I say NO!!!!! And I ask WHY HAVE THEY BEEN????
There will be issues of fraudulent claims, but Legal procedure has always been about, documentation, documentation.  In this day and age of electronic documentation, video cameras in police cars and audio if not video transcripts of all court proceedings there should be little chance for fraud.  I have the written transcript in hand of, the would be judge, Commissioner Jones’s unashamed procedural denial of my rights.  I have the transcript trial record of the wet behind the ears Policemen brazenly giving false testimony; there can be no issue of fraud.[10]  Our system does very well with Documentation, Documentation, nothing can be easily disputed.  In my cases, I have the evidence and it is indisputable.
My PROBLEMS, I am not talking about some obscure, sophistic, nit-picking interpretation of a contrived non-enumerated right.  All I am asking for is a word for word realistic honest reading of Our Constitution and Laws nothing too obscure or between the lines:
1.     I want the original order/warrant as referenced in my Wirt of Certiorari vacated per the 4th Amendment to the constitution, “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation”.  there was NO PROBABLE CAUSE LISTED.
2.     I want the subsequent order to the above referenced order vacated per the 5th Amendment, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment”.  There never was and there has never been a presentment of the Specific charges.  NOT before the hearing As required by the constitution nor a presentment of the specifics of the charges subsequent to the hearing.
3.     I want all orders and findings regarding child custody and property settlement related to the dissolution of marriage (SGJeep v DGJeep) and subsequent to the above referenced orders vacated per the 14th Amendment “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”   My son, my life and my property were all taken away from me fruadulently and illegally immediately prior to the orders and findings regarding child custody and property settlement related to the dissolution of marriage there is no way it was fair.
4.     As regards my appeal 08-1832 Jeep v Bennett, I want the laws for Perjury, Criminal Conspiracy and Criminal Malfeasance in Office enforced against those involved in the fraudulent conviction.  I want the conviction vacated.  The Police, The Prosecutors, and the Judge all HAD Knowledge of the fraudulent and perjurious testimony.  the JUDGe in particular had Knowledge prior to sentencing and refused to act in favor of Truth and Justice.  
5.     I want my rights, as a result of the above issues, in a fair and open court of law before a jury, as the damaged party in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, per the United States Code of Law Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.
6.     And again, “Without the “sovereign immunity” unconstitutionally asserted by the judiciary.”
There has been some feedback, but nothing from the court.   I really, really want to settle this per due process of law.  But in lieu of that I am still holding open the two other offers before I do anything further:
1. A fight to the death on the East Lawn of the Federal Court House in St. Louis with the Justices, excusing of course, Ms. Justice Ginsberg.
2. Impeachment per my Indictment dated 10/10/08 of the Full Current and Past Supreme Courts for dereliction of duty in regard to their judicial responsibilities as regards the enforcement of the US Code Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights as declared.  It is obscene to think how little those laws have been enforced since there enactment in 1871 as regards all parties known to be damaged, i.e. African-Americans (Post Civil War and currently), Chinese American/Immigrants (transcontinental railroad),  Japanese Americans (World War II internment), Mexican Americans (Current), Arab American (Current) and Me (as referenced above) to name but a few.
America hangs its self worth on its
belief in its good name.
America hangs its self worth on its belief in its good name.   We like to believe that the terrorists of this world are despots and the despots of this world would never be tolerated by America.  And that is so, so, so very wrong.  When queried virtually any American would resist the assertion that we honor terrorists and genocidal despotic leaders in our version of history.
But as our judicial friends like to rely, our much heralded history is not without precedent for terrorism and despotism.
Our view of history and the world has been sanitized and distorted by our self-promoting perspective.  For example history relates a series of incidents in pre-Revolutionary time (1768 and 1773)
In 1768 a privately owned ship was impounded by government customs officials at Boston Harbor, on a charge of running contraband goods.  A group stormed the government customs post, burned the government boat, and beat the officers to take the ship back.
In 1773 again the owner of the same ship with armed men boarded his legally sanctioned competitor’s commercial shipping vessels, supposedly under the protection of the harbormaster, and systematically emptied the holds of three of those ships (342 casks or 90,000 lbs (45 tons)) of their civilian cargo and destroyed it.  Now that this happened without violence is a stretch of the imagination, but let’s go along with our account of history and say ok, somebody got paid off to let it happen.
Who did this?  It was the Al Capone, the colonial “Godfather” of the era.  You see these ships with their government sanctioned and approved cargo were going to cut into this terrorist’s criminal smuggling business.  He had the market cornered and was making money hand over fist illegally with his smuggling.  He did not want the competition.
This was clearly an act of a criminal, a smuggler, a terrorist.  He wanted to scare them off, the Government and his competition from regulating or competing with his criminal activity, his smuggling trade.
The Owner of the ship, the smuggler, the criminal, the terrorist was John Hancock and the terrorist actions beating the government officials and destroying the private non-military cargo is often referred to as the “Boston Tea Party”, approximately $2,000,000 worth of goods, 1/3 of the yearly consumption of the colonies.
John Hancock was subsequently arrested on several charges of smuggling; his friend and supporter John Adams, the future 2nd President of the United States defended him.   John Hancock called his ship “Liberty”, “Libertine” would have been more apt.
Possibly the biggest and most impactful terrorist act of all time was the dropping of the Atom bomb that ended World War II.  That was a pure and unapologetic act of TERRORISM, the reverberation of it are still felt today.  Was it a good thing, History has so far agreed, it ended the war with fewer casualties on both sides than resulted from the bomb.  But it was and is TERROR.  In the back of every Islamic extremist’s head today, they are afraid we will do it to them.  They live in ignorance but complete and abject terror.
Our history, imagine if Hitler instead of attempting genocide on the Jews in the seclusion of camps via gas chambers, had paraded them on a forced starvation march of annihilation from the temperate climate at the tip of Italy, over the Alps and through Germany to the port of Hamburg for deportation from Europe in the dead of winter.  And as it happen the Port of Hamburg was frozen in when they arrived and the surviving victims of this starvation parade and attempted genocide had to await the spring thaw on shore without shelter at the mercy of the German winter with only the minimal food and clothing they had started the trip with in temperate Southern Italy.
That is a very accurate representation of what Presidents Jackson did and Van Buren aided in doing to the last "Five Civilized Tribes" of American Indians in Georgia, Carolina and Florida.  Jackson as the instigator and first and foremost perpetrator with the Indian Removal Act in 1830-1837, over the objections of the Supreme Court (Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)), and Van Buren as the one finishing it with the Cherokee Nation and the Trail of Tears in 1838.  President Jackson ignored the Supreme Court to commit Genocide can’t I ignore them to get my rights as a Father, as person and as a Citizen of the untied States?????[11]
Imagine still, if Germany wanted to keep Hitler’s picture on their twenty-dollar bill?[12]  
And in answer to your subliminal question, and in response to my rhetorical question Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a “Murrah Federal Building[13]   I would RE-state that my unalienable natural rights to my son have been violated not to mention my constitutionally guaranteed rights to Due Process of Law and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I have invested my life in pursuit of a peaceful solution, 5 years.  My son had just started third grade, he is in eighth grade now.  We missed out on Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, little legal sports, and so many things I can’t even begin to contemplate without tears in my eyes. 
Tell Me Again Why that does not empower me to act as supported by historical and legal precedent of our fore father's terrorist action in Boston on Thursday, December 16, 1773, as outlined by words in our Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, The Revolutionary War, In Japan in 1945,  as Thomas Jefferson asserted “"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.[14]"”and as an Open and Public Act and Declaration of War, in defense of OUR unalienable rights. 
I am not seeking to bring about Genocide like the Hero President Jackson we glorify on our twenty-dollar bill. 
I am asking for a Father’s NATURAL right to his son, a United States of America Citizen’s rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws and a person’s right to defend and or recover his home and property via Due Process of Law.  Is that too much in a free and democratic country such as ours???  Without the “sovereign immunity” unconstitutionally asserted by the judiciary.”
This following is just idle prattle, but if we have to go to war beyond anything referenced above, and I TRULY, TRULY hope we never do. 
Three hypothetical scenarios you might consider.  Not that I would ever seriously consider them.  Give me an hour and I could come up with 6 more because as in revolutionary times, it need not be strictly a Government target.
1. Eradicated on advice of Counsel. [15]


