Wednesday, January 14, 2015

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (IFP) 15-1057

Michael E. Gans Clerk of Court
U. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329
St. Louis, MO. 63102-1123

Re: Appeal 15-1057 David G. Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America - Case #: 4:14-cv-2009

Dear People,

Per your order (Entry ID: 4233936) dated January 13, 2015, please accept the MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (IFP).

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division ordered “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No.2] is GRANTED” “Dated this 11th day of December, 2014” with the original denial on the same date. 

The last Motion for Reconsideration was denied on 22nd Day of December, 2014.

Per Eighth Circuit FRAP Rule 25B (c) I hereby certify, to the best of my pro se and indigent ability, that I delivered, via hand and US Mail, all of the above and a copy of the original Notice of Appeal, stating reasons for appeal, for case #4:14-cv-2009 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division with a “courtesy copy” to your office, both on, Friday, December 26, 2014.

I make special NOTE of the CRIMINAL ISSUES that are binding on you of the depraved “deliberate indifference,”[1] “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”[2] of the "sufficiently serious"[3] deprivation of rights[4] critical issue that has been ongoing, NOW, for over 11 years and has been REPEATEDLY bought to this Circuit Court and others attention![5]

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
“Time is of the essence”


David G. Jeep

enclosure
a.     MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 5 pages signed and dated January 14, 2015

cc:  My Blog




[1] Farmer v. Brennan 511 U.S. 825 (1994)
[2] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King, Jr. Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
[3] Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991)
[4] 18 U.S. Code § 242 and 241 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law
[5] Docketed and denied Petitions through the District and Circuit Federal Courts on up and including for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, and 14-5551








Friday, January 2, 2015

IT IS ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS AT THEIR MOST ESSENTIAL CORE!!!!

IT IS ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS AT THEIR MOST ESSENTIAL CORE!!!!

The current social outcry over civil rights is not about the death of minorities or policemen.  It is not about income level or race relations, IT IS ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS AT THEIR MOST ESSENTIAL CORE!!!!  Civil Rights have no inherent value for anyone, but the rare criminal, in our sincerely ignorant, conscientiously stupid,[1] corrupt and malicious justice system.

Now if you are the rare criminal and the sincerely ignorant, conscientiously stupid, corrupt or malicious justice system deprive you of your rights you get a FREE PASS.  The sincerely ignorant or conscientiously stupid[2] Article III Guild of Judges calls their JUDGE MADE LAW, "the exclusionary rule" (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643).

The EXCLUSIONARY rule is not about protecting CIVIL RIGHTS it is about letting guilty people go free at the expensive of EVERYONE's civil rights.  There is no way this legal gadget comes out as a positive for the greater good.  Who does it benefit?  Does it benefit society, in that "EVERYONE" now has to take KNOWN CRIMINALS unpunished and undeterred back into their midst?  Does it benefit the criminals that thus led to believe that CRIME CAN PAY, if you get the system to make a mistake?  I do not know.

What I do know is that the deprived civil rights of the innocent person have no value, no remedy.   The police the prosecutors and the JUDGES have absolute immunity criminal and civil for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" from innocent people.

Now this quite literally flies in the face of "We the People's" constitution and constitutional statute law's intent to limit the reach of our government and "establish Justice" – any constitution's raison d'ĂȘtre.[3]   

What we need is to hold the POLICE, PROSECUTORS and JUDGES accountable for EVERYONE'S civil RIGHTS not just criminals.  AS it exists RIGHT NOW IN AMERICA[4] the police, the prosecutors and the JUDGES have absolute immunity for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."

The POLICE can violate anyone's civil rights and the INNOCENT VICTIM of the "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" has ABSOLUTELY NO REMEDY… apart from maybe not being sent to jail!!!! 

And that is only the case if you have the wherewithal to find and expose the sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity, corruption or malicious and you can get a habeas judge to consider it.  BUT DO NOT COUNT on even that!!!!

I have HAD undisputable evidence in hand of two such deprivations and to date I have spent 411 days in jail in my 11 year struggle, 7 of those years homeless.  I have been through the Federal District[5]>Circuit[6]>Supreme Court[7] 5 times for my personal CIVIL RIGHTS struggle!!!  And I have NOTHING to show for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THINK!!!!!!!!!!!  PLEASE!!!!!! THINK!!!!!!!!!


Stop the ongoing WAR ON CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!!

The Police have absolute immunity to LIE on the stand under oath!!!!  It is not about Police shootings it is about POLICE LYING!!!!! It is not about race relations, sexuality, police brutality or campaign finance; it is about corruption in our justice system.

Everybody acting under color of law HAS CIVIL AND CRIMINAL "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY" FOR THE "THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution and laws."  

It is not about the "thin blue line" among our police.

