Monday, July 21, 2014

WRIT OF CERTIORARI "How[7] did strict scrutiny[8] for inalienable reckonable[9] rights[10] ever result[11] in anything less than STRICT LIABILITY?[12]"

No.                                                        
Eastern Missouri U.S. District Court Case No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS
A humble pro se[1] EMERGENCY[2] PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 11.17 years[3] of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
________________________________________________________________
PETITIONER FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
David G. Jeep and heir Petitioners
v.
RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
The Government of the United States of America, et al, Defendants/Respondents
·         The Government of the United State of America
·         US Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and The Government of the United States of America (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193,and 13-7030)
·         8th District US Court of Appeals and The Government of the United States of America (07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435, and 13-2200),
·         Rodney W. Sippel, US District Court Judge and The Government of the United States of America, 4:13-cv-2490-RWS
·         E. Richard Webber, US District Court Judge and The Government of the United States of America, 4:13-cv-0360-ERW
·         President Barack Hussein Obama, His Justice Department and The Government of the United States of America
·         US Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and The Government of the United States of America (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211)
·         Chief United States District Judge Eastern Missouri 8th Circuit Catherine D. Perry and The Government of the United States of America (8th District 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 District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947),
·         US Supreme Court, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts and The Government of the United States of America (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115)
·         Carol E. Jackson, US District Court Judge and The Government of the United States of America, 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al and Jeep v. Government of the United States of America 4:12-cv-703-CEJ (07-2614 and 12-2435),
·         Charles A. Shaw, Senior US District Judge and The Government of the United States of America, Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM Jeep v. United States of America, et al & 4:11-cv-00931-CAS Jeep v. Obama(10-1947 & 11-2425), [4]
·         Scott O. Wright, Senior US District Judge and The Government of the United States of America, 4:07-cv-0506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al (08-1823),
·         Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr., Sharon G. Jeep (ex-wife), Kristen M. Capps (ex-stepdaughter), Joseph A. Goeke, Robert S. Cohen, Michael T. Jamison, Emmett M. O'Brien, Steven H. Goldman, Barbara W. Wallace (Presiding Judge in 2003), 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, 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243),
·         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, State of Missouri, Camden County, and City of Osage Beach (4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M), [5]
All Defendants/Respondents are included and asserted liable, as Government actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors
Defendants/Respondents
________________________________________________________________
(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)PETITION
                                                                
IN THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DIVISION 65
Commissioner Phillip Jones, Presiding (03FC-010670)
(07-2614, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435, 13-2200 and 14-1470 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals)
and
IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION
The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge (CR203-1336M)
(08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435, 13-2200 and 14-1470 8th U.S. Circuit Court Appeals) [6]


________________________________________________________________
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED:
                                                                
1. How[7] did strict scrutiny[8] for inalienable reckonable[9] rights[10] ever result[11] in anything less than STRICT LIABILITY?[12]
2. How can "We the People" "establish Justice," as secured by the Constitution for the United States of America, with the "sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid"[13] despotic[14] Black Robed Royalist Judiciary's unconstitutional self-serving ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY (both criminal[15] and civil[16]) for the deprivation of inalienable constitutional rights constructed[17] as an "excess of power"[18] e.g.:
"malicious or corrupt" judges(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) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)),[19] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)), [20] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),[21] the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[22] actions[23] of federal, state, local, and regional legislators (Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138)[24] and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[25] actions of "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),[26]
to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION[27] of inalienable constitutional rights under color of law?
________________________________________________________________
LIST OF PARTIES [X]
                                                                
All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.
________________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
                                                                
Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.
________________________________________________________________
OPINIONS BELOW
                                                                
 [X] For cases from federal courts:
The opinion of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division and United States Eighth Circuit Court of appeals are included, listed in the appendix with the petition, and are unpublished.

