Thursday, March 10, 2011

President Barack Hussein Obama, et al – CONSIDER YOURSELF SERVED by Registered mail 2/23/11


President Barack Hussein Obama                         Chief Justice John G. Roberts
The White House                                                      Supreme Court of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.                          One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20500-0001                                Washington, DC 20543-0001

Revised and extended Thursday, March 10, 2011

Re: Jeep v. Obama, et al – CONSIDER YOURSELF SERVED by Registered mail 2/23/11
       A formal petition in the Supreme Court of the United States of America

Dear Barrack and John,
You apparently did not take me seriously in my prior communications addressed as above, dated Thursday, January 13, 2011, Re: Jeep v. Obama, et al.  I am DEAD serious the EVIDENCE of your corruption is on line and has been downloaded to remote and unimpeachable sources.
There are several cases on the current Supreme Court Docket that deal with the First Amendment’s right for a redress of grievances i.e., Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (No. 10-98) “USA Patriot Act”, Kentucky v. King (No. 09-1272) “Searches” and Connick v. Thompson (09-571) “DUE PROCESS”
This is CORRUPTION on a massive scale at the VERY HIGHEST level of ministerial power in this government of “We the People.”  You have forgotten your reason for being is in support of “government of the people, by the people, for the people” not in support of yours and others unconstitutional corrupt ministerial power.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., “Absolute Immunity,” Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph  "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility."
The Constitution thus denies a constitutionally or congressionally authorized “public Ministers”[1] from creating a rule or law “abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
Immunity ministerially granted by “public Ministers” for “public Ministers” is repugnant to the Constitution, the concept of the rule of law and the essence of civilized society, the protection of the laws. 
“When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial and prosecutorial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the federal executive (prosecutorial) (Article II, § 1) and judicial (Article III, § 2) power extends, and, so extending, the Court and the Executive has all the authority appropriate to its exercise”[2] (emphasis, non-italic and parenthetical text added for clarity).
The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, originally established the right of redress:
“If we, our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.”
  Do I have to light myself on fire like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi to get your attention in the land of the free and home of the brave?  It would be Free Speech[3] and I have the paperwork to prove I am competent.[4]  “We the People” have inviolable and inalienable rights in this country.  People who reject or deny those natural rights as sovereign are the insane ones.  Just ask former despot Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak of Egypt.
You say you do not want to open up another can of worms for litigation abuse e.g., “medical malpractice litigation.”  Yes malpractice litigation has a cost, but the expense is no more than 2%-3%[5] of the current health care cost estimates.  Our medical malpractice litigation has done its job in creating and maintaining the BEST medical care available and at 2%-3% it does not add to the cost appreciably!  Malpractice is not driving the 10% +/- yearly increases that create the current healthcare issues today.
I remember having to pay upwards of $20,000 per year per Ironworker, working on the ground,[6] making less than $70,000 per year. As a percentage that is 29%. I do not think Doctors are claiming they have to pay 29% of their income as INSURANCE.  Insurance and or risk is an unavoidable cost of being alive.  And I know for a FACT Doctors and Ironworkers are not only surviving but THRIVING!
“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. (Page 386 U. S. 566)
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, (1869) L.R. 5 Q.B. 94, 110 (1869) (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting).” [7]
Ministerially created Immunity is repugnant to the rule of law, the Constitution as the supreme legem terrae (law of the land) and the essence of civilized society!!!!!!

I have literally nothing left to lose.

