Sunday, December 28, 2003

An open letter to Sharon Jeep, Issues Jeep, Sharon vs. Jeep, David, Cause No. 03FC-10670(M), Division No. 65

Sunday, December 28, 2003

An open letter to Sharon Jeep
The Marital Household of Sharon and David Jeep
16325 Centerpointe Drive
Grover, MO  63040-1602

Re:   Issues Jeep, Sharon vs. Jeep, David
         Cause No. 03FC-10670(M)
         Division No. 65

Dear Sharon,
I do not know how much you have spent on your attorney.  I have spent way too much.
You and I both know that the issue in the bathroom on the morning of 11/03/03 was non-violent.  I came in as you were blow drying your hair early in the morning to ask you, my spouse, for a personal favor.  I asked maybe 2 or three times making the case that this is what one spouse does for the other spouse.  I never demanded anything.  You were sitting near the unlocked door.  I was sitting on the floor across the room, a large bathroom, NOT touching you in ANY WAY.  I never forced myself on you.  And all you would say after being asked for a favor was, "I will give you my answer this evening."  Unbeknownst to me you had already decided in favor of the ex parte’ order of protection.  And then naively and so not to upset you any further, I left, to be honest close to tears.  The whole interaction if it took 5 minutes, I would have been surprised.
As we all know that night I got my answer in the form of a policeman evicting from my home and FAMILY during Monday Night Football.  Since then as we all know I have been OUT of the MARITAIL HOME. 
I have not had free access to my son, I have been kept from my home, my possessions.  And why?  Because the COMMISSIONER, not even a judge, saw a pattern.  He saw a pattern, what was this pattern?  I asked you for a favor on 11/03/03.  I asked you and was granted a similar favor on 10/06/03.  And prior to that I can not remember the last time I asked you for a favor.  Now if the Judge has some inside info, the rest of us are not privy to, please I beg of him, let us know.
As regards what you have done to me.  I have been KEPT from my son.  I was not able to see him on Thanksgiving nor on his Birthday 12/22/03 nor on Christmas.  I consider those acts to be a violent attack on a father’s relationship with his son.  It has not only been violent to me but also to Patrick and it has also impacted his relationship with the Jeep family as whole, in that the holidays are a major source of bonding for a family.
Now why has this been the put in to force.  Have I ever hit you, NO.  Have I ever even threatened to hit you, NO.  Have I ever so much as raised a hand to hit you, NO.  Have I pulled on your arm to get your attention when you were walking away, in 15 years of marriage, on occasion, YES I have done that.  Do I do it every time we argue, NO.  Do I handle you to control or intimidate you, NO.  We are or have been until now, adults and we do realize that we have to settle our issues between us and we can not run away.  Have I ever tried to control your day to day life, NO.  Have I ever tried to control your money, NO.    As regard involvement with your money,  the only issue I can remember was that I refused to balance your check book.  Has violence ever been a day to day factor in our household, NO.  Have I ever forced you to have sex, NO.  Do I demand sex, NO…. NEVER.  Have I kept you in some involuntary servitude, supporting me, NO.  Point in fact until October you had never actually made a house payment.  In the nearly 15 years we have been together, I have made every rent or house payment.  I have paid virtually all the utilities bills and household expenses short of some Day Care and Food Expenses. 
Now I had been unemployed for 20 months prior to your action.  I had during my time off paid virtually all the bills from an inheritance from my family.  During my time off, I took virtually complete care of Patrick, feeding him, dressing him, seeing to his day to day needs.  As regards the household, I made the bed every morning, I always picked up after myself.  I did the all the laundry.  I did all the dishes.  I took care of cooking and preparing food for Patrick and myself.  Furthermore as regards the issue of my being unemployed we had with the direct involvement of a therapist made an agreement that I would be allowed my personal time.  Now the agreement had expired in September, but in my defense I thought I had a job lined up in August, although it fell through.  I  had worked at Schnucks during the grocery strike in October and if I had not had the upset of being forced from the house, been game fully employed very soon again.  And for the record, I am now and have been employed in my chosen field as a professional and making a decent wage since mid November.
Now if it is your intention to some how create some new allegations of violence, there is nothing there, but I will address anything you want to assert.  But first let’s just go back to your original allegations listed in your original request for an Order of Protection.  On November 3, 2003 if there was a real threat of violence, you were free to voice them and put them forward.  You made no mention of anything from that morning.  The only things you put forward, I thought were telling of the lack of violence in our household.  Kristen’s allegation was 1-2 years old and your allegation did not even have any direct relationship to our household in that you were not even witness to it, it happened 150 miles away and it had happened a month prior.  Therefore your assertion that you had an immediate FEAR of violence was just totally unfounded.
The towel bar issue Kristen referenced was indicative of the issue of violence in our household.  The breaking of the towel bar was the result of two people in a small space and the inadvertent movement against a very fragile element, the center of a towel bar.  Kristen loves to bring it up and make an issue of it at any and every opportunity.  And with societies current  acute sensitivity to abuse the mere assertion of wrong doing takes on credibility.   Even though there is absolutely nothing to it either then or NOW.  And although as it was her assertion and should have been central to our hearing because it was, it was never addressed at our hearing and the time frame of it was never brought to light.  We both know that the incident happened over a year and maybe as long as 2 years ago.  To be honest, I cannot remember when it actually happened.  I will although confirm that it did happen as I described, NO VIOLENCE involved.  The one thing I am sure of is that when Kristen filed her Ex Parte’ request for an order of protection, she had absolutely no fear from me of being thrown against a towel bar or any wall.  I go out of my way to avoid any and all close proximity interaction with her.  I have heard too many times about the towel bar incident.
I know you Sharon, 90% of the emotion you were showing in the courtroom was an abiding fear of being ON THE SPOT in a public place.  As regards to your assertitions on your Ex Parte’ request for an order of protection that “I had shown my bad temper in a courtroom situation.”  I defy you now or at anytime to find anyone who can relate any instance of me loosing my temper violently.  I admit to being a sometimes smart ass and I AM NEVER VIOLENT.  Your allegation is a complete fabrication from events you were not any part of nor witness to.  You were shopping.  This whole issue for you arose, largely, from yours and Kristen’s clandestine discovery of a letter I wrote to:

Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges,
2190 S. Mason Road, Suite 201,
St. Louis, MO 63131
Phone 314-966-1007.  

As you know I took issue with my treatment during the 10/6/03 court date in Camden County up before what I believe to be the appropriate authority the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges.  I wrote my first letter for this issue on 10/08/03, two days after the occurrence and nearly a month before you made issue of it in your ex parte’ protection order.  And I will let my public statements and my communications with them stand on their own.  I acted in a civilized manor and I think I was treated in an unreasonable manor.  Did I get out of control and hit some one, NO.  Did I get out of control and take a swing at someone, NO.  Did I get out of control and verbally abuse someone NO Did I get out of control calling someone names or using abusive language, NO.  Did I disrespect the Judge in open court, NO.  Point in fact my main issue is that in open court I was swept under the carpet and not even given the barest minimum of a right to state my case.
Now where do we go from here?  What I want is to be back as a daily force in my son’s life, back in MY home.  You want a divorce, you go get yourself a divorce.  You want to separate, you move out, you desert your home and your son.  I will take care of my son and our home.  A divorce would hurt me and your son more than you can imagine.  I love you Sharon I have always loved you.  Given the opportunity I would always try to love and support you emotionally. 
I have to admit that I have not always lusted for you.  For the last nine years lust in our marriage has taken second seat to Patrick and Kristen.  Patrick in that he sleeps in our bed every night.  Kristen has been the main issue in that her irresponsible lifestyle, partying virtually every night till 1, 2, 3, 4 in the morning, her flunking out and/or dropping courses to avoid flunking out in college 4 semesters in row and her continued indebtedness and lack of financial responsibility of any kind.  I find her way of life unacceptable and this has been the main issue between us.   She is going down the wrong road and I feel responsible as a STEPFATHER if that be enough.  And I think most reasonable parental authorities would agree with me.  She needs to be given limits, credible limits.  I have several times asserted these limits, in written and mutually agreed on forms but without your day to day support, they were as always disregarded. 
Her recent statement upon moving back into the family home after being out for 5 months, I thought was very telling.  When I queried her as to what if any financial assistances she had contributed to the household where she had resided she replied, “I paid for all of my own hair care products.”  I then immediately followed with questions as to the rent, the light bill, the day to day expenses, and she related, she had not contributed.  She is 20 years old and she needs to be aware that the cost of a household goes beyond HAIR CARE PRODUCTS. 
Now you say I am not her father, I am just her stepfather.  I assert that she is at a minimum a dependent on my tax return and I am the only REAL parent willing to stand up to her and yes get in her face as regards her lifestyle.  I am the only one giving her credible consistent direction.  As I have done for 15 of her 20 years.  You blow up on the intermittent occasion and never follow up.  And your assertion here and now in a divorce action proves my point, you would rather divorce me and destroy your son’s nuclear family instead of STANDING UP TO your daughter.  And if you truly wish to assert our relationship would be here regardless of Kristen, YOU KNOW THAT IS A LIE.  I know destroying your son’s family gives you some kind of distorted relief from the unfounded guilty burden of having done it to your daughter.  Now or in the very near future you will have done it to both your children.  But I do not think it is the fair to me nor to your SON.