________________________________________________________________
JURISDICTION
                                                                
[X] For cases from federal courts:
The appellate jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under THE RULE OF LAW and 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[28] that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties).
________________________________________________________________
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED:
                                                                
Constitutional and statutory provisions involved step by step chronologically so "a four-year-old" [29] can understand it:
a. The Star Chamber's authority was "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void" for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for "absolute immunity" in Star Chamber, thus SQUASHING the precedent Floyd and Barker (1607) in the Star Chamber 1641, 227 years before judicial sophistry[31] irresponsibly used it, Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 539 (1868),[32] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 564 (1967), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), the originating sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
2.    "The Commentaries on the Laws of England," 1765–1769, the influential 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone that establishes the state of the COMMON LAW prior to the America Revolution:
a. "it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded." third volume of his Commentaries, page 23.
b. "Thus, for instance, allegiance is usually, and therefore most easily, considered as the duty of the people, and protection as the duty of the magistrate; and yet they are, reciprocally, the rights as well as duties of each other. Allegiance is the right of the magistrate, and protection the right of the people."[33]
c. "For the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature; but which could no be preserved in peace without that mutual assistance and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals. Such rights as are social and relative result from, and are posterior to, the formation of states and societies: so that to maintain and regulate these, is clearly a subsequent consideration. And therefore the principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple"
3.    Constitution for the United States of America, Article I, Section 9 & 10 There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity," Article 1, Section 9, § 7: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, § 1: "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility.
a. Additionally I cite Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 as further timely clarification of the supreme law of the land:
       (i.)   "Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility (i.e., absolute immunity). 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."
b. You somehow want to argue that "the grant of Nobility" was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility?  That would undermine Free-Enterprise.
c. Anyone that wants to assert "the prohibition of titles of nobility' was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute immunity of the nobility, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.
d. There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as 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 then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!  
4.    Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, § 2:
a. "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. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
5.    Constitution for the United States of America, Article IV, Section 4, § 1:
a. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."
6.    Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI § 2:
a. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
7.    1st Amendment to the United States Constitution:
a. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
8.    4th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
a. "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."
9.    5th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
a. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
10.  7th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
a. "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 reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
11.  8th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
a. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
12.  13th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
a. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
b. "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
13.  14th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
a. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
b. "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
14.  "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792, 27 March 1792
a. "Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
b. "Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause."
c. "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals as that which the term particularly expresses."
d. "If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments."
e. Clearly James Madison the 4th President of the United states and arguably the FATHER of the Constitution clearly believed that rights had to be considered as property under Due Process of Law.
15.  "The very (organic) essence of civil liberty (Common Law) 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..." (emphasis, underlining and parenthetical text added Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))   
16.  The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 § 2 now codified as 18 USC §241 - §242[34] Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law indisputably fell under "such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make"[35]:"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
17.  Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 539 (1868) was a sophisticated[36] judicial timely[37] subterfuge to assert CRIMINAL ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY based on the fraudulent[38] premise of Floyd and Barker (1607), from a court abolished for cause, abuse of said absolute immunity.  Additionally Randall was a professional dispute between a judge and an attorney regarding the judges's administration of his court; it should never have been generalized to abolish inalienable constitutional rights.  To allow that to take precedence would be to require that all persons be required to maintain the elevated professional decorum of a courtroom all the time.
18.  The Civil Rights Act of 1871 signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871 now codified as 42 USC §1983 - §1985[39] Civil action for deprivation of rights indisputably fell under "such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make"[40]: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia."
19.  Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871) ) was a sophisticated[41] judicial timely[42] subterfuge to assert CIVIL ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY based on the fraudulent[43] premise of Floyd and Barker (1607), from a court abolished for cause, abuse of said absolute immunity.  Additionally Bradley and Randall were BOTH based on a professional dispute between a judge and an attorney regarding the judges's administration of his court; it should never have been generalized to abolish inalienable constitutional rights.  To allow that to take precedence would be to require that all persons be required to maintain the elevated professional decorum of a courtroom all the time.
20.  The following are all voided by the irrefutable fraud[44] in the assertion of "absolute immunity" as precedent from a court, "The Star Chamber" that was ABOLISHED for the abuse of "absolutely immune" power.
a. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967)
c. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) "the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor", [46]
d. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)[47] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"
e. Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138)[48] the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[49] actions[50] of federal, state, local, and regional legislators
f. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983))Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 564 (1967), the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[51] actions of "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process"
g. Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 where liability for rights was reduced from what should have been Strict Liability to somewhere less than respondeat superior liability.  
Not only were they based on the fraudulent[52] assertion of Floyd and Barker (1607) they were all sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid as regards the NULLIFICATION of inalienable constitutional rights, the constitution's raisons d'etre.  
21.  Treaties made "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"[53] (PART II, Article 2, Section 3. (a):
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a)  To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;  
22.  Due Process of Law MUST exist upon a procedure that is not arbitrary nor inventive, but which is formal, foreseeable and legally ordained.  
________________________________________________________________
The Statement of Case
                                                                