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

Thank you in advance.
“Time is of the essence”


Revised and extended Thursday, March 10, 2011


David G. Jeep

cc: a select group of e-mail favorites
      file

enclosure
      A petition In the Supreme Court of the United States of America


In the Supreme Court of the
United States of America
Revised and extended Thursday, March 10, 2011

David G. Jeep,          Plaintiff,
            vs.
President Barack Hussein Obama, et al

Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, The Supreme Court

United States of America,

Chief United States District Judge Eastern Missouri 8th Circuit Catherine D. Perry (8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947),

Mike Christian (FBI),  Lyonel Mrythill (FBI), Chris Boyce (USMS), Dan Bracco (FBI), Robert O’Connor (USMS) and Raymond Meyer (AUSA),

US Supreme Court (Writ of Certiorari 07-11115) , Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

8th District US Court of Appeals (07-2614 & 08-1823),

Carol E. Jackson, US District Court Judge, 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al (07-2614),
Scott O. Wright, Senior US District Judge, 4:07-cv-00506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al (08-1823),

Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr., Sharon G. Jeep (ex), Joseph A. Goeke , Robert S. Cohen , Michael T. Jamison , Emmett M. O’Brien , Steven H. Goldman , Barbara W. Wallace , James R. Hartenbach , John A. Ross , Michael D. Burton , Larry L. Kendrick , Richard C. Bresnahan , Melvyn W. Wiesman , Maura B. McShane , Colleen Dolan , Mark D. Seigel , Barbara Ann Crancer , Mary Bruntrager Schroeder , Brenda Stith Loftin , Dale W. Hood , Thea A. Sherry , Gloria Clark Reno , John R. Essner , Ellen Levy Siwak , Patrick Clifford , Bernhardt C. Drumm , Dennis N. Smith , Judy Preddy Draper , Sandra  Farragut-Hemphill , Douglas R. Beach , John F. Kintz , Gary M. Gaertner , Phillip E. Jones , Carolyn C. Whittington , Tom W. DePriest , David Lee Vincent,  St. Louis County and State of Missouri (4:07-CV-1116 CEJ),

Jack A. Bennett, Associate Circuit Judge, Devin M. Ledom, Asst. Prosecuting Attorney, Alex Little, Officer Badge #920, Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913, W. Steven Rives, Prosecuting Attorney, W. James Icenogle, Prosecuting Attorney, Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge, Jay Nixon Attorney General, Governor Mathew Blunt, City of Osage Beach, Camden County, and State of Missouri (4:07-cv-00506-SOW),

Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)



















Case No                                       _ 

Appeal:                                         _




A Cause of Action, Jurisdictional Statement and Pleading for the “Protection of the Laws”


