Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Appeal 11-2425 Case No. 4:11-cv-0931-CAS An EMERGENCY WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Label Number: 0311 0240 0001 7141 7675
Shipment Activity               Location                               Date & Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depart USPS Sort               HAZELWOOD MO 63042        11/22/11
Facility
Processed through USPs   HAZELWOOD MO 63042       11/21/11  9:08pm
Sort Facility
Dispatched to Sort             SAINT LOUIS MO 63101         11/21/11  5:42pm
Facility
Acceptance                        SAINT LOUIS MO 63101         11/21/11  3:15pm
Current Track & Confirm e-mail information provided by the U.S. Postal Service.No. ______________________________________
Appeal 11-2425
Case No. 4:11-cv-0931-CAS
An EMERGENCY WRIT OF CERTIORARI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
— PETITIONER FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
David G. Jeep and heir
- RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
President Barack Hussein Obama, et al, Defendants/Respondents

President Barack Hussein Obama, United States of America

Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, The Supreme Court of the United States of America,

Chief United States District Judge Eastern Missouri 8th Circuit Catherine D. Perry (8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947),

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) , Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

8th District US Court of Appeals (07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425),

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-0506-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 , 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),

Jack A. Bennett, Associate Circuit Judge, Devin M. Ledom, Asst. Prosecuting Attorney, Alex Little, Officer Badge #920, Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913, W. Steven Rives, Prosecuting Attorney, W. James Icenogle, Prosecuting Attorney, Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge, Jay Nixon Attorney General, State of Missouri, Camden County, and City of Osage Beach (4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M) ,

All Defendants/Respondents are included and asserted liable, as Government actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors

Defendants/Respondents
________________________________________________________________
 (NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)PETITION
IN THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DIVISION 65
Commissioner Phillip Jones, Presiding
03FC-010670
(07-2614, 10-1947 and 11-2425 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals)
And
IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION
The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge
CR203-1336M
(08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals)
________________________________________________________________
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I am requesting the court to rule on two issues as regards the question:[1]
Where does a person[2] go who has been damaged, if not destroyed,[3] by the denial of rights in a largely civil action[4] for a 7th Amendment remedy, a redress or grievances, or the protection of the law, when the Executive’s Justice Department will not enforce the law (Local, State and Federal) and the Court’s Judiciary (Local, State, Federal and Supreme) have acted in an “unlawful criminal conspiracy[5] of “deliberate indifference”[6] to ministerially[7] award themselves “Absolute Immunity”[8]before out of Court[9] to COVER-UP[10]false and malicious Persecutions[11] to wit the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?[12]
[X] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.
________________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.
________________________________________________________________
OPINIONS BELOW
[X] For cases from federal courts (See Appendix A1-A5):
     Rule 14.1(d), A reference to the opinions below.  I have included the district court’s opinion and the appeals court confirming opinion here.  All opinions referenced to date have relied upon two reasons for the denial of the protection of the law:
1. Judge Shaw errantly refers to a petition filed by one of the respondents, Sharon G. Jeep, and yes she did file a flagrantly fraudulent petition, but, that flagrantly fraudulent petition was then ordered by a judge and heard by a commissioner without regard to the petitioner