Source: http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/06/petiton-for-writ-of-certiorari-06-10-13.html
Timestamp: 2019-11-12 21:26:28
Document Index: 533652780

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 241', '§ 1983', '§ 1331', '§ 412', '§ 1254', '§ 2111', '§ 1983', '§ 241', '§ 2', '§ 241', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 242', '§ 241', '§ 1983', '§ 241', '§ 1983', '§ 241']

"The Earth and everything that's in it": Petiton for a Writ of Certiorari 06-10-13, The confirmation bias of absolute immunity, as precedent, has for too long made manifest evil look accepted benign and inevitable.
Petiton for a Writ of Certiorari 06-10-13, The confirmation bias of absolute immunity, as precedent, has for too long made manifest evil look accepted benign and inevitable.
No. PWC 13-5193
Appeal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals: 12-2435
A humble pro se[1] EMERGENCY PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 10.07 years[2] of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
The Government of the United States of America,[3] et al, Defendants/Respondents
· The Supreme Court of the United States of America and The Government of the United States of America (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211 and 07-11115)
· Chief United States District Judge Eastern Missouri 8th Circuit Catherine D. Perry and The Government of the United States of America (8th Circuit Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, 11-2425 and 12-2435),
· Mike Christian (FBI), Lyonel Mrythill (FBI), Dan Bracco (FBI), Robert O'Connor (USMS), Chris Boyce (USMS) and Raymond Meyer (AUSA) and The Government of the United States of America (8th Circuit Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947),
· 8th Circuit US Court of Appeals and The Government of the United States of America (07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425 and 12-2435),
(07-2614, 10-1947, 11-2425 and 12-2435 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals)
(08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, and 12-2435 8th Circuit U.S. Court Appeals)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I am requesting the court to rule on three questions:
1. Is the application for, Judicial Order of, service of, holding for and/or refusal to support and defend the constitution as regards a NOT "facially valid court order"[4] a deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws?[5]
2. Is the 1st Amendment's lawfully un-bridge-able right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" the right to sue the sovereign/government for a justifiable grievance under Article III and the 7th Amendment as timely[6] and explicitly made precedent by Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
"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"?
3. Is a deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws a violation of § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242), the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985) and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil Rights Act of 1964) by "Every person"[7] or "Whoever"[8] is substantively involved as referenced in said statute law?"
LIST OF PARTIES [X] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. I was able to serve only the Solicitor General via First Class Mail due to my impoverished position as supported by the in forma pauperis orders of the United States 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division.
A copy of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Doc#5) and ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Doc#6) both dated April 27, 2012 as regards case 4:12-cv-703-CEJ are attached as referenced in the appendix.
1. Any assertion of a "domestic relations exception"[9] to authorize an unconstitutional "general warrant" is absurd. To say that our constitutional rights are of no use when the primary issues of a person's, life (children), liberty (custody/visitation of children) and property (home and EVERYTHING a person owns) is involved, is just ludicrous. Constitutional rights would then only be of use in the secondary issues of life. Again it is ludicrous to think that constitutional rights are to be so narrowly construed… "the largest latitude consistent with the words employed is uniformly given in construing such statutes and constitutional provisions as are meant to protect and defend and give remedies for their wrongs to all the people.""[10]
2. Any assertion of absolute immunity QUASHES the essence of Rights. The reference to Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003) has no controlling interest because the issue in question was not "a facially valid court order."[11]
A copy of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals JUDGMENT affirming the lower court (Entry ID:3938448, 3 pages) dated August 2, 2012 and ORDER (Entry ID: 3952011) dated August 12, 2012 Case #12-2435 are attached as referenced in the appendix.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under THE RULE OF LAW, USC 28 USC § 1331 - Federal question (The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.) 29 USC § 412 - CIVIL ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS; JURISDICTION and 28 USC § 1254 - Courts of appeals; certiorari; certified questions(acknowledging pro-se 28 U.S.C. § 2111. Harmless error[12]).
The facially[13] understood, reckonable[14] Constitution for the United States of America Article VI Second paragraph, 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, treaties made "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights " (PART II, Article 2, Section 3), Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 and Blackstone's English Common Law (1765–1769) as quoted into Supreme Court precedent by Chief Justice John Marshal in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803).