1.         I am filing this as a cause of action for original Jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of The United States of America against The United States of America Government in the person of its “public Ministers” [8] at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive[9] and Justice[10] Departments.  This is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional “unlawful Conspiracy” [11] “out of Court”[12] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.” [13]  The Justice Department, The Supreme Court, The President (prosecutorial power) have NO POWER to ministerially grant themselves or others “Absolute Immunity.”[14]  This involves the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, as an individual and as a public Minister of the United States of America  Government, yourselves, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, the Supreme Court of the United States of America, as individuals and as public Ministers of the United States of America Government,”[15] and others listed defendants.  The pleading, the jurisdictional statement, the issue is in opposition to the ministerial policy, “Absolute Immunity,” adopted, supported and executed at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive[16] and Justice Departments; “Absolute Immunity” is REPUGNANT to the Constitution and Statute Law as the supreme legem terrae (law of the land). [17]
2.         I assert that Immunity is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the Rule of Law by definition.  “We the People” i.e., government of the people, by the people, for the people have established the Rule of Law, the Constitution, as the supreme legem terrae (law of the land).  Immunity for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”[18] denies “We the People” “the protection of the laws,”[19] “the essence of civilization.”[20]  “Absolute Immunity” a ministerial policy adopted, supported and enforced at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive[21] and Justice Departments is repugnant to Rule of Law, the Constitution and statute law, Civil[22] and Criminal.[23]  I petition the President of the United States of America as the executive[24] in charge  and yourselves, The Supreme Court as the highest judicial ministerial levels of the FEDERAL, STATE and Local Government of the United State of America...  “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”[25] and “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court”[26] of the United States of America, as government “public Ministers” [27] for a redress of grievances as assured by the First Amendment, criminal and civil statute law.
3.         Immunity, as ministerially created and applied without constitutional or statute law authorization, is repugnant to both the constitution and statute law.
4.         I am petitioning for the protection of the laws. 
5.         I have been to the Missouri State Court, The Missouri State Court of Appeals, United States Eastern Missouri 8th District Court, 8th United States Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, Attorney General and the President of the United States of America and been denied.[28] 
6.         I am now petitioning the President of the United States of America as the Executive in charge of the Justice Department’s enforcement and or protection of the laws as the responsible party for the enforcement and yourselves as the Supreme Court Judiciary as the responsible party for the judicial enforcement and or protection of the laws. Both the Executive and the Supreme Court share responsibility to “We the People” for the protection of the laws.
7.         I seek the protection of the laws.  More specifically I seek the protection of the laws as defined by my 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment RIGHTS as Constitutionally the supreme legem terrae (law of the land).  Additionally I seek the protection of the laws with Civil and Criminal statute Laws, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights and Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Criminal Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. 
8.         I site Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 Page 5 U. S. 163 “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.”
9.         I have been denied the protection of the laws because of “Absolute Immunity”[29] as currently held as a ministerial policy adopted at the highest levels of the Executive and Justice Departments. I have been denied the protection of the laws via agents (local Police, State or Missouri Highway Patrol, FBI,[30] and USMS), the courts (Local, State, Federal, Appeals (Federal and State) and Supreme Court of the United States of America) and the Executive (State of Missouri (Governor and Attorney General) United States of America (President and Attorney General)) in numerous prior petitions, complaints, pleadings, correspondence, appeals and motions on file online (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/) with this court and others. (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America "Opposed to Immunity" currently on file and in the Supreme Court clerk's office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. 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/).
10.    “Absolute Immunity” ministerially granted for “public Ministers” [31] is repugnant to the Constitution.  There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility, “Absolute Immunity,” Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph  "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility."
11.    These issues arise from a series of 2003 incidents, “unlawful Conspiracy,”[32] where the Plaintiff, David G. Jeep was held, in court, to answer on two infamous charges, “false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court,”[33] without any probable cause, much less proof of any wrong doing.  The facts[34] of the issues are a matter of court record and are not in dispute.
12.    They unconstitutionally and illegally took my son, my home, my EVERYTHING.  Because of absolute immunity I have had NO REDRESS to the protection of the laws.  “Absolute Immunity” is a policy adopted at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive[35] and Justice Departments of the United States of America.  I have endured over 7 ½ years (2,667 days +/-) of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[36] (where I was humiliated with the denial of the most basic of liberties - regularly and repeatedly subjected to strip searches), two psychological examinations, and 3 ½ years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America.
13.    These originating ministerial actions in 2003 were unconstitutional and unauthorized by any statute law.  These ministerial actions were and ARE criminal.  The actions denied the plaintiff the protection of the laws i.e., they violated the plaintiff’s 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment Rights as secured by the Constitution for the United States of America, Civil (Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights) and Criminal (Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Criminal Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) laws.[37]
14.    I am herewith making formal application, seeking redress for my grievances, the originating actions in 2003 and the subsequent “unlawful Conspiracy” [38] “out of Court”[39] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions,” [40] in chronological order, the Magna Carta § 61 (1215)[41], Floyd and Barker (1607),[42] First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America (1789),[43] Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights[44] (1877) and Justice William O. Douglas’s dissent in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Page 386 U. S. 565.[45]
15.    I seek damages  and injunctive relief, noting that offending Judicial Officers were involved, as follows:
I.          Injunctive relief to overturn and expunge the DWI Conviction (Case # ,     CR203-1336M) and remove all reference of it from my Driving Record and the 33 year old 1978 DWI conviction.[46] 
II.         Injunctive relief to overturn all orders of protection between Sharon G. Jeep and David G. Jeep and remove all record of them (Case No.: 03FC-10670M).
III.       Injunctive relief to overturn the subsequent and coupled Property and Custody Order (Case No.: 03FC-12243) currently in effect between David G. Jeep and Sharon G. Jeep as regards the joint marital property as of November 3, 2003 and the custody of the Minor Child Patrick Brandon Jeep (DOB 12/22/94) and remand it to a new judge for resettlement based on this ruling.
IV.     Actual Damages in the amount of:
     Fifty Million Dollars and No Cents-----------------------        $50,000,000.00
V.      Punitive damages. In the amount of:      
     One Hundred Million Dollars and No Cents--------------        $100,000,000.00
16.    I am homeless, destitute and unable to pay any filing fee for this complaint.
17.    I have nothing but postage to mail this petition.  I have holes in the seat of my one pair of pants, holes in the soles of my one pair of shoes and nothing but food stamps to eat.  Do I have to light myself on fire in the street to get your attention, like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi? 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Thursday, March 10, 2011
Signature of Plaintiff(s)

