Friday, May 16, 2008

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI 07-11115



No. _07-11115_
Appeal 07-2614
Case No. 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ
An EMERGENCY WRIT OF CERTIORARI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
— PETITIONER FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
David G. Jeep
- RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
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, Presiding Judge 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 c/o Gary Krautmann, Legal Counsel to the Circuit Clerk, State of Missouri, St. Louis County
________________________________________________________________
 (NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)PETITION
Division 65 of the 21st District Court State of Missouri, Commissioner Jones
FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
David G. Jeep
Salvation Army, Harbor Light
3010 Washington Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63103
This is a temporary mailing address only thru June 13, 2008.
My e-mail address will be current after that date Dave@DGJeep.com.
The plaintiff is homeless because of this issue.
No phone
________________________________________________________________
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I am requesting the court to rule on two issues:
1.         The primary issue is the denial of plaintiffs 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment Rights, Due Process of Law on an Order of Protection issued by Commissioner Jones under the authority of the 21st District Court of Missouri Judges, his “qui facit per alium facit per se” employers.  This is a Title 42, § 1983 & 1985 Civil Rights Action; the plaintiff seeks damages and the declaratory rescission of the protection order and all of the successive civil court rulings between the plaintiff and the defendant, Sharon G. Jeep as regards child custody and property settlement.  The plaintiff then requests a de novo hearing before a new judge on the issues.  Acting exparte as a presumed abused person “under color of law”, the defendant, Sharon G. Jeep, defrauded the plaintiff; fraus omnia corrumpit, fraud unravels it all.
2.         The secondary issue of the Mandate that brought the plaintiff here is as the result of the order affirming the judgment of the lower court without allowing the plaintiff to be heard on the merits of the case.  With the issuance of the mandate, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow the plaintiff to be heard on the merits of the issue because of the undeliverablility of the order via US Mail.  This after the plaintiff waited eight months with no scheduled end in site and filing numerous motions in support of the primary issue as stated in Item#1 above.  The issue of the plaintiff’s homelessness was in writing and motion made an issue for the court in October 2007, fully 4 months prior to the mandate.  Homelessness does not squash a person’s rights; it unfortunately, for all parties complicates the process.  The Plaintiff wants to be heard on the merits of the case.
________________________________________________________________
LIST OF PARTIES
[X] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.
________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OPINIONS BELOW............................................5
JURISDICTION..............................................5
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .........5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................6
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ............................15
CONCLUSION................................................17
INDEX TO APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:------------- Order of the 8th Circuit Court Eastern Missouri
APPENDIX B:------------- Order of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals w/Mandate
APPENDIX C:------------- Motion for Reconsideration
APPENDIX D:------------- Denial of motion for reconsideration by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
APPENDIX E ------------- Original Exparte Order of Protection
APPENDIX F ------------- Motions filed after the Hearing declaring Constitutional Issues
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED   None
CASES PAGE NUMBER------- None
STATUTES AND RULES------ See Above
OTHER------------------- None
________________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.
________________________________________________________________
OPINIONS BELOW
[X] For cases from federal courts:
The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix “A” to the petition and is [X] is unpublished.
The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix “B” to the petition and is [X] is unpublished.
________________________________________________________________
JURISDICTION
[X] For cases from federal courts:
The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was February 28, 2008.  There was a mandate issued by the court on March 31, 2008 [X] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of Appeals on the following date: April 11, 2008, and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix ”D”
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).
________________________________________________________________
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
The 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
4th Amendment
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.
5th Amendment
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. 
14th Amendment
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…. 
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
