Re: United States Constitution Article 2. Section 3
“he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
Dear People,
As referenced above, I am sure you are aware the Executive per our Constitution is charged with taking “Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” That being said I would like to bring to your attention the unlawful, unconstitutional assertion of immunity by the Judicial Branch.
Immunity from the law is uncivilized. Civilization is based on the Rule of Law, the protection of laws. This was established when the first two cave person attempting to share the first cave established the first law, “No punching in the nose.” We have, since the first cave-person’s initial attempt at civilization, grown and progressed. We have laws that now protect the snail darter and laws that defend the innocence of confessed would be martyr terrorists, Zacarias Moussaoui .
The United States Supreme Court via Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 re-affirmed the protection of laws in 1803. It was then and still is true “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection,” MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U. S. 137 (1803) and BIVENS V. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U. S. 388 (1971).
We have a problem. We as American Citizens do not TODAY enjoy the protection of the laws. The Judiciary via precedent starting with BRADLEY V. FISHER, 80 U. S. 335 (1871) and continuing on through today with affirming precedent PIERSON V. RAY, 386 U. S. 547 (1967) hold that the Judiciary has discretion, broad jurisdiction and absolute sovereign immunity for their Judicial actions. With discretion, broad jurisdiction and absolute sovereign immunity they are empowered to literally go wherever they want to, disregard the constitution, the law and our rights at will and we are powerless to do anything to oppose them, they have established precedent that says ““This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it “is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of (the people being robbed and disenfranchised) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty (to act without regard to the law or the rights of “We the People”) to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences. ” and “a judge of a criminal court, invested with general criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed within a certain district, should hold a particular act to be a public offense, which is not by the law made an offense, and proceed to the arrest and trial of a party charged with such act, or should sentence a party convicted to a greater punishment than that authorized by the law upon its proper construction, no personal liability to civil action for such acts would attach to the judge ”
To be at someone’s discretion is incompatible with “the Blessings of Liberty ”. To “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” the law has to be unequivocal and transparent. To have the law at the Judiciary’s discretion is to forfeit our liberty.
That all being said I make and official request of my president, I voted for you, that “the Laws be faithfully executed.” I am enclosing a copy of the 30+ page petition entitled David G. Jeep vs. United States of America, et al.
You can reach me via the below mailing address or e-mail address. E-mail is of course preferred.
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Mike Christian (FBI), Lyonel Mrythill (FBI), Chris Boyce (USMS), Dan Bracco (FBI), Robert O’Connor (USMS) and Raymond Meyer (AUSA)
US Supreme Court - Writ of Certiorari 07-11115,
8th District US Court of Appeals (07-2614 & 08-1823),
Carol E. Jackson, US District Court Judge, 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al (07-2614),
Scott O. Wright, Senior US District Judge, 4:07-cv-00506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al (08-1823),
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, St. Louis County and State of Missouri
Mr. Jack A. Bennett, Associate Circuit Judge, Mr. Devin M. Ledom, Asst. Prosecuting Attorney, Mr. Alex Little, Officer Badge #920, Mr. Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913, Mr. W. Steven Rives, Prosecuting Attorney, Mr. W. James Icenogle, Prosecuting Attorney, and Mr.
Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge, Jay Nixon Attorney General, State of Missouri,
Camden County, & City of Osage Beach,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM _
Appeal: 10-1947 _
First Amendment, Bevins Action
&
Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Revision Dated 5/17/2010
I assert Federal Jurisdiction under Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 85, Section § 1331. Federal question
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress[1] of grievances[2].
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.
Amendment V:
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 offence 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 VI:
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 XIV:
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 1.) 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.
Section 5.) The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article[3].
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.
The Facts of the Case:
THE WRONG, the undisputed, undisputable RECORD of
THE WRONG
1.I was a white, 46-year-old, taxpaying, middle class, male, natural born (July 1956) citizen of the United States of America in May 2003… all I need to be to have rights is be a person. I had never had any trouble with the law. I believed that NO judge had jurisdiction to issue a warrant regarding my liberty without “probable cause.[4]” I believed that the police were professionals and could be held to standards of competency and integrity. Most importantly though, I believed “in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury.”[5] I believed that “the Bill of Rights is particularly intended to vindicate the interests of the individual in the face of the popular will… at the very least.[6]”
2.In May of 2003 the police in Osage Beach, Missouri were incompetent to make the original arrest. They actually testified to their incompetence 8 months later; of course at the time nobody believed them incompetent, they were believed to be law enforcement professionals, under color of law. On the stand under oath, they knowingly gave false information as factualevidence[7] to establish the police procedure, under color of law. They were wearing uniforms and badges, carrying guns; anybody and everybody could see they were the LAW. And as Professional Law Officers, they had sworn on the stand in front of the judge and the jury to tell “the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God”. Incompetence[8] or perjury[9], it does not make any difference in a civil rights case. (08-1823)
3.Judge Bennett had no probable cause,[10] and thus no jurisdiction to arrest me, revoke my bond and put me in jail at the preliminary hearing in Camden County; it was illegal and unconstitutional Judicial Terrorism[11]. (08-1823)
4.Judge Goeke had no probable cause,[12] and thus no jurisdiction under Constitutional law (see Pages 29-30 of the Case 07-2614 Date Filed 05-16-08 Entry ID: 3435399). He issued a blatantly deficient, illegal and unconstitutional warrant without jurisdiction. In effect taking my Son, my home, all my worldly possessions putting me on the street, HOMELESS; it was illegal and unconstitutional Judicial Terrorism[13]. (07-11115)
5.Commissioner Jones, in an inferior court with limited jurisdiction, asserted his jurisdiction over an issue lacking probable cause and thus had no authority to take jurisdiction. He then denied me the comprehensive procedural and substantive protections of Due Process of Law[14] and forced me illegally and unconstitutionally into a Court Room. He “held (me) to answer” his surprise yet to be “adduced” specifics, charges and Judgment. Due Process of Law has a comprehensive procedure and substantive provisions for the protection of rights. When Commissioner Jones stepped outside those provisions, over timely and repeated objections, allowing testimony “outside the scope of the pleadings[15]” it amounted to “unfair surprise[16].” It was willful, criminal and a complete denial of the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process of Law, step outside of procedural and substantive Due Process[17] and “coram non judice”[18]it was illegal and unconstitutional Judicial Terrorism[19]. (07-11115)
6.Because of Commissioner Jones’s inferior status, the superior court, the 21st District Court en banc,[20] as his employer and supervisor had culpability for his illegal and unconstitutional act.
