Saturday, August 18, 2007

Dyslexia and ADD HD are Assets Not Disabilities.




Do you know the difference between Euclidian and Non-Euclidian Geometry?  In the past, we believed in the absolute truth of Euclidian Geometry.  In Euclidian Geometry, you have straight lines that go on infinitely forever perfectly strait.  Those that believe in Euclidian Geometry, have great power in the small confines of a room or a building.  Carpenters and Engineers are proponents and experts in Euclidian Geometry.  But Euclidian Geometry does not work in the real word of Particle Theory, Light, Gravitation Forces or Planetary Movement.  Nothing in the real world is absolutely straight.  And once we step outside of our small room, we realize we live in a non Euclidian World.
Although we live in a non-Euclidian world, we are still in the process of evolving out of our shadowy past a Euclidian World.  We know and accept the world is not flat.  In education, we use to believe that the only way to educate was to line up desks in straight lines and force-feed the rote memorization of facts.  Those that could not sit up at attention, read up to speed, or regurgitate the facts were labeled disabled.
We are learning that not everybody learns best by sitting with their hands folded at attention in desks lined up in rows.  Some people need to fidget, to rock back and forth, to pace, and to move.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Just because some people feel the need to move (ADD/HD) more than others do, this is not a disability, it is just a different characteristic, like skin color, hair color or eye color.  I still find it very difficult to sit still.  I have a need to get up to move, to fidget, and to pace.  I do not do well in offices.  I like to be outside,  I have learned to focus my over abundance of energy now and I use it for my own purposes.  I am not just bouncing off walls and rules as I did in my youth.  My father helped me to focus.  
I think Dyslexia is not so much a mysterious problem with words as it is a more generic problem of grasping the concept of an absolute.  A less biased unemotional manifestation of the characteristic would be an inability to distinguish your right hand from your left.  That is an enormous concept with an overwhelming influence on everyday life.  My mom bought me a watch and put it on the left hand so I could tell the difference.  But then I could never remember which hand I put it on.  When you overlay that inability to “words”, it is hard to tell a “b” from a “d”.  And reading becomes a struggle to remember rather than the near instinctual reaction of a speed reader. 
Statisticians always like to relate dyslexia to criminals.  Criminals have a much higher rate of Dyslexia than law-abiding citizens do.  If you again overlay the concept of an absolute to being able to tell right from wrong it again becomes clear.  Teaching right and wrong, there is no substitute for good parenting.  I am just thankful everyday that I had a Father that would sit with me, a bottomless resource of patience.  He taught with love and patience and I learned.
Now if you take the inability to grasp an absolute in another direction you come up with what I see as it’s intrinsic value, it becomes an asset.  Leonardo DaVinci has been called dyslectic.  Einstein has been called dyslectic.  Mark Twain has been called dyslectic.  Thomas Edison has been called dyslectic.  Picasso has been called dyslectic.  All of these individuals have stepped outside the confinement of the box, the absolute, if you will.  Our society, our education system has a vested interest of self-preservation.  Our society our educational system wants to keep us in the box.  But to be creative you have to be able to reject the “absolute” of society’s, of the school’s accepted thinking to break new ground and discover new ideas that are not presently accepted.  A larger than normal percentage of truly creative people are diagnosed as dyslectic.
For me my inability to grasp an absolute has forced me to be a more thorough thinker.  I cannot, I repeat, I cannot, regurgitate facts.  I have to be able to prove something to myself in my own mind before I can grasp it well enough to attempt to repeat it.  To this day, I have to imagine myself throwing a baseball to be able to distinguish my left hand from my right hand.  In my early years at school this was a real disability, it slowed me down.  But I as matured, I found it to be an asset and it has help me to excel in the real non-Euclidian world.  When we got to the point where we had to truly think to solve problems in school, I was good at it.  My fellows students that not been forced to “think” all along had trouble with the more complex problems of our world.  They just wanted the list of answers to memorize.  In college, they gravitated to business and the soft sciences to keep it simple.
The written word is not an endangered species by any means.  But we are exploring other tools for communication.  We are using multi-media both within a school environment as an instructional tool and our kids are learning to use it as a tool for individual expression.  My 6th grade son made a “Power Point” presentation last year.  In the “New Information Age”, we are learning that we can electronically save, remember, and regurgitate facts much better with silica (computers) than we can with grey matter (brainpower).     
What we have to do is to free our society and our schools of these old out of date absolutes.  We have to abandon the Euclidian Geometry of our past.  We have to allow for individuality and learning in individual ways.  We have to value thinking outside the norm, the absolute.  We have to teach our kids how to focus their over abundant mental and physical energy into positive avenues not stifle it with drugs.  My father taught me with love and patience.  We need to see Dyslexia and ADD/HD as the assets they true should be.