2. Eradicated on advice of Counsel.[16]


3. Eradicated on advice of Counsel. [17]


“The unexamined life is not worth living.”
Socrates
Now these are just the idle pondering of a “what if” scenario on a Sunday[18] afternoon in response to your hypothetical question how would I if indeed I wanted to.  Not that I would ever want to!!!!  I make no serious plans for the future; I am at War.  But, I couldn't see any of them taking too much time or costing more than the price of an old pickup truck, not even that if I found one someplace?
And again, I will have to warn you, I have had feed back, not from the court as I had hoped, not from anyone I contacted, nothing in writing.  The cat is out of the bag.  And as we all know, Timothy McVey’s motivation was the incidents at Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas and others.  Timothy McVey never had any direct dealing or relations with either of those incidents; he just took up the cause independently, all on his own.  This is a can of WORMS that is about to explode all on it’s own.
I have struggled for FIVE YEARS on my way through the courts, unsuccessfully to reacquire my rights.  My evidence of the criminal denial of said rights by those “acting under color of law” is irrefutable.  I have been to the Mountain Top of the Supreme Court of Untied States of America.  I have written and e-mailed every news outlet I can reach.  I am homeless, I am penniless, and I am sitting here with holes in the bottom of the only pair of shoes I own as rain, snow and winter approach.  What am I to do????

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.[19]"  Does it Take blood as Thomas Jefferson asserted????

As I have said before, please I am not threatening, This is getting out of control, I am begging!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a
There is historical, precedence, even in our revised version history for violence in defense of liberty. As Thomas Jefferson further asserts “The Law of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.[21].  Tell me why after 5 years of attempting to get my son, my home and justice through the courts, including the Supreme Court. There is historical precedent for ignoring the Supreme Court.[22] I am not allowed to act on the natural law of self-preservation and necessity????
For more information on these issues please see the United States 8th District Court of Appeals Appeal #08-1823 and Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 to the Supreme Court.
Thanks in advance
"Time is of the essence".
                                                                       

David G. Jeep                                                                         Thomas Jefferson[23]
Dave@DGJeep.com                                                            Noted Revolutionary and Author




[1] Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith, 1787

[2] John Kaminiski, ed., “The Quotable Jefferson” pp 164-166

[3] May 26, 1810 a letter Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From “The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)

[4] I have a copy of the “House” rules if you would like to see them, nothing extreme.

