The Flaw in America Justice
&
American Journalism
Things are NOT as They Were
Friday, January 20, 2012, 1:19:32 PM
It use to be that "To bereave a man of life, says he or by violence to confiscate his estate, without Due Process of Law would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation!!!!!!!!!!!![1]" At the founding of our country our forefathers had a "love of virtue" as described by Montesquieu, in "De l'Espirit des Lois" (1748) (The Spirit of the Law).
Montesquieu in his The Spirit of the Law defines three main kinds of political systems: republican, monarchical, and despotic. Driving each classification of political system, according to Montesquieu, must be what he calls a "principle". This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior on the part of the citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make it function smoothly. For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics), this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. For monarchies, the spring is the love of honor -- the desire to attain greater rank and privilege. Finally, for despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler. We the People currently have a despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
We the People have lost the "the requisite love of virtue" that is fundamental to "democratic republics." We the People have lost the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. Anything that asserts the interests of the community ahead of private interests is slander by a false association to the failed totalitarianism of Cold War COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our willingness as a species to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests is what elevates above the animals. Animals live exclusively at the whim of nature's Survival of the Fittest.[2]
Additionally and just as critically We the People have lost the separation of powers essential to a healthy democracy. We the People have fallen under the despotic[3] spell of the concentrated power[4] in the Supreme Court that sanctions "malicious or corrupt" judges,[5] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [6] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[7] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[8]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [9] acting under color of law.
Things are NOT as they were. In the 18th Century during revolutionary times American Justice & American Journalism were courageous. They fought and died for the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Things are NOT as they were; revolutionary American Justice & American Journalism would never have stood still for "so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation" as they do today with "malicious or corrupt" judges,[10] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [11] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[12] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[13]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [14] acting under color of law..
Men[15] are bereaved of their children, their life, their liberty, and their property, without DUE PROCESS of LAW,[16] all the time in the courthouses of America. I mean just look at our prisons. "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners. We currently incarcerate 756 inmates per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the average worldwide of 158 for every 100,000.[17]" And it is considered tooo inexpedient[18] to give an innocent person unconstitutionally, illegally and wrongfully convicted of an infamous crime any hope of petitioning "the Government for a redress of grievances." Justice has to Expediency is not an acceptable excuse when it comes to right and wrong, if you give in to expediency in such an issue you will expediently condemn yourself. Who ever said the right way had to be the easy way, the expedient way. Why would we even take the time to write down as absolute law a Bill of rights, a Constitution if it was not our intent to have "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[19]
The incorporated acts of the government, its Judiciary and "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[20] are considered "of so high a nature, that for their sublimity they import verity in themselves; and none shall be received to aver any thing against the record."[21] The Current despotic Supreme Court interpretation gives everyone immunity from civil and criminal liability -- everyone but the innocent victim of the corruption, malice, dishonesty and incompetence. I have to question that?
Did not We the People of the United States fight a revolutionary war to throw off the incorporated acts of the King, his chief justice, his officials, or any of his servants that asserted themselves to be "of so high a nature, that for their sublimity they import verity in themselves; and none shall be received to aver any thing against the record."[22]
Did not We the People of the United States say in our preamble:
"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."[23]
Did not We the People of the United States incorporate our selves into a government and bind all authorized under color of law to abide by:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."[24]
Did not We the People's of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, First Amendment guarantee:
"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Yet, NO one is alarmed, our journalist do not even care, point in fact they prefer the sensationalized yellow Journalism's FEAR MONGERING as opposed the seeming banality of the love of virtue. Few people are thus even aware men, in the Jane Crow era[25] and the Plea Bargain/Nixonian era of FEAR MONGERING persons are bereaved of their children, their life, their liberty, and their property, without Due Process of Law all the TIME! As the result of the Black Robed Royalist Judiciary's "unlawful conspiracy."[26] The Black Robed Royalist Judiciary's Immunity is "before out of Court"[27] an "unlawful Conspiracy"[28] "extrajudicial"[29] self-serving ministerial[30] rule. There is NO constitutional[31] or statutory[32] law authorizing immunity, at the highest levels of the United States of America's Executive (prosecutorial) and Justice (judicial) Departments, to deprive We the People the protection of constitutionally secured Due Process of Law. Immunity "before out of Court," [33] as handed out in the American Justice System, like halloween candy, [34] in purpose and in effect unlawfully covers-up "false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he/she knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty."[35] That is based on the common law precedent of Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) that supposedly authorized immunity at its American inception (Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)).