Time is of the essence.

David G. Jeep
314-277-5904/ fax 314-272-1223

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) ("The domestic relations exception . . . divests the federal courts of jurisdiction over any action for which the subject is a divorce, allowance of alimony, or child custody.")

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

DAVID JEEP,
Plaintiff,

v.                                                                       No. 4:07CV1116 CEJ

PHILIP JONES, SR., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the application of David Jeep for leave to
commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.  Upon consideration of the financial information provided with the application, the Court finds that plaintiff is financially unable to pay any portion of the filing fee. As a result, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Additionally, the Court has reviewed the complaint and will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauper is if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in Monday July 02, 2007

-2-


support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45- 46 (1957). In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the judges of the Twenty- First Judicial Circuit Court (County of St. Louis, Missouri), and against his ex-wife for alleged violations of his right to due process. Plaintiff alleges that, during the dissolution of marriage proceedings, his wife fraudulently obtained an ex parte order of protection and that the orders in that case were all created by Commissioner Jones and then “rubber stamped” by the circuit court judges. Plaintiff seeks a new hearing on his divorce, custody of his son, and monetary damages.

Upon review of the complaint, the Court initially finds that it lacks jurisdiction over
the subject matter of this case, i.e., marriage dissolution and child custody. Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) ("The domestic relations exception . . . divests the federal courts of jurisdiction over any action for which the subject is a divorce, allowance of alimony, or child custody."). Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates dismissal of an action whenever it appears that the court lacks subject matter

-3-


jurisdiction. The Court further concludes that dismissal of the claims asserted against the judges is warranted because they are “entitled to absolute immunity for all judicial actions that are not ‘taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction.’” Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991). Consequently, this action will be dismissed as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause
process to issue upon the complaint because the complaint is legally frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED as frivolous and for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An appropriate order of dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Dated this 19th day of June, 2007.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

US District Court, Eastern District of Missouri ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
______________DIVISION


David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs.Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr., Sharon G. Jeep (ex), Joseph A. Goeke , Robert S. Cohen , Michael T. Jamison , Emmett M. O'Brien , Steven H. Goldman , Barbara W. Wallace , James R. Hartenbach , John A. Ross , Michael D. Burton , Larry L. Kendrick , Richard C. Bresnahan , Melvyn W. Wiesman , Maura B. McShane , Colleen Dolan , Mark D. Seigel , Barbara Ann Crancer , Mary Bruntrager Schroeder , Brenda Stith Loftin , Dale W. Hood , Thea A. Sherry , Gloria Clark Reno , John R. Essner , Ellen Levy Siwak , Patrick Clifford , Bernhardt C. Drumm , Dennis N. Smith , Judy Preddy Draper , Sandra Farragut-Hemphill , Douglas R. Beach , John F. Kintz , Gary M. Gaertner , Phillip E. Jones , Carolyn C. Whittington , Tom W. DePriest , David Lee Vincent and Gary Krautmann, Legal Counsel to the Circuit Clerk, State of Missouri, St. Louis County Defendants )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Case No.___________________________(To be assigned by Clerkof District Court)






I. COMPLAINT
1. This issue is closely linked to another issue. It is not that I want the two related or that they should be related, but because of society’s bias and distaste for drinking and abuse, the two have been inextricably linked. The issues are a DWI and an unwarranted order of protection that has had a dramatic effect on my divorce, my life, my son and my resources. I beg your indulgence. We no longer discriminate on the basis of skin color, but accuse someone of drinking and abusing their wife and they have no rights. It is too easy to effect an allegation of drinking and abuse in to a conviction or a court order.
2. I am claiming damages based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the 1983 Civil Rights Act. I was thrown out of my house, my property was taken from me, and my rights to my paternity were taken from me all without access to due process of law.