[6] Italicized Text is the revision  - Revised 10-19-08

[7] Italicized Text is the revision  - Revised 10-19-08

[8] A rhetorical QUESTION, not intended as a threat, but if anyone feels the need to arrest I say come on, I would love to make this into a freedom of speech issue also.

[9] See the US Department of justice Website for a definition of Under Color of Law http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.htm

[10] Italicized Text is the revision  - Revised 10-19-08

[11] Italicized Text is the revision  - Revised 10-19-08

[12] Suggestion, take Jackson off put Martin Luther King or Chief Joseph on the twenty-dollar bill

[13] A rhetorical QUESTION, not intended as a threat, but if anyone feels the need to arrest I say come on, I would love to make this into a freedom of speech issue also.

[14] Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith, 1787

[15] Eradicated per counsel’s suggestion

[16] Eradicated per counsel’s suggestion

[17] Eradicated per counsel’s suggestion

[18] 10-12-08

[19] Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith, 1787, Thomas Jefferson and I stand ready to be arrested for threatening revolution.

[20] A rhetorical QUESTION, not intended as a threat, but if anyone feels the need to arrest I say come on, I would love to make this into a freedom of speech issue also.

[21] John Kaminiski, ed., “The Quotable Jefferson” pp 164-166

[22] Italicized Text is the revision  - Revised 10-19-08

[23] Thomas Jefferson’s signature is included for visual effect only, he of course did not sign the document above, but I feel he would have liked to.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Violence at best perpetuates violence. Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a “Murrah Federal Building“ ? A Rhetorical Question

Violence at best perpetuates violence.

Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a

“Murrah Federal Building“[1]?



The Supreme Court announced their October Term for 2008, yesterday the first Monday in October, October, 6, 2008. There were three cases that caught my eye. Clearly the most sensational case on the docket will be the case revolving around the use of a naughty word on TV during a recent awards show by two intellectually late blooming celebrity adolescents. In a country that has always put Freedom of Speech first, I really do not see an issue. No one was hurt by the words, no one can be hurt by just hearing the words in that context, and there is no playground in America where similar naughty words are not passed around clandestinely by prepubescents freely to assert their coming of age.

The second case that caught my eye was a decision by the Supreme Court on Texas v. New Mexico where, “The motion of the River Master for fees and reimbursement of expenses is granted, and the River Master is awarded a total of $6,673.16 for the period July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, to be paid equally by the parties.” I noticed with a little research that the court issued a similar order last October Term, October 2007 where, “The motion of the River Master for fees and reimbursement of expenses is granted and the River Master is awarded a total of $5,995.61 for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007, to be paid equally by the parties.” I am sure this is of great import, I mean it is now over $6,000 for 2008, to the River Master, but is it something for the Supreme Court of the United States. I have to question that.

The Third case was my case on page 26, “07-11115 JEEP, DAVID G. V. JONES, PHILIP, E., ET AL.” Now I realize that this is my case and for that reason I am unfairly biased, but my case was and is a clear flagrant case of judicial misconduct by a would be judge at the expense of my Civil Rights. The Federal Courts are THE only courts with jurisdiction over Civil Rights. There are two Federal Laws under which I sought protection Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.

My case a petition for a Writ of Certiorari (07-11115) was denied. My case was and is simple. The would be Judge Commissioner Jones denied my 4th, 5th and 14th amendment rights to due Process of Law. First he and others allowed the service of and a hearing on a deficient charge, without any referenced probable cause. That was a denial of my 4th Amendment right, “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause”. The hearing itself was a denial of my 5th Amendment right “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment”, because there was no presentment of the charge prior to the trial. Because this was in a State of Missouri Court and because both issues revolve around the broader right and protection of the Due Process of Law, this violated my 14th Amendment Right “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

Now as issues go, these issues effect virtually every Male going through a contested divorced in the United States of America today. So they have the immediacy and sensationalism of the Naughty words on network TV. But in a relative sense they should carry as least as much weight as the River Master’s Yearly Claim for $6,000 +/-. And therefore they have substance and should be of issue for the Supreme Court of the United States.

So why didn’t the court take up the case? Because the real issue is do we live under the rule of Law or do we live under the royal rule of the Judiciary.

The Supreme Court obviously believes in a Royal Judiciary because they cling tenaciously to “sovereign immunity.” The Supreme Court does not support the Rule of Law. The Laws Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights are on the books. They are indisputably an integral part of the US Code of Law. The verbiage of the Laws are simple and straightforward and the essence of both are to assure US Citizens and others, the protection of the Constitution or laws of the United States. There is no way either of the laws could be construed as unconstitutional. The verbiage of the laws:



Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years….



and



Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.



