Friday, June 24, 2011

U.S. Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit "A humble appeal from the decision (Case No. 4:11-cv-931-CAS) in Eastern District of Missouri" Friday, June 24, 2011

-->

U.S. Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit



David G. Jeep,          Plaintiff/Petitioner,
            vs.
President Barack Hussein Obama, et al,
Defendants/Respondents

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))



Appeal # ___________________

Case No   4:11-cv-00931-CAS  _




A humble appeal from the decision (Case No. 4:11-cv-931-CAS) in Eastern District of Missouri


1.      First I take humble exception to the NOT random selection of Charles A. Shaw to this case in U.S. Court Eastern District of Missouri.
2.      Immunity is “before out of Court[1] an “unlawful Conspiracy[2] “extrajudicial[3] self-serving ministerial rule, at the highest levels of the United States of America’s Executive (prosecutorial) and Justice (judicial) Departments, to deprive We the People the protection of Due Process of Law, the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, necessitates.
3.      As regards “absolute immunity” I humbly cite the Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph – “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.”  There is NO IMMUNITY from the Supreme Law of the Land, especially as noted “Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”  I mean “give(n) a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice” (United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 114, 123 (1979),[4] SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting) there is no immunity from the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. 
4.      As regards Kahn v. Kahn (21 F.3d 859) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), I humbly assert that Kahn v. Kahn and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) in the Jane Crow[5] era are part of an “unlawful Conspiracy[6] “extrajudicial[7] at the highest ministerial levels of the United States of America’s Government, “before out of Court[8] to deny men the protection of the 14th Amendment.  That is to say deny Equal Protection of the Law and Due Process of Law in both State and Federal Court.
5.      At both my original trials[9] my attorney and myself made repeated PRE-trial, AT-trial and POST-TRIAL objections and motions to make the violations of my Constitutional rights unavoidable TRIPPING HAZARDS for anyone of “ordinary intelligence.”  There was nothing short of setting off fireworks INDOORS that we could have done to emphasize the deprivation of my “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America[10] anymore clear.  And in the nearly 8 years since (2003) I have been as vocally as possible restating the criminal denial of rights in on going appeals, actions, complaints and correspondence.  The defendant’s actions can thus be considered manifest, corrupt and malicious.
6.      ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud by any standard of Justice in a government of free and equal persons on THIS PLANET!!!!! 
7.      ANY assertion of governmental ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, acknowledging unavoidable human fallibility, is repugnant to a government of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!
8.      The dissent in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U. S. 357 (1871) did not think opposing absolute immunity was frivolous, MR. JUSTICE DAVIS, with whom concurred Mr. Justice CLIFFORD, dissentingBut I dissent from the rule laid down by the majority of the Court that a judge is exempt from liability in a case like the present, where it is alleged not only that his proceeding was in excess of jurisdiction,[11] but that he acted maliciously and corruptly. If he did so, he is, in my opinion, subject to suit the same as a private person would be under like circumstances.”  I may sound a little overly sensitive, I think the Judges in Camden County and the Judges in St. Louis County were all corruptly and maliciously out to get me.  None of them had any clear and credible probable cause and or proof that would standup to exculpable information.  I was clearly deprived of “fair notice” of “probable cause” not to mention my “fair notice” 14th amendment right to Due Process of law given “a person of ordinary intelligence.”[12] 
9.      MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 558 (1967) did not think opposing immunity was frivolous, “I do not think that all judges, under all circumstances, no matter how outrageous their conduct, are immune from suit under 17 Stat. 13, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court's ruling is not justified by the admitted need for a vigorous and independent judiciary, is not commanded by the common law doctrine of judicial immunity, and does not follow inexorably from our prior decisions.” 
10. In Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) while the decision was unanimous as regards Mr. Imbler; MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring in the judgment stated, they did not think “that absolute immunity for prosecutors extends to suits based on claims of unconstitutional suppression of evidence.”  The Judges, the Prosecutors, the Police and the original petitioner all suppressed evidence in my issues.  I quote from Page 424 U. S. 432I concur in the judgment of the Court and in much of its reasoning... I write, however, because I believe that the Court's opinion may be read as extending to a prosecutor an immunity broader than that to which he was entitled at common law; broader than is necessary to decide this case; and broader than is necessary to protect the judicial process. Most seriously, I disagree with any implication that absolute immunity for prosecutors extends to suits based on claims of unconstitutional suppression of evidence, because I believe such a rule would threaten to injure the judicial process and to interfere with Congress' purpose in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983, without any support in statutory language or history.”
11. In Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 365 (1978) Justices STEWART, J., MARSHALL and POWELL, JJ. did not think opposing absolute immunity was frivolous, “But the scope of judicial immunity is limited to liability for "judicial acts," and I think that what Judge Stump did on July 9, 1971, was beyond the pale of anything that could sensibly be called a judicial act.”  I feel that Judge Goeke’s and Commissioner Jones fraud upon the court in ordering and hearing a case lacking probable cause for the order, on its face, steps outside the acts "normally performed by a judge" (435 U. S. 365)
12. Justice Thurgood Marshall dissenting in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 362 (1983) did not think the idea of Judges being liable for their actions was frivolous.  He went beyond the issue briefed in the petition, witness immunity, and declared that he thought all common law IMMUNITY had been overridden by 42 U.S.C. § 1883: “To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible.  Sheriffs and marshals, while performing a quintessentially judicial function such as serving process, were clearly liable under the 1866 Act, notwithstanding President Johnson's objections. Because, (Page 460 U. S. 363) as Representative Shellabarger stated, § 1 of the 1871 Act provided a civil remedy "in identically the same case" or "on the same state of facts" as § 2 of the 1866 Act, it obviously overrode whatever immunity may have existed at common law for these participants in the judicial process in 1871.” (emphasis added, internal footnotes not included)
13. And our current Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appears to agree in his recent VEHEMENT dissent as to the vagueness in SYKES v. UNITED STATES ““give a person of ordinary(sp) intelligence fair notice” of its reach” (Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting).  There is nothing vague about the constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the First Amendment’s lawfully un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances or the statutory law, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985As I assert as part of my pleading this is also a PRIVATE PROSECUTION of “penal statutes,” Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, because the criminal conspiracy at work in the State Government and Federal Government will not prosecute the law in We the People’s defense.  The Constitution, penal and civil statutory law, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985, gives “a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice” that their rights are secured by criminal and civil liability for their deprivation.  The concept of “fair notice” swings both ways, yes the statute needs to be clear and understandable to be Constitutionally enforceable, but where the Constitution “and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made[13] are clear they LIMIT the government’s intrusion i.e. the 4th Amendments requirement for “probable cause” and the 5th and 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “Due Process of Law.”  Probable cause and Due Process are not “ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice.”[14] 
14. Because I humbly know you are considering this as an “extrajudicial[15] “unlawful Conspiracy[16] “before out of Court[17] issue I enclose a copy of the original handwritten evidence of the most egregious violation of my Constitutional rights as an unavoidable TRIPPING HAZARD for anyone of “ordinary intelligence.  This copy of the petition that became the FRAUDULENT ex-parte order of protection at the center of all my issues adds all the veracity I need.  There is no credible PROBABLE CAUSE for the charge listed thus no 4th Amendment protection.  After repeated requests I was never provided the amended pleadings[18] nor was I ever allowed to be heard on them, it was a denial of the 5th and 14th Amendment Due Process of Law also.  In the Jane Crow[19] era a man’s life can be destroyed and discarded without the fundamental Constitutional and Internationally[20] asserted inalienable civil rights to Due Process of Law.