Reply to:

David G. Jeep

David G. Jeep

cc: Patrick B. Jeep, the Marital Household of Sharon and David Jeep
      Joan M. Gilmer, Circuit Clerk, the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis
      James Robinson, 240 Long Road, Fax(636) 530-6805
      Tim Schlesinger, Paule Camazine & Blumenthal

Mr. James J. Robinson
240 Long Road
Chesterfield, MO 63005-1226

Tim Schlesinger
Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal, PC
Sixth Floor
165 N. Meramec Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63105-3789

St. Louis County Circuit Clerk
Joan M. Gilmer, Circuit Clerk
7900 Carondelet
Clayton, MO 63105*

Thursday, December 18, 2003

Tim Schlesinger Motion 12-18-03

Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal
165 N. Meramec Avenue, Sixth Floor
St. Louis, MO   63105-3789

Phone 314-727-2266
Fax 314-727-2101

Mr. Schlesinger made several timely motions - prior to (11/13/03), during the hearing (11/20/03) and then filed this and another motion (12/5/03 and 12/19/03 (+/-)) to assert and hopefully reacquire my constitutional rights.  All his efforts and motions were ignored by the court.


You tell me how well you would do in ANY dispute after being thrown out of your house, having your son taken away and giving up everything in the world you cared about?

We have NO rights Judges can do whatever they WANT!!!!!!!!!!!!  Due process is a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!


You tell me how well you would do in ANY dispute after being thrown out of your house, having your son taken away and giving up everything in the world you cared about?

We have NO rights Judges can do whatever they WANT!!!!!!!!!!!!  Due process is a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Friday, December 5, 2003

Tim Schlesinger Motion 12-5-03

Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal
165 N. Meramec Avenue, Sixth Floor
St. Louis, MO   63105-3789

Phone 314-727-2266
Fax 314-727-2101

Mr. Schlesinger made several timely motions - prior to (11/13/03), during the hearing (11/20/03) and then filed this and another motion (12/5/03 and 12/19/03 (+/-)) to assert and hopefully reacquire my constitutional rights.  All his efforts and motions were ignored by the court.


You tell me how well you would do in ANY dispute after being thrown out of your house, having your son taken away and giving up everything in the world you cared about?

We have NO rights Judges can do whatever they WANT!!!!!!!!!!!!  Due process is a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!

This motion was filed and DENIED by Commissioner Jones.  Its unconstitutional denial is obvious.