                             Revised and extended Thursday, March 10, 2011

_____________________________________
                                   David G. Jeep

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

E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228


[1] Article III. Section. 2. 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America, America “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Article III. Section. 2.1 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties”
[2] I could not have said it better myself. Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932) Page 287 U. S. 397-398 Emphasis, Underlining and Non italic text added for clarity
[3] I have to laugh at myself for even considering it but Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that Free Speech cannot be limited under the First Amendment.
[4] I have had TWO psychological examines, at the government’s expense attesting to my competency. See Eastern District Court of Missouri Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP
[5] “Total health care cost $1.9 trillion in 2005” CBO TESTIMONY Statement of Peter R. Orszag Director Growth in Health Care Costs before the Committee on the Budget United States Senate January 31, 2008 - “According to Towers Perrin, a global professional services firm, malpractice litigation costs $30 billion a year and has grown at more than 10% annually since 1975.” August 6, 2009, “The High Cost of Medical Malpractice” By Diana Furchtgott-Roth ($30 billion / $1.9 trillion = 2%) “Medical Malpractice System Breeds More Waste” By DAVID LEONHARDT, New York Times, September 22, 2009 “Health Care Wastefulness Is Detailed in Studies”, By KEVIN SACK, New York Times, September 7, 2010
[6] It should be noted that an ironwork working rebar, on the ground pays a higher rate than an ironworker working the high structural steel, 20 stories up.  Yes Construction companies complain but it is a cost of business.
[7] Justice William O. Douglas’s dissent in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Page 386 U. S. 565
[8] Article III. Section. 2. 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America, America “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Article III. Section. 2.1 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties”
[9] Article. II. Constitution for the United States of America, Article. II. Section. 3.1 “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
[10] Article III. Section. 2. 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America, America “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Article III. Section. 2.1 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties”
[11] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) “Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy.” (“The argument that the actions of public officials must not be subjected to judicial scrutiny because to do so would have an inhibiting effect on their work is but a more sophisticated manner of saying "The King can do no wrong." (Historically, judicial immunity was a corollary to that theory. Since the King could do no wrong, the judges, his delegates for dispensing justice, "ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed corruption [for this tends] to the slander of the justice of the King." Floyd & Barker, 12 Co.Rep. 23, 25, 77 Eng.Rep. 1305, 1307 (Star Chamber 1607). Because the judges were the personal delegates of the King, they should be answerable to him alone. @ 74 U. S. 536 and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Footnote 2/5)
[14] “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
[15] Article III. Section. 2. 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America, America “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Article III. Section. 2.1 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties”
[16] , Article. II. Section. 3.1 “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
[17] Article. VI., 2nd paragraph This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States… shall be the supreme legem terrae (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.
[19] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 Page 5 U. S. 163
[20] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 Page 5 U. S. 163
[21] Article. II. Section. 3.1 “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
[24]Article. II. Section. 3.1 “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
[25] Article II., Section. 1. Paragraph 1 Constitution for the United States of America, Article. II. Section. 3.1 “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
[26] Article III., Section. 1. Paragraph 1 Constitution for the United States of America
[27] Article III. Section. 2. 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America, America “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Article III. Section. 2.1 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties”
[28] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America "Opposed to Immunity" currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk's office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. 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/).
[29][29] “Immunity is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the Rule of Law” and it is a policy adopted at the highest levels of the Executive and Justice Departments.
[30] The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the lead agency for the investigation of Civil Rights Abuses. 
[31] Article III. Section. 2. 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America, America “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Article III. Section. 2.1 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties”
[35] Article. II. Section. 3.1 “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
[38] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) “Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy.”
[41] The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, established the right of redress:
“If we, our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.”
[42] “but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy.”
[43] Amendment I, Congress shall make no law… prohibiting… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[44] Every person who… subjects…, 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…
[45] “The argument that the actions of public officials must not be subjected to judicial scrutiny because to do so would have an inhibiting effect on their work is but a more sophisticated manner of saying "The King can do no wrong." (Historically, judicial immunity was a corollary to that theory. Since the King could do no wrong, the judges, his delegates for dispensing justice, "ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed corruption [for this tends] to the slander of the justice of the King." Floyd & Barker, 12 Co.Rep. 23, 25, 77 Eng.Rep. 1305, 1307 (Star Chamber 1607). Because the judges were the personal delegates of the King, they should be answerable to him alone. . @ 74 U. S. 536 and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Footnote 2/5)
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. (Page 386 U. S. 566)
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 (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting).
[46] Alcohol-related driving offenses, expunged from records, when--procedures, effect--limitations
577.054. 1. After a period of not less than ten years, an individual who has pleaded guilty or has been convicted for a first alcohol-related driving offense which is a misdemeanor or a county or city ordinance violation and which is not a conviction for driving a commercial motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and who since such date has not been convicted of any other alcohol-related driving offense may apply to the court in which he or she pled guilty or was sentenced for an order to expunge from all official records all recordations of his or her arrest, plea, trial or conviction.