7.Judge Colyer denied my valid pretrial motions for dismissal based on the gross incompetents of the arresting officers;it was a complete denial of the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process of Law, step outside of procedural and substantive Due Process and “coram non judice”;[21]it was illegal and unconstitutional Judicial Terrorism[22]. (08-1823)
8.The Prosecuting Attorneys with the acquiescence of Judge Colyer denied me exculpable material[23] that would have further supported my assertion of the gross incompetents of the arresting officers;it was a complete denial of the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process of Law, step outside of procedural and substantive Due Process and “coram non judice”;[24]it was illegal and unconstitutional Judicial Terrorism[25]. (08-1823)
9.The arresting officer Mr. Alex Little, Officer Badge #920, in February of 2004 at trial, lied on the stand perjuring himself by contradicting verifiable police procedure. Officer Little had clearly been made aware of the issue by his intimate knowledge of the pretrial motions for the trial, he was in the courtroom to testify at the hearing on my motion in the Fall of 2003, months before his testimony at my trial in February 2004. Additionally he had testified that he had been to the certified training. Incompetence[26] or perjury[27], it does not make any difference in a civil rights case. (08-1823)
10.The second arresting officer Mr. Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913, in February of 2004 at trial, not only testified to his incompetence, but further perjured himself on the stand under oath contradicting his prior sworn police report. Incompetence[28] or perjury[29], it does not make any difference in a civil rights case. (08-1823)
11.Judge Colyer and others acting in a conspiracy after the false and illegal conviction and with the full knowledge of all the above issues in a POST TRIAL MOTION, i.e. false arrest, malicious prosecution, false testimony, denial of exculpable material, denied my POST TRIAL MOTION for a miss trial and forced me into an appeal that I was unable to mount for reasons other than the evidence above. I had a life outside of the courtroom; I was going through a contested divorce and had been illegally and unconstitutionally forced from my home and my SON, in a related issues, i.e. Writ of Certiorari 07-11115;it was a complete denial of the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process of Law, step outside of procedural and substantive Due Process and “coram non judice”;[30]it was illegal and unconstitutional Judicial Terrorism. (08-1823)
13.Because of the combined issues of the Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 and the appeal 08-1823 and because I am a human and not a superhuman I was unable to mount a perfected[32] appeal in state Court on any of these issues, while working 60 hours a week, managing 145 men, on two shifts, 6 days a week on a construction project building at the rate of $5,000,000/month, this, thus became a Civil Rights Issue in FEDERAL COURT, a violation of The First Amendment, Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights,
14.I filed in the US Court Eastern District of Missouri as 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al & US Court Western District of Missouri as 4:07-cv-00506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al and was denied on both issues, in federal court. I was denied fall 2007 and spring 2008 respectively. It was a denial of the protection of laws[33].
15.I filed appeals; I was denied on both issues in the 8th Circuit United States Court of Appeals, 07-2614 & 08-1823. I was denied spring and summer of 2008. It was a denial of the protection of laws[34].
16.I filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court on 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al (07-2614) as Writ of Certiorari 07-11115. I was denied at the Supreme Court “Oct 6 2008 Petition DENIED.” It was a denial of the protection of laws[35].
17.I filed a motion to combine the two issues for a rehearing 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al (07-2614) & 4:07-cv-00506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al (08-1823) on Writ of Certiorari 07-11115. I was denied, “Jan 21 2009 Rehearing DENIED.” It was a denial of the protection of laws[36].
18.I started utilizing my free speech right asking what is a person to do when the Supreme Court denies your rights, “Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a “Murrah Federal Building“” footnoted as “A rhetorical QUESTION, not intended as a threat, but if anyone feels the need to arrest I say come on, I would love to make this into a freedom of speech issue also.”
19.I wrote a letter on March 9, 2009 begging the FBI and the USMS to do their duty[37] and provide the protection of the law in establishing my inalienable constitutional civil RIGHTS, specifically my 4th Amendment right ” The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”. I was at my limit, I could see no alternative, what do you do when you are denied your inalienable rights? I stated “You do not want this to become a Crazy Macho Thing, Your deadline is still Monday March 16, 2009”, of course I qualified it repeatedly. That same day, as noted on footnote 15 of the referenced letter, I discovered BIVENS V. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U. S. 388 (1971) .
20.I was arrested March 11, 2009 on a charge of making threatening communications and held in custody without bond until April 26, 2010 (411 Days). (see case 4:09cr0659-CDP[38], Doc #74 Exhibits A thru F) I was defending our constitution and civil rights, albeit strictly verbally at the time via my first amendment right to FREE Speech[39].
21.I made no threats I stated the FACT, any law biding peaceful person can be “PUSHED into a corner where the only option is violence!!!”
22.For 411 days in Federal Custody I was regularly humiliated, intimidated with regular strip searches and denial of liberty. I was DENIED my liberty, my freedom of speech, paper clips, ink pens, computer access and what little access I had to my Son for 411 days.
23.Now I admit that throughout this entire action, nearly 7 years, I have been a convicted drunk and a court proclaimed abuser albeit a wrongful conviction and a corrupt proclamation. I was and am a member of a very unpopular minority if not an infinitely small unpopular minority, an infamous individual. I believed that “the Bill of Rights is particularly intended to vindicate the interests of the individual in the face of the popular will… at the very least.[40]” I need my Bill of Rights to regain my unconstitutionally stolen Good Name.