15. What it all comes down to is giving “a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice.”[21]  Absolute immunity is repugnant to the Rule of law by definition.  The Rule of Law, the Constitution of the United States of America as written, adopted and supported as the Supreme Law of the Land does not afford ANYONE immunity.
16. I am indigent.  I am self-represented, pro se.  I spent all the retirement I had on attorneys.  I DO NOT even have postage to mail this petition.  I have holes in the seat of my pants, holes in the soles of my shoes and nothing to eat and nowhere to live.  I am forced to seek out homeless shelters and clothing give-aways for the necessities of live.  Do I have to light myself on fire in the street to get the rights granted by my creator to all men, like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi? 
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Friday, June 24, 2011
Signature of Plaintiff(s)




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

E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
2011 06-23-11 8th Circuit Court of Appeals REV 01.doc


[1] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) Third logical argument end of the paragraph 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, 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.” (emphasis and underlining added)
[4] United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 “It is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. 453  (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617  (1954).
[5]The "Jane Crow" Era, the courts preference for mother’s/a woman’s rights over a father’s/man’s rights in Domestic Relation Law
The "Jane Crow" Era, “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 exparte 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.”
fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, 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. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."  “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
[6] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) Third logical argument end of the paragraph “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, 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.” (emphasis and underlining added)
[9] 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243 and CR203-1336M
[11] With the flagrant disregard for credible probable cause none of the Judicial Officers in the action had Jurisdiction. 
[12] United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 “fair notice” swings both ways, e.g. The statute against murder may clearly define murder, but that does not mean that you can use it outside its “fair notice” scope and charge a man for murder for having stolen your car.    You can not ask a man to defend himself against an ex-parte order of protection for a petitioner where the only probable cause is an unrelated, hearsay account of a court proceeding from a month prior and 150 miles away where the said petitioning individual by her account was not even actually present.
[13] “The Treaty “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” is presented for both its binding force as "Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies together under one Constitution?” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[14] The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810
[18] I quote Family Commissioner Jones from the trial transcript: "The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced.  The Court does find the allegations of the amended petition to be true."  Despite two post trial motions I was never given a set of those findings/amended pleadings.  07-2614
[19] The "Jane Crow" Era, the courts preference for mother’s/a woman’s rights over a father’s/man’s rights in Domestic Relation Law
[20] “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”
[21] United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 “fair notice” swings both ways, e.g. The statute against murder may clearly define murder, but that does not mean that you can use it outside its “fair notice” scope and charge a man for murder for having stolen your car.    You can not ask a man to defend himself against an ex-parte order of protection for a petitioner where the only probable cause is an unrelated, hearsay account of a court proceeding 150 miles away  and a month prior where the said petitioning individual by her account was not even actually present.