I am going to try to explain step by step chronologically so "a four-year-old" [54] can understand it.
Since the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1974, feminist have been, EVER INCREASINGLY in the Jane Crow era, asserting Women's "victimhood" at the expense of Men's rights in legal disputes.
George F. Will recently asserted "victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate." [55] His frame of reference for the coveted status of victimhood was limited to college campus rape, a difficult infamous crime[56] as a starting point to say the least.  On College Campuses I would at least assert the Duke Lacrosse team's[57] experience.  And although on College Campus it might be more obscure, in the EVERYDAY world of divorce and domestic dispute it is omnipresent.  Its unacknowledged omnipresence proves Martin Luther King's assertion "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" is true.
With the coveted status of victimhood in the Jane Crow era, "It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman (with the coveted status of victimhood) is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an ex parte 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."[58]
And for the victim of the "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" deprivation of DUE PROCESS it becomes a fait accompli,
"A man against whom a frivolous ex parte 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 (PTSD). 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." 
On Monday November 03, 2003 at approximately 08:00 PM the petitioner was served a NOT "facially valid court order,"[59] a frivolous ex parte order of protection.  The effect was no less than DEVASTING, it took the petitioner's son, his home, his most treasured possessions and sent his life into a severe, PTSD generated, detachment from reality that to this day, 11 years later, still haunts him.  He was then kept at a distance from his son, his possessions, EVERYTHING he cared about in the world[60] during a disputed divorce where his adversary, the respondents Sharon G. Jeep and Kristen Capps[61] had been empowered by EVERYTHIG that had been taken from him
The warrant, an ex parte order of protection, included the sworn petition that formed the judicial basis for the Judicial Act.  The petition signed and dated by the respondent, Sharon G. Jeep listed a BONDED misdemeanor traffic violation as the asserted "probable cause."
The issuing sincerely ignorant and/or conscientiously stupid Judicial officer, Judge Joseph A. Goeke III, obliviously did not read the petition or did not care what "subject matter" [62] the statute mandated i.e., "for good cause shown in the petition… An immediate and present danger of domestic violence."[63]  The warrant/Order that included the respondent's, Sharon G. Jeep's hand written petition was not a "facially valid court order."[64] 
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III clearly had no "subject matter" [65] jurisdiction for the statute's stated "subject matter,"[66] "An immediate and present danger of domestic violence."[67]
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III had no personal jurisdiction, in that the issue, the alleged misdemeanor traffic violation, was already under the bonded[68] personal jurisdiction of another judge, Associate Circuit Judge Jack A. Bennett of 26th District of Missouri.
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III had no geographic jurisdiction, in that Judge Joseph A. Goeke III was a part of the 21st District of Missouri in St. Louis County some 170 miles away from the site of the alleged BONDED misdemeanor traffic violation and Associate Circuit Judge Jack A. Bennett in the 26th District of Missouri, Osage Beach, Camden County Missouri.
Thus Judge Joseph A. Goeke III had no "subject matter" jurisdiction, he could not assert personal jurisdiction and he had no geographic jurisdiction for the bonded alleged misdemeanor traffic violation. 
Judge Joseph A. Goeke's III JUDICIAL ACTION WAS TAKEN IN "a complete absence of all jurisdictions."[69] 
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III on Monday November 3, 2003 deprived the petitioner of his constitutional 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights and put the petitioner into an emotional and financial depression that he has yet to recover from..
Sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity cannot excuse paid professionals relied on to be competent for their task. 
The facially INVALID nature of this warrant should have been "reckonable" [70] to anyone that read it who was not sincerely ignorant or conscientiously stupid.  Now I fully admit the Supreme Court likes to obscure as much law as possible to make it un-reckonable[71] thus insuring its continued existence.
The police, the Family Commissioner[72] (Philip E. Jones, Sr.), the presiding judge of the 21st District Court (Barbara W. Wallace), the family commissioner's employers (21st District Court of Missouri, en banc) the State Appeals Court, The Federal District Court, the Federal Circuit court, the FBI, the USMS, AUSA and the United States Supreme Court are all professionals and thus should be able to determine facially valid "reckonable"[73] "subject matter" jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and geographic jurisdiction at a glance.  Thus:
Ø  the original order of,
Ø  the original service of,
Ø  the original hearing for,
Ø  and all the subsequent findings in favor of
the unwarrantable, unconstitutional and NOT "facially valid court order"[74] were taken in "a complete absence of all jurisdictions."[75] 
Additionally all findings on appeal in favor of the NOT "facially valid court order," [76] after being made aware of the constitutional issues, were, are and have been felonious,[77] if not treasonous, violations of their oath of office "to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic"[78] that ALL federal officers and Article III Judicial Officers are bound by.[79] 
________________________________________________________________
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
                                                                