Label/Receipt Number: 0310 2640 0001 4442 2904
Expected Delivery Date: February 25, 2011
Class: Priority Mail®
Service(s): Delivery Confirmation™
Status: Delivered

Your item was delivered at 4:13 am on March 02, 2011 in WASHINGTON, DC 20500.

  • Delivered, March 02, 2011, 4:13 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20500
  • Notice Left (No Authorized Recipient Available), March 01, 2011, 10:42 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20500
  • Sorting Complete, March 01, 2011, 10:25 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20022
  • Arrival at Unit, March 01, 2011, 10:00 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20022
  • Processed through Sort Facility, February 23, 2011, 9:05 pm, HAZELWOOD, MO 63042
  • Acceptance, February 23, 2011, 3:36 pm, SAINT LOUIS, MO 63108










Label/Receipt Number: 0310 2640 0001 4442 2898
Expected Delivery Date: February 25, 2011
Class: Priority Mail®
Service(s): Delivery Confirmation™
Status: Delivered

Your item was delivered at 11:16 am on March 01, 2011 in WASHINGTON, DC 20543.

  • Delivered, March 01, 2011, 11:16 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20543
  • Notice Left (No Authorized Recipient Available), March 01, 2011, 10:33 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20543
  • Sorting Complete, March 01, 2011, 10:25 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20022
  • Arrival at Unit, March 01, 2011, 10:22 am, WASHINGTON, DC 20022
  • Processed through Sort Facility, February 23, 2011, 9:00 pm, HAZELWOOD, MO 63042
  • Acceptance, February 23, 2011, 3:36 pm, SAINT LOUIS, MO 63108