A thief steals your belongings in the dark of night with a gun you have the protection of the law. A Judge steals your life, liberty, family and property in the broad light of day with a gavel via the denial of DUE PROCESS of LAW it is ALSO a crime. Yet, you have no redress, The Supreme Court has made a rule and declared "absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process."[36] We reward guilty persons for the deprivation of their rights with The Exclusionary Rule. But "The Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant in an innocent person's case. It is Damages or nothing."[37]
You only have rights if you have money e.g., "Ladies and gentlemen," he told jurors, "We have taken about a week out of your life. We expended a lot of your taxpayers money to reach this point. Unfortunately there are rules we play by and those rules are designed to insure that both parties receive a fair trial."[38] That was the recent ruling in the Roger Clemens perjury trial. They would not even prosecute a clear cases of perjury on my behalf, much less play by the rules designed to insure that both parties receive a fair trial"[39] and grant a miss trial based on the jury being mislead by blatantly and undeniably FALSE testimony. In my case, I proved post conviction that the testimony was false, that the falsification of the testimony was only possible because the prosecutors had denied me exculpable[40] evidence in spite of my pretrial motion for said evidence.
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void."[41]
This should be "Of great importance to the public is the preservation of this personal liberty; for if once it were left in the power of any the highest magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper, there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities. Some have thought that unjust attacks, even upon life or property, at the arbitrary will of the magistrate, are less dangerous to the commonwealth than such as are made upon the personal liberty of the subject. To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government." [42]
Not in America today, in the Jane Crow[43] era and the Plea Bargain/Nixonian era of FEAR MONGERING era you can be charged with a series of infamous crimes, the more the better, and held; there need be no probable cause, no consideration for police credibility. The Police can falsify evidence and perjure themselves without consequence. Every person in our incorporated government is ABSOLUTELY immune, the prosecutors, the police, and Judicial Officers… all those integral in the judicial process, have absolute immunity, they can take away your life, your liberty, your family, and your home without any regard for veracity, justice or Due Process of Law. Then they can deny you any opportunity to be heard "before out of Court," [44] with their criminal unconstitutional "unlawful Conspiracy" [45] assertion of judicial ministerial[46] rules/law[47] and absolute immunity. The police, the prosecutors, the judges and other conspirators can knowingly deny exculpable evidence and present false evidence. They can bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial. Yet none knows are cares because it is before out of court and it is the word an assumed infamous criminal against the Judges, the Police and all those that were integral in the judicial process.
The press refuses to entertain even the possibility of "so gross and notorious an act of despotism." There is not chance to convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole." It is as if one were held in confinement, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, And because of the Press's apathy it is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government."!!!!!!!
"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." I say it NOW, 2011!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1967. [48] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it in 1871[49].
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[50]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice and
"fraud upon the court."
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[51]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[52] justice between the government and the people, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson (3/29/11) and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98!!!
The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people. We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America" e.g., To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process, The Exclusionary Rule, Grounds for Impeachment, Jeep v Obama, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947, Jeep v Jones "The most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115."
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Friday, January 20, 2012, 1:19:32 PM, 2012 01-18-12 - 2011 07-13-11 Things are NOT as they were REV 03
[1] Blackstone's Commentaries (1765-1769), Vol. 1, p. 136 and The Federalist No. 84 (1788) by Alexander Hamilton
[2] Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 – 8 December 1903) was an English philosopher, biologist, sociologist, and prominent classical liberal political theorist of the Victorian era. Spencer is best known for coining the concept "survival of the fittest", which he did in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species.