First, the case for the Emergency Issue for the Writ of Certiorari, as with all emergencies, this emergency is a personal issue.  My son’s life is at risk.  My son has been forced into an elective course of psychiatric drug therapy that is at a minimum shortening his life experience and potentially threatening his very breath.  This threat to his life is per the label warning and over my expressed objection as his father.  The Plaintiff begs the court’s indulgence on this.  The Plaintiff states that he has been restricted from being a complete Father to his son for nearly five years now as a result of this issue.  All of his worldly possessions were taken from him or have been expended in pursuit of his rights on this issue.  The plaintiff is literally penniless or will be after making ten copies of this Writ.  The Plaintiff has invested everything; living virtually hand to mouth struggling to regain what was in effect stolen from him by flagrantly illegal[1] court action nearly five years ago. 
It may seem inconsequential to the court, but the plaintiff as a Father made a promise to his son, that he would have this issue resolved this summer.  Father’s Day is approaching, June 15, 2008, and summer shortly thereafter, as a Father that has already lost nearly five years with his son, I beg of you see the emergency and please, please help me to right this flagrant and egregiously illegal action at the hands of the 21st Circuit Court of Missouri.
I apologize, this is a common sense brief based on a high school reading of our constitution, but I should not need a higher degree to understand the law.  If the law is not easily understood so that is can be adhered to by everyone, it is useless.  There are no legal precedents sited, no table of authorities.  I have no formal legal training.  For example if an act was to say “Every person,” I would included that to mean literally every person.  And if you want to start imposing obscure common law interpretations on the written law, I insist that you insert the one and only common law, that governs all the others, “Survival of the fittest”, and I am then buying a gun.  Lincoln may have freed the slaves, but Sam Colt made all men equal.
I do not presently own a gun, and I do not want to own one for self-defense.  I believe in laws, I believe in civilization, I believe in writing laws that say what they mean, not what them to say through some obscure common law interpretation.  If “We the People” allow that we are installing a new monarchy to replace the ones in the Ermine Robes.  And we will surely have to over throw these would be royal rulers just as we had to over throw the last ones in 1776.
I want the 14th Amendment “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  And I want the 1983 Civil Rights Act “Every person who, under color of any statute… subjects… any citizen of the United States… 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….” I want Due Process of Law clearly defined and asserted here and now, I do not want to be subject to the, would be royal whims of a man in black robes.  We threw off the royals with their ermine robes back in 1776.
If the courts are overwhelmed by too many cases, they need t appeal to the electorate for a reinterpretation of their duties and get an amendment passed.
The case in chief, the Plaintiff was forced out of his home, at gunpoint by the police acting on an exparte order[2] of the court on Monday November 3, 2003.  The exparte order of protection, ordered by Judge Goeke of the 21st District State Court of Missouri was on the face of it deficient.  It listed no abuse, nor any violence perpetrated against the Defendant, Sharon G. Jeep.  The enforcement of the deficient Exparte Order of Protection clearly denied the plaintiff his right to feel safe in his home under the provisions affirmed in the 4th Amendment i.e., “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” and assured by the 14th Amendment ”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
At the hearing, the deficiency of the order was pointed out by the plaintiff’s attorney, before Commissioner Jones.  Furthermore, my attorney objected “Your Honor?  I'm going to make an objection based upon this evidence being outside the scope of the pleadings.  And the reason is because Ms. Jeep--Mrs. Jeep, excuse me—clearly omitted checking the box that says "caused physical harm to me" or "attempted to physically harm me." She did not check either of those boxes.  She has not pled anywhere that he has caused her physical harm.”  Commissioner Jones being fully informed of what he was doing allowed testimony outside the scope of the pleadings / presentment.  This clearly denied the plaintiff his right to a prior presentment of the infamous charges and thus due process of law as defined by the 5th Amendment and assured by the 14th Amendment.
The Commissioner then ruled in favor of the new charge, a full order of protection, thus in effect denying the plaintiff his son and virtually all of his worldly property for not less than 12 months at the discretion of the defendant, Sharon G. Jeep.  This change in the charge during the trial in effect denied the plaintiff his right to a presentment and Due Process of law as defined by the 5th Amendment and assured by the 14th Amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
I want you to imagine having everything you cared about taken from you in an instant and the only thing you can do is to file an appeal on the basis of a surprise, implausible, inflammatory, self-serving allegation of the opposition.  An appeal to say the least takes time.  An appeal is very costly.  I did not have the time or the ability to pursue an appeal effectively and like most Americans Citizens, I was never a man with a surplus of money in the bank.  All my money was tied up in my son, my family, and my home, all of which were now taken from me by order of the court. 
Imagine the emotional cost, the traumatic shock is by itself life threatening, suicide was a seriously considered possibility.  Nearly five years later, I am still recovering from the nervous stress; I have never been able to accept it.  I liken it to a life threatening harrowing emotional and physical experience with posttraumatic stress syndrome as an additional concern.  One minute you are a successful man, you have a family, you have a son, the next you are a homeless, childless, an outcast and a loathsome abuser.