Blanket absolute immunity is diametrically opposed to establishment of justice in a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
________________________________________________________________
Conclusion
________________________________________________________________
The petition should be granted to give creditability AGAIN to the reckonable[80] rule of the Supreme Law of the Land.
The Founding Fathers and We the People as represented by BOTH houses of congress in 1866 and 1871[81] were not and are not delusional.  The Founding Fathers and We the People did NOT,
I repeat, DID NOT,
"intended sub silentio to exempt"[82] under color of law "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[83] especially those entrusted with judicial,[84] prosecutorial[85] and enforcement[86] power from the federal Constitution's paramount binding authority[87] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice![88]
     Clearly Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 and § 2 Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified into the US Code, 18 USC §241 - §242[89] and as 42 USC §1983 - §1985,[90] indisputably fell under "such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make"[91]  And any precedent originating in 1607 in a subsequently discredited court[92] proves but one thing "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.[93]
     One last argument, I just read "MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, dissenting (Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 430 (1971)).  I quote him here:
"I, too, dissent. I do so largely for the reasons expressed in Chief Judge Lumbard's thoughtful and scholarly opinion for the Court of Appeals. But I also feel that the judicial legislation, which the Court by its opinion today concededly is effectuating, opens the door for another avalanche of new federal cases. Whenever a suspect imagines, or chooses to assert, that a Fourth Amendment right has been violated, he will now immediately sue the federal officer in federal court. This will tend to stultify proper law enforcement, and to make the day's labor for the honest and conscientious officer even more onerous and more critical. Why the Court moves in this direction at this time of our history, I do not know. The Fourth Amendment was adopted in 1791, and, in all the intervening years, neither the Congress nor the Court has seen fit to take this step. I had thought that, for the truly aggrieved person, other quite adequate remedies have always been available. If not, it is the Congress, and not this Court, that should act."
     The "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" [94] of the arrogance in the dissent is so thick I can barely stand it.  First I object to the arrogant premise that the Judiciary was legislating, in 1971, creating a new "cause of action" for a constitutional violation.  The congress with the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871[95] clearly, for "Whoever" and "Every person" acting "under color of law" had done that 100 years earlier. 
     The UNMITIGATED superciliousness of MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN in begging the question with an assertion that there will now be "an avalanche of new federal cases" is quite literally unbelievable.  First there was not "an avalanche of new federal cases" in 1972 or later as a result.  But secondly and MORE REVEALINGLY he assumes that there could be "an avalanche of new federal cases."  MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN clearly to his own personal and argumentative shame asserts there are possible violations galore out there that could provide probable cause for "an avalanche of new federal cases."  
     Who do we believe those that assert we need a causes of action for the deprivation of rights per the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871[96] or the ones that assert there are too many causes of action to deal with i.e., "an avalanche of new federal cases?"
Either way a REMEDEY is beyond the scope of his assertion "quite adequate remedies have always been available" because they ARE NOT AVAILABLE! And CONGRESS has already acted with the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871.[97]  Only those to blind by their "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" [98] cannot see that a cause of action was always the constitution's raisons d'etre.
I quote Blackstone via Chief Justice John Marshall[99] "it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded."
________________________________________________________________
Appendix
________________________________________________________________
1. A humble pro se[100] EMERGENCY[101] PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 11.17 years[102] of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (18 pages) dated Monday, July 21, 2014, notarized.
2. A copy of the original ex parte NOT "facially valid court order" [103] of protection dated November 3, 2003.
3. A copy of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division MEMORANDUM AND ORDER and ORDER OF DISMISSAL both dated January 14, 2104 as regards case 4:13-cv-2490-RWS.
4. A copy of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division MEMORANDUM AND ORDER and ORDER OF DISMISSAL, regarding motion for reconsideration, both dated February 3, 2104 as regards case 4:13-cv-2490-RWS.
5. A copy of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals JUDGMENT (Entry ID:4161625, 1 pages) dated June 5, 2014,
6. A copy of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Order denying rehearing en banc and rehearing by the panel dated July 8, 2014 (Entry ID 4171714)
7. A copy of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals MANDATE dated July 15, 2014 (Entry ID: 4175174)
8. Statement of injunctive relief and escalating spreadsheet breakout for the damages[104] dated Tuesday July 15 2014 12:58 PM, "THE "EXCLUSIONARY RULE"[105] IS SIMPLY IRRELEVANT… IT IS DAMAGES OR NOTHING."[106].
9. Spreadsheet breakout for the damages[107] dated Tuesday July 15 2014 12:58
10.  A "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" dated Monday, July 21, 2014, notarized
11.  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 and as confirmed in my blog www.DGJeep.blogspot.com.