II. Plaintiff,
1. David G. Jeep
16359D Lakefield Place Drive
Grover, MO 63040
Phone 314-277-5904 / 636-458-4289
III. Defendant,
1. Joseph A. Goeke , Robert S. Cohen , Michael T. Jamison , Emmett M. O'Brien , Steven H. Goldman , Barbara W. Wallace , James R. Hartenbach , John A. Ross , Michael D. Burton , Larry L. Kendrick , Richard C. Bresnahan , Melvyn W. Wiesman , Maura B. McShane , Colleen Dolan , Mark D. Seigel , Barbara Ann Crancer , Mary Bruntrager Schroeder , Brenda Stith Loftin , Dale W. Hood , Thea A. Sherry , Gloria Clark Reno , John R. Essner , Ellen Levy Siwak , Patrick Clifford , Bernhardt C. Drumm , Dennis N. Smith , Judy Preddy Draper , Sandra Farragut-Hemphill , Douglas R. Beach , John F. Kintz , Gary M. Gaertner , Phillip E. Jones , Carolyn C. Whittington , Tom W. DePriest , David Lee Vincent, State of Missouri and St. Louis County.
℅ Gary Krautmann,
Legal Counsel to the Circuit Clerk
St. Louis County Circuit Court, Clerk's Office
7900 Carondelet
Clayton, MO 63105

Telephone Number: 314-615-8029
Fax Telephone Number: 314-615-8739

2. Sharon G. Jeep
16325 Centerpointe Drive
Grover, MO 63040

Represented by attorney
James J. Robinson
215 Chesterfield Business Parkway, Suite "A"
Chesterfield, MO 63005-1226

Phone (636) 530-9199,
Fax (636) 530-6805

IV. Statement of claim:

1. The right to Due Process is immediately vested; you do not have to beg for it. The courts are obligated to provided it per 14th Amendment “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.”

2. The issue has never been heard by a Judge. All rulings to date have been the work of a would be Judge, Commissioner Jones and rubber stamped by real judges. Commissioner Jones is not a Judge, he is not an elected official, he is a hired hand of the Elected Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court, and thus all of the Judges of the St. Louis County Court have responsibility for his actions.

3. The Federal Courts have a system of Magistrate Judges, but the system has integral to it and up front agreement of both parties to a Magistrate Judge, it is not forced on anyone.

4. The original complaint on the face of it had no credibility and should never have been signed as an exparte order or protection. There was no specific complaint of abuse.

5. During the trial over the timely objections of my attorney, the Commissioner allowed testimony outside the scope of the original the Ex Parte Order of Protection and thus allowed surprise denied “Due Process.”.

6. After the subsequent unfounded ruling, the we made two specific motions, both asking for the definition of the new charges and a hearing on the new charges before a judge. All motions were denied and we were denied “Due Process.”.

7. This action by a would be judge denies the respondent his basic right to have the issue heard by a Judge, it denies “Due Process.”

8. The action because the respondent was not afforded prior knowledge of the charges was not allowed any time to make a defense of said “surprise” charges, denies “Due Process.”

9. In that, the charges were never specifically in writing enumerated, just ruled on. There was nothing to credibly appeal or defend against in the Divorce. There were new charges totally unrelated to the prior charges vaguely referenced to in the divorce proceedings deny “Due Process.”.

10. All issues adjudicated to date have been based on fraud. Fraud unravels it all (fraus omnia corrumpit). There is a strong legal principle adopted internationally that a party who obtained an award through fraud should not be entitled to keep that award. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.