The term “under color of any law” is meant to refer to a person acting in the name of the law. Common actors “under color of any law” include obviously law enforcement, the police, government agents and, yes, Judges. Point in fact judges are specifically referenced and included by specific reference under Title 42 § 1983 i.e., “in any action brought against a judicial officer”. But somehow the Supreme Court of the United States thinks that it and its fellow members of the Judiciary are not to be included by the terms “Whoever” and “Every person” some how they are unable to read the reference “in any action brought against a judicial officer”. They feel like royals and like the royals of old, they think they are entitled to “sovereign immunity”. Now the sovereigns of old, the kings and queens, were not only entitled to sovereign immunity, they embodied it. Their will was law. Whatever they desired or wanted became the law, the instant they wanted it. There literally was no need to even attempt to sue them. Now others and we threw off that kind of tyranny via a revolution. We established what we believed to be a democratic state based on the Rule of Law, not on the tyrannical will of any ruler. At least we all believe we have.

Where do you go, what do you do when the Supreme Court denies your Civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States? Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a“Murrah Federal Building“[2]?

When Timothy McVey blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995, I like all other Americans was appalled and aggrieved. There is NO justification for an act of violence such as that in a free civilized society. Nothing can condone such a brutal and thoughtless act in a free country, of free men, with access to Due Process of Law. I was and am a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War and all war. War/violence is the complete antithesis of Civilization. Nobody asked for his motivation.

We are civilized after all. Civilization at its core is opposed to violence. Civilization is all about conflict resolution without violence, without war. A Democratic Civilization promotes the rule of Law over the rule of violence and over the rule of Royals.

That being said our Declaration of Independence assures us we have “unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness[3]”. While at the same time it allows for “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it[4]” (Government) “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends.[5]” Patrick Henry one of our founding fathers said it more succinctly in his applauded declaration “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death.”

The Constitution was and is based on the issues addressed in the Declaration of Independence. Thus the Declaration sets out the Constitution’s purpose and goals, we have unalienable rights and “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.[6]”

We fought a war in this country to assure Civil Rights to all persons, The Civil War. Our constitution was then again refocused on our Unalienable Rights. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” a result of the Civil War.

The United States Code TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 21--CIVIL RIGHTS SUBCHAPTER I—GENERALLY Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights confirms and supports “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” Again the Civil Rights Act Codified into the current US Code of Law as 42USC1983, was originally the Civil Rights Act of 1871, it was a direct and immediately subsequent result of the Civil War.

Our rights appear well protected on paper, but paper is just that. And those rights, those protections are not worth the paper they are written on. You do not have to be charged with anything to have your son and everything you own taken away. It can all happen, the result of the whim of a would be judge. And with Due Process of Law capriciously defined at the will of any would be judge, charges can be created and changed on the fly during your trial and immediately incorporated in to a ruling or finding. The oath of honesty for witnesses does not apply to the police. They can knowingly present false evidence, contradict prior sworn testimony, they can do anything they want to inflicted their will, they have immunity from the rule of law. The Prosecutors do not have to provide the defense with exculpable material. The Prosecutors have no responsibility to verify the veracity of their witnesses against established standards. The Prosecutors can knowingly present false evidence and suborn perjury, because they have immunity from the law. Judges have no responsibility to the integrity of their court proceeding, they can let it all go to hell in hand basket and not be held accountable for their shoddy behavior or the integrity of obviously false and perjurious testimony, they have immunity from the law and any and all professional liability.

I am not some crazy squawking about some distant long ago issues, I have only heard rumors of. I have lived these issues, I have been fighting this cancerous immunity from the law eating away at the foundations of our liberty in this country for 5 years to regain my son, my home, my worldly possession and…. the life liberty and pursuit of happiness of my once quiet life.

If we had the constitutional rights we were told/taught we had and there was a common law for everyone and if a person was convicted of a crime via fraud or perjury by the state, they would then immediately be victims of a crime and for all time innocent of the charge. Fraud and Perjury are not crimes in a court of law until and if someone is convicted based on the fraud and/or the perjury. When there is a conviction, fraud is a crime, especially so as fraudulent evidence in a court of law supposedly founded for and on truth and justice. That is the difference between slander and fraud. You can knowingly and falsely say someone did a crime and that is slanderous, but when you say it and convince the court or someone else to act on it, it becomes fraud. Because the conviction is based on fraud, the conviction is thus also fraudulent and rendered null and void. In this case the victim was always innocent, but that is not an issue, the victim of a fraudulent conviction by the state is for all time legally innocent of the charge because the state per the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” only gets the one chance. Double Jeopardy applies; the state cannot again put the person in jeopardy for the crime.

Why then after more than five years am I trying to get the government of “We the People” to afford me my unalienable rights to Paternity, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness via due Process of Law? Why have I expended every ounce of energy and every cent I have for five years in the pursuit of my unalienable rights via Due Process of Law. Because my fellow citizens you and I have been duped. Our government is no longer of or for “We the People” our Government; the Courts, in particular, have assumed Royal status, all in the name of order and Justice. We no longer have a right to Due Process of Law; we are subject to the Royal whim. A Judge can do whatever they want to do and they are protected by this immunity. Their crimes can be anything from gross incompetence, to fraud, to false arrest, to malicious prosecution, to perjury, to malfeasance in office, to the blatant denial of their soul purpose, Due Process of Law, and/or to criminal discrimination/bias by way of anyone from a traffic cop to a Federal Court Judge and we can do nothing about it. There is no appeal, the Supreme Court and all it’s lower courts declare this blanket immunity as law.