The 5th Amendment clearly states that no one will be held to answers for an infamous crime without a proper “presentment” of the charges.  To allow the charge to be recreated on the fly by surprise, over a timely object, out of inflammatory self-serving testimony during the trial is a clear an unequivocalable denial of 5th Amendment Rights.  This in addition to replacing what had been a deficient charge “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” in violation of the 4th amendment.  This was and is a flagrant, egregious and criminal abuse of Judicial Authority and a complete disregard for the rights of the plaintiff under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments.
This Title 42, § 1983 & 1985[3] Civil Rights Action issue has been passed along up the chain from the 8th Circuit Court for Eastern Missouri, through the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirming, because Civil/Matrimonial law is the province of the “State Courts” and beyond the presumed reach of the Federal Courts.
I restate the 14th Amendment “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.”  I do not care what it is the laws of pinochle or Civil/Matrimonial Law, the 14th amendment states, “No State shall make or enforce any law” that denies due process of law.  And although “Due Process of Law is a loosely defined nebulous term typically at the whimsical discretion of a Judge the 4th and the 5th Amendment do get specific and they clearly state “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” and “No person shall be held to answer for a(an)….infamous crime, unless on a presentment.”  There was no statement of a probable cause, no presentment charges, and thus no due process of law.  The Commissioner cooked up the charges out of the inflammatory self-serving testimony of the defendant on the fly and flagrantly, egregiously and illegally took the plaintiff’s paternity, his pursuit of happiness, his civil rights and his property via this kangaroo court.
I was then forced to defend myself penniless in a divorce where I had already been convicted, sentenced and banished for the infamous crime of spousal abuse.
State law in Missouri states that an Order of Protection shall have no bearing on a divorce settlement that is impossible for the middle class run of the mill person.  My son was and is the world to me.  Every other thing I cared for and valued was in that house.  Without my son, my property, my house, I had nothing.  What is at dispute in a Divorce; typically the custody of the children and a home.  Possession is 9/10 of the law, by common law.  If one party is able to get a fraudulent order of protection upfront in a Divorce, it in effect settles the issue before the divorce is even filed.  By default the successful fraudulent petitioner in a marital order of protection issue, is awarded 9/10 possession of everything in dispute, unfettered custody of the children and sole occupancy of the major marital asset, the home.  With a willing co-conspirator, a courthouse full of Judges, the ex parte order of abuse is ripe for abuse.
Now as an addition, do not allow yourself to believe for one second that there was abuse, the defendant Sharon G. Jeep has testified on the stand under oath, the plaintiff, David G. Jeep, never abused her verbally, never called her names, never hit her, never threatened to hit her, never demanded sex, and never demanded deviant sex.
Don’t allow yourself to believe that this was some sort of paperwork SNAFU.  The 21st District is required by statute to provide trained assistance to those that request an “Exparte Order of Protection.”  Those people are exempted from any liability by a “Good Samaritan” clause.  The 21st District Court does have one of those offices with staff.  The employers of the staff, the court that authorizes a deficient order is still liable.  The deficiency of the original petition clearly rest with the fraud as perpetrated by the defendant Sharon G. Jeep, Judge Goeke and the 21st District Court Judges of Missouri.
Do not believe that this is some last-ditch effort by the looser in a divorce for scraps.  This is and has been my soul intention since walking out of the courtroom on November 19, 2003 after being victimized by Commissioners Jones’s illegal denial of my Civil Rights.  This is the plaintiff seeking the protection of US Code Title 42, § 1983 & 1985 Civil Rights Act.  It has taken nearly five years to get here.  I have been in pain and bleeding emotionally every second since the issue arose.
Do not allow yourself to think for a minute that Commissioner Jones missed this in the passion of the courtroom.  In the calm, cool light of day, my attorney of recorded, filed two post trial motions[4] with the commissioner clearly pointing to the Commissioner’s illegal and unconstitutional actions and asking for reconsideration and got nothing but further denial of the plaintiff’s civil rights.  I made timely motions[5] for the removal of Commissioner Jones to the presiding Judge and every other supposed power with oversight in writing on the issue of the flagrant denial of my civil rights.  The presiding Judge’s, his respondent superior employer, response was “appeal.”  I could not afford professional assistance nor master the appeal process.  I made mention of the fraud and asked for consideration of the issue in my suggested divorce[6] decree. 
A Family Commissioner is defined by statue[7] in the state of Missouri.  A Family Commissioner, such as Commissioner Jones, is not a judge, any and all his rulings need to signed by a sitting Judge.  Commissioner Jones’s position was created at the discretion and under the authority of the 21st District Court Judges.  The statutes state that the District Judges can create the position at their discretion “en banc.”  The Judges first “en banc” create the position and then the judges select the individual to fill the position “en banc.”  Furthermore, the statute for the creation of a commissioner position states that the State will not pay the salary of a commissioner; the state is to be reimbursed for the salary from discretionary funds form the (21st) district as authorized “en banc” by the Judges of the (21st) district.  Commissioner Jones is the respondent superior employee of the Judges of the 21st District of the State of Missouri.