"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 (the sovereign) is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))[15]
The case in chief, in 2003 (03FC-010670) and 2004 (CR203-1336M) in the State Courts of Missouri I was subjected to a facially[16]invalid court order referencing TWO fraudulent infamous persecutions illegally combined into a facially IN-valid court order"[17] while being denied the most basic elements of Due Process of Law, Probable cause and Exculpable evidence.
The Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035 does not authorize a "general warrant." The sense and reason of the statute obviously limits the scope of any warrant/order to "for good cause shown in the petition" of "an immediate and present danger of abuse to the petitioner." There was none. It was thus NOT a "facially valid court order"[18]
I seek an EMERGENCY ORDER, escalating damages and injunctive relief as detailed herewith.
As a person, a 56 year old NATURAL born citizen of the United States of America all I can do is HUMBLY beg, HELP!!
The facially[19] invalid petition/court order is attached here.
"Reasonable"[20] probable cause is by definition the raison d'être[21]for the jurisdiction of any court order. Without "facially"[22] "reasonable"[23] "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,"[24] a court/government order has no valid jurisdiction. The original court order at the center and inception of this issue, in 2003 did not have "facially"[25] "reasonable"[26] "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,"[27] The original court order at the center and inception of this issue, in 2003, was NOT "a facially valid court order."[28] The issuing Judicial Officer did not have "facially"[29] "reasonable"[30] "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,"[31] for the stated charge[32] it was "taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction."[33] "Reasonable" probable cause is the raison d'être[34] for any court order. The police officers service of a NOT "facially valid court order"[35] has been a deprivation of rights. The Commissioner's order for hearing on Thursday November 20, 2003, of the NOT "facially valid court order"[36] has been a deprivation of rights. The Commissioner's findings, created on the fly, as yet nearly 10 years later still undisclosed for the NOT "facially valid court order"[37] has been a deprivation of rights. Every Court who has to date held for the NOT "facially valid court order" has been a deprivation of rights. Every GOVERNMENTAL step of the process since the original issue of the NOT "facially valid court order," has been a deprivation of rights.
In the 9.58 years since there has never been any mention of "exigent circumstances" nor "good faith" mistakes/remedies nor clerical errors nor has there been any suggestion of "other remedies[38]; the order stands on its own alone as NOT "a facially valid court order" a deprivation of rights.
Now if you could somehow get past the constitutional prohibiotn a "general warrant" with a requirement for REASONABLE probable cause, which you cannot. The 8th Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments" for an alleged misdemeanor traffic violation (later proven a malicious persecution, the result of the perjury and the denial of exculpable evidence) precludes the imposed punishment, the deprivation of my son, my home, my paternity, my liberty my everything…
The civil domestic dispute has been ongoing for 9.58 years it is, as it was for Bivens, "damages or nothing."[39] Since 2003 the Commissioner Jones and the original petitioner Sharon G. Jeep both contradicted their original assertions, although neither took the RESPONSIBILITY necessary for a "Good Faith" exemption!!!
"Most Human rights issues do not come to be recognized until people begin to die."
Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle. I do not care how stringent the standard, if there is absolute immunity for corrupt, malicious or incompetent action against a constitutional right or principle, "it's just words on paper, what our Framers would have called a "parchment guarantee."[40] Judicial independence was never meant to be independence from the facially reckonable reading of a constitutional right or principle.
If you deny this petition you are again putting the rule of corrupt judges in front of the facially reckonable[41] "sense and reason"[42] rule of We the People's Supreme Law of the Land. You have done it before[43] and you probably will again unless We the People rise up in rebellion.
The confirmation bias of absolute immunity, as precedent, has for too long made manifest evil[44] look accepted benign and inevitable.
The petition should be granted to give creditability AGAIN to the facially[45] reckonable[46] rule of the 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.
