Reassembled Thursday, October 21, 2010
The Evidence
As I referenced previously with my appeals, my petition for a writ of certiorari and in my prior correspondents with you and because I know you never took the time to look at them, I NOW include for the record:
1. A copy of the trial transcript (SD26269.doc), where Officer Little gave false testimony
2. A copy of the “U.S. Department of Transportation DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Participant Manual” 2002 Edition (NHSTA) Page VIII-11, Section 4. Test Conditions, Second Paragraph, last sentence that proves his testimony to be false. Note I asked specifically for this information in pretrial motions[3]. The Prosecutor[4] and the Police[5] clearly presented false EVIENCE to convict me!!!!!!
3. A copy of the trial transcript (SD26269.doc) where Officer Taylor contradicts his prior sworn police report. He testified I did not blow for a continuous 15 seconds.
4. A copy of Officer Taylor’s sworn police report[6] dated 05-18-03. Taylor confirmed on page two of his sworn report, I blew for 15 seconds without stopping, “Jeep started again watching his watch and stopped after blowing approximately 15 seconds.” No one can blow for 20 seconds without stopping. If it is attempted on the DATAMASTER as programmed for the State of Missouri (5/17/03) it will ALWAYS return an “Invalid result” every-time. There is NO way, given the instructions in Taylor’s sworn police report, anyone could pass the test. Anyone following those instructions will fail with an “Invalid result” every-time. The police report is consistent with verifiable facts, i.e., the “invalid result”. Taylor’s sworn trial testimony is not is consistent with verifiable facts; it will not produce an “invalid result”. He thus gave false testimony. The Prosecutor[7] and the Police[8] clearly presented false EVIENCE to convict me!!!!!!
5. A copy of the petition for an order of protection filed 11/03/03. It does not list any “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation[9]” i.e., “first hand abuse”. What it lists is an inadmissible hear-say allegation of a bad-act regarding a court appearance from a month prior and 150 miles away, where the alleged victim, by her own admission, was NOT EVEN PRESENT and where the judge eventually, all though unknown at the time of the hearing (11/19/03), would recuse himself[10] for his thus admitted bad act. The Judges Goeke and Jones clearly issued a Warrant without probable cause to take away my son, my home, everything I cared for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is old news, but again for the record “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry”[11]:
“It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an Order of Protection (209A[12]), if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house…
Long-term emotional damage to children's fathers -- surely not good for children -- often begins with a restraining order…
"A man against whom a frivolous Order of Protection (209A) has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating[13], and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect... It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."” [14]
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
“Time is of the essence”
Dave@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep
David G. Jeep
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS SOUTHERN DISTRICT
STATE OF MISSOURI, )
Respondent, )
v. ) S. D. No. 26269
DAVID G. JEEP, )
Appellant. )
IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION
The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge
STATE OF MISSOURI, )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Cause No. CR203-1336M
DAVID G. JEEP, )
Defendant. )
TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL
ALEX LITTLE, called as a witness in behalf of the STATE, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JEEP: Excerpt starting page 84
Q. The walk-and-turn and the balance test, the standards for applying that test, do they reference anything about footwear?
A. Yes. They say that if a person has on footwear that has like greater than four-inch heels, then you can allow them to take their footwear off, if they want to, to perform the test.
Q. Is it a four-inch heel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Or a two-inch heel?
A. It's a--If I'm not mistaken, it's a four-inch heel.
Q. Do you have that in writing anywhere?
A. Not on me now, no.
MR. JEEP: Do you have that? I asked for this earlier, Judge. No one was able to present me with it or they told me to look for it, and I looked under the NHTSA, I called NHTSA, they wanted me to buy it from them--
THE COURT: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. No.
MR. JEEP: Excuse me. They--The--
THE COURT: You asked the question, he's answered it.
MR. JEEP: Okay.
BY MR. JEEP:
Q. There's no place where this is standardized? Do you have in your--in writing anyplace?
A. I would assume I had it with the information that they gave me in the academy.
Q. Okay. And you think it's four-inch?
A. Yes, sir.
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS SOUTHERN DISTRICT
STATE OF MISSOURI, )
Respondent, )
v. ) S. D. No. 26269
DAVID G. JEEP, )
Appellant. )
IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION
The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge
STATE OF MISSOURI, )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Cause No. CR203-1336M
DAVID G. JEEP, )
Defendant. )
TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL
TIM TAYLOR, called as a witness in behalf of the STATE, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JEEP: Excerpt starting page 118
Q. I mean that's what you said. I blew for 15 seconds. How did you know I was blowing 15 seconds?
A. Approximately 15 seconds.
Q. Approximately 15 seconds. Okay.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. So I did have a solid tone for approximately 15 seconds?