The Legal Argument
This legal argument has 5 parts. Those parts are:
I.The Protection of the Laws[41] – Redress of Grievances[42]
II.The irreconcilable conflict between Justice and Immunity
III.The malice, corruption and incompetence in the unconstitutional conviction at issue in 4:07-cv-00506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals as 08-1823
IV.The willful, criminal and complete denial of the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process of Law, step outside of procedural and substantive Due Process and “coram non judice”; in 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals as 07-2614
V.The Link, Conclusion and culpability of the Supreme Court with respect to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115.
I. The Protection of the Laws – Redress of Grievances
Bivens and Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights are truly redundant, but reassuringly useful. It is axiomatic that The United States government by definition is responsible to provide the Protection of the Laws. Via the I Amendment any person has the right to “petition the Government for a redress[43] of grievances[44]” The Government under the Constitution and laws has to provide a credible, consideration and response. Immunity is none of those. Why do we have a Constitution, A Bill of Rights; why do we write and pass laws if the government can claim immunity from them?
“The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.” “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection,” THE PROTECTION OF LAWS. MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U. S. 137 (1803) Page 5 U. S. 163. “Where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy” (Page 5 U. S. 166). What was clear in 1803 and is taught everyday in our grade schools is NOT true in the real America today. We have no enforceable inalienable constitutional rights. Our rights are governed by judicial discretion empowered by their assertion of broad Jurisdiction and sovereign absolute immunity - not by the Rule of Law. Without a means for Minority rights to defend it, we are subject to the despotic terrorism of BAD Judges. I never thought I was a minority, but I learned differently. “It Could Happen to You[45]”. As individuals we are all minorities in one-way or another. We are all at risk!!!
I state as a clear an undeniable axiomatic principle of common, constitutional, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of law: all of civilization, from the first agreement/law between the first two cave-persons to today’s superfluous extrapolation and unsought multi-million dollar defense of the self confessed terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui[46] wanting to die a martyr for the cause and the environmental law defending the rights of the “snail darter[47]”, is based on the “the Protection of the Laws.” Deny the protection of the law and the underpinning of Civilization falls apart and we are back at the entrance to the cave fighting, violently, for dominance and possession of the cave.
I would agree that in the wild wild west of Judge Roy Bean[48], “The Only Law West of the Pecos,” a Judge was the LAW, and to administer Justice according to the law he had to embody the LAW with absolute sovereign immunity attached. But we do not currently live in such a lawless state. We have laws and we regularly go to great extremes to vindicate “rights”, e.g. Zacarias Moussaoui and the snail darter. I want my rights just like Zacarias Moussaoui and the snail darter!!!!!
In our FIRST AMENDMENT we reserve the right to petition our government for Redress[49] of Grievances[50]. Constitutions and Laws are created to establish justice and remedy injustice EQUALLY. When injustice unavoidably happens, in our imperfect human world, “it seems… clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy” (MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U. S. 137 (1803) Syllabus). In our Constitution’s preamble the foremost goal stated is “to establish Justice[51]”. This world is not perfect and remedies for injustices are as important as laws to establish justice. “Every wrong shall have a remedy”, is a principle of common law that dates back to King Henry II of England in the 12th Century.
“In America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other[52].” The United States Supreme Court via Chief Justice John Marshall (September 24, 1755 – July 6, 1835) during Thomas Jefferson’s Presidency in 1803 declared “The very essence of
civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803). The essence of civil liberty, the Constitutional Protection of the Law has supremacy over ANY and ALL immunity. There is NO reference or basis for immunity in our Constitution.
Why do we have constitutions and laws, if not to limit governmental authority?
“Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official’s actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute’s raisons d’etre.“ Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622 (1980) @ Page 445 U. S. 656.
In a constitutional government such as ours, the constitution is the ultimate Law, the ultimate power, the King and there can be no other. The Judiciary can rule that an act is unconstitutional, but they cannot refuse to enforce the constitution that goes against their essence, the establishment of the rule of law. The Judiciary’s role is very clearly defined within the parameters of the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process of Law, step outside of procedural and substantive Due Process and “coram non judice”. A Judge has no power or authority to direct traffic in the street or to practice medicine in a hospital. But, the Due Process of law that comes out of a courtroom may have a profound if not controlling effect on how traffic flows through a disputed area of town and how Doctors practice medicine under the established Rule of Law. But if a Judge steps outside of Due Process of Law and starts to direct traffic in the street and our practice medicine without a license he is breaking the law and subject to penalties for his actions.
II. The irreconcilable conflict between Justice and Immunity
Justice is incompatible with immunity. Justice has no control of an immune party unaccountable for their actions. Nowhere in the United States Constitution is immunity from the Rule of Law authorized. The United States Constitution repeats itself twice in proclaiming, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States[53]” and “No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility[54]”
Specifically as regards The Judges, per the United States Constitution, Article 3, Section 1 First Paragraph “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” I would think that bad BEHAVIOR as defined by the constitution would be to violate a citizen’s I, IV, V, VI and XIV Amendment Constitutional Rights. I say that because the Judicial Power is specifically relegated beneath the Constitution and Laws, The United States Constitution, Article 3, Section 2 states:
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”
In direct conflict with the Rule of Law and the concept of the constitution as the supreme law, the
The Immunity granted by Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872),
“This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it “is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of (the people being robbed and disenfranchised) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty (to act without regard to the law or the rights of “We the People”) to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.” (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.) (PIERSON V. RAY, 386 U. S. 547 (1967)),
is an obliteration of the Essence of Civil Liberty.
