United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
St. Louis 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 , and David Lee Vincent, Gary Krautmann, Legal Counsel to the Circuit Clerk, State of Missouri, St. Louis County
Defendants
Appeal 07-2614
Case No. 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ
I got to thinking; you might reasonably wonder what made the divorce so lopsided. That is the legal and constitutional question I have been asking for 4 + years. I have been screaming, what did I do???
A motion again to restate the issues
Beep, Beep, Squeak, Squeak.
1. The plaintiff states affirmatively Sharon G. Jeep has stated on the stand under oath that the Plaintiff never threatened to hit her, that the Plaintiff never hit her, that the Plaintiff never verbally abused her, that the Plaintiff never demanded sex from her, and that the Plaintiff never demanded deviant sex from her. Of course this was after she had had the plaintiff thrown out of his home, taken his paternity rights, forced him into a lopsided divorce settlement, saddle him with a crippling child support obligations, attempted to addict his son to drugs and all the while denying him his paternal 50% access to his son.
2. When you handicap a runner at the start of the race, it is unfair to ask him to compete against healthy unencumbered entrants. And if the other entrants have directly benefited from the losses sustained by the handicap victim, it is that much more unfair. Fraus omnia corrumpit, fraud unravels all, once a contract is affected by fraud, all bets are off.
3. You might reasonably wonder what made the divorce so lopsided, what issue took away his paternity, what stole his liberty, what forced him into a crippling child support obligation, what denied him 50% access to his son?
4. I have been asking that “legal” and “constitutional” question since the inception of the issue. We made that objection in a timely fashion during the very first hearing for the full order of protection in November 2003, and we have made that objection repeatedly, subsequently and relentlessly since then, for 4 plus years now.
5. I was never charged with anything.
6. The 14th Amendment states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.[1]” I never had due Process of Law I was forced to accept the whim of a definitively incompetent would be Judge, commissioner Jones, because those responsible for his actions his employers the "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc failed to do their job.
7. The ex-parte and full order of protection were both legally and constitutionally deficient on their face. Neither the ex-parte or the full order of protection list anything specific as regards the “nature and cause of the accusation.[2]”
8. You see the full order of protection was the only cause for the lopsidedness of the settlement.
9. An order of protection, knocks a man off his feet, cripples him if you will at the start of what could be the most important legal battle of his life, a disputed divorce. The 5th Amendment to the constitution was written to address this kind of infamous[3] emotionally charged, self-serving allegation. An ex parte order of protection, denies even the smallest concession to Due Process of Law. The subsequent hearing for the full order of protection thus needs to be scrupulously true to the respondent’s rights to full Due Process of Law.
10. I again state affirmatively that is the very legal and constitutional question I am asking the definitively incompetent would be judge, Commissioner Jones, and his "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employers Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc and the United States Court of Appeals, FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, St. Louis DIVISION to tell me? I was never charged with anything specifically as regards the “infamous crime.[4]” I was never presented “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation[5].” I was never served “a presentment or indictment[6].” I was never “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation[7].” In that I never had a presentment, I was then never confronted with the witnesses against[8]” me on the undefined issues.
11. Contrary to the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment to the Constitution, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,[9]” my paternity, my life, my liberty and my property were all taken from me without access to Due Process of Law by the definitively incompetent would be judge commissioner Jones with approval of his "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employers Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc.
12. There is no issue with States having control of “Civil/Divorce.” The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,[10]” my paternity, my life, my liberty and my property were all taken from me without access to Due Process of Law by the definitively incompetent would be judge commissioner Jones with approval of his "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employers Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc. I do not care what they call it Divorce, Civil, or the laws of pinochle, the 14th Amendment says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,[11]” This is not a state’s rights issue, this is a constitutional rights issue.
13. The original petition, the ex parte order of protection on the face of it was deficient as an adequate indictment prior to the ex parte order of protection nor was there a formal finding of facts to appeal or contend after the hearing and the subsequent full order of protection.
14. The abuse hearing and the divorce issue are statutorily separate. All though to separate them you would have to have a magic wand. When you knee cap one of the two contestants in a foot race at the starting line there is no way that is not going to have an effect who wins the race.
15. You let me take away your paternity, your property, your home, your liberty and your everything and award it by default to your adversary, let’s see how well you compete against the recipient of your paternity, your property, your home, your liberty and your everything in a subsequent 2 person legal foot race, a divorce.
16. The whole process of Divorce becomes mute when one party has already been awarded your paternity, your property, your home, your liberty and your everything and you are forced to fight for scraps.
17. Additionally I had no need to ask any of the questions in the divorce issue, because I was never charged with any of those issues?
18. The “Full order of Protection” took on an all-consuming life of its own. I could not object to it, I could not appeal it; I was unconstitutionally forced to accept it. The divorce was merely a codicil to the “Full Order of Protection.”
19. Within Missouri’s 21st District Court en banc incompetence breeds and approves of incompetence, there is no realistic administration as required from a "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employer with direct oversight and approval responsibility for their subordinate, family commissioner’s, actions.
20. The ex parte order of protection and the subsequent full order of protection were both the result of the denial of my 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment to the Constitutional Rights.
21. Since the divorce was the direct product of and subsequent to the unconstitutional denial of my rights as defined by the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment to the constitution, the divorce is also unconstitutionally the fruit of that denial.
22. I repeat and affirm my paternity, my everything, my liberty, my property, virtually my life was taken from me on an unconstitutional[12] whim outside the due Process of Law by the commissioner Jones with the approval of his "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employers Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc.
23. Because this denial so dramatically crippled the defendant at the inception of this issue, the plaintiff herewith seeks damages for pain and suffering from the inception of this issue through the present under color of law per the 1983 Civil Rights Act from Missouri’s 21st District Court en banc as his remedy.
24. The Plaintiff seeks damages from the defendant Sharon G. Jeep for the fraud, she perpetrated under color of law[13] and that Sharon G. Jeep has since recanted. In civil and contract law I state, fraus omnia corrumpit, fraud negates everything, fraud unravels it all. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.
Amendment 4 - 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.
Amendment 5 - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 6 - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment 14 - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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….
TITLE 42 CHAPTER 21 SUBCHAPTER I § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Monday, January 28, 2008
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
_____________________________________ David G. Jeep
[1] 14th Amendment to the Constitution
[2] 6th Amendment to the Constitution
[3] 5th Amendment to the Constitution
[4] 5th Amendment to the Constitution
[5] 4th Amendment to the Constitution
[6] 5th Amendment to the Constitution
[7] 6th Amendment to the Constitution
[8] 6th Amendment to the Constitution
[9] 14th Amendment to the Constitution
[10] 14th Amendment to the Constitution
[11] 14th Amendment to the Constitution
[12] 1983 Civil Rights Action
[13] 1983 Civil rights Action