IT IS ABOUT THE MALICIOUS AND CORRUPT GUILD OF "BLACK ROBED" ROYALIST "ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE" ARTICLE III JUDICIARY.  Police have absolute immunity to provide "knowingly false testimony" on the stand under oath.  Prosecutors have "absolute immunity" for "malicious or dishonest" actions. 

THINK!!!!!!!!!!!  PLEASE!!!!!! THINK!!!!!!!!!

"Absolutely immune" Dishonest, malicious, corrupt, "knowingly false testimony" and the withholding of exculpable evidence does more damage to "We the People" every day in our so called Article III attempt to "establish justice" than a squad of police officers could do with automatic weapons in a shopping mall without remorse!!!

IT IS NECESSARILY ABOUT JUSTICE.

TODAY, "We the People" are ruled by the unwritten absolutely immune self-serving MARTIAL LAW of JUDICIAL RULE in the "Jane Crow Era," the World War on Drugs and the malicious and corrupt prerogative of the MALICIOUS AND CORRUPT GUILD OF "BLACK ROBED" ROYALIST "ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE" ARTICLE III JUDICIARY that NEGATES all our supposedly inalienable constitutional rights. 

I realize it sounds almost ridiculous but "We the People" "to establish Justice" need a Constitutional Amendment:

 "Malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence ARE NOT and never have been covered by ANY grant of immunity, under color of CONSTITUTIONAL law."

You don't believe me READ their precedent.

To hear the supreme court sophistry[8] tell us, via their unrestricted absolutely immune power, We the People, all evidence to the contrary, traded the "King can do no WRONG" for the of the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the "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)),  the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)), the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),  corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid  actions 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)  and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid  actions of "all persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983))   acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION  of INALIENABLE RIGHTS under color of law.

We need a constitutional amendment to END the judicial sanction of Malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence


Article III Judicial Power is defined and limited by an act of "We the People's" Government, Congress/President.  It does not require a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment.  All it takes is an act of congress.  It is time that "We the People" assert our control of the Supreme Court: "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" (Article III, Section. 2, § 2)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  PLEASE THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


[1] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.  Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
[2] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.  Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
[3] reason or justification for existence
[4] As they will agree in Ferguson Missouri and all around this country
[5] United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and Western District of Missouri Federal Court – St. Louis Division Cases No. 4:07-CV-1116-CEJ, 4:07-cv-506-SOW (WD), 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 4:11-cv-00931-CAS, 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, 4:13-cv-360-ERW and 4:13CV2490-RWS…
[6] United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Case #07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435, 13-2200 and 14-1470…
[8] "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)




--
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

(Civil Rights) Look Back to Move Forward DEC. 31, 2014

     Civil Rights, white, black or purple are worth NOTHING, BECAUSE of the "exclusionary rule."  The DEAL with the devils in the Black Robed Royalist Guild of JUDGES. At the inception of the  "exclusionary rule"  it was decided by CORRUPT JUDICIAL fiat that Civil Rights would only be worth something to GUILTY felons who had had their rights deprived.  

     The Exclusionary rule gives guilty criminals a pass, but it does nothing for the innocent person whose rights are deprived.  The innocent person's rights can be deprived by the police, the prosecutor or the malicious and corrupt judge and their is no REMEDY!!!!

     To hear the supreme court sophistry  tell us, via their unrestricted absolutely immune power, We the People, all evidence to the contrary, traded the "King can do no WRONG" for the of the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the "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)),  the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)), the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),  corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid  actions 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)  and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid  actions of "all persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983))   acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION  of INALIENABLE RIGHTS under color of law.

     We need a constitutional amendment to END the judicial sanction of Malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence


     Article III Judicial Power is defined and limited by an act of "We the People's" Government, Congress/President.  It does not require a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment.  All it takes is an act of congress.  It is time that "We the People" assert our control of the Supreme Court: "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" (Article III, Section. 2, § 2)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 



--
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

Saturday, December 27, 2014

NOTICE OF APPEAL


UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
FEDERAL COURT - EASTERN DIVISION

David G. Jeep,          Petitioner,
            vs.
Government of the United States of America, et al Respondents
)
)
)
)
)
)