Nowhere in the constitution is immunity provided for. The Courts have usurped the divine right of kings, the most destructive of all power to the forces of freedom. They have become Royal. It is no longer the rule of law that guides the courts; they are guided and controlled in the defense of their Royal Status, their immunity. The Constitution allows for just the opposite, the Constitution asserts that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.[7]” They are not exempt from the quality of the their behavior, they are to be held accountable to “good Behavior.”

Let me tell you of my particulars, the Government has taken everything from me, my son, my home, my ability to work at my career, all my worldly possessions. I have the cloths on my back. I live in a homeless shelter; I cannot even afford to call my son on the phone. I supported a family, lived in a nice home and worked for 30 years at my profession for this as my reward.

I have since this denial of my rights, worked tirelessly and peacefully for five years to get the government of “We the People” to acknowledge my unalienable rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws via Due Process of Law, but the Courts are all “Royal” they have immunity. They can do as they please. They can act incompetently, order and enforce deficient warrants, perjure themselves, present false evidence, withhold exculpable material, look the other way to perjury, blatantly deny Due Process of Law, unlawfully imprison us and then claim immunity. We as citizens have the right to pay for their incompetence for their criminal behavior and for what amounts to the denial of our own rights. That is our only recourse short of violence.

I am just a Citizen who has done nothing wrong except possibly to have the misfortune to NOT be a fashionable minority group with a politically correct action committee. Via the prevailing legal fashion of the day I am nothing, a lowly white middle class male educated, born and raised in the United States of America.

Please reassure me and tell me violence is not the only way to achieve the dignity of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. I am and have always been a peaceful man, reassure me the lies of these royalists in power will be voided. Tell me how the denial of my rights makes you safer and me better. I have been fighting this war of words for 5 years and I am literally at my wits end, I cannot rest but I cannot give into the nearly irresistible urge to attempt to abolish our supposed government of “We the People.” “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death.[8]” Our Declaration of Independence and constitution both provide for violence to abolish it, god knows I have tried to alter it peaceably for five years now.

I am Begging, PLEASE!!!!! Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a “Murrah Federal Building“? But do not be so trite as to think that fear of imprisonment or torture will have any effect, they have taken everything from ME!!!!! I have nothing left to loose. Deterrents have never worked and never will against true defenders of justice. Without the unalienable rights of our founding fathers we have nothing, all of us when pushed to limit will be patriots of the cause and declare, “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death.”

“Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a “Murrah Federal Building?” I am not some nut case, off tilting at windmills, the Royals admit my cause of action, but they protect their fellow Royals with the assertion of immunity. As if immunity is a requirement for integrity in government. Immunity from civil and criminal prosecution does not foster integrity in government; it covers up for civil and criminal corruption and incompetence. If anything, immunity corrupts more than it cures in a Government of the people, by the people and for the people. Everyone needs to be accountable in a true Democracy; there can be no Royals, exempt from the law. Immunity fosters impunity; no one can act with impunity in a Democracy of free and equal persons under color of law.

Immunity rewards incompetence by allowing it to go unpunished by the law of natural selection. Immunity does not promote excellence. Immunity from prosecution never gave a coward courage. Immunity has and does everyday empower incompetent people to act fearlessly without regard to the consequences of their actions.

Those that support immunity say that without it we could not govern. Government would be constantly put on the defensive. Well that assumes that the government is constantly grossly negligent and not even I as a victim of governmental immunity and incompetence would go that far. Civil and Criminal Prosecution of the law is how civilization resolves disputes among civilized persons. Yes there will be more suits, but as standards and ethics are established and enforced, they will peak and recede to an acceptable natural level.

The government has illegally trespassed against me, they have taken my son, invaded my home and stolen everything form me. Have I no right to defend my self?????

I admit I am human, out of any 100 decisions I make, 10 of them are going to be almost unavoidably wrong. That is human fallibility. When I find an error, I like to think I admit it and work to correct it. When the Royals make a mistake, they claim immunity and walk away, this in spite of the law, 42USC1983 Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights.

We have unalienable RIGHTS, per the Declaration of Independence. This government has taken my unalienable rights. I have tried for 5 years to peaceably reacquire my unalienable rights. In the Declaration of Independence it asserts, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (unalienable rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”

If it did not sound so violent so cruel it would almost be a relief to have an end to it all. “Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a “Murrah Federal Building?” But also, tell me why don't I have a right to wage war, for my son, my home, my property, my RIGHTS?????

For more information on these issues please see the United States 8th District Court of Appeals Appeal #08-1823 and Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 to the Supreme Court.
Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a
“Murrah Federal Building“[9]?



Thanks in advance,



"Time is of the essence".



David G. Jeep

Dave@DGJeep.com





ps: A Declaration of War is forth coming.

[1] A rhetorical QUESTION, not intended as a threat, but if anyone feels the need to arrest I say come on, I would love to make this into a freedom of speech issue also.

[2] A rhetorical QUESTION, not intended as a threat, but if anyone feels the need to arrest I say come on, I would love to make this into a freedom of speech issue also.

[3] The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

[4] The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

[5] The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

[6] The preamble to the United States Constitution

[7] Article 3 Section 1 United States Constitution

[8] The Victim of Immunity, David G. Jeep

[9] A rhetorical QUESTION, not intended as a threat, but if anyone feels the need to arrest I say come on, I would love to make this into a freedom of speech issue also.

