Catherine D. Perry
111 South 10th Street, Suite 14.182
St. Louis, MO 63102-1125
Phone (314)244-7520
Fax (314)244-7529
Re: I am asking for a Judicial Inquiry per 1st Amendment’s “right of the people… a redress of grievances” and the Common Law in Floyd and Barker (1607)
Because of the issues in Jeep v. United States of America I was forced to take three poison pills, I was without warning deprived custody of my son, evicted from my house and my driver’s license was suspended. All without credible probable cause or WARNING!!! All are the DIRECT result of Judicial, Prosecutorial, Police and Spouse negligence, malice and corruption. I quote from the common law, the basis for Judicial Immunity, Floyd and Barker (1607):
“Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia[3], is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy.”
That the two issues, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614 & 08-1823, are even linked, one (08-1823) is used without merit as probable cause for the other (07-2614), is in itself an “extrajudicial” conspiracy “before out of Court” and creates "the clear absence of all jurisdiction[4]." The secondary jurisdictional issue of no probable cause for the order (07-2614) from the listed “acts” in the petition is also binding; if there is NO probable cause, there is NO JURISDICTION. That is before we even get to the Judicial, Prosecutorial and Police negligence, malice and corruption, the lack of credible probable cause with the arrest and conviction in (08-1823) a DWI conviction in Camden County.
I am asking for a judicial inquiry. There was and is an ongoing “unlawful Conspiracy”. The preponderance of evidence demands, “due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia[5]… for this he ought to do.[6]” The evidence of “an unlawful Conspiracy” as I have included here is overwhelming, uncontested and irrefutable.
The courts should have never held for Judicial Immunity in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). The unsustainable precedent for Judicial Immunity from “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[7]” in practice and effect negates the 1st Amendment’s “right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” to the Constitution as the “supreme Law of the Land”[8] and gave added and unwarranted credibility to the “Jim Crow” laws in the South. That addition has now spawned the “Jane Crow” [9] era.
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
“Time is of the essence”
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
enclosure
cc: Charles Alexander Shaw. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
file
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 the FBI, The Attorney General, United States of America and the President of the United States of America and because I know NO ONE ever 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[12]. The Prosecutor[13] and the Police[14] 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[15] 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[16] and the Police[17] clearly presented false EVIENCE to convict me!!!!!!
5. It should be noted that these issues were brought up in post trial motion for a miss trial and in the federal civil rights case.
6. A copy of the petition for an order of protection[18] filed 11/03/03. It does not list any “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation[19]” i.e., “first hand abuse”. What it lists is an inadmissible hear-say allegation of an infamous bad-act regarding a court appearance from a month prior and 150 miles away IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION, 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[20] 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7. It should be noted that the issue, a hear-say account of an alleged infamous bad-act regarding a court appearance from a month prior and 150 miles away IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION (traffic court in Camden County), 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 for his thus admitted bad act filled in the blank on the petition for the NON-existent probable cause in the resultant order thus created "the clear absence of all jurisdiction[21]" (family Court in St. Louis County) for Judge Goeke and Commissioner Jones. “Probable cause” as required by the VI Amendment has no credible enforceable meaning if this not be the case[22]. There was no probable cause thus there was no jurisdiction. This was brought up during the hearing, in post trial motions, a state appeal, and a federal Civil Rights Case presented to the Supreme Court as a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115.
The courts should have never unconstitutionally held for Judicial Immunity in regard to “Jim Crow” laws, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). The unsustainable precedent for Judicial Immunity from “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[23]” in practice and effect negates the Constitution as the “Supreme Law of the Land”[24]. This is old news, it establishes a frame of reference, the “Jane Crow” [25] era, for the record I quote “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry”:
“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, 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 has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating[26], 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."” [27]
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.
 |
| 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] [Ed.: and similar [proofs],]
[5] [Ed.: and similar [proofs],]
[8] Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI
[9] The Court’s bias for a woman’s rights over a man’s rights with unequal protection of the Law, family law.
[10] The Court’s bias for a woman’s rights over a man’s rights with unequal protection of the Law, family law.
[11] 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/).
[12] “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)
[13] 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
[14] Testimony of Alan M. Dershowitz, House of Representatives Judiciary Committee December 1, 1998, TESTILYING: POLICE PERJURY AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT, (67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1037) by C. Slobogin
[15] 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 in a letter to Missouri’s Attorney General. If the State of Missouri was competent to enforce the law or had even a clue as to what constituted a refusal this should be another Brady Violation, BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)
[16] 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
[17] Testimony of Alan M. Dershowitz, House of Representatives Judiciary Committee December 1, 1998, TESTILYING: POLICE PERJURY AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT, (67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1037) by C. Slobogin
[18] “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
[19]. 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.
[20] 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.
[22] There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution. When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state power (a state judge, a state prosecutor, a police officer, a spouse, a federal officer, or a federal judge) has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the federal judicial power extends (Article III, § 2), and, so extending, the Court has all the authority appropriate to its exercise.” (emphasis and non-italic parenthetical text added) Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932) Page 287 U. S. 397-398.
[24] Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI
[25] The Court’s bias for a woman’s rights over a man’s rights with unequal protection of the Law, family law.
[26] (in psychology) the failure of a defense mechanism.
[27] Sheara F. Friend, as quoted in “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire. That describes my first year under an order of protection perfectly! This quote originally listed (209A) of 1978 Abuse Prevention Act in Massachusetts I changed it to Order of Protection. For clarity