Relief:
I seek declaratory and injunctive relief, noting that criminally offending Judicial Officers were involved, as follows:
A. Injunctive/declaratory 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[108] DWI conviction.[109]
B. Injunctive/declaratory 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). [110]
C. Injunctive/declaratory 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 then Minor Child Patrick Brandon Jeep (DOB 12/22/94) and remand it to a new judge for resettlement based on this ruling.
D. Injunctive/declaratory relief to expunge from my record, WITH PREJUDICE, Eastern District Court of Missouri Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP.
E. As I originally stated in 2007, I am homeless, destitute and unable to pay any filing fee for this JURY DEMAND.




Money Damages:

A Jury[111] demand for escalating DAMAGES:
Ø  Actual Damages in the amount of:
Eighty-three million three hundred forty-four thousand  dollars and zero cents--------------------------------- $83,344,000.00 [112]
Ø  Punitive damages in the amount of:
One hundred sixty-six million six hundred ninety-one thousand  dollars and zero cents-------------------------    $166,691,000.00 [113]
Ø  Total [114] 
Two hundred fifty million thirty-five thousand dollars and zero cents---------------------------------------- $250,035,000.00 [115]


Current Status:

The deprivation is ongoing in this 11+ year struggle and the damages, stated as an escalating amount reflect this.  Yes my son who was 8 years old when this started on the Tuesday, November 3, 2003 (Judge Goeke's unconstitutional warrant), Patrick is about to turn 20 on December 22, 2014, I have lost his irretrievable childhood.  The Pain and suffering has not abated and NEVER WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

________________________________________________________________

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, Monday, July 21, 2014 09:26.26 AM
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.  
          
David G. Jeep
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO  63155-9999
(314) 514-5228

The plaintiff is homeless and without the will to go on because of this issue AND SEEKS EMERGENCY RELIEF!!!!