The Founding Fathers and We the People as represented by BOTH houses of congress in 1866[47] and 1871[48] were not and are not delusional. The Founding Fathers and We the People did not "intended sub silentio to exempt,"[49] under color of law, "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[50] especially those entrusted with judicial,[51] prosecutorial[52] and enforcement[53] power from the federal Constitution's paramount binding authority[54] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice![55] To establish Justice and secure the blessings of liberty via the facially reasonable and reckonable[56] protection of the law is the Constitution's raison d'être.[57] To assert otherwise, as the confirmation bias of Supreme Court precedent currently does, is an incredible,[58] fantastic or delusional scenario.[59]
The confirmation bias of absolute immunity has defeated the will of We the People to "establish Justice" under a "reckonable" "Supreme Law of the Land." "Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility,[60] both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter."[61] "Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people."[62]
1. A copy of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division MEMEORANDUM AND ORDER (Doc#5) and ORDER OF DISSMISSAL (Doc#6) both dated 04/27/12 as regards case 4:12-cv-703-CEJ.
2. A copy of the United States 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Order JUDGMENT (Entry ID:3938448, 3 pages) dated August 2, 2012 and ORDER Entry ID: 3952011) dated August 12, 2012 Case #12-2435
3. A copy of the original ex parte order of protection dated November 3, 2003 this petition.
4. Statement of injunctive relief and escalating DATED spreadsheet breakout for the damages[63] dated Friday June 07, 2013 10:35:19.91 AM
5. A "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" dated Friday, May 24, 2013, notarized
6. Proof of Service Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice dated Monday June 10, 2013 per Supreme Court Rule 29. In that I am quite literally IMPOVERISHED I do not have the funds to copy all listed respondents and I seek exemption based on my 10 year struggle the last five as a homeless and indigent person.
7. I note and acknowledge all prior court records in the State of Missouri District Court, State of Missouri District Appeals Court, Eastern Missouri U.S. District Court, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States Supreme Court AS CONFIRMED IN MY BLOG WWW.DGJEEP.BLOGSPOT.COM.
Respectfully submitted, Monday, June 10, 2013 11:45.45 AM
I seek injunctive relief and damages, noting that criminally[64]offending Judicial Officers were involved, as follows:
1. Injunctive relief to overturn and expunge the DWI Conviction (Case No.:CR203-1336M) and remove all reference of it from my Driving Record and the 33 year old 1978 DWI conviction.[65]
4. A Jury[66] demand for DAMAGES[67]:
· Actual Damages in the amount of:
Sseventy million eight hundred thirty-six thousand dollars and zero cents........................................... $70,836,000.00
· Punitive damages[68] in the amount of:
One hundred forty-one million six hundred seventy-three thousand dollars and zero cents.......................................... $141,673,000.00
· Total[69] in the amount of: two hundred twelve million five hundred nine thousand dollars and zero cents.......................................... $212,509,000.00[70]
5. I would also request that the case Eastern District Court of Missouri Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP be expunged from my record also, WITH PREJUDICE.
6. I am homeless, destitute and unable to pay any filing fee for this JURY DEMAND. Do I have to light myself on fire in the street to get the rights granted by my creator to all men, like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi?[71]
[2] 10.07 years, 3,675 calendar days, 58,806 waking hours, 3,528,384 waking minutes,or 211,703,018 waking seconds, as of Friday June 07, 2013 10:35:19.91 AM
[3] This is not a typo, there was a motion made to correct this caption at the inception of the issue, see the court RECORD. I suing my Government in the respectful form of a petition!!!!!
[4] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[5] § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242), and the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985) and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil Rights Act of 1964)
[6] Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL was involved in the creation and ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America and the Bill of Rights, specifically the 7th Amendment.
[7] 42 USC § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
[8] 18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
[9] Kahn v. Kahn 21 F.3d 859, 861
[10] "It would be most strange and, in civilized law, monstrous were this not the rule of interpretation. As has been again and again decided by your own Supreme Court of the United States, and everywhere else where there is wise judicial interpretation, the largest latitude consistent with the words employed is uniformly given in construing such statutes and constitutional provisions as are meant to protect and defend and give remedies for their wrongs to all the people." Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. App. 68 (1871). Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 348 (1983)
[14] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[15] The oath office requires that if sued in the respectful form of a petition (1st Amendment right to petition), never fail to comply with the judgment of a 7th Amendment civil court.
[17] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[20]The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
[21] "Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 656 (1980)
[23] Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
[24] The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
[26] Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
[27] The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
[28] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[30] Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
[31] The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
[32] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, where he is tasked by statute to "for good cause shown in the petition", issued a warrant without any probable cause. A Judges' power is necessarily limited by the Constitution and statute.