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, March 4, 2011

The Disposable Woman, Charlie Sheen’s History Of Violence Toward Women

-->

Op-Ed Contributor New York Times
By ANNA HOLMES
Published: March 3, 2011
Jezebel Mar 2, 2011

I am against violence of any sort.    There are two things you have to keep in mind regarding Charlie Sheen's public image.  I do not know the man and can not comment on him personally.
First addiction is a mental affliction.  It is not like cancer in that addiction can be and HAS to be SELF-cured.  Ask any addiction counselor and the first thing they will confirm is the ADDICT has to WANT TO BE CURED and second they have to believe that they have the power to control their addition.  As long as the addict is ambivalent towards their addiction and or believes they are powerless, they remain addicted.  Addiction is not about drugs or sex or any of the common excuse society likes to use.  Addiction is a mental affliction.  You can be addicted to anything from benign as TV to self mutilation.  Addiction is an individually specific escape that the individual uses to distort they perceptions or reality. 
They do not want to deal with their lives as others/society defines them, so they bury their heads in TV, Drugs, Sex, Alcohol, self-mutilation.  You can be addicted to anything.  Once you get past the first to steps SELF-CURE steps you have to come back to the common ground, the norm of society, and RE-learn how to deal with others and society.  There are no absolutes in this world we are all just trying to figure out the best individual paths for ourselves as we go.  Everybody is struggling, whether you are on top of the heap, the bottom of the pile or the bottom of a bottle. 
Secondly, we live in the Jane Crow era; The "Jane Crow" Era, "It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house."
A fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."  "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08

Thanks in advance,

"Time is of the essence"
DGJeep 

http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
Thanks in advance,
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep
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, MO63103-2316

On a separate note, I would contend that we do not have any individual rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of rights and “To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process”; but that is another story.

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

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process


To Kill a Mocking Bird,
The Denial of
Due Process
Revised Friday, March 04, 2011, Originally Posted Fri, July 9, 2010 10:33:12 AM
The 50th anniversary of the publication of Harper Lee’s, “To Kill a Mockingbird” was Sunday July 11, 2010.  I have to ask, have we lived up to its meaning, to its hope?  We made it unfashionable to be a racist.  We eliminated most of the Jim Crow discrimination, yes.  But have we gone far enough?

 Would there have been or is there today a crime in the corrupt and malicious arrest, prosecution, trial and conviction of the fictional character Tom Robinson?  Tom Robinson was a black crippled man with the audacity to feel sorry for a white woman.  What did he do wrong?

 Sheriff Tate, did not want to see Tom Robinson convicted, but he had to arrest him, RIGHT?  The Prosecutor, Mr. Gilmer just wanted to win his case.  He was just prosecuting the evidence, RIGHT?  Judge Taylor asked Atticus to represent and defend Tom Robinson; he was trying to provide a fair process, RIGHT?

 WRONG!!!

 The arrest, the persecution, the trial and the conviction of the fictional character Tom Robinson would have been a CRIMINAL denial of Due Process of Law[1], not that anyone would be prosecuted either then or now.  Our Public Minister’s, the Supreme Court, the Justice Department, and the Executive Department have awarded themselves “absolute immunity.”

 Admittedly racism has become untenable in today’s America.  But racism is only one of the symptoms of the malice, the corruption and the incompetence that would have convicted the fictional character Tom Robinson.  Atticus issues a challenge of a sort to Scout, his daughter, and Jem, his son.  I quote:

“I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand.  It's when you know you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what.  You rarely win, but sometimes you do.”  ~Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird, Chapter 11, spoken by the character Atticus

 Do we have the courage to take on the malice, corruption and incompetence that still infect our Justice system today? 

The Sheriff, The Prosecutor, The Judge, The Executive Department, and The Justice Department all know better, I paraphrase slightly but I quote:
They are "representatives not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, they are in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. They may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed, they should do so. But, while they may strike hard blows, they are not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much their duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction, as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the state, will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they should properly carry none" [2] (bolding and underlining added for clarity).