Monday, October 6, 2008

A Declaration of Independence…. War

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: David G. Jeep
To: "My Turn Editor, Newsweek" ; Condoleezza Rice ; FBI Report
Cc: "Dave@dgjeep" ; Kenny Hulshof ; Jay Nixon ; PRESS Release ; Sarah Steelman ; Sarah Steelman ; Michael G. Berry ; Ryan Bertels ; Douglas R. Beach ; Richard C. Bresnahan ; Michael D. Burton ; Patrick Clifford ; Robert S. Cohen ; Barbara Ann Crancer ; Tom W. DePriest ; Colleen Dolan ; Judy Preddy Draper ; Bernhardt C. Drumm ; John R. Essner ; Sandra Farragut-Hemphill ; Gary M. Gaertner ; Joseph A. Goeke ; Steven H. Goldman ; James R. Hartenbach ; Dale W. Hood ; Michael T. Jamison ; Phillip E. Jones ; Larry L. Kendrick ; John F. Kintz ; Gary Krautmann ; Brenda Stith Loftin ; Maura B. McShane ; "Emmett M. O'Brien" ; Gloria Clark Reno ; John A. Ross ; Mary Bruntrager Schroeder ; Mark D. Seigel ; Thea A. Sherry ; Ellen Levy Siwak ; Dennis N. Smith ; David Lee Vincent ; Barbara W. Wallace ; Carolyn C. Whittington ; Melvyn W. Wiesman ; Condoleezza Rice ; William K. Suter ; Wlliam K. Suter ; Christopher Vasil ; CBS Evening News ; Chicago Tribune ; "Ktvinews@Foxtv. Com" ; Mary DeLach-Leonard ; 48 Hours <48hours@cbsnews.com>; KansasCityStar ; KMOV-TV ; KSDK-TV ; Lake Sun Leader DAILY ; Letters to the Editor ; Letters to the Editor ; Los Angeles Times ; Genral Manager ; Bill McClellan ; 60 Minutes <60m@cbsnews.com>; Southeast Missourian ; MSNBC on the Internet ; My Turn Editor Newsweek ; News Tribune Jefferson City ; Newsweek ; Charles Osgood ; St. Louis Business Journal ; The Joplin Globe Publishing Company ; Letters to the Editor The New York Times ; TheSpringfieldNews-Leader
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2008 3:36:17 PM
Subject: A Declaration of Independence…. War We have no rights in this country, Due Process is a sham for the would be royals

Monday, October 6, 2008

Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
CRice@State.gov

A Declaration of Independence…. War

We have no rights in this country, Due Process of Law is just a group of words, a sham the would be royals, the Black Robed Judges use to pacify the masses.  Anyone's rights to family, to property, to the pursuit of happiness are nothing in the face of a Judge, a Black Robed Royal.  Due process of law is now defined as "the will" of a Judge, a Black Robed Royal.  They need not even be, a real judge, just an aspiring Black Robed Royal will do.  And they have "sovereign immunity", their "will" is law.  The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, the Unalienable RIGHTS asserted throughout our history MEAN NOTHING, in the face of their will !!!!!!!!!!
This is the legacy of the Rehnquist Court.  The “will” of Judges reins supreme.  See the attached official petition requesting a Writ of Certiorari and the U.S. Supreme Court Order regarding the denial of Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 (Page 26).
I have tried to go about this peaceably.  I have tirelessly and peacefully worked at this for 5 years.  In 5 years, I have invested every cent I have; I am homeless and I am penniless.  I have nothing but the blood and death of a warrior left to lay out.  I am not a man given to violence, I truly want to believe in the rule of law, I believe in attempting a peaceful solution.  I have scrupulously worked my way through the court system, I have asked over and over again for my rights, for my son, for my liberty.  I have peaceably at every turn asked for my rights as a father, as a citizen and as a person as prescribed indisputably in our constitution and specifically enumerated in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments.  There can be no question.  Yet those rights are unenforceable with in what is laughingly called a court of law today, the at will discretion of the Black Robed Royals in America today.  In America the Constitution, the Law may openly say we have those rights.  The law clearly says it is criminal for “Whoever” to deny those rights[1], the law even says we have a right to sue “Every person who” denies those rights for damages[2] as a result of the denial, with a specific note in regard to “judicial officers” being included.  But what “We the People” have written into our constitution or into our bill of rights or into our laws means nothing as compared to the will of the sovereigns in black robes.  Our once thought to be unalienable rights are unenforceable; they are not worth the constitutional parchment they are written on.
It is the Black Robed Royals will, not the law that rules America.  The Black Robed Royals can take away your rights to family, to property, to liberty, to life as a result of their will, without Due Process of Law as defined by our constitution and our history.  There is no disputing it, there is no questioning it, we are subject to the “at will” discretion of the Black Robed Royals.  The Supreme Court has now confirmed it by the denial of 07-11115.  And so as our forefathers said before me, I say again:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people 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.
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.[3]
And in the immortal words of Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death."
Since the Supreme Court does not acknowledge the Rule of Law; this is war.  My war is not a holy war, a jihad, my war is a civilized war for the rights our fathers fought and died defending as a part of Our Constitution, Our Bill of Rights and Our Laws in the face of the at will rulings of the Black Robed Royals.  
In an effort to minimize casualties and waste in this war, I propose a hand to hand battle to the death between myself and the Supreme Court.  I am a very fit 52 year old.  I propose to take on the Justices two at time in four bouts with the final and fifth bout being mono a mono between the youngest, the chief justice and myself.  The last man/team standing on the field wins.
There is a large federally owned park across the street from the Federal Court House in St. Louis, I suggest that as our battle ground.  Please confirm a time, I am at your convenience.