V. Relief:

1. I want the charges specifically enumerated and I want a chance to confront my accuser in court on the charges.

2. I want a new hearing on the divorced based on the fraud my ex-wife has perpetrated on the court to date. I want a new divorce hearing based on the results of the corrected ex parte order of protection and the fraud perpetrated and enforced with complicity by the Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court Fraud unravels it all (fraus omnia corrumpit). There is a strong legal principle adopted internationally that a party who obtained an award through fraud should not be entitled to keep that award. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.

3. After the new hearing and when I have disproved all charges. I want compensation for the fraud perpetrated by my ex-wife and enforced by the incompetents of the Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court, St. Louis County and the State of Missouri.

4. In that all issues to date have a basis in fraud, I want a ruling from the court in my favor. I want the house and settlement for damages.

5. I want the right to custody of my son as the primary custodial parent. Custody of my son Patrick B. Jeep is the major issue. I want the current holiday plan to remain in effect. I want my son to reside at his house with me on a weekly basis the up side of the standard Zigenthaller plan, my ex-wife his mother getting every other weekend and every Wednesday during the school years and rotating weeks and Wednesdays in the summer.

VI. MONEY DAMAGES:
A) Do you claim either actual or punitive monetary damages for the acts alleged in this complaint?
YES o NO o

B) If your answer to "A" is YES, state below the amount claimed and the reason or reasons you believe you are entitled to recover such money damages:

Denial of my Parental rights for 4 years @ $50,000/yr. $200,000.00
Fraudulent denial of my property 4 years @ $50,000/yr. $200,000.00
Defamation of character $200,000.00
Half our assets at our separation $250,000.00
For a total of $850,000.00
Less the cost of our house at the time of the divorce ($245,000.00)
Less the half the cost of furnishings ($60,000.00)
$545,000.00
After an inspection of the house to see that it has not been damaged, I want the house and $545,000.00 from my ex-wife.

I will be asking for punitive damages, I think without them, the unseen criminals in the management of the enumerated criminals will not learn from this lesson.

Do you maintain that the wrongs alleged in the complaint are continuing to occur at the present time?
YES o NO o

I want primary custodial care of my son.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this 5th day of June, 2007
Signature of Plaintiff(s)

_________________________________________ David G. Jeep

Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJState Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M ED84021

The Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act (CAPTA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
______________DIVISION



David G. Jeep,
                         Plaintiff,
            vs.
Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr., Sharon G. Jeep (ex), Joseph A. Goeke , Robert S. Cohen , Michael T. Jamison , Emmett M. O'Brien , Steven H. Goldman , Barbara W. Wallace , James R. Hartenbach , John A. Ross , Michael D. Burton , Larry L. Kendrick , Richard C. Bresnahan , Melvyn W. Wiesman , Maura B. McShane , Colleen Dolan , Mark D. Seigel , Barbara Ann Crancer , Mary Bruntrager Schroeder , Brenda Stith Loftin , Dale W. Hood , Thea A. Sherry , Gloria Clark Reno , John R. Essner , Ellen Levy Siwak , Patrick Clifford , Bernhardt C. Drumm , Dennis N. Smith , Judy Preddy Draper , Sandra  Farragut-Hemphill , Douglas R. Beach , John F. Kintz , Gary M. Gaertner , Phillip E. Jones , Carolyn C. Whittington , Tom W. DePriest , David Lee Vincent  and Gary Krautmann, Legal Counsel to the Circuit Clerk, State of Missouri, St. Louis County
                         Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)












Case No.___________________________
(To be assigned by Clerk
of District Court)







I.            COMPLAINT
1.      This issue is closely linked to another issue.  It is not that I want the two related or that they should be related, but because of society’s bias and distaste for drinking and abuse, the two have been inextricably linked.  The issues are a DWI and an unwarranted order of protection that has had a dramatic effect on my divorce, my life, my son and my resources.  I beg your indulgence.  We no longer discriminate on the basis of skin color, but accuse someone of drinking and abusing their wife and they have no rights.  It is too easy to effect an allegation of drinking and abuse in to a conviction or a court order. 
2.      I am claiming damages based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the 1983 Civil Rights Act.  I was thrown out of my house, my property was taken from me, and my rights to my paternity were taken from me all without access to due process of law. 