The fictional character Tom Robinson was denied fair Due Process of Law[3].  They got away with it in the past and continue to get away with it in the present and will in the future because the police, the prosecutors and the Judges have immunity they have no responsibility for their official actions. 

None of us has the protection of the law as envisioned by our founding fathers.  We are at the discretion of the police, the prosecutors and the Judges.  We have relinquished our inalienable rights in favor of the police’s, the prosecutors’ and especially the Judges’ impunity.

 The Police don’t have to investigate the crimes they arrest people for.  The Police don’t even need to know the technical aspects of the crimes.  They can just point a finger and lie on the witness stand[4] to convict their innocent victims.  They have immunity.

 The Prosecutors have no professional responsibility to verify the evidence they present.  They have no professional responsibility to provide exculpable evidence[5] that might prove the innocence of their victims.  They have immunity.

You would think that Judges as the presiding authority would have some responsibility?  Judges have absolutely no responsibility for the credibility of “Due Process” of law.  A Judge can knowingly sign a malicious, corrupt or incompetent warrant[6] and he or she is absolutely immune.  The 4th Amendment’s protection “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” is unenforceable and completely at any Judges’ discretion.  Once a Judge signs it or lets an issue go to a jury it is all covered by HIS trickle down absolute immunity.  No one can be held accountable.  A Judge can let it all go to hell in a hand basket and a Judge and EVERYONE under their authority has impunity.  They have ABSOLUTE impunity[7].

 The victims of the malice, corruption and / or incompetence, at their own expense, are forced against long odds to pursue vindication in an appeal process that is just as UNJUST and corrupt.  An appeal process that is both more expensive and more time consuming for the slim possibility for a dubious vindication in a name clearing hearing, there is no redress for cost or damages.

 So where do we go for Justice?  There is no justice in Our Justice system.  The Supreme Court has affirmed it:
“This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly” (Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) @ page 349), (Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ page 554) and (Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)).
and
“In such cases, 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.” (non-italic and parenthetical text added for clarity) (United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) , Page 106 U. S. 219) (Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) @ 403 US 394-395)

 Our police, prosecutors and judges are just doing their jobs, RIGHT?  The police, the prosecutors and the judges have no regret or culpability, RIGHT?  Their job has nothing to do with Justice, their job is to arrest, persecute and adjudge so as to instill fear of the Law, RIGHT?  Fear is more important than Justice, RIGHT?  We must all live in FEAR of the potential arrest, prosecution and conviction, without regard to our rights, the protection of the law or the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process, RIGHT?  Abject assiduous fear is a requirement for a civilized society, RIGHT? 

WRONG!!!

 The police, the prosecutors, the judges and the entire Executive and Justice Departments of the United States of America’s JOB is not to intimidate nor threaten, nor instill fear. Their job is Justice!!!  It is best expressed best by the protection of IV Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects… shall not be violated.” 

It is the job of the Justice and Executive Departments to see that neither those acting under color of law or those acting outside the law violate this security.

Constitutionally “We the People” have RIGHTS!!!  Ninety-five percent (95%) of the people[8] have done nothing wrong and NEVER will.  We need to base our Government policies on the Majority, not the MINORITY!

“Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy . . . but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.” ~Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

 Too many mockingbirds have been destroyed at the hands of our self-admitted malicious, corrupt and incompetent Justice Department. 

We HAVE RIGHTS in this country!!!!!!!!!!!!  We the People surrender NOTHING.  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice… and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[9] "  The establishment of Justice under the Constitution and Laws of “We the People” is the responsibility of our employees, the police, the prosecutors, the Judges and our President[10].  We need to hold them liable per the 1st Amendment “Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress[11] of grievances[12].

 “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,” THE PROTECTION OF LAWS.  Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 (1803) Page 5 U. S. 163. 

Not currently in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, we have NO freedom; we have NO courage.  But yet, I am an idiot, I still have the audacity of HOPE.