[1] Because I am a humble non-legal professional and I have been impoverished by this criminal issue I cite the potential for Harmless error - 28 USC § 2111, "On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties."  The inherent unconstitutional denial of justice based on the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, "sincere ignorance," "conscientious stupidity" and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983), "the common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process," makes a professionally prepared petition and or appeal untenable to the average victim.  Most are not only impoverished by the injustice, but also in jail behind bars.  With 5% of the world's population our POLICE STATE now incarcerates 25% of the world's prisoners.
If I may have not been humble enough or ignorantly or inadvertently not utilized the correct humble enough method and/or legal Latin jargon in making my prior petitions (see 8th Circuit court of Appeals prior Filings in 13-2200, 12-2435, 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614) e.g., a writ of habeas corpus, a writ of audita querela, a writ of coram nobis, a writ of error, a writ of praemunire, a writ of supersedeas, a writ of recurso de amparo or etc., it is as result of my impoverishment via the unconstitutional denial of rights.
[2] After 6.70 years homeless, I have little prospects for survival!!!!!!!!!!
[3] Start Saturday May 17, 2003 01:00 AM as of Tuesday July 15 2014 12:58 PM
[4] The link to this issue is un-severable.  Proof of its sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity is available for the asking 
[5] The link to this issue is un-severable.  Proof of its sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity is available for the asking 
[6] The link to this issue is un-severable.  Proof of its sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity is available for the asking 
[7] "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice." (The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS" To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)
[8] United States v. Carolene Products (1938), Korematsu v. United States (1944), and Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)
[9] "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)
[10] Due Process of Law under the 5th and 14th amendments
[11] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971) In a civil issue "the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant…, it is damages or nothing."
[12] "As our precedent makes clear, proving that a municipality itself actually caused a constitutional violation by failing to train the offending employee presents "difficult problems of proof," and we must adhere to a "stringent standard of fault," lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.12 Bryan County, 520 U. S., at 406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392." Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson, Certiorari to the Supreme Court, No. 09–571. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 29, 2011
"The essence of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected, and any individual who is denied by a common carrier, under authority of the state, a facility or convenience which is furnished to another under substantially the same circumstances may properly complain that his constitutional privilege has been invaded." McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914)
[13] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[14] 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!!!!!!!!!!
[15] Civil Rights Act of 1866 (18 USC §241-§242)
[16] Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC §1983-§1985)
[17] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[18] James Madison (1751–1836), the 4th President of the United States (1809 – 1817), often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," in his essay "Property" for the National Gazette March 27, 1792
[19] 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.
[20] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[22] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[23] The recent Government Shut Down comes to mind, but the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court had already handed our legislators absolute immunity for their legislative actions, Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997). 
[24] Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138
[25] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption.  Martin Luther King said it better, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963). 
As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series").  The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[26] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[27] "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 the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.
[28] 28 USC § 2111. Harmless error, On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
[29] Attorney Joe Miller REPEATED ASSERTION (Denzel Washington in "Philadelphia"): Now, explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old.
[30] Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber"[30] July 5, 1641, statute law in the realm of England, or dominion of Wales, that "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void" for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for "absolute immunity" in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871) supra Star Chamber Floyd and Barker 1607.
·    Article I "An act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber." "WHEREAS by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land:…
·    § 9 of "but the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments than by any law is warranted"
·    Article III "Be it ordained and enacted by the authority of this present parliament, That the said court commonly called the star-chamber, and all jurisdiction, power and authority belonging unto, or exercised in the same court, or by any the judges, officers, or ministers thereof, be from the first day of August in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred forty and one, clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away and determined"
·    § 3 "every article, clause and sentence in them, and every of them, by which any jurisdiction, power or authority is given, limited or appointed unto the said court commonly called the star-chamber, or unto all or any the judges, officers or ministers thereof, or for any proceedings to be had or made in the said court, or for any matter or thing to be drawn into question, examined or determined there, shall for so much as concerneth the said court of star-chamber, and the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void."
The Act explicitly disbands the court for cause, "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void" all prior precedent of the said court and judges. 
[31] "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice." (The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS" To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)
[32] It should be noted that both Randall v. Brigham and Bradley v. Fisher were both the result of contrived ministerial courtroom issues, between a judge and lawyer, not necessarily related to the General Rule of Law for all persons.  Much like an umpire and or the league office can throw a manger out of the game or band him for life for the good of the game BUT are not be able to outside the game take the person's life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  
[33] "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (1765-1769), BOOK 1, CHAPTER 1 "Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals" by Sir William Blackstone