[33] Mireles v. Waco,502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam)
[34] raisons d'etre." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 656 (1980)
[36] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[37] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[38] "the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 354 (1871)
[39] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971) " Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing."
[40] Antonin Scalia "Considering the Role of Judges Under the Constitution of the United States" Wednesday, October 5, 2011, Hart Senate Office Building, Room 216, 2:30 p.m.
[41] "reckonability" Antonin Scalia, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[42] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) "The opinion in these cases proceeds, it seems to me, upon grounds entirely too narrow and artificial. I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.
[43] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)
[44] mass murder Blyew v. United States - 80 U.S. 581 (1871), massacre/pogrom United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), forced sterilization Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) and absolute immunity for any malicious, corrupt or incompetent actions "for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[45] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[46] "reckonability" Antonin Scalia, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[47] 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 (now Now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Whoever" criminally liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law)
[48] The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, enacted April 20, 1871 (now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Every person" civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law).
[49] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[50] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[51] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[52] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
[53] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[54]"There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).
[55] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for 4.75 YEARS!
[56] "reckonability" Antonin Scalia, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[57] "raisons d'etre." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 656 (1980)
[58] Ibid. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[59] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[60] 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."
[61] FEDERALIST No. 39, "The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles" For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, January 16, 1788, James Madison
[62] FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 by Alexander Hamilton
[63] Whistle-Blower Awarded $104 Million by I.R.S., New York Times, September 11, 2012, By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI, Sometimes, crime does pay. If crime pays that well, I would think that my struggle for broad based Civil Rights for all should pay at least if not better than CRIME!!!!
[64] Fraud is still a crime, fraus omnia corrumpit!!!! Not to mention the denial of rights, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 - These statute(s) makes it unlawful for (one or) two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
[65] Alcohol-related driving offenses, expunged from records, when--procedures, effect—limitations 577.054. :
[66] 7th Amendment – "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
[67] As of Friday June 07, 2013 10:35:19.91 AM
[68] As regards Punitive Damages, without punitive damages the federal/state/local electorate may assume the risk. Is that not what the racist did with "Jim Crow." The Racist succeeded with "Jim Crow" because the odds of the risk were on their side with Judicial Immunity attached to their like minded criminal judges. The assumption of RISK has to be deterred by the potential for open ended punitive damages and the 7th Amendment. Let's not let the same thing happen with "Jane Crow," sexual discrimination in Family for the Mother over the Father, as we did with "Jim Crow."
[69] This amount is escalating based on the most recent denial in the 8th Circuit Court of appeals on Tuesday June 14, 2011 12:00.00 AM see attached dated spread sheet for current escalating total dated Wednesday May 22, 2013 01:23.48 PM.
[70] If this is not whistle blowing I do not know what is. This is corruption on a massive scale. Whistle-Blower Awarded $104 Million by I.R.S., New York Times, September 11, 2012, By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI, Sometimes, crime does pay. If crime pays that well, I would think that my struggle for broad based Civil Rights FOR ALL should pay at least if not better than CRIME!!!!
[71] Tarek al-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi (29 March 1984 – 4 January 2011; Arabic: محمد البوعزيزي‎) was a Tunisian street vendor who set himself on fire on 17 December 2010, in protest of the confiscation of his wares and the harassment and humiliation that he reported was inflicted on him by a municipal official and her aides.
Label Number: 70130600000226807909
Shipment Activity--------------------------- Location---------------------- Date & Time
Date of email request: June 11, 2013
Delivered-------------------------- WASHINGTON, DC 20543- June 18, 2013 10:32 am
Available for Pickup------------ WASHINGTON, DC 20543- June 18, 2013 10:18 am
Arrival at Unit--------------------- WASHINGTON, DC 20018- June 18, 2013 10:08 am
Dispatched to Sort Facility---- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155-- June 11, 2013 12:48 pm
Acceptance------------------------ SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155-- June 11, 2013 10:21 am
Posted by DGJeep at 4:30:00 PM
Labels: 4:12-cv-00703-CEJ, CA8 12-2435, Certiorari, PFWC, PWC, Supreme Court
Petiton for a Writ of Certiorari 06-10-13, The con...