Thursday, November 20, 2003

FINDINGS, Partial Transcript on appeal Cause No. 03FC-010670, E. D. No. 84021 (Full transcript availabel at request)



SHARON JEEP,            
v.                             E. D. No. 84021

Commissioner Phillip Jones, Presiding

v.                               Cause No. 03FC-010670



Mr. James Robinson
Attorney at Law
240 Long Road
Chesterfield, MO 63005
  For:  Petitioner

Mr. Tim Schlesinger
Attorney at Law
165 N. Meramec Ave., Suite 600
Clayton, MO 63105
  For:  Respondent

Transcribed by
Lisa Bias, CERT, Senior Transcriber
Certified Electronic Reporter and Transcriber
Central Transcribing Service
Office of State Courts Administrator




Hearing on Case No. 03FC-010668:


  Direct Examination by Mr. Robinson                     4
  Cross-Examination by Mr. Schlesinger                  18
  Redirect Examination by Mr. Robinson                  30
  Recross-Examination by Mr. Schlesinger                39

Motion to Dismiss                                       41
Court's Ruling on Motion                                41

Hearing on Case No. 03FC-010670:


  Direct Examination by Mr. Robinson                    43
  Cross-Examination by Mr. Schlesinger                  59
  Redirect Examination by Mr. Robinson                  69
  Recross-Examination by Mr. Schlesinger                71

  Direct Examination by Mr. Robinson                    73
  Cross-Examination by Mr. Schlesinger                  89

  Direct Examination by Mr. Robinson                    90
  Cross-Examination by Mr. Schlesinger                  93

Motion to Dismiss                                       95
Motion Overruled                                        95

Court's Findings                                        95






A - Agreement                                           30

B - Unidentified                                        --

C - Petitioner                                          --

              (November 20, 2003)
              COMMISSIONER JONES:  This is the matter of Sharon Jeep v. David Jeep.  This is Cause No. 03FC-10670, which is companion to Kristen Capps v. David Jeep, Cause No. 03FC-10668. 
              Each of these matters is set for the Court for hearing this morning.  Will the attorneys representing the parties please identify themselves for the record. 
              MR. ROBINSON:  James Robinson for Petitioner Sharon Jeep, and also for Petitioner Kristen Capps. 
              MR. SCHLESINGER:  Tim Schlesinger for Petitioner David Jeep-- 
              COMMISSIONER JONES:  Okay. 
              MR. SCHLESINGER:  --for Respondent David Jeep.  Excuse me. 
              COMMISSIONER JONES:  Thank you, Mr. Schlesinger. 
              It's my understanding that everyone is ready to proceed this morning; is that correct?
              MR. ROBINSON:  Ready, Your Honor. 
              COMMISSIONER JONES:  And there's no objection to the Court hearing both cases together since they involve similar parties; is that not correct? 
              MR. ROBINSON:  No objection from Petitioner.
              MR. SCHLESINGER:  No objection, Your Honor.
              COMMISSIONER JONES:  Thank you.  Will all parties that are going to testify please stand at this time to be sworn.  Please face my bailiff.
              THE BAILIFF:  All raise your right hands, please.
              (Witnesses sworn.)
              COMMISSIONER JONES:  Okay.  In respect to Cause No. 03FC-10670, we're proceeding on a petition that was filed by Sharon Jeep on or about the 3rd day of November of the year 2003, and in respect to the cause 03FC-10668, we're proceeding on the petition that was filed by Kristen Capps on the 3rd day of November of 2003, as well.
          Q.   Mr. Jeep, have you ever struck your wife? 
          A.   No. 
          Q.   Have you ever pushed your wife? 
          A.   No. 
          Q.   Have you ever injured your wife? 
          A.   No. 
          Q.   Have you ever threatened to strike her, push her, or injure her? 
          A.   In no way, shape, or form. 
              MR. SCHLESINGER:  No further questions. 
              COMMISSIONER JONES:  Mr. Robinson. 
              MR. ROBINSON:  Nothing further, Your Honor. 
              COMMISSIONER JONES:  Okay.  Any additional questions? 
              MR. SCHLESINGER:  No additional questions, Your Honor. 
              COMMISSIONER JONES:  Thank you, Mr. Jeep.  You may return to your seat. 
              Does that conclude the Petitioner's case? 
              MR. ROBINSON:  No, Your Honor.  I want to call Kristen Capps to the stand, please. 
              COMMISSIONER JONES:  Before we do that, gentlemen, if you'd approach. 
              THE CLERK:  Commissioner, we're off the record.
              COMMISSIONER JONES:  Back on the record in the matter of Sharon Jeep v. David Jeep. 
              MR. SCHLESINGER:  I do renew my objection based--I renew my objection to all the testimony about physical abuse, physical harm, and threatened harm, based on it being outside the scope of the pleadings. 
              COMMISSIONER JONES:  Overruled. 
              The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced.[1]  The Court does find the allegations of the amended petition[2] to be true.  The Court does enter a full order of protection against the Respondent.  This order will supercede the ex parte order of protection entered in this cause on the 3rd day of November and serves to terminate that order. 
              The Respondent should not use, attempt to use, or threaten to use physical force against the Petitioner that would be reasonably expected to cause her bodily harm, should not stalk, abuse, threaten to abuse, molest, or disturb her peace wherever she may be found.  He also shall not communicate with her in any manner or through any means. 
              And he is also further restrained from the residence at 16325 Centerpointe Drive in Wildwood, Missouri 63040. 
              This order will expire the 19th day of November, the year 2004. 
              MR. SCHLESINGER:  Your Honor--
              COMMISSIONER JONES:  That will conclude the hearing.
              MR. SCHLESINGER:  Your Honor--