Judges admit that some of them are going to be “malicious or corrupt,” we have to endure them for the greater good. The greater good is the denial of the Essence of Civil Liberty. Judges, by their own assertion, need to be able to act without regard to very laws “We the People” have established to limit their actions. Judges assert they need to be able to act “with independence and without fear of consequences,” to be able to break the law, deny our RIGHTS at will and that “We the People” can or should do nothing to oppose them. That is INSANITY!!!!
Our RIGHTS have to be transparent and take primacy over any and all claims to immunity or our inalienable/undeniable rights are unenforceable. It is insanity to think any other way. Again why would we write a constitution, establish a Bill of Rights, if we expected to allow the GOVERNMENT to disavow it with immunity at any Judge’s Discretion? NO ONE CAN BE IMMUNE from the RULE of LAW or be allowed to act without regard to our clearly defined inalienable transparent constitutional rights!!!! The protection of the law is the raisons d’etre for our Constitution, Our Bill of Rights, The First Amendment, Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law,Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights and the creation of a Federal Civil Remedy in Bivens.
Immunity as defined by Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) is insanity!!!!
Why even right the laws down, if Judges can with their discretion, broad jurisdiction and immunity DISREGARD them? Rights are useless without an enforcement capacity against those charged with its’ enforcement? Do we start over EVERY time at the entrance to the cave fighting violently?
Jurisdiction is limited by the Constitution. When a Judge steps outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution he has no authority. The Rule of Law has to be knowable and has to be transparent. To say that we need a Judge’s Ouija Board[55] to tell us what a law means goes against the intent of what Law is suppose to insure, Civil Liberty in a free society of equal persons. The Blessings of Liberty[56] cannot be derived nor maintained by any individual’s Ouija Board. The law has to be unequivocal and transparent for it to be of any use. Everyman has to be able to understand it, to seek its protection and avoid its wrath. If Everyman can’t know the law, it is useless and the Law fails in its purpose to civilize us. Our constitution was written and intended to be a transparent document[57]. And yes we can hold Judges to the Guidelines we established, teach and preach everyday within our constitution.
I say again, “Why do we have constitutions and laws, if not to limit governmental authority?” Our Constitution and laws limit our Government, judges included.
III. The malice, corruption and incompetence in the unconstitutional conviction at issue
(4:07-cv-00506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals as 08-1823[58])
This issue[59] started with an arrest by two incompetent police officers in May of 2003. They actually confirmed and testified to their criminality and incompetence at the trial under oath in February of 2004. That is an undisputed, undisputable documented fact.
It is important to note that this illegal and unconstitutional conviction has been allowed to stand because of the bias of the “New Age Prohibition” based not on religion, because Government sponsored religion is illegal, that seeks to criminalize what is perceived to be immoral behavior. “Immoral behavior” is the obfuscation to cover up Organized Religious Legislation of the “New Age Prohibition”.
Some how I was suppose to put the cart before the horse and get a writ of habeas corpus before I got relief for the denial of rights, privileges and immunities as secured by the Constitutions and laws of the United States of America. “To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute’s raisons d’etre. [Footnote 41] “ Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622 (1980) @ Page 445 U. S. 656
Per Federal statute 28 U.S.C. § 2254 “a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws.” The proof of the FALSE TESTIMONY is incontrovertible, I asked the presiding Judge, Scott O. Wright, Senior US District Judge, 4:07-cv-00506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al, given the clear and undisputed evidence to grant me a Writ of Habeas Corpus, he refused. I must not be entertaining enough, “a district court shall entertain.” I am not sure what it takes to entertain, but I feel confident he feels it falls under his discretion, immunity and BROAD Jurisdiction.
There are several precedents on the issue of incompetence of a municipal actor. A Municipality can be held accountable for “Failure to train, supervise and discipline” (City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390) their police force. “A Good Faith effort is not Enough” (Owen v City of Independence 455 U.S. 622 (1980)) we are entitled to competency in our public officials so if you trained them and they are still incompetent the liability is NOT overcome. If there is “Deliberate Indifference” (Berry v. Muskogee 900 F.2d 900,1489, 1496) to incompetence there is liability, allowing perjury to stand as fact in a court of law is at a MINIMUM “Deliberate Indifference.” I would go further and the courts have with “Conscious Indifference to Incompetence”, Grandstaff v. City of Borger 767 F.2d 161, 170 (5th Circuit 1985); subornation of perjury is clearly a “Conscious Indifference to Incompetence”!!!! “Ignorance, No Defense”, Hammond v. Madera 859, F.2d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 1988), again the courts have said there is no escaping the liability arising from incompetence.
The Prosecutors in the case for the DWI were very much aware of the incompetence and credibility of their witnesses Mr. Alex Little, Officer Badge #920 and Mr. Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913. I had made them specifically aware of their incompetence via pretrial motions to dismiss and for exculpable material, the documentation that confirmed their incompetence. The Police committed perjury to cover up their incompetence.
Per Berger v. United States 295 U.S. 78 (1935) the prosecuting attorney is to be held to a standard of ethical behavior. I feel confident that Berger’s insistence upon ethical behavior can now be considered a Civil Rights Issue as secured by the Constitution and Laws of the United States (see also “Malicious Prosecution, Mischaracterizing Evidence”, Deloach v. Bevers 922 F.2d 618, 621 (10th Cir. 1990)). I quote from the Supreme Court opinion, Berger v. United States 295 U.S. 78 (1935):
“The United States (Prosecuting) Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction, as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the prosecuting attorney, will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they should properly carry none.”
None of the testimony that they presented at trial had any credibility. I asserted it before the trial and I proved this after the trial with documentation over the denial of exculpable material. They denied me my presumption of innocence by corrupting the jury with FALSE testimony. They committed perjury if not gross incompetents and subornation of perjury.
