UNITED STATES District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
111 South 10th Street, St. Louis, MO 63102
Government of the United States of America, et al Defendants/Respondents
All Defendants/Respondents are included and asserted liable, as GOVERNMENT actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors
Case No. 4:14-cv-2009-DDN _
Motion for RECONSIDERATION
First, I take exception to the assigning of one Jean C. Hamilton UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE without, at least, the formality of notice to the petitioner.
Secondly, I take exception to, again, the assertion of Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994). The Federal Courts cannot divest themselves of jurisdiction for a constitutional issue. Clearly, to any reasonable person, the 14th Amendment's assertion of:
"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"
secures the Federal Article III Court's jurisdiction over unconstitutional deprivation of "privileges or immunities" i.e., the Constitution for the United States of America Article VI. Second paragraph, 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America, Civil Rights Act of 1866, Civil Rights Act of 1871 and Civil Rights Act of 1875/1964.
Thirdly and maybe most importantly the UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE in question never read or is hiding behind "sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity."
Nowhere in the original petition does the petitioner mention and/or ask for relief from the "state family court judge in 2003, when the judge issued an order of protection barring him from contact with his ex-wife."
I know this is hard for the semi-literate, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid to grasp but, as I stated and quote here, from the original petition, dated December 3, 2014, section V. Relief, I seek relief from:
"The not "facially valid court order" took the petitioner's son, his home, his most treasured possessions and sent his life into a severe, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (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 during a disputed divorce where his adversary, empowered by their criminal fraud, respondents Sharon G. Jeep and Kristen Capps had been empowered by EVERYTHING that had been taken from him.
And Finally, I freely and clearly admit that I am utilizing my 1st Amendment 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."
"Even long-suffering people will not suffer forever. Patience expires. The heart can be broken only so many times before peace is broken…" 
What else can I do GIVE UP on my son, the reputation of my father's good name, everything of value I ever owned in the world??????????????????
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Thursday, December 18, 2014
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
David G. Jeep
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
 I realize that "sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity" (M.L.King, Jr.) are always unfortunately with us.
 "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)
 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
 Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
 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.
 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
 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).
 A condition that REALLY has not changed in 11 years!!!!!!!!!!!!
 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.
 AMENDMENT I 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.
 "Fury After Ferguson" By Charles M. Blow –By Charles M. Blow - NOV. 26, 2014New York Times - NOV. 26, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/opinion/charles-blow-fury-after-ferguson.html