Saturday, April 3, 2004
Missouri Attorney General's Office
Saturday, April 03, 2004
Missouri Attorney General's Office
Supreme Court Building
207 W. High St.
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: 573-751-3321
Fax: 573-751-0774
Re: Perjury and Prosecutorial Suborning of Perjury
Case # CR203-1336M, Camden County, MO
Dear Sirs,
I was arrested last year on May 17, 2003 for DWI. Now before you get all excited and afraid this is not a DWI case that involved any loss of life or property. I was pulled over for failure to use my blinker. From the beginning they had no case, just a case of zeal that has lead them to Perjury and Suborning Perjury. The state of Missouri has no defined instructions for giving the breathalyzer test. After I failed the first attempt, I blew, per the police report for a steady 15 seconds, the machine responded with an invalid result. I never refused to do anything.
The arresting officer did not know how to administer the One Leg Stand nor the Walk and Turn test, and if you can believe his testimony, he still does not know some 11 months later. You see in the prescribed National Highway and Safety Administration Standard prior to both test the suspect should be given the opportunity to remove his shoes if he has more than a 2” heel, cowboy boots have a 2 ½” heel.
Those are the facts and they are not disputed. My issue arises from the testimony given by the arresting officers and thus the testimony supported by the prosecution. At trial the arresting officer testified that it was a 4” heel not a 2” heel that required the prior notice. At trial the officer who had administered the breathalyzer test testified that I had not blown for a solid 15 seconds as he had represented in his prior statement.
You could almost believe that these two officers were idiots without the mental ability to remember the facts, but you need to be aware of an additional fact. Prior to the trial I made pretrial motions. The three key pretrial motions were:
Motion for discovery of the Standardized procedure for performing the Standardized Field Sobriety test.
Motion to exclude all reference to the Field sobriety test because I was wearing Cowboy boots with 2 ½ heel. And the high heel condition is in conflict with the state procedure for the test.
Motion to exclude the non existent refusal, having blown 15-16 seconds.
All three motions were denied. For whatever reason the prosecution had the arresting officers in court during these pretrial motions, they were therefore coach and made aware of the issues prior to trail. Therefore the prosecution at minimum by providing them the information gave them information prior to their at trial testimony. The prosecution told them what my issues were and what I would be asking them to testify to at trial. And because of that I feel the prosecution suborned perjury in that they coached them, and then they allowed them to lie at trial, on the stand.
Time is of the essence, if there is anything you need from me in this regard, please let me know.
Regards
David G. Jeep
enclosure
Missouri Attorney General's Office
Supreme Court Building
207 W. High St.
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: 573-751-3321
Fax: 573-751-0774
Re: Perjury and Prosecutorial Suborning of Perjury
Case # CR203-1336M, Camden County, MO
Dear Sirs,
I was arrested last year on May 17, 2003 for DWI. Now before you get all excited and afraid this is not a DWI case that involved any loss of life or property. I was pulled over for failure to use my blinker. From the beginning they had no case, just a case of zeal that has lead them to Perjury and Suborning Perjury. The state of Missouri has no defined instructions for giving the breathalyzer test. After I failed the first attempt, I blew, per the police report for a steady 15 seconds, the machine responded with an invalid result. I never refused to do anything.
The arresting officer did not know how to administer the One Leg Stand nor the Walk and Turn test, and if you can believe his testimony, he still does not know some 11 months later. You see in the prescribed National Highway and Safety Administration Standard prior to both test the suspect should be given the opportunity to remove his shoes if he has more than a 2” heel, cowboy boots have a 2 ½” heel.
Those are the facts and they are not disputed. My issue arises from the testimony given by the arresting officers and thus the testimony supported by the prosecution. At trial the arresting officer testified that it was a 4” heel not a 2” heel that required the prior notice. At trial the officer who had administered the breathalyzer test testified that I had not blown for a solid 15 seconds as he had represented in his prior statement.
You could almost believe that these two officers were idiots without the mental ability to remember the facts, but you need to be aware of an additional fact. Prior to the trial I made pretrial motions. The three key pretrial motions were:
Motion for discovery of the Standardized procedure for performing the Standardized Field Sobriety test.
Motion to exclude all reference to the Field sobriety test because I was wearing Cowboy boots with 2 ½ heel. And the high heel condition is in conflict with the state procedure for the test.
Motion to exclude the non existent refusal, having blown 15-16 seconds.
All three motions were denied. For whatever reason the prosecution had the arresting officers in court during these pretrial motions, they were therefore coach and made aware of the issues prior to trail. Therefore the prosecution at minimum by providing them the information gave them information prior to their at trial testimony. The prosecution told them what my issues were and what I would be asking them to testify to at trial. And because of that I feel the prosecution suborned perjury in that they coached them, and then they allowed them to lie at trial, on the stand.
Time is of the essence, if there is anything you need from me in this regard, please let me know.
Regards
David G. Jeep
enclosure
Monday, March 29, 2004
Respondent's Motion for Removal of Commissioner Jones in regard to this issue
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS
STATE OF MISSOURI
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:
- The original action in this issue was an ex parte order of protection
- 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.
- In the original Ex Parte petition filed by the petitioner there was never actually listed anything that could even be construed as abuse.
- At the hearing the petitioner again refused to offer up anything in terms of any assertion of abuse.
- Thus there has been no accusation or assertion of abuse.
- The commissioner ruled referencing some pattern which he did not and has not shared to date.
- The commissioner never provided and actual finding in regard to the abuse.
- 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.
- The respondent’s civil rights have been continually been ignored.
- The respondent has been forced into the street, virtually.
- Because of the unfounded order of protection I have been forced from my home, from my family.
- One child was born of the marriage, namely: Patrick Brandon Jeep Born December 22, 1994, SSN XXX-XX-XXX
- 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.
- 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.
- Therefore I ask that you remove him from the case and order and immediate reversal and or rehearing of the full order of protection.
- 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 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)