Beyond the perjury, beyond the subornation of perjury I assert my 14th Amendment right to - procedural - Due Process of law i.e., “Due Process, Right to Exculpatory”, Brady Material[60], Jean v. Collins 221 F.3d 656, 659 (4th Cir. 2000) cert. denied 531 U.S. 1076 121 S.Ct. 771, 148 L.ed.2d 671 (2001)
IV. The willful and criminal denial of the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process of Law, step outside of procedural and substantive Due Process, coram non judice
(4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals as 07-2614)
A Judge does not have the jurisdictional authority to issue a warrant without probable cause, and just filling in the blank is NOT probable cause. And there is a credibility issue, a judge can not sign a warrant for an allegation of potential abuse based on a third party account regarding a court appearance for a traffic ticket from a month prior and 150 miles away as the probable cause. There is a limit to what credibly can be asserted as probable cause or the protection has no meaning.
It is important to note that this illegal and unconstitutional action has been allowed to stand because of the bias of the “Jane Crow[61]” laws of Divorce that hold a Man’s rights in family law to be secondary to a Woman’s. I felt for the Iranian woman last year that were characterized in the press as second class citizens in regard to their family rights. The Islamic Sharia law is the basis of family, marriage and women’s rights in Iran. As an example, custody of children was in the hands of the father and after his death, in the hands of the male relatives on the father’s side. So if the couple were divorced, even after the death of the father, the mother would not get custody. In America I call it “Jane Crow” discrimination, but the bias is for the Woman over the Man’s rights in minor child custody matters.
Also, there is an assumption in Family Court that because an Ex Parte Order of Protection by statute is excluded from having any direct bearing on a Divorce action that it is an issue, which comes under the description of damnum absque injuria—a loss without an injury[62]. I take exception, there is a LOSS and there is an INJURY, to assert otherwise is an obfuscation to deny justice. For anyone that has experienced the emotional loss of being thrown out of a home and having the daily relations of your children your own flesh and blood taken from you, not to mention the infamous[63] reputation that now cloaks your very being, “AN ABUSER”, by force of illegal, unconstitutional Court Order… there is an injury and an enormous loss!!!!!
Judge Goeke acting ministerially defiant to the law and without the constitutional or statutorial required jurisdiction of probable cause. i.e., US Constitution IV Amendment, nor by Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, where he is tasked by statute to “for good cause shown in the petition[64]”, issued a warrant without any probable cause. A Judges’ power is necessarily limited by the Constitution and statute. A Judge can not issue a warrant without probable cause. Not only did the petition for an Ex-Parte Order of protection not list any abuse, what it did list was third party description of an incident in traffic court that was being handled by another JURISDICTION, 150 miles away. For Judge Goeke to even list it as a probable cause violated the respondents right to the elementary principles of procedural due process.
Commissioner Jones acting, coram non judice, in an inferior court with limited jurisdiction denied me the comprehensive procedural and substantive protections of Due Process of Law[65] and forced me illegally and unconstitutionally into a Court Room. He “held (me) to answer” his surprise yet to be “adduced” specifics, charges and Judgment. Due Process of Law has a comprehensive procedure and substantive provisions for the protection of rights. When Commissioner Jones stepped outside those provisions, over timely and repeated objections, allowing testimony “outside the scope of the pleadings[66]” it amounted to “unfair surprise[67].” It was willful, criminal and a complete denial of the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process of Law, step outside of procedural and substantive Due Process and “coram non judice”;[68]
For the record, the federal court denied my petition because, per precedent, the Federal Courts do not have Jurisdiction of Domestic Matters. In my appeal both to the 8th Circuit (07-2614) and the Supreme Court (Writ of Certiorari 07-11115) I stated that is wrong, if not completely insane!!! Why would we require “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” and then forgo Due Process protection when the issue revolves around not just our life, liberty, or property but our children’s life, liberty, or property ALSO?
To relinquish the XIV Amendment’s protection ANY time would be foolish, but to do every time as it relates to Domestic Matters that typically go beyond the life, liberty, or property at issue in most cases, IT IS AND WOULD BE INSANITY! Couple that with the similarity between the bias that plagued the newly emancipated slaves via the “Jim Crow” laws in the south and the current “Jane Crow” bias in Family court for a woman’s maternal rights over a man’s paternal rights and it is beyond belief that it is even suggested that any Male citizen of the United States of America would forgo the XIV Amendment’s protection.
V. The Link, Conclusion and culpability of the Supreme Court
What did I do wrong?
I was driving down the road and a self professed incompetent rookie police officer wanted to make, what he thought to be a BIG arrest, I was unfortunately the closest first victim that innocently came within striking distance. Even the probable cause is specious, having to use the right hand blinker in the midst of a left turn? Is that even possible?
I was sitting at home watching Monday Night Football my now ex-wife knowingly filed a fraudulent, legally deficient ex-parte order of protection ordered without legal or constitutional basis by a Judicial Terrorist; she knew she could get away with it because everybody does it.
This issue started with an arrest by two incompetent police officers in May of 2003. But, to blame all the subsequent damage on them would be unjust. There are two threads in this case that come together without basis in common, statute or constitutional law and in direct denial of the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process of Law, step outside of procedural and substantive Due Process and “coram non judice”.[69]My right to Due Process of law as assured in 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; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” was denied with a fraudulent, illegal, deficient, unjustified and unconstitutional Ex Parte Order of protection filed by my ex-spouse for her soul benefit in the divorce that was linked to it. The link between the DWI, the Ex Parte Order and the Divorce is and has been devastating to my life for the last nearly 7 YEARS.
The assertion that the only way to reach a Judge or the Court is through impeachment is hostile to the rule of law and or the protection of Minority Rights e.g., impeachment requires at a majority, if not a “super majority” to overcome a potential filibuster. I was and am a convicted drunk and a court proclaimed abuser albeit a wrongful conviction and a corrupt proclamation. I was and am a member of a very unpopular minority if not an infinitely small minority, an infamous individual. I need the protection of the Minority Rights as assured by our Bill of Rights.