[34] § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27. (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866.  An excerpt from his remarks attached to his veto "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without invading the immunities of… the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order." "It is, therefore, assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment, for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose." See also BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460 U. S. 359 (1983)
[35] Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, § 2
[36] "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice." (The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS" To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)
[37] The, then, recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866made it a crime for a judicial officer to deny constitutional rights. 
[38] Fraus omnia corrumpit "Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[39] Originally enacted as The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 USC §1983 - §1985). The author of § 1 clearly stated the relationship between the two Acts in introducing the 1871 measure:
"My first inquiry is as to the warrant which we have for enacting such a section as this [§ 1 of the 1871 Act]. The model for it will be found in the second section of the act of April 9, 1866, known as the 'civil rights act.' That section provides a criminal proceeding in identically the same case as this one provides a civil remedy for, except that the deprivation under color of State law must, under the civil rights act, have been on account of race, color, or former slavery. This section of the bill, on the same state of facts, not only provides a civil remedy for persons whose former condition may have been that of slaves, but also to all people where, under color of State law, they or any of them may be deprived of rights to which they are entitled under the Constitution by reason and virtue of their national citizenship." BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460 U. S. 357 (1983)
[40] Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, § 2
[41] "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice." (The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS" To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)
[42] The, then, recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1871 made "Every person" i.e., that included a judicial officer, civilly liable for the deprivation of constitutional rights. 
[43] Fraus omnia corrumpit "Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[44] Fraus omnia corrumpit "Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[45] 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.
[46] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[48] Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138
[49] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[50] The recent Government Shut Down comes to mind, but the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court had already handed our legislators absolute immunity for their legislative actions, Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997). 
[51] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption.  Martin Luther King said it better, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963). 
As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series").  The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[52] Fraus omnia corrumpit "Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[53] By the Constitution (art. 2, § 2) … the treaty must contain the whole contract between the parties, and the power of the Senate is limited to a ratification of such terms as have already been agreed upon between the President, acting for the United States, and the commissioners of the other contracting power. The Senate has no right to ratify the treaty and introduce new terms into it, which shall be obligatory upon the other power, although it may refuse its ratification, or make such ratification conditional upon the adoption of amendments to the treaty. (emphasis added) The Diamond Rings, 183 U.S. 176, 183-85 (1901).
The Senate's power under Article II extends only to the making of reservations…. (emphasis added) See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, … Igartua-De La Rosa v. U.S., 417 F.3d 145, 190-91 (1st Cir. 2005).
[54] Attorney Joe Miller REPEATED ASSERTION (Denzel Washington in "Philadelphia"): Now, explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old.
[55] "Colleges become the victims of progressivism" Washington Post, By George F. Will, Published: June 6, 2014 and "Colleges mad with political correctness over campus rapes" New York Post By George F. Will, June 7, 2014
[56] The 5th Amendment farsightedly addresses "infamous crimes" and tries to abate their misuse in persecuting innocents.
[57] The Duke lacrosse case was a 2006 criminal case resulting from what proved to be a false accusation of rape made against three members of the men's lacrosse team at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, United States. The fallout from the case's resolution led to, among other things, the disbarment of lead prosecutor Mike Nifong.
[58]  "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.comThe Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08. 
[59] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte restraining order.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge.  "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003). 
[60] A condition that REALLY has not changed in 11 years!!!!!!!!!!!!
[61] To make the issue clear, the Petitioner's Step Daughter a 21 year old college drop out, had been asked to move out in the spring of 2003. She fell on her face financially and had to ask to move back in.  She was able by the fraudulent assertions in court to get the Petitioner thrown out of his house.
[62] Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 356 NOTED exception Footnote 6 - "A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter.  Where there is clearly no jurisdiction over the subject matter, any authority exercised is a usurped authority, and, for the exercise of such authority when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible." Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 351 (1871)"The Court of Appeals correctly recognized that the necessary inquiry in determining whether a defendant judge is immune from suit is whether, at the time he took the challenged action, he had jurisdiction over the subject matter before him."
[63] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035 – "Upon the filing of a verified petition pursuant to sections 455.010 to 455.085 and for good cause shown in the petition, the court may immediately issue an ex parte order of protection. An immediate and present danger of domestic violence to the petitioner or the child on whose behalf the petition is filed shall constitute good cause for purposes of this section. An ex parte order of protection entered by the court shall take effect when entered and shall remain in effect until there is valid service of process and a hearing is held on the motion."
[64] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte restraining order.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge.  "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003). 
[65] Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 356 NOTED exception Footnote 6 - ibid.
[66] Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 356 NOTED exception Footnote 6 - ibid.
[68] It should be noted that the respondent Sharon G. Jeep actively assisted bonding the petitioner on the alleged misdemeanor traffic violation
[69] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[70] "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)
[72] A Family Commissioner is indisputably a "reckonable" judicial officer of LIMITED jurisdiction, limited to family law issues not open to misdemeanor traffic violations under another judicial officer's personal jurisdiction bonded in another Geographic jurisdiction. 