What do you say??? 

Thanks in advance,
"Time is of the essence".
David G. Jeep
Dave@DGJeep.com

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Why do Judges have Immunity?

Why do Judges have Immunity?

Judges have immunity as the relic of the Royalist past and the most disgraceful act of disregard of our democratic principles ever perpetrated on the American People, better known as “Sovereign Immunity”. “Sovereign Immunity” is a hold over from the divine right of Kings. Generally speaking it is the doctrine that the sovereign cannot commit a legal wrong because their will is the law on earth and thus they are immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution; hence the saying, the king (or queen) is royal, they can do no wrong.

But I say again, “Why do Judges have Immunity”. Judges are neither royal nor divine nor are they the law on earth per our laws, per our constitution. “We the People” are the law on earth in our Free and Democratic society. We through off the Royals in 1776, for their indefensible assertion of “divine rights” and they had a more credible and historical right to the claim of divinity than any member of a democratically appointed/elected government “of the people, by the people and for the people[1].”

As Thomas Payne put it in Common Sense ".... the Law is King in America. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.[2]” “There ought to be no other” includes the would be royals in black robes, our judges. Judges have a job to do, and they themselves profess on their building "Equal Justice Under the Law". If they disregard "Equal Justice Under the Law" as defined in writing by our “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[3]” they need to be held accountable to the parties injured. If they disregard the written law and rule in favor of their bias and bigotry then they ought to be held accountable to the law and accountable to the injured parties.

It has not always been so. Judges just post Civil War were known to be biased, bigoted and corrupt. President Grant requested and the Post Civil War Congress passed the 1871 Civil Rights Act, now codified into the United States Code as TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS, SUBCHAPTER I – GENERALLY § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights (42USC1983):

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

and TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CHAPTER 13--CIVIL RIGHTS § 241. Conspiracy against rights (18USC241):

“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

to ensure and enable the recently emancipated slaves the where with all to establish their newly granted United States Constitutional guarantee of “Civil Rights” in federal courts. Thus eliminating if you will the prior controlling principle of state’s rights.

Title 42 § 1983 and Title 18 § 241 are Law in the United States of America; there is no disputing that! The Civil Law, Title 42 § 1983, includes “Every person”. The Criminal Law, Title 18 § 241, includes “Whoever”. Neither of the Laws attempts to exclude Judges. Point in fact the Civil Law, Title 42 § 1983, includes specific reference to Judges as potential defendants i.e., “any action brought against a judicial officer”.

I say again, “Why do Judges have Immunity?” Judges have immunity because they snuck it in and they assert that they need it. Our constitution specifically says Judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior[4]”, therefore the constitution assumes their will be bad behavior. Bad behavior for any employee is failure to do your job and/or abide by the law. Immunity for the judges is not a part of the constitution.

Why do the Judges assert they need immunity? Does immunity make the coward brave, NO. Does immunity make the incompetent Judge, competent, NO. Does immunity improve the ordinary honest hard working Judge and make him better, NO. Immunity for the honest conscientious Judge is inconsequential. Immunity is of little or no importance for the judge who is honest and does his best to abide by the law. The law despite all reports to the contrary is a simple thing. If the law were as complicated and as obscure as some would have you believe: it would be useless and unenforceable. I have no intention of breaking the law. I see the need for and believe in the Law. I do not break the law, why do I or any other like-minded citizen need or want immunity, unless it is your intention to break or bend the law.

Again, why would anyone need immunity???? The only ones to benefit from immunity are the corrupt, incompetent, bigoted and biased Judges. Their victims are routinely victimized and left to foot the bill with enormous legal and personal cost. To put it figuratively, the emperor has no clothes but we are expected to see them as clothed. To put it bluntly, their claimed need for immunity is the biggest crock of SHIT, known to mankind.

“Why do Judges have Immunity?”, because they assert it in their judicial rulings, even though it is diametrically opposed to our declared and defended belief that “all men are created equal.[5]” They have the unmitigated gall to assert that they are not to be included in the reference “Every person” and “Whoever” as referenced in the United State Code. It is as if they expect us to believe that “We the People” cannot read what “We the People” have written into law.

Occasional error is unavoidable, like breathing, we all have to make our share of mistakes. But if we are not held accountable for them we become as Judges have Royally promiscuous and indulgent of their own bias and perversions.

Now I am not talking about some unrelated singular act of Judicial denial of our constitutional rights. This is happening to me now personally. I am talking about two whole courthouses full of State of Missouri District Judges and to date two federal judges and three federal appeals court judges, I list thirty Judges specifically as defendants with cause in the original complaint. All of the original defendants have had direct participation in the denial of my Civil Rights with their en banc authority[6]. There was no clear and present danger, no violence alleged or involved in the original judicial court orders that instigated this. The only violence even referenced was conjured up out of nothingness and added to the particulars of the charges during the trial and immediately prior to the judge’s ruling to give it the appearance of credibility. These Judges, these police officers and prosecuting attorney’s have stolen from me. They used a Judges presumed authority to corrupt the system and defile the rights our father and forefather have fought and died to defend.