As regards the issue of a homeless defendant in the federal courts, I would ask that you consider the Motion for Reconsideration, APPENDIX C, as my argument.  As a further suggestion, E-mail is the way to go with a homeless defendant that is computer literate.
________________________________________________________________
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
This is clearly a violation of the civil rights of the plaintiff and it has been since the original enforcement of the deficient and fraudulent petition for an Ex Parte Order of Protection. 
This has been a flagrant denial of the Civil Rights of the plaintiff over the timely objections of the plaintiff.  This was a misuse of judicial authority, this was not an oversight, this was a deliberate unconcealed denial of the plaintiff’s rights and it meet’s or exceeds the standard for unacceptable behavior for the judiciary.
I cannot say whether this happens everyday or never before.  I do assert that men are discriminated against in Divorce and Child Custody Matters as a standard operating procedure.  But under constitutional law, it is of little difference, this is not open to question, a hundred times a day or once in millennia, the 14th amendment to the constitution clearly states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens.”  Again it does not matter if the law revolves around “Race Relations”, “Sexual Relations,” “Family Relations,’ or the “Rules of Pinochle.”  “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens.”
The main culprit in this issue, Commissioner Jones, is a would be Judge from whom the Judges of the 21st District Court of the State of Missouri hoped to profit as his employers to lesson their work load.  The Judges of the 21st District Court of Missouri profited on a personal and individual level.  But with employees and profit comes liability.  The Judges of the 21st District of the State of Missouri cannot use a rubber stamp to insulate themselves from his incompetence and culpability.  The Judges of the 21st District of the State of Missouri are not acting as Judges in this case, they are respondent superior employers overseeing an obviously incompetent employee and thus culpable for their employee’s actions.
________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION
This is a simple issue, the 14th Amendment clearly states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens.”  The reasons for the orders against the plaintiff to date in Federal Court have been because this is a matter of Matrimonial / Civil Law.  Matrimonial / Civil Law matters are not at the discretion of the Federal Courts.  That is the same logic as was used for the Slavery Laws and Jim Crow Laws.  Slavery was a State issue not a Federal issue, with the passage of the 14th amendment it became a Federal issue, just as this is now a Federal issue.  I am asking for Federal Protection of my 4th and 5th Amendment Rights under the 14th Amendment “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens” i.e. my 4th and 5th amendment rights.
You have to see how destructive a fraudulent and baseless order of protection can be to a victim.  The 5th Amendment to the constitution was included to preclude an “infamous charge” without probable cause.  The 5th Amendment clearly prohibits this kind of “on the fly” charge and or conviction that resists the scrutiny of Due Process of Law.  One minute you have a home a family and the next you are alone, homeless, a society outcast and a disreputable spousal abuser.  If you are as I was blindsided by this it is even more destructive if possible, all that you once held as sacred now becomes of little or no value; you have no rights to paternity, property or self-respect.
As a matter of law, the defendant, Sharon G. Jeep, was acting “ex parte” under color of law as afforded a presumed victim of abuse, when she filed the fraudulent petition with the intent of having the plaintiff evicted from their home for self-serving reasons in her planned divorce action.  Thus, she denied the plaintiff his constitutional rights via fraud.
Judge Goeke, as a mater of law clearly with full knowledge and understanding of a law school graduate signed a deficient order of protection and denied the plaintiff his right as defined by the 4th Amendment to the constitution, “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause
Commissioner Jones as a mater of law, acting with and under the authority of the 21st District Judges did with informed consent, brazenly and manifestly deny the plaintiff his rights to not have to stand for a charge of “infamous” nature without a credible “presentment” of the charges in advance as defined by the 5th Amendment and assured by the 14th amendment, “No State Shall”.
The plaintiff begs the court to look at the merits of this matter and order in favor of the plaintiff for damages and declaring null and void the order of protection and all subsequent civil orders related to the custody of the minor children, Patrick B. Jeep ss#XXX-XX-XXX, child support and property effected by this denial of the plaintiff’s rights to Due Process of law as defined by the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments.  The Plaintiff is not asking to overturn the Divorce.  The Plaintiff wants the Divorce.  The Plaintiff then request a new hearing/trial on all issues of the custody of the minor child, child support and property to be brought before a new Judge not currently involved in this action.
I cannot do it here, but if the court wants a full copy of the trial transcript, the plaintiff has it.  He can e-mail where ever, whenever he is asked.  He cannot afford the cost of coping it to include it here in his current reduced circumstances.

