Monday, March 29, 2004

Respondent's Motion for Removal of Commissioner Jones in regard to this issue


Pro Se
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS
STATE OF MISSOURI


Sharon Gayle Jeep,
                        Petitioner,
            and
David Gerard Jeep,
                        Respondent
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)




Case No.: 03FC-10670M & 03FC-12243

Presiding Judge of Division 65



Respondent's Motion for Removal of Commissioner Jones in regard to this issue

COMES NOW Respondent, David G. Jeep, and moves this Court to remove Commissioner Jones in the above referenced issues.
Respondent states as follows:
  1. The original action in this issue was an ex parte order of protection
  2. As a result of the Ex Parte the Commissioner heard the issue in St. Louis County Circuit Court as #03FC-10670M, Sharon Jeep v David G. Jeep.  The commissioner put in force a full order of protection for a 12 month period on or about 11/19/03.
  3. In the original Ex Parte petition filed by the petitioner there was never actually listed anything that could even be construed as abuse.
  4. At the hearing the petitioner again refused to offer up anything in terms of any assertion of abuse.
  5. Thus there has been no accusation or assertion of abuse.
  6. The commissioner ruled referencing some pattern which he did not and has not shared to date.
  7. The commissioner never provided and actual finding in regard to the abuse.
  8. Since there was no actual finding and since there was no actual allegation, the respondent’s civil right to due process and the inalienable right to life liberty (my home and family) and the pursuit of happiness have been denied without grounds.
  9. The respondent’s civil rights have been continually been ignored.
  10. The respondent has been forced into the street, virtually.
  11. Because of the unfounded order of protection I have been forced from my home, from my family.
  12. One child was born of the marriage, namely: Patrick Brandon Jeep Born December 22, 1994, SSN XXX-XX-XXX
  13. Because of the groundless order the respondent has been kept from his minor child. And forced into a visitation schedule that does not even come close to his legal right of equal time. 
  14. For the last four months the respondent has been granted only limited access to his son.  The Respondent feels that the commissioner, because he has refused to rehear the issue and because he has never offered an actual finding in the case has failed in or ignored his judicial duties.
  15. Therefore I ask that you remove him from the case and order and immediate reversal and or rehearing of the full order of protection.
  16. In that this groundless order has been used to unlawfully force the Respondent from his family and home, he asks the court for an immediate removal of Commissioner Jones, a reversal of the order and or a reconsideration of the full order of protection.



                                                                                    ______________________________________
                                                                                    David G. Jeep, Respondent
Dated this 29th day of March 2004




Pro Se