[1] This surprise finding, which over rules the petitioners own assertions is in direct conflict with Due Process of Law.  The Respondent NEVER had a chance. 
[2] There were TWO post trial motions for this “amended petition” it was never provided nor was the respondent ever allowed to heard on this “amended petition

Monday, November 3, 2003

The Evidence Petition for an Ex-parte Order of Protection

The Evidence

Re: The “Jane Crow” [1] era, Jeep v. United States of America[2]

1.       As I referenced previously with my appeals, my petition for a writ of certiorari and in my prior correspondents with you and because I know you never took the time to look at them, I NOW include for the record:
2.       A copy of the petition for an order of protection filed 11/03/03.  It does not list any REASONABLE “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation[3] i.e., “first hand abuse”.  What it lists is an inadmissible hear-say allegation of a bad-act regarding a court appearance from a month prior and 150 miles away, where the alleged victim, by her own admission, was NOT EVEN PRESENT and where the judge eventually, all though unknown at the time of the hearing (11/19/03), would recuse himself[4] for his thus admitted bad act.  The Judges Goeke and Jones clearly issued a Warrant without probable cause to take away my son, my home, everything I cared for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3.      A copy of the post trial (pages 44-48) motion dated December 5, 2003 that was denied.
4.       A copy of the Court Order (page 49) ruling against the aforementioned motion dated December 18, 2003
"The Sixth Edition of Black's Law Dictionary states the maxim as follows:  'Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit.... The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.  Black's Law Dictionary 516 (6th ed. 1990).'"This is old news, but again for the record “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry[5]:

It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an Order of Protection (209A[6]), 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…

Long-term emotional damage to children's fathers -- surely not good for children -- often begins with a restraining order… 

A man against whom a frivolous Order of Protection (209A) has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating[7], and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. 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... It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."” [8]

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

[1] The Court’s bias for a woman’s rights over a man’s rights with unequal protection of the Law, family law.
[2] A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America “Opposed to Immunity” currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk’s office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (
[3]. 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”, ratified 12/15/1791.
[4] Judge Bennett recused himself; I had filed a grievance with the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges.  Not that it did any good; the Commission has no authority to do anything to a sitting Judge.  They are window dressing, used to wear a person down into submission.
[5]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,, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08
[6] (209A) This quote refers to the statute the result of 1978 Abuse Prevention Act in Massachusetts.  Could be MO.
[7] (in psychology) the failure of a defense mechanism.
[8]  Sheara F. Friend, as quoted in  “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire.   That describes my first year under an order of protection perfectly!!!!!!!!!!!