[3] Montesquieu in his "De l'Espirit des Lois" (1748) (The Spirit of the Law) defines three main kinds of political systems: republican, monarchical, and despotic. Driving each classification of political system, according to Montesquieu, must be what he calls a "principle". This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior on the part of the citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make it function smoothly. For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics), this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. For monarchies, the spring is the love of honor -- the desire to attain greater rank and privilege. Finally, for despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler. We the People have currently despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
[4] "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton, John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston: Beacon Press, p. 364
[5] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[6] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[7] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[8] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[9] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[10] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[11] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[12] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[13] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[14] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[15] In the Jane Crow era's version of the public lynching, the ex parte order of protection, men have NO RIGHTS in domestic/family law disputes. "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." "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
[16] Due Process of Law in criminal court is a sham in the plea bargain era with empowerment and sanctioning of "malicious or corrupt" judges, the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent ) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" acting under color of law
[17] "Why We Must Fix Our Prisons", By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009, U.S. Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: February 29, 2008, Our Real Prison Problem. Why are we so worried about Gitmo? Newsweek by Dahlia Lithwick Published June 5, 2009
[18] Judge Learned Hand's apathetic corrupt assertion says it best, "As is so often the case, the answer must be found in a balance between the evils inevitable in either alternative. In this instance it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation." Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F. 2d 579, 581 (2d Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 949 (1950). Expediency is not an acceptable excuse when it comes to right and wrong, if you give in to expediency in such an issue you will expediently condemn yourself. Why would we even take the time to write down a Constitution as absolute law if it was not our intent to the have "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"
[21] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) This is the conclusion of the precedent with EXCEPTIONS noted. Third logical argument end of the paragraph, the noted EXCEPTION, "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." (emphasis and underlining added)
[22] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) This is the conclusion of the precedent with EXCEPTIONS noted.
[23] Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America
[24] Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph
[25] the Jane Crow Era (where a woman's rights in domestic disputes are unequally empowered over a man's) where men are pilloried everyday with the Ex parte Order of protection.
[26] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) Third logical argument end of the paragraph, the noted EXCEPTION, "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." (emphasis and underlining added)
[27] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[28] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[29] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[30] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law. For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[31] 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."
You some how want to argue that "the grant of Nobility" was about something other than the NOBLE Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility? That would undermine Free-Enterprise.
There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than the NOBLE Status of IMMUNITY - being above the law? Did Nat King Cole violate the constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and the Colonial era, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[32] Point in fact the statues Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 & Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 make "Whoever" criminally and "Every person" civilly liable for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" There was NEVER a sub silentio intent to exempt "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." Why would even have attempted to write it down as the Supreme Law of the Law if EVER we were intent upon awarding those acting under color of law IMMUNITY from that very same law. Thurgood Marshall in Briscoe v LaHue said it "approaches the incredible." I say IT IS INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!
[33] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[34] The SUPREME COURT has abused, their non-existent, authority to make law by the grant of absolute immunity for the conspiracy for the deprivation of rights i.e., first in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) followed by Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 1967 (JUDGES), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (PROSECUTORS), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 365 (1978) (Judge criminally ordered forced non-consensual uninformed sterilization of a healthy, mind and body, minor child) and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (POLICE and ALLEGED victims i.e., immunity from perjury) "absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process."
[35] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[36] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (POLICE and ALLEGED victims i.e., immunity from perjury) "absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process."
[37] "Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing." Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U. S. 410 (1971)
[38] U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton in the Roger Clemens federal perjury trial abruptly declared a mistrial on the second day of testimony after the government inadvertently allowed the jury to hear statements from a U.S. congressman questioning the credibility of one of the key witnesses against the former All-Star baseball pitcher. Online, Los Angeles Times, By Richard A. Serrano, July 14, 2011, 9:01 a.m.
[40] "Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Pp.8 86-88. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)
[41] Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #78 "The Judiciary Department," Saturday, June 14, 1788
[42] The great English jurist, Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), argued in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1753) that one of the key "absolute rights of individuals" was the right to the preservation of one's personal liberty. Following from this principle he further argued that it was "a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government" to "secretly hurry" a man to jail where he might suffer unknown or forgotten by the people: © 2011 Online Library of Liberty (emphasis and underling added)
[43] ."The Jane Crow era" "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, By John Maguire, "Hitting below the belt" 10/25/99, 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.
[44] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[45] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) the noted exception
[46] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law. For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[47] Per the RULE of precedent Kahn v. Kahn (21 F.3d 859) and Federal RULE of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) excludes before out of Court any attempt to get the protection of the 14th Amendment
[49] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[50] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[51] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour"
[52] Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