II.         Plaintiff,
1.      David G. Jeep
16359D Lakefield Place Drive
Grover, MO 63040
Phone 314-277-5904 / 636-458-4289
III.      Defendant,
1.      Joseph A. Goeke , Robert S. Cohen , Michael T. Jamison , Emmett M. O'Brien , Steven H. Goldman , Barbara W. Wallace , James R. Hartenbach , John A. Ross , Michael D. Burton , Larry L. Kendrick , Richard C. Bresnahan , Melvyn W. Wiesman , Maura B. McShane , Colleen Dolan , Mark D. Seigel , Barbara Ann Crancer , Mary Bruntrager Schroeder , Brenda Stith Loftin , Dale W. Hood , Thea A. Sherry , Gloria Clark Reno , John R. Essner , Ellen Levy Siwak , Patrick Clifford , Bernhardt C. Drumm , Dennis N. Smith , Judy Preddy Draper , Sandra  Farragut-Hemphill , Douglas R. Beach , John F. Kintz , Gary M. Gaertner , Phillip E. Jones , Carolyn C. Whittington , Tom W. DePriest , David Lee Vincent, State of Missouri and St. Louis County.
Gary Krautmann,
Legal Counsel to the Circuit Clerk
St. Louis County Circuit Court, Clerk's Office
7900 Carondelet
Clayton, MO 63105

Telephone Number: 314-615-8029
Fax Telephone Number: 314-615-8739

2.      Sharon G. Jeep
16325 Centerpointe Drive
Grover, MO  63040

Represented by attorney
James J. Robinson
215 Chesterfield Business Parkway, Suite "A"
Chesterfield, MO  63005-1226

Phone (636) 530-9199,
Fax (636) 530-6805

IV.       Statement of claim:
1.         The right to Due Process is immediately vested; you do not have to beg for it.  The courts are obligated to provided it per 14th Amendment “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.”
2.         The issue has never been heard by a Judge.  All rulings to date have been the work of a would be Judge, Commissioner Jones and rubber stamped by real judges.  Commissioner Jones is not a Judge, he is not an elected official, he is a hired hand of the Elected Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court, and thus all of the Judges of the St. Louis County Court have responsibility for his actions.
3.         The Federal Courts have a system of Magistrate Judges, but the system has integral to it and up front agreement of both parties to a Magistrate Judge, it is not forced on anyone.
4.         The original complaint on the face of it had no credibility and should never have been signed as an exparte order or protection.  There was no specific complaint of abuse.
5.         During the trial over the timely objections of my attorney, the Commissioner allowed testimony outside the scope of the original the Ex Parte Order of Protection and thus allowed surprise denied “Due Process.”. 
6.         After the subsequent unfounded ruling, the we made two specific motions, both asking for the definition of the new charges and a hearing on the new charges before a judge.  All motions were denied and we were denied “Due Process.”.
7.         This action by a would be judge denies the respondent his basic right to have the issue heard by a Judge, it denies “Due Process.”
8.         The action because the respondent was not afforded prior knowledge of the charges was not allowed any time to make a defense of said “surprise” charges, denies “Due Process.”
9.         In that, the charges were never specifically in writing enumerated, just ruled on.  There was nothing to credibly appeal or defend against in the Divorce.  There were new charges totally unrelated to the prior charges vaguely referenced to in the divorce proceedings deny “Due Process.”.
10.     All issues adjudicated to date have been based on fraud.  Fraud unravels it all (fraus omnia corrumpit).  There is a strong legal principle adopted internationally that a party who obtained an award through fraud should not be entitled to keep that award.  Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.
V.          Relief:
1.      I want the charges specifically enumerated and I want a chance to confront my accuser in court on the charges. 
2.      I want a new hearing on the divorced based on the fraud my ex-wife has perpetrated on the court to date.  I want a new divorce hearing based on the results of the corrected ex parte order of protection and the fraud perpetrated and enforced with complicity by the Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court   Fraud unravels it all (fraus omnia corrumpit).  There is a strong legal principle adopted internationally that a party who obtained an award through fraud should not be entitled to keep that award.  Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.
3.      After the new hearing and when I have disproved all charges.  I want compensation for the fraud perpetrated by my ex-wife and enforced by the incompetents of the Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court, St. Louis County and the State of Missouri.
4.      In that all issues to date have a basis in fraud, I want a ruling from the court in my favor.  I want the house and settlement for damages. 
5.      I want the right to custody of my son as the primary custodial parent.  Custody of my son Patrick B. Jeep is the major issue.  I want the current holiday plan to remain in effect.  I want my son to reside at his house with me on a weekly basis the up side of the standard Zigenthaller plan, my ex-wife his mother getting every other weekend and every Wednesday during the school years and rotating weeks and Wednesdays in the summer.
VI.       MONEY DAMAGES:
A) Do you claim either actual or punitive monetary damages for the acts alleged in this complaint?
YES o            NO o