Case #:   4:14-cv-2009   

NOTICE OF APPEAL
____________________________________________________________________________________

  I.   ADDITIONALLY NOW ON APPEAL

Additionally NOW on appeal in DIRECT response to one Jean C. Hamilton, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE and other's REPEATED sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid DISMISSAL, with "prejudice," based on the assertion of "Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) ("The domestic relations exception . . . divests the federal courts of jurisdiction"  over any action for which the subject is a divorce, allowance of alimony, or child custody")" - I assert per the statutes under Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, and Proceedings independent of others 455.070 that forms the origin of this issue, "All proceedings under sections 455.010 to 455.085[1]  are independent of any proceedings for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, separate maintenance and other actions between the parties" thus Kahn v. Kahn's divestiture has no controlling authority and the statute (455.070) then invites "any other available civil or criminal remedies," i.e., a federal civil rights, 42 U.S. Code § 1983/1985 and 18 U.S. Code § 242/241, remedy for the petitioner from those acting or conspiring to act under color of law and/or a common law remedy, civil and criminal, for the conspiracy to defraud the petitioner from those acting in their personal interest alone.  I quote:

Proceedings independent of others. [2]
455.070 All proceedings under sections 455.010 to 455.085[3] are independent of any proceedings for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, separate maintenance and other actions between the parties and are in addition to any other available civil or criminal remedies, unless otherwise specifically provided herein. (L. 1980 S.B. 524 § 13)

To restate again, repeatedly, the Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, and more specifically Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, under section 455.070 definition states - sections "455.010 to 455.085 are independent of any proceedings for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, separate maintenance and other actions between the parties" and then invites "any other available civil or criminal remedies" i.e., a federal civil rights, 42 U.S. Code § 1983/1985 and 18 U.S. Code § 242/241, remedy for the petitioner from those acting or conspiring to act under color of law and/or a common law remedy, civil and criminal, for the conspiracy to defraud the petitioner from those acting in their personal interest alone.

____________________________________________________________________________________

 II.   Abbreviated Statement of FACTS of the Case:

The warrant, an ex parte order of protection, included the sworn petition [4] that reasonably, per the 4th Amendment,[5] and the statute[6] limited the jurisdiction for the Judicial Act.  The fraudulent petition, fraus omnia corrumpit,[7] signed and dated by the criminal respondent, Sharon G. Jeep in a conspiracy with her daughter, my former stepdaughter Kristen M. Capps, listed a BONDED misdemeanor traffic violation as the asserted "probable cause" for the NOT "facially valid"[8] ex parte order of protection.
The issuing sincerely ignorant and/or conscientiously stupid Judicial officer, one Judge Joseph A. Goeke III, obliviously did not read Sharon G. Jeep's hand written criminally fraudulent petition,[9] in 2003, or did not care what "subject matter" [10] the statute[11] mandated for a reasonable[12] ex parte order of protection i.e., "for good cause shown in the petition… An immediate and present danger of domestic violence."[13]  The warrant/order that included and was limited by the respondent's, Sharon G. Jeep's hand written fraudulent petition, [14] as its jurisdiction, was THUS not a "facially valid court order."[15] 
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III clearly had no "subject matter" [16] reasonable[17] jurisdiction for the statute's stated "subject matter,"[18] "An immediate and present danger of domestic violence,"[19] based on the respondent's, Sharon G. Jeep's, submitted fraudulent petition dated November 3, 2003.
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III had no "personal jurisdiction," in that the issue, the alleged misdemeanor traffic violation, was already under the bonded[20] personal jurisdiction of another judge, Associate Circuit Judge Jack A. Bennett of 26th District of Missouri; based on the respondent's, Sharon G. Jeep's, submitted fraudulent petition dated November 3, 2003.
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; based on the respondent's, Sharon G. Jeep's, submitted fraudulent petition dated November 3, 2003.

Thus…
      the original order of,
      the original service of,
      the original hearing for,
      and all the subsequent findings in favor of

the unwarrantable, unconstitutional and NOT "facially valid court order"[21] were taken in "a complete absence of all jurisdictions."[22],[23]
For me the supreme Law of the Land has always been self-evident and should have always been self-evident to any, not sincerely ignorant or conscientious stupid, person.  Therefore I have always AND I STILL DO stress the 7th Amendment, resultant common law remedy, for damages, link between the NOT "facially valid"[24] criminally fraudulent[25] ex parte order of protection and "the custody and property settlement."  I have always asserted it AND I STILL DO that it is self-evident that the Constitution for the United States of America Article VI. Second paragraph,[26] 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America, Civil Rights Act of 1866,[27] Civil Rights Act of 1871[28] and Civil Rights Act of 1875/1964[29] take precedent over Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) as the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, AND I STILL DO.   

____________________________________________________________________________________

  III.   Judicial Prerogative ALONE does not make law:

From its inception liberty of the individual person was secured by the Constitution for the United States of America and the treaties and laws made under its authority ALONE, via a BICAMERAL, judge and jury's, Due Process, NOT ON ANYONE'S PREROGATIVE. 

____________________________________________________________________________________

                                                                                                                                 IV.  Defendants/Respondents:

All the respondents, as individuals and government actors under color of law, have used the unconstitutional prerogative of their sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity to deprive the PRIMARY governmental authority of the preamble's security to "establish Justice."