David G. Jeep

cc:  President Barack Hussein Obama
       Justice Sonia Sotomayor
       Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General of the United States
       Solicitor General of the United States
       e-mailed to a select group of favorites
       file (Revised Friday, March 04, 2011, Originally Posted Fri, July 9, 2010 10:33:12 AM)

On a separate note, I would contend that we do not have any individual rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of rights; but that is another story.

DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: David G. Jeep 

To: Barack Obama ; Barack Obama ; Claire Mccaskill ; David Plouffe ; "David Jeep Dave@dgjeep" ; Eric H. Holder Jr. ; Joe Biden ; Joe Biden ; Kit Bond ; Office of the Solicitor General ; President Barack Hussein Obama ; Raymond M. Meyer ; "Robert O'Connor" ; 48 Hours <48hours@cbsnews.com>; Alan Dershowitz ; Amnesty International USA Midwest Office ; Amnesty International USA ; Anthony D. Romero ACLU ; Ari B. Bloomekatz ; Bill McClellan ; Bob Woodward ; Camilla Cavendish ; Caroline Fredrickson ACLU ; Carolyn Tuft ; CBS Evening News ; Chicago Tribune ; Chris Fusco ; CHRISTINE CHRISTINE BYERS ; Christopher Beam ; Daniel Politi Politi ; David Savage ; David G. Jeep ; Editor TomPaine.com ; editor@californiachronicle.com; Eidtor American Chronical ; Federal City ; FeedBack Human Rights First ; Genral Manager ; Irene Haskins ; J Mannies ; James Janega ; Jason Rosenbaum ; Jeff Coen ; Jeremy Kohler ; Joe Mahr ; John Kass ; KansasCityStar ; KMOV-TV ; "Ktvinews@Foxtv. Com" ; Lake Sun Leader DAILY ; Laura Meckler ; Letters to the Editor The New York Times ; Letters to the Editor ; Letters to the Editor ; Los Angeles Times ; Mary DeLach-Leonard ; McClatchy Newspapers News TIP ; Mike Wallace <60m@cbsnews.com>; Mike Christian at 314-280-5222 FBI Report ; MSNBC on the Internet ; My Turn Editor Newsweek ; News Tip BBC ; News Tip CNN ; News Tribune Jefferson City ; Newsweek ; "Patrick M. O'Connell" ; Peace Economy News ; Pete Bland ; PressRelease politico.com ; Robert Patrick ; Sky News ; Slate Magazine ; Southeast Missourian ; St. Louis Business Journal ; St. Louis Justice and Shares ; Staff Caught.net ; STEPHEN STEPHEN DEERE ; Steve Chapman ; Sunday Morning CBS ; Tami Abdollah ; The Editors ; The Joplin Globe Publishing Company ; TheSpringfieldNews-Leader 

Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 10:33:12 AM
Subject: To Kill a Mocking Bird,





[2] Due Process of Law as described in Berger v. United States 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
[3] The Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment XIV No State shall make or enforce any law which shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law & Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 241 Conspiracy against rights & 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law
[4] See Case 08-1823 Dismissed by the United States of America 8th Circuit Court of appeals
[5] See Case 08-1823 Dismissed by the United States of America 8th Circuit Court of appeals
[6] “Jim Crow” may be unfashionable, but “Jane Crow” discrimination, the preference for a woman’s maternal rights over a man’s paternal rights in Family Law reigns supreme.  See also Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 to the Supreme Court
[7] See Cases 08-1823 and 07-2614 Dismissed by the United States of America 8th Circuit Court of appeals
[8] Criminals amount to 5% of the population
[9] Preamble to the United States Constitution, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #84
[10] United States of America Constitution Article 2. § 3 “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
[11] n. ree-dres,   re·dress ri-dres; v. ri-dres –noun   1.compensation or satisfaction for a wrong or injury.
[12] griev·ance (grē'vəns) –noun 1.The cause of hardship or harm.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)