A. No. Actually your take (phonetic spelling) cut out during the 15 seconds.
Q. The tape (phonetic spelling) cut out?
A. Your breath sample.
Q. So it wasn't 15 seconds; how long was it approximately?
A. You blew approximately for 15 seconds.
Q. Okay. So I blew for approximately 15 seconds at a solid tone?
A. No. There was--There was a break in--
Q. How long of a solid tone did I blow for approximately?
A. I really don't recall.
Q. Was there a break in the 15 seconds? Did I stop and start in the 15 seconds?
A. Yes.
Q. That's not what your--I mean you stated here in your supplement report here--have you read it right here, this last sentence, "Jeep started the test, watching his watch. After blowing for approximately 15 seconds"--
A. Uh-huh.
Q. So I blew 15 seconds, but it wasn't a blow; it was a--
A. I don't think I stated that it was a continuous blow for 15 seconds, no.
Q. Okay. So it was just a blow, I guess. I don't know--We don't know what it was. Start and stopped. Okay.
And you also said that I blew earlier on in his--in one of these instances, huffing and puffing for five seconds approximately each time?
A. I don't know--
Q. Earlier testimony.
A. --know what you mean by huffing and puffing.
Q. Well, I mean you said I blew, starting and stopping approximately five--five seconds each time.
A. Approximately five seconds. About the longest
that you would blow was approximately five seconds, yes.
Monday 11/03/03.
1. As I referenced previously with my appeals, my petition for a writ of certiorari and in my prior correspondents with you and because I know you never took the time to look at them, I NOW include for the record:
2. A copy of the petition for an order of protection filed 11/03/03. It does not list any “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation[3]” i.e., “first hand abuse”. What it lists is an inadmissible hear-say allegation of a bad-act regarding a court appearance from a month prior and 150 miles away, where the alleged victim, by her own admission, was NOT EVEN PRESENT and where the judge eventually, all though unknown at the time of the hearing (11/19/03), would recuse himself[4] for his thus admitted bad act. The Judges Goeke and Jones clearly issued a Warrant without probable cause to take away my son, my home, everything I cared for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3. A copy of the post trial (pages 44-48) motion dated December 5, 2003 that was denied.
4. A copy of the Court Order (page 49) ruling against the aforementioned motion dated December 18, 2003
"The Sixth Edition of Black's Law Dictionary states the maxim as follows: 'Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit.... The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof. Black's Law Dictionary 516 (6th ed. 1990).'"This is old news, but again for the record “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry”[5]:
“It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an Order of Protection (209A[6]), if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house…
Long-term emotional damage to children's fathers -- surely not good for children -- often begins with a restraining order…
“A man against whom a frivolous Order of Protection (209A) has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating[7], and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect... It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."” [8]
 |
| Click on image to enlarge |
[1] The Court’s bias for a woman’s rights over a man’s rights with unequal protection of the Law, family law.
[2] A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America “Opposed to Immunity” currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk’s office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).
[3] “Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Pp.8 866-88. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)
[4] Due Process of Law as defined by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), says: “We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Page 373 U. S. 87
December 1, 1998, TESTILYING: POLICE PERJURY AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT, (67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1037) by Christopher Slobogin Copyright
[6] Re-enact the events as described by Taylor’s police report. First see if you can find ANYONE that can sustain a blow for 20 seconds without stopping, as I was told I had to do. It is humanly impossible. And secondly tell me what kind of report you get from the DATAMASTER as programmed for the State of Missouri (5/17/03) after maintaining a steady tone for as long as humanly possible. Lets say 15 seconds (+/-) as I did. It will be an “invalid” result. The police report dated 5-18-03 is accurate and verifiable; his trial testimony is false. Anybody that is given the instructions, I was given as documented in Taylor’s police report WILL FAIL THE TEST and thus be marked as a REFUSAL, loose their license for two years and be dammed in any pending divorce and or criminal trial. The police in Osage Beach, The State of Missouri Department of Revenue, that has the authority and responsibility to reviews these suspensions, neither of them know what a refusal is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I told them that during the appeal. If the State of Missouri had even a clue as to what constituted a refusal this should be a Brady Violation also, BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)
[7] Due Process of Law as defined by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), says: “We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Page 373 U. S. 87
December 1, 1998, TESTILYING: POLICE PERJURY AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT, (67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1037) by Christopher Slobogin Copyright
[9]. Amendment IV – “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”, ratified 12/15/1791.
[10] Judge Bennett recused himself; I had filed a grievance with the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges. Not that it did any good; the Commission has no authority to do anything to a sitting Judge. They are window dressing, used to wear a person down into submission.
[11] “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08
[12] (209A) This quote refers to the statute the result of 1978 Abuse Prevention Act in Massachusetts. Could be MO.
[13] (in psychology) the failure of a defense mechanism.