____________________________________________________________________________________

V.   Statement of Claim:

With their sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity unencumbered by competence, reason or justice the respondents have REPEATEDLY using their prerogative alone acted to the deprivation of the petitioner's rights, privileges, or immunities secured by knowledge, reason, justice and the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.

____________________________________________________________________________________

VI.   Relief:

I seek relief from the criminal fraud and the "under color of law" unconstitutional deprivation of the petitioner's rights, privileges, or immunities secured by reason, justice and the Constitution and laws of the United States of America starting on Saturday May 17, 2003 with the incompetent unconstitutional allegation of a misdemeanor traffic violation and engorged on Monday November 03, 2003 08:00 PM with the facially invalid fraudulent ex parte order of protection issued in a complete absence of all jurisdiction and now still ongoing.

____________________________________________________________________________________

VII.   Current Status:

The deprivation is ongoing.  Damages are ongoing and escalating.  It has been ongoing for nearly 4,239 days[30] since this originated with the unconstitutional, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid alleged traffic violation on Saturday May 17, 2003 and then enlarged on Monday November 03, 2003 08:00 PM with the at issue corrupt, malicious, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid warrant/order taken with "a complete absence of all jurisdictions."[31]

___________________________________________________________________________________

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Saturday, December 27, 2014
Signature of Plaintiff(s)

______________________________________________
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO  63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228

___________________________________________________________________________________

Gregory J. Linhares, Clerk of the Court
US Federal District Court - Eastern District of Missouri
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
St. Louis, MO 63102-1125

Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL David G. Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America - Case #: 4:14-cv-2009

Dear People,
Please accept the enclosed NOTICE of APPEAL based on the corrupt, malicious, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions of this court and others.
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"
 David G. Jeep

enclosure
a.     NOTICE OF APPEAL David G. Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America - Case #: 4:14-cv-2009 - Saturday, December 27, 2014 addressed to MOED

cc:  Michael E. Gans Clerk of Court U. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
            My Blog -  Friday, December 26, 2014, 3:33:14 AM

___________________________________________________________________________________



Michael E. Gans Clerk of Court
U. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
111 South 10th Street
Room 24.329
St. Louis, MO. 63102-1123

Re:      NOTICE OF APPEAL David G. Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America - Case #: 4:14-cv-2009

Dear People,
Please accept the enclosed courtesy copy of the above referenced issue.  I understand that when you receive confirming NOTICE OF APPEAL from the circuit court you will then be contacting me for confirmation of MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"

 David G. Jeep

enclosure
b.     NOTICE OF APPEAL David G. Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America - Case #: 4:14-cv-2009

cc:       My Blog -  Friday, December 26, 2014, 3:32:56 AM





[4] See SCANNED copy of the hand written petition dated 11-03-03, as attached to the original petition dated 12-03-14  that formed the EXCLUSIVE basis for the ex parte order of protection and certifies the complete lack of jurisdiction with its very existence as served on 11-03-30 at the end of this petition.
[5] AMENDMENT IV 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. 
[7] fraus omnia corrumpit Fraud unravels it all i.e., the divorce and custody order.  There is a strong legal principle adopted internationally that a party who obtained an award through fraud should not be entitled to keep that award.  Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.
[8] 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 here, 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). 
[9] See originally petition provided SCANNED copy of the hand written petition that asserts ONLY the complete lack of jurisdiction with its very existence as served on 11-03-30.
[10] 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."
[12] AMENDMENT IV 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. 
[13] 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."
[14] See originally petition provided SCANNED copy of the hand written petition that asserts ONLY the complete lack of jurisdiction with its very existence as served on 11-03-30.
[15] 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). 
[16] "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) AND Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 356 NOTED exception Footnote 6 - ibid.
[17] AMENDMENT IV 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. 
[18] Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 356 NOTED exception Footnote 6 - ibid.
[20] It should be noted that the respondent Sharon G. Jeep actively assisted bonding the petitioner on the alleged misdemeanor traffic violation
[21] 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). 
[22] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[23] 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution…"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."  Beyond the "complete lack of jurisdiction" STRESSED in the original order at the center of this issue, the Order created an infliction of a "cruel and unusual punishments" for an ex parte order of protection[23] i.e., a misdemeanor traffic violation as probable cause for an ex parte order of protection is "cruel and unusual" to say the least.
[24] 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). 
[25] fraus omnia corrumpit Fraud unravels it all i.e., the divorce and custody order.  There is a strong legal principle adopted internationally that a party who obtained an award through fraud should not be entitled to keep that award.  Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.
[26] "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." (6.1.2)
[27] Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
[28] Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[29] The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women.
[30] As of Wednesday December 24 2014 12:20:25.10 PM
[31] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)



--
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