B) If your answer to "A" is YES, state below the amount claimed and the reason or reasons you believe you are entitled to recover such money damages:
                                                                                                                                                  
Denial of my Parental rights for 4 years @ $50,000/yr.              $200,000.00
Fraudulent denial of my property 4 years @ $50,000/yr.           $200,000.00
Defamation of character                                                            $200,000.00
Half our assets at our separation                                                $250,000.00
For a total of                                                                            $850,000.00
Less the cost of our house at the time of the divorce                 ($245,000.00)
Less the half the cost of furnishings                                             ($60,000.00)
                                                                                                $545,000.00
After an inspection of the house to see that it has not been damaged, I want the house and $545,000.00 from my ex-wife.

I will be asking for punitive damages, I think without them, the unseen criminals in the management of the enumerated criminals will not learn from this lesson.

Do you maintain that the wrongs alleged in the complaint are continuing to occur at the present time?
YES o            NO o
                       
I want primary custodial care of my son.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this 5th day of June, 2007
Signature of Plaintiff(s)

                                                                                                                _________________________________________                                                                                                                  David G. Jeep

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Matt Blunt , Jay Nixon Report of a Crime, Cause No. CR203-1336M - SD26269


Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Matt Blunt                                                          Jay Nixon
Constituent Services                                       Missouri Attorney General's Office
Office of the Governor                                     Supreme Court Building
Room 216, State Capitol Building                 207 W. High St.
Jefferson City MO 65101                                Jefferson City, MO 65102

Re:  HELP !!!! HELP!!!! HELP !!!!  1,123 Follow up without a response
        Report of a Crime
        Cause No. CR203-1336M - SD26269
       
Dear People,
I say again, HELP !!!! HELP!!!! HELP !!!!  I have been openly chasing these issues for over three years.  This is not an appeal issue.  I should not have to appeal corruption in the courts.  I should not have to prosecute criminals to clear my name.  The state should prosecute the criminals.  This issue is about to again attempt to destroy me as it did with my Divorce.  I cannot drive.  I cannot work.  I cannot make next month’s rent.  I need your help.  I am about to be thrown in the street. 
All because the criminals in the court system in Camden County fabricated evidence and thus created the issue of False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, Perjury, Suborning Perjury, Criminal Conspiracy and Professional Malfeasants
The Issue was listed in my recent divorce.  And the only thing that gives it any credibility at all is are the crimes of False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, Perjury, Suborning Perjury, Criminal Conspiracy and Professional Malfeasants arising from the adjudication of Cause No. CR203-1336M - SD26269.
The Police, the Prosecutor were and are corrupted by their False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, Perjury, Suborning Perjury, Criminal Conspiracy and Professional Malfeasants arising from the adjudication.
Time is of the essence.  If there is anything further, I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.
 