And I will be up front and unashamedly honest, I want them all to pay both criminally per Title 18 § 241 and per Title 42 § 1983 of the United State Code, THE LAW of the LAND. This has now lasted longer than the Civil War (1861–1865) and longer than World War II (1941-1945), this is the Judicial WAR[7] (2003-2008)!!!!! I feel confident that if the actual time and casualties could be accounted for, it would far exceed if not include EVERY WAR against any tyrant or despot to date.

[1] Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on the afternoon of Thursday, November 19, 1863
[2] Thomas Paine, Common Sense 1776
[3] TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS, SUBCHAPTER I – GENERALLY § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[4] United States Constitution, Article 3, Section 1 Judicial Powers
[5] The Declaration of Independence 1776
[6] See Petition for a writ of certiorari the Supreme Court Docket #07-11115 and United States Federal 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Case Docket #08-1823
[7] Even though I carry no weapons and threaten NO VIOLENCE

Monday, August 11, 2008

Catherine L. Hanaway, United States Attorney / Jay Nixon Governor State of Missouri

Monday, August 11, 2008

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Catherine L. Hanaway, United States Attorney
111 S. 10th Street, 20th Floor
St. Louis, MO 63102

Telephone: 314.539.2200
Fax: 314.539.2309

Re: David G. Jeep v State of Missouri, Case # CR203-1336M
8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals for Missouri as Appeal #08-1823
A repeated request for protection of Civil Rights via prosecution of the US Criminal Code

Dear Ms. Hanaway,
I contacted you on or about Friday, October 20, 2006 in regard to the above referenced issue. This issue has not and will not go away, as long as I have air to breath. Jay Nixon the current Democratic candidate for Governor in the state of Missouri is a party to if not the main criminal conspiracy to cover up the denial of my civil rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.

Civil rights violations by the police and other public officials are not limited to racial discrimination and the excessive or illegal use of force. As the Supreme Court has said several times the prosecutors and the police can be guilty of violating a citizen’s by Deliberate Indifference to said Civil Rights. The supreme court has said additionally that this can be done by fraud, by withholding exculpable material and by being incompetent as a result of a failure to train, supervise and discipline.

In that it is your obligation to defend “We the People(s)” civil rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws per the United States Criminal Code Title 18 Part I, Chapter 19 § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States, Title 18 Part I, Chapter 47 § 1001. Fraud Statements or entries generally, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, § 241-248 Civil Rights and specifically in this case by Title 18 Chapter 79 § 1621 Perjury generally, § 1622 Subornation of perjury, and § 1623 False declarations before grand jury or court. And it is your responsibility to see that this issue is before the courts and available to my fellow citizens for their consideration as regards their vote for Jay Nixon as Governor.

As you know I have been consistently and unrelentingly for the past four years been attempting to get Jay Nixon to recognize the criminal denial of my civil rights. I feel it my duty as a citizen to make you and my fellow citizens aware of this man’s criminal past prior to his election. Mr. Nixon and others are claiming immunity. We do not live in a police state! We live in a free country where “We the People” have unalienable rights. Everyone even the police are equally subject to the law. Immunity is granted to public officials only when and if they are making a good faith effort to do their jobs fairly and professionally. Public Officials do not have the right to act with impunity without regard to the standards of their own profession and the standards for honesty as required by their oath of office and the oath all witnesses take as they testify in court.

I would ask you to investigate based on my fully briefed civil suit currently under consideration by the 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals for Missouri as Appeal# 08-1823 and then prosecute him and the other appellee per United States Criminal Code Title 18 Part I, Chapter 19 § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States, Title 18 Part I, Chapter 47 § 1001. Fraud Statements or entries generally, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, § 241-248 Civil Rights and specifically in this case by Title 18 Chapter 79 § 1621 Perjury generally, § 1622 Subornation of perjury, and § 1623 False declarations before grand jury or court for their criminal activity in this regard.

The evidence as referenced in October of 2006 as proven and described in my civil action as Appeal #08-1823 is irrefutable; they are guilty. You can investigate now and partially redeem your earlier incompetence or you can await the forthcoming public humiliation for your prior bad acts as the evidence makes it way through the courts and the truth be told. The Officers were incompetent to make the original arrest; it was a false arrest. The prosecutors maliciously prosecuted what they new to be an incompetent and false arrest. At the trial the prosecutors allowed the arresting officers to perjure themselves and thus suborned perjury. The Judges involved Judge Bennett, committed false imprisonment and openly denied me due process of law. Judge Colyer sanctioned it all with informed consent of the prior bad acts and his court order denying me a miss trial. Jay Nixon as the chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General of the Sate of Missouri, refused to prosecute the Officers, the Prosecutors and the Judges for their criminal acts and their conspiracy of deliberate indifference to my Civil Rights. Jay Nixon’s refusal to prosecute after 4 years and 10-20 letters and who knows how many phone calls was and is malfeasance in office and the denial of his public obligation and duty as the chief prosecutor of the state of Missouri.

If I can be of assistance providing any of the above referenced briefs or supporting documents, please let me know via e-mail as referenced below.
Thank you in advance.



David G. Jeep

David **G. Jeep

cc: Press Release
file