It has been asserted many times; the precedent for sovereign absolute immunity goes back to the rule of Kings. You could not sue the King, therefore you could not sue his emissary his Judge. But the rule of Kings was replaced with the Rule of Law round about the time of our Revolution. The first amendment’s guarantees the “right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The Rule of Law does provide for a remedy. In MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U. S. 137 (1803)Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL states the king is not immune from suit “the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.”
To give the enforcers of our Rights immunity from the limitation of those very same rights would be to engage in anarchy. As quoted in Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622 (1980) “Representative Shellabarger, the author and manager of the bill (Title 42 §1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights) in the House, explained in his introductory remarks the breadth of construction that the Act was to receive:
“I have a single remark to make in regard to the rule of interpretation of those provisions of the Constitution under which all the sections of the bill are framed. This act is remedial, and in aid of the preservation of human liberty and human rights. All statutes and constitutional provision authorizing such statutes are liberally and beneficently construed. It would be most strange and, in civilized law, monstrous, were this not the rule of interpretation. As has been again and again decided by your own Supreme Court of the United States, and everywhere else where there is wise judicial interpretation, the largest latitude consistent with the words employed is uniformly given in construing such statutes and constitutional provisions as are meant to protect and defend and give remedies for their wrongs to all the people.”
Anarchy is proposed by BRADLEY V. FISHER, 80 U. S. 335 (1871), I quote
“a judge of a criminal court, invested with general criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed within a certain district, should hold a particular act to be a public offense, which is not by the law made an offense, and proceed to the arrest and trial of a party charged with such act, or should sentence a party convicted to a greater punishment than that authorized by the law upon its proper construction, no personal liability to civil action for such acts would attach to the judge” (Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 68 (1871))”
To defend our rights in the face of those acting “under color of Law” puts us at risk of breaking the law and / or being at the discretion of those with Law enforcement. I was incarcerated for 411 days because I utilized my right to FREE SPEECH and spoke out on the issue. I asked, rhetorically, “Tell Me Again Why I Shouldn’t Blow Up a “Murrah Federal Building?[71]“” But beyond my personal experience, it was and is predicted by BIVENS V. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U. S. 388 @ Page 394-395) (1971) “Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 232 U. S. 386 (1914); Amos v. United States, supra. “In such cases[72], there is no safety for the citizen… (Without honest credible Judges) for rights, which have been invaded by the officers of the government, professing to act in its name. There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime.”
Again I say this issue started with an arrest by two incompetent police officers in May of 2003. But to blame all the subsequent damage on them would be unjust. Per the conclusion in Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622 (1980) Page 445 U. S. 657, “No longer is individual “blameworthiness” the acid test of liability; the principle of equitable loss-spreading has joined fault as a factor in distributing the costs of official misconduct.”
I say again to take it even further as Bivens implies, all ACTORS are liable for their actions in the deprivation of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the constitution and laws of the United States of America! Yes two incompetent police officers instigated this tragic chain of events, but there were countless other actors that sustained if not emboldened the incompetence to the detriment of my life, liberty and happiness.
A.The original trial courts on both issues denied justice.
a.In 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al[73] I was denied my IV Amendment Right to be secure in my “persons, houses, papers, and effects” and my V, VI & XIV Amendment right to Procedural and Substantive Due Process
b.In 4:07-cv-00506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al[74], I was denied my I was denied my IV Amendment Right to be secure in my “persons, houses, papers, and effects” when I was arrested by self professed incompetent police officers. Not to mention the denial of exculpable material during the Due Process of Law, my V, VI & XIV Amendment right to Procedural and Substantive Due Process of Law.
B.I appealed through the State of Missouri[75] Courts, their bureaucratic requirements for a “Jurisdictional Statement’ denied me a remedy for the injustice.
C.The Federal Courts in both cases, 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al & 4:07-cv-00506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al, denied me a remedy for the injustice.
a.For the record the denial of my case in 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al[76] was predicated on the precedent that “Family Law”, with the “Jane Crow” bias of States Rights is beyond the Reach of the XIV Amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”, i.e., Due Process of Law.
b.For the record the denial of my case in 4:07-cv-00506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al[77] was predicated on the precedent that requires a Writ of Habeas Corpus in advance of any action to establish your rights in a Title 42 §1983. Civil action for deprivation of rightsaction to regain your rights in effect negating the statute’s raisons d’etre.
E.The Supreme Court of the United States in Writ of Certiorari 07-11115[79] denied me a remedy for the injustice. Despite the “broad remedy for violations of federally protected civil rights” Monell v. DEPARTMENT OF SOC. SVCS., 436 U. S. 658 (1978) and the evidence is overwhelming. With the United States Code of Law directive in Title 28 § 2111 Harmless error, “On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” There should have been no issue. I was and am admittedly not a Lawyer; I am a pro se petitioner.
F.I took it to the FBI/USMS[80] for enforcement of Civil Rights Law as is their duty, i.e., “But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy” MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U. S. 137 (1803) Page 5 U. S. 163 @ Page 5 U. S. 166. But instead of the FBI who declares “Those sworn to protect and serve our country must themselves uphold the law and the U.S. Constitution. We investigate “color of law” abuses by public officials” arrested me an incarcerated me for 411 days without access to a bond.
Damages
The court obfuscated the need for damages as a remedy in BRADLEY V. FISHER, 80 U. S. 335 (1871):
"Against the consequences of [judges'] erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort."
That was and is an obfuscation of the facts. The law does NOT provided, for private parties, numerous remedies
In BIVENS V. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U. S. 388, Page 403 U. S. 410, Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring in the judgment of the court, was much more honest:
“For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing.”
To anyone that has suffered from the denial of their rights, privileges and immunities at the hands of an incompetent or corrupt Judge the court in BRADLEY V. FISHER sounds like Marie Antoinette’s famous quote, “Let them eat cake.” Of course remove the ignorance and obfuscation and there was no cake, there was no bread, the people were starving. And that is the case now; the law has NOT provided for, private parties, numerous remedies, I am starving literally and figuratively. I am impoverished and homeless. It is as Justice Harlan concurred “damages or nothing.”