[74] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte restraining order.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge.  "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003). 
[75] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[76] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte restraining order.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge.  "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003). 
[77] 18 USC §241 - §242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law is clearly a felony under 18 USC § 3559(a)(5)- Sentencing classification of offenses,
[79] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985  the absence of exigent circumstances should be noted.
[80] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."  Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[81] 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) and 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).
[82] "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!!!!!
[83] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[84] "It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[85] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
[86] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truth finding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers."  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[87]"There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution."  Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).  
"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" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[88] 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 6 YEARS! 
The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 
The 7th Amendment secures the right to settle all suits: "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" assures justice as regards equity.
[89] § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27. (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866.  An excerpt from his remarks attached to his veto "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without invading the immunities of… the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order." "It is, therefore, assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment, for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose." See also BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460 U. S. 359 (1983)
[90] Originally enacted as The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 USC §1983 - §1985). The author of § 1 clearly stated the relationship between the two Acts in introducing the 1871 measure:
"My first inquiry is as to the warrant which we have for enacting such a section as this [§ 1 of the 1871 Act]. The model for it will be found in the second section of the act of April 9, 1866, known as the 'civil rights act.' That section provides a criminal proceeding in identically the same case as this one provides a civil remedy for, except that the deprivation under color of State law must, under the civil rights act, have been on account of race, color, or former slavery. This section of the bill, on the same state of facts, not only provides a civil remedy for persons whose former condition may have been that of slaves, but also to all people where, under color of State law, they or any of them may be deprived of rights to which they are entitled under the Constitution by reason and virtue of their national citizenship." BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460 U. S. 357 (1983)
[91] Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, § 2
[93] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[94] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[98] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[99] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163
[100] Because I am a humble non-legal professional and I have been impoverished by this criminal issue I cite the potential for Harmless error - 28 USC § 2111, "On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties."  The inherent unconstitutional denial of justice based on the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, "sincere ignorance," "conscientious stupidity" and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983), "the common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process," makes a professionally prepared petition and or appeal untenable to the average victim.  Most are not only impoverished by the injustice, but also in jail behind bars.  With 5% of the world's population our POLICE STATE now incarcerates 25% of the world's prisoners.
If I may have not been humble enough or ignorantly or inadvertently not utilized the correct humble enough method and/or legal Latin jargon in making my prior petitions (see 8th Circuit court of Appeals prior Filings in 13-2200, 12-2435, 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614) e.g., a writ of habeas corpus, a writ of audita querela, a writ of coram nobis, a writ of error, a writ of praemunire, a writ of supersedeas, a writ of recurso de amparo or etc., it is as result of my impoverishment via the unconstitutional denial of rights.
[101] After 6.70 years homeless, I have little prospects for survival!!!!!!!!!!
[102] Start Saturday May 17, 2003 01:00 AM as of Tuesday July 15 2014 12:58 PM
[103] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte restraining order.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge.  "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003). 
[104] We hold a "4-Year-Old Can Be Sued."  We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion.  We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion.  We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion.  But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence, malice and corruption of "our chief justice (judges), our officials (prosecutors), or any of our servants (law enforcement)"  and compensate the victims?
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!!!!
[105] In criminal case the "exclusionary rule" is an obfuscation of the Government's Article III vicarious liability for due Process rights.
[106] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971) In a civil issue "the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant…, it is damages or nothing."
[107] We hold a "4-Year-Old Can Be Sued."  We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion.  We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion.  We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion.  But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence, malice and corruption of "our chief justice (judges), our officials (prosecutors), or any of our servants (law enforcement)"  and compensate the victims?
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!!!!
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.
[109] The link to this issue is un-severable.  Proof of its sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity is available for the asking 
[110] The link to this issue is un-severable.  Proof of its sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity is available for the asking 
[111] 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."
[112] This amount is escalating based on the 8th Circuit Court of appeals Tuesday June 14, 2011 12:00.00 AM see attached dated (Tuesday July 15, 2014 12:58:59.39 PM) spreadsheet.
[113] This amount is escalating based on the 8th Circuit Court of appeals Tuesday June 14, 2011 12:00.00 AM see attached dated (Tuesday July 15, 2014 12:58:59.39 PM) spreadsheet.
[114] This amount is escalating based on the 8th Circuit Court of appeals Tuesday June 14, 2011 12:00.00 AM see attached dated (Tuesday July 15, 2014 12:58:59.39 PM) spreadsheet.
[115] This amount is escalating based on the 8th Circuit Court of appeals Tuesday June 14, 2011 12:00.00 AM see attached dated (Tuesday July 15, 2014 12:58:59.39 PM) spreadsheet.

--
Thanks in advance,
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com orDGJeep01@yahoo.com


(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis , MO 63155-9999