Friday, June 3, 2011

Article III Judge (to be determined) Case #4:11-cv-0931 -- The Court is an unbiased, but methodical "creature"


Article III Judge (to be determined) Case #4:11-cv-0931
c/o Clerk of the Court
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
Saint Louis, MO 63102-1125

Re: Case #4:11-cv-0931-???
       The Court is an unbiased, but methodical "creature"

Dear Judge,
I am writing to you at the suggestion of someone in the clerk's office for two reasons; first, to re-iterate my stated request for digital documentation of all court proceedings in the form of Portable Date Files (PDF file extension) and second to reiterate the case against immunity.  Why would We the People even write a constitution if we were not intent upon holding our government to it with strict scrutiny and strict liability for its violation?[1] 
Any assertion of immunity empowers "fraud upon the court."  And anything based on fraud becomes unavoidably fraudulent also.  This is a massive conspiracy at the highest ministerial levels of the government, please see enclosed.
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,


David G. Jeep

enclosure
a.       "The Court is an unbiased, but methodical "creature""

cc:  My Blog - Friday, June 03, 2011, 2:46:17 PM


The Court is an unbiased, but methodical "creature"
A Judge is not the Court!
Friday, June 03, 2011, 2:46:17 PM
The Court is an unbiased, but methodical "creature" which is governed by Constitutional Due Process of Law. The Court can ONLY be effective, fair and "just" if it is allowed to function as Due Process of Law proscribes.  "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted" (Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985)).  It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything subsequent to it.
Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in a crime, "fraud upon the court."  If a Judge (who is NOT the "Court") does NOT support or uphold Due Process of Law, it is "fraud upon the court." 
In Jeep v Obama there has been "fraud upon the court" via the assertion of immunity.  It would be as if we were actually still living under the Royal rule of the King and believed in sovereign immunity.  We the People knew better at inception of our Democratic Constitutional Government.  We the People made "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."[2]  Corrupt ministerial authority, at the highest levels, in our government of the people, by the people and for the people has sought to install them selves as sovereign and immune from the "the supreme Law of the Land."
In Jeep v Bennett et al, Judge Bennett had the plaintiff thrown in jail at a pretrial hearing without any probable cause and without allowing the plaintiff to be heard on then NON-EXISTENCE of probable cause and held over night, it was "fraud upon the court;" a corruption of the process.  Then Judge Coyler, acting in a conspiracy of common interest, denied pretrial motions for exculpable[3] evidence that would have proven, pretrial, that Police officer, Alex Little, Officer Badge #920, had tendered a fraudulent probable cause statement in the original issue (CR203-1336M), it was "fraud upon the court;" a corruption of the process.  Add to that the second arresting police officer's, Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913, surprise contradiction of his prior sworn police report on the stand under oath at trial and if I were on the jury, I would have convicted MYSELF!!!!!!!!!  But at that time I believed as most people should, witness, especially police officers, do not lie on the stand under oath.  But I was naive.
Add to that the exculpable[4] evidence was obtained independently by the plaintiff until after the jury trial conviction and yet prior to sentencing it was "fraud upon the court" for Judge Colyer to knowingly enter the FALSE conviction into the record and impose a sentence, it was "fraud upon the court;" a corruption of the process.  You then have a conspiracy involving two judges, two police officers, three district attorneys and the state's attorney general.[5]
The deprivations of the plaintiff's rights that resulted in corruption of the judicial process, "fraud upon the court" were ALL over my timely verifiable formal written and oral objections and motions, pre-trial, at-trial, post-trial and have been nearly constantly memorialized in the nearly 8 years of subsequent repeated petitions, appeals and complaints for redress of grievances. 
In the second case Jeep v. Jones et al, Judge Goeke knowingly issued a fraudulent, on the face of it, court order that lack probable cause.  Commissioner Jones then held the plaintiff to answer the deficient fraudulent court order and allowed the petitioner to at trial change the pleading to include SURPRISE evidence of a prior unknown bad act, that was then incorporated into a revised fraudulent surprise court order that was never formalized into written form, never brought to hearing, just ENFORCED against the plaintiff for twelve plus months.  I quote "The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced.  The Court does find the allegations[6] of the amended petition to be true."
The lack of probable cause on the original court order made it a "fraud upon the court." The lack of probable cause prior to the hearing, made the hearing a "fraud upon the court."  Amending the charge at the hearing and the creation of a new order that was never formalized into written form and never brought to a hearing was again "fraud upon the court."
In that Judge Goeke issued the original fraudulent Order at the behest of the petitioner and Commissioner was acting under the judicial authority of the 21st District Court of Missouri en banc and you have a conspiracy that involves a judge, a petitioner, a commissioner and court house full of judges.[7]
The deprivations of the plaintiff's rights that resulted in corruption of the judicial process, "fraud upon the court" were ALL over my attorney's and my timely verifiable formal written and oral objections and motions, pre-trial, at-trial, post-trial and have been nearly constantly memorialized in the nearly 8 years of subsequent repeated petitions, appeals and complaints for redress of grievances
You add to that after my Writ of Certiorari[8] had been denied, I was arrested and held 411 days illegally because I sought the FBI's and the USMS's help in enforcing federal statue law i.e., Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985.  And then the Federal Court via "fraud upon the court" asserts ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for all those involved and you have a conspiracy that now includes the President of the United States and the current sitting Supreme Court of the United States en banc. 
And you wonder why I say our judges are Justice System is out of control??  All the motions, all the evidence it is on my blog DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[9]
for condoning
"fraud upon the court."

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[10]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right, with their deprivation of substantive justice between the government and the people, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98!!!

The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people.  We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[11] e.g., To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process, The Exclusionary Rule, Grounds for Impeachment, Jeep v Obama, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947, Jeep v Jones "The most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115."

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Friday, June 03, 2011, 2:46:17 PM, The Court is an unbiased, but methodical creature REV 00.doc

cc:  My Blog - Friday, June 03, 2011, 2:46:17 PM


[1] Constitutionally secured First Amendment lawfully un-abridge-able right: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
As precedent I quote The Declaration of Independence: "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."   Obviously The Colonist were not content to just be filing petitions they were looking for more - SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE – for the denial of rights between themselves and the government of King George III .
[2] Non italic parenthetical text, emphasis and underlining added for reference clarity
[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] "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)
[5] Devin M. Ledom, Asst. Prosecuting Attorney, W. Steven Rives, Prosecuting Attorney, and W. James Icenogle, Prosecuting Attorney, Jay Nixon Attorney General, State of Missouri, Camden County, and City of Osage Beach (4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M) ,
[6] Even after repeated motions after the hearing I still do not know the specifics of "the allegations" referenced in the finding and that formed the basis for the non-existent probable cause and finding.  It was a blatant judicial act of "fraud upon the court."
[7] 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 (4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243)
[10] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour"


--
Thanks in advance


To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process

"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316