David G. Jeep

David G. Jeep

Enclosure:      Copy of letter 4/23/07, Copy of letter 4/03/04
                       
cc:    St. Louis Post Dispatch, Editorial Department
         File


Monday, April 23, 2007

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:  Report of a Crime
        Cause No. CR203-1336M - SD26269
       
Dear People,

My attorney and now the Missouri State Highway Patrol tell me you are the ones that have the responsibility to investigate this type of crime.  There is very little investigation required.  You need only verify the documentation, I am enclosing.  Please consider this a sworn complaint based on the following.
I want to report a crime.  For law enforcement professionals such as yourself this is an unsavory one.  The perpetrators involved in the crime are law enforcement “professionals” and Officer’s of the court.  The crimes False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, Perjury, Suborning Perjury, Criminal Conspiracy and Professional Malfeasants.  The state’s prosecutors and their witnesses have fabricated evidence out of false testimony and disgraced their office and their uniforms by breaking the law.
False Arrest, the arresting officer, Mr. Little, did not give me the opportunity as prescribed by the NHSTA standard[1] to remove my 2 ½” heeled cowboy boots[2].  That the made the results of the test unreliable and the resulting arrest, false.  Now if the police department had caught and admitted their error right off, this would not have been an issue. 
Mr. Taylor the officer that administered the breathalyzer test and contrived the refusal perjured himself by denying his prior sworn testimony that I had blown for 15 seconds on the certified arrest report[3].  This after I had a witness from the Missouri State Health Department, the authority over the breathalyzer test confirm under oath[4], that a 20 second continuous blow should not have been necessary.
They never admitted their mistakes, this in spite of being at pretrial motions[5] that highlighted this as an issue.  They chose instead to cover up and deny the issue with perjured testimony on the day of the trial.  You cannot give people badges and let them make arrests if they do not know how to make arrests and or not willing to admit when they have made a False Arrest
Malicious Prosecution, if the prosecutor had done his due diligence and confirmed the evidence and the testimony prior to trial, even a cursory review of the facts and the pretrial motions would have brought the credibility of the issue to light.  They either did not due any credible investigation to determine the validity of the issue or they were just lazy, either way, I see it as Malicious Prosecution.
Perjury, given that the police officers had prior knowledge of the issues via their unusual attendance at the pretrial motions and their continued denial of the facts through their false testimony ignorance is no excuse.  But even if they do want to claim ignorance at the time of the arrest, ok somebody made a mistake.  Informed ignorance 8 months later on the stand is no excuse.  They committed Perjury.
Suborning Perjury is the presentation of evidence known to be false through another party.  The Prosecuting attorney should have known that the issue of the 2 ½” heel was credible and he should not have allowed the police officers to commit perjury.  He let them commit perjury on the stand under oath in support of their otherwise unsupportable case.  They Suborned Perjury.
Criminal Conspiracy, in that both the police and the prosecutors had knowledge or should have had knowledge of the criminal actions of the other, they conspired to cover it up.  They committed a Criminal Conspiracy.
Professional Malfeasants, no one received any bribes and I am not claiming that they did.  But monetary benefit is not the only benefit to be had in this situation.  In that neither the police nor the prosecutor did their respective duties, they were just lazy at best.  They benefited from being lazy and disregarding their professional duties and there was Professional Malfeasants.


Time is of the essence, if there is anything further, I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
                                                                                                                                      
Thank you in advance.
 



David G. Jeep

David G. Jeep

enclosure
            Copy of letter dated 4/24/07 to James F. Keathley, MSHP
Copy of letter dated 4/9/07 to MSHP
Copy of letter dated 3/7/07 t o the MSHP
           
cc:    Richard Edwards, Edwards Schramm Young and Beilenson L.L.P.
         Michael Young, Edwards Schramm Young and Beilenson L.L.P.
         St. Louis Post Dispatch, Editorial Department
         file


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

cc: file









[1] See copies of the NHTSA Standard as attached to the copy of the 3/7/07 letter to the MSHP
[2] See copies of the of the arrest report dated 5/17/03 and as attached to the copy of the 3/7/07 letter to the MSHP
[3] See copies of the of the certified arrest report dated 5/18/03 and as attached to the copy of the 3/7/07 letter to the MSHP
[4] See a certified copy of the trial transcript
[5] See copies of the of the pretrial motions dated 9/30/03 as attached to the  as attached to the copy of the 3/7/07 letter to the MSHP