The damage having started with the incompetent arrest in May 2003, including the enforcement of an unconstitutional warrant “without probable cause” on Monday November 3, 2003 that took away my Son, my home and all my worldly possessions, and continues on through today’s date, 2,400 + days (6½ years) of the deprivation of my basic inalienable parental, property, liberty and human rights over my nearly constant objection; you add to that 411 days of incarceration without bond for utilizing my First Amendment Right to Free Speech and I am asking for:
I.Injunctive relief to overturn and expunge the DWI Conviction and remove all reference from my Driving Record and the 32 year old 1978 DWI conviction[81].
II.Injunctive relief to overturn all orders of protection between Sharon G. Jeep and David G. Jeep and remove all record of them.
III.Injunctive relief to overturn the subsequent and coupled Property and Custody Order currently in effect between David G. Jeep and Sharon G. Jeep as regards the joint marital property as of November 3, 2003 and the custody of the Minor Child Patrick Brandon Jeep (DOB 12/22/94) and remand it to a new judge for resettlement based on this ruling.
IV.Actual Damages in the amount of:
Fifty Million Dollars and No Cents-------------------------------------- $50,000,000.00
V.Punitive damages. In the amount of:
One Hundred Million Dollars and No Cents---------------------- $100,000,000.00
Table of References for consideration
1.“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.”5 U. S. 163 (1803). Having concluded that petitioner’s complaint states a cause of action under the Fourth Amendment, supra,@ at 403 U. S. 390-395, we hold that petitioner is entitled to recover money damages for any injuries he has suffered as a result of the agents’ violation of the Amendment. ” BIVENS V. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U. S. 388 (1971)
2.“The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.” MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U. S. 137 (1803) Page 5 U. S. 163
6.“When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state power 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” STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U. S. 378 (1932) @ Page 287 U. S. 398
7.“[m]isuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.’” MONROE V. PAPE, 365 U. S. 167 (1961)
8.“Deliberate Indifference”, Berry v. City of Muskogee, Okl., 900 F.2d 1489, 1498. (10th Cir. 1990)
9.“Ignorance, No Defense”, Hammond v. Madera 859, F.2d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 1988)
10.“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)
11.“Due Process, Right to Exculpatory”, Brady Material, Jean v. Collins 221 F.3d 656, 659 (4th Cir. 2000) cert. denied 531 U.S. 1076 121 S.Ct. 771, 148 L.ed.2d 671 (2001)
12.“Conscious Indifference to Incompetence”, Grandstaff v. City of Borger 767 F.2d 161, 170 (5th Circuit 1985)
[8] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . . Incompetence is unreasonable via “Failure to train, supervise and discipline” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390 - “A Good Faith effort is not Enough” per Owen v City of Independence (455 U.S. 622 (1980)
[9] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . . If the police are allowed to lie no one can feel safe, Perjury establishes “Deliberate Indifference”, Berry v. Muskogee 900 F.2d 900,1489, 1496
[11] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . ."
[13] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . ."
[18] Coram non judice, Latin for "not in the presence of a judge," is a legal term typically used to indicate a legal proceeding without a judge, with improper venue, or without jurisdiction.
[19] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . ."
[20]EN BANC - Fr. "by the full court" "in the bench" or "full bench." When all the members of an appellate court hear an argument, they are sitting en banc. Refers to court sessions with the entire membership of a court participating rather than the usual quorum. U.S. courts of appeals usually sit in panels of three judges, but may expand to a larger number in certain cases. They are then said to be sitting en banc.
[22] The Fourteenth Amendment asserts Due Process of Law as a requisite for any and all deprivations. This motion was without a valid reason for denial
[23] Jean v. Collins 221 F.3d 656, 659 (4th Cir. 200) cert. denied 531 U.S. 1076 121 S.Ct. 771, 148 L.ed.2d 671 (2001), "Due Process, Right to Exculpatory, Brady Material" (FN 17, 25, 26 & Pages 19, 26, 27)
[25] The Fourteenth Amendment asserts Due Process of Law as a requisite for any and all deprivations. This motion was without a valid reason for denial
[26] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . . Incompetence is unreasonable via “Failure to train, supervise and discipline” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390 - “A Good Faith effort is not Enough” per Owen v City of Independence (455 U.S. 622 (1980) (FN 20 & Pages 21)
[27] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . . If the police are allowed to lie no one can feel safe, Perjury establishes “Deliberate Indifference”, Berry v. Muskogee 900 F.2d 900,1489, 1496
[28] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . . Incompetence is unreasonable via “Failure to train, supervise and discipline” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390 - “A Good Faith effort is not Enough” per Owen v City of Independence (455 U.S. 622 (1980) (FN 20 & Pages 21)
[29] The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . . If the police are allowed to lie no one can feel safe, Perjury establishes “Deliberate Indifference”, Berry v. Muskogee 900 F.2d 900,1489, 1496
[31] BIVENS V. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U. S. 388 (1971) Page 403 U. S. 397
[32] I did not at that time understand Legal Jurisdiction. I was told needed to provide a jurisdictional statement in addition to reams of evidence. As it turns out in both 08-1823 and 07-11115 there was NO jurisdiction. Without credible Probable Cause the courts have no Jurisdiction.
[33] BIVENS V. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U. S. 388 (1971) Page 403 U. S. 397
[34] BIVENS V. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U. S. 388 (1971) Page 403 U. S. 397
[35] BIVENS V. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U. S. 388 (1971) Page 403 U. S. 397
[36] BIVENS V. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U. S. 388 (1971) Page 403 U. S. 397
[37]I quote from FBI Mission Statement “The FBI is the lead agency for investigating violations of federal civil rights laws…and we take that responsibility seriously.” The FBI speaks specifically to these issues as they define their mission as it relates to civil rights “under color of law”. I again quote “U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. (bolding added) “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.”
