Respondent's Motion for Removal of Commissioner Jones in regard to this issue And a Motion to preserve Respondent’s rights of appeal due to a judgment asserted by a Corrupt Judiciary and a Fraudulent Petition Support by the aforementioned Corrupted Judiciary

Pro Se

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS

STATE OF MISSOURI

Sharon Gayle Jeep, (SSN)                         Petitioner,                         and David Gerard Jeep, (SSN)                         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 And a Motion to preserve Respondent’s rights of appeal due to a judgment asserted by a Corrupt Judiciary and a Fraudulent Petition Support by the aforementioned Corrupted Judiciary

COMES NOW Respondent, David G. Jeep, and moves this Court to remove Commissioner Jones in the above referenced issues and to preserve his right of appeal based on the initial denial and the subsequent denial of this courts continued ILLEGAL rulings.

1. On 11/19/03 the Respondent was illegally denied Access to due process
2. Numerous motions were put forward both by certified members of the Bar and by the respondent on his own behalf.  A citizen should not have to ask for his rights.  Right are not awarded, RIGHTS by definition can not be taken away, they cannot be denied.  If rights are denied it is ILLEGAL.  If I held someone against there will and denied them access to there property it would be theft, kidnapping and or slavery.  I will be filing formal charges of theft, kidnapping and white slavery against the Commissioner Jones and his cronies. 
3. If a Commissioner, a would be judge and or a Judge Rule without affording all parties their right to due process they are breaking the law.
4. Commissioner Jones admitted in my presence and in the presents of others that he had made mistake, that there was nothing to warrant an Order of Protection.  Nonetheless in spite of his illegal denial of my rights and in spite of his admitted mistake he continued to enforce his corrupt, illegal ruling.  I for one think that that makes Criminally libel for his actions.
5. I will be filing charges of fraud and theft against the petitioner and her would be attorney.  That is once I again get access to my fraudulently denied right to my liberty and my property
6. If the courts act illegally, the courts need to be exposed as criminals they are.  All the petitions for my right to due process were summarily and illegally denied by Commissioner Jones in attempt to cover up his misconduct and his incompetence and his illegal abuse of his judicial authority.  Commissioner Jones has continuously denied the Respondent his right to his property, to his paternity, to his liberty, to his everything.
7. The Respondent has been illegally denied access to all of his possessions for nearly 2 years because of this CORRUPT ruling by Commissioner Jones.
8. The Respondent’s Child has been forced to into drug dependency without regard to the Respondents rights nor the rights of the child.
9. There has never been a threat of violence nor and act of violence by the respondent.  Yet the basis for the entire issue is an illegally enforced order of protection.
10. Yes the Respondent has peacefully attempted on 2 occasions to recover his fraudulently stolen belongings.
11. There was one attempt to get custody of the child for the Respondent and yes I did knock on the door because petitioner would not answer the door and because my wife had taken the child outside of her rights under then in place custody order.
12.  On 12/19/04 the respondent was denied his right to due process because the aforementioned BIASED Commissioner sat in judgment and his subsequent ruling based on unsupported suspect perjurious testimony presented by the Petitioner.
13. Now nearly 12 months after the Commissioner’s Biased decree the Petitioner has made no effort to settle the Fraudulent, Biased Judgment for fear of my APPEAL.  The Petitioner was award everything I owned and has had unencumbered use of EVERYTHING I owned without regard to my rights of ownership, all without the Respondent being afford access to due process.  
14. The Respondent has made motions that the custody order afford the Petitioner gave too much in terms of monetary support and that the support was inhibiting the respondents right to his property.

                                                                                    ______________________________________

This Tuesday December 13, 2005

Pro Se David G. Jeep, Respondent 16359D Lakefield Place Drive Grover, MO 63040                                       314-277-5904