________________________________________________________________
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, Wednesday, May 14, 2008,

Dave@DGJeep.com


David G. Jeep
Salvation Army, Harbor Light
3010 Washington Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63103
This is a temporary mailing address only thru June 13, 2008.
My e-mail address will be current after that date Dave@DGJeep.com.
The plaintiff is homeless because of this issue.

Date:
No. ________________________________
Appeal 07-2614
Case No. 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ
IN THESUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
— PETITIONER
David G. Jeep
VS.
- RESPONDENT(S)
Jones et. al.
PROOF OF SERVICE
I,David G. Jeep, do swear or declare that on this date Wednesday, May 14, 2008, as required by Supreme Court Rule 29 I have served the enclosed MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI on each party to the above proceeding or that party’s counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by depositing an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed to each of them and with first-class postage prepaid, or by delivery to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days. Furthermore, I am e-mailing a copy to all involved who I have current E-mail address on.

The names and addresses of those served are as follows:

Gary Krautmann,
Legal Counsel to the Circuit Clerk
St. Louis County Circuit Court, Clerk's Office
7900 Carondelet
Clayton, MO 63105

&

James J. Robinson
Roberts Law Firm
215 Chesterfield Parkway
Suite "A"
Chesterfield, MO   63005


I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on, 20

Dave@DGJeep.com


David G. Jeep
Salvation Army, Harbor Light
3010 Washington Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63103
This is a temporary mailing address only thru June 13, 2008.
My e-mail address will be current after that date Dave@DGJeep.com.
The plaintiff is homeless because of this issue.


[1] See Title 18 Chapter 13 Civil Rights
[2] See enclosed copy of the original order dated 11.3.03 Appendix “E”
[3] I am herewith requesting Criminal Charges also under Title 18, Chapter 13 Civil Rights
[4] See the enclosed copies of the motions dated 12-05-03  and 12-18-03  Appendix “F”
[5] I can and will via e-mail provide copies of these filed motions, here it is cost prohibitive
[6] I cannot include it here for cost reasons, but I would like to e-mail you a copy of my suggested Divorce Decree.
[7] See Google for a Search for the “Missouri Revised Statute 487-020” Family Commissioner




























Post a Comment