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
18 U.S.C. § 875(c) provides:
Whoever transmits in interstate commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
[39] United States of America, Appellee, v. Russell Kelner, Appellant, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 534 F.2d 1020 Argued Oct. 29, 1975.Decided April 9, 1976 “The purpose and effect of the Watts constitutionally-limited definition of the term "threat" is to insure that only unequivocal, unconditional and specific expressions of intention immediately to inflict injury may be punished only such threats, in short, as are of the same nature as those threats which are, as Judge Wright recognizes, "properly punished every day under statutes prohibiting extortion, blackmail and assault without consideration of First Amendment issues." WATTS V. UNITED STATES, 394 U. S. 705 (1969), supra. The Watts requirement of proof of a "true threat," it may be seen, works ultimately to much the same purpose and effect as would a requirement of proof of specific intent to execute the threat because both requirements focus on threats which are so unambiguous and have such immediacy that they convincingly express an intention of being carried out.”
[40] BIVENS V. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U. S. 388 (1971) Page 403 U. S. 407
1.An actual or supposed circumstance regarded as just cause for complaint.
2.A complaint or protestation based on such a circumstance. See Synonyms at injustice.
3.The act of inflicting hardship or harm.
4.The cause of hardship or harm.
5.Indignation or resentment stemming from a feeling of having been wronged.
[45] “It Could Happen to You” is a 1994 romantic comedy-drama film starring Nicolas Cage and Bridget Fonda. Now granted the winning lottery ticket never happened but, Policeman Charlie Lang’s (Cage) court room scene for Divorce bears a striking resemblance to the events in my case, courtroom scene with Commissioner Jones.
[46] Zacarias Moussaoui (Arabic: زكريا موسوي Zakariyyā Mūsawiy; sometimes Habib Zacarias Moussaoui; born May 30, 1968) is a French citizen who was convicted of conspiring to kill citizens of the USA as part of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. As a result of his conviction, he is serving a life sentence without parole at the Federal ADX Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado.
[47] The snail darter controversy involved the delay of the construction of the Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River in 1973.
[48] a.k.a. Phantly Roy Bean, Jr. (c. 1825 – March 16, 1903)
[49] re·dress n. ree-dres, ri-dres; v. ri-dres –noun
1.the setting right of what is wrong: redress of abuses.
2.relief from wrong or injury.
3.compensation or satisfaction for a wrong or injury.
1.An actual or supposed circumstance regarded as just cause for complaint.
2.A complaint or protestation based on such a circumstance. See Synonyms at injustice.
3.The act of inflicting hardship or harm.
4.The cause of hardship or harm.
5.Indignation or resentment stemming from a feeling of having been wronged.
[51] “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
[52] Common Sense by Thomas Paine Published in 1776 challenged the authority of the British government and the royal monarchy.
[53] Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States”
[54] Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph “No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility”
[55] A Ouija board (from French oui and German ja=yes) also known as a spirit board or talking board, is a flat board marked with letters, numbers, and other symbols, supposedly used to communicate with spirits.
[56] “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
[57] With the obvious exception for yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater. I think anyone would agree that exception is transparent.
[58] This evidence was all provided in 4:07-cv-00506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals as 08-1823
[59] “It Could Happen to You” is a 1994 romantic comedy-drama film starring Nicolas Cage and Bridget Fonda. Policeman Charlie Lang’s (Cage) Divorce, court room scene bears a striking resemblance to the events in my case.
[60] “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)
[62] Proceedings independent of others. Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 455, Abuse--Adults and Children--Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.070. All proceedings under sections 455.010 to 455.085 are independent of any proceedings for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, separate maintenance and other actions between the parties and are in addition to any other available civil or criminal remedies, unless otherwise specifically provided herein.
[63] Amendment V: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment”, I was never provided a “presentment” of the charges before the hearing as I should have been. They were mysteriously adduced during the hearing and NEVER codified into a presentment nor a finding nor an ends of justice memo.
[64] Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 455, Abuse--Adults and Children--Shelters and Protective Orders section 455.035, August 28, 2009
[71] “A rhetorical QUESTION, not intended as a threat, but if anyone feels the need to arrest I say come on, I would love to make this into a freedom of speech issue also.”
[72] I would make note of my case 4:09CR00659 CDP, where my right to oppose the JUDGES, via FREE SPEECH was DENIED during my incarceration of 411 days without bail!!!!!!!!
[73] 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, St. Louis County and State of Missouri
[74] Mr. Jack A. Bennett, Associate Circuit Judge, Mr. Devin M. Ledom, Asst. Prosecuting Attorney, Mr. Alex Little, Officer Badge #920, Mr. Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913, Mr. W. Steven Rives, Prosecuting Attorney, Mr. W. James Icenogle, Prosecuting Attorney, and Mr.Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge, Jay Nixon Attorney General, State of Missouri,Camden County, & City of Osage Beach,
[80] Mike Christian (FBI), Lyonel Mrythill (FBI), Chris Boyce (USMS), Dan Bracco (FBI), Robert O’Connor (USMS) and Raymond Meyer (AUSA)
[81] Alcohol-related driving offenses, expunged from records, when--procedures, effect--limitations
577.054. 1. After a period of not less than ten years, an individual who has pleaded guilty or has been convicted for a first alcohol-related driving offense which is a misdemeanor or a county or city ordinance violation and which is not a conviction for driving a commercial motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and who since such date has not been convicted of any other alcohol-related driving offense may apply to the court in which he or she pled guilty or was sentenced for an order to expunge from all official records all recordations of his or her arrest, plea, trial or conviction.
[82] Free Speech as asserted in United States v. David Gerard Jeep, case 4:09cr0659-CDP, Doc #74 Exhibits A thru F
[83] Free Speech as asserted in United States v. David Gerard Jeep, case 4:09cr0659-CDP, Doc #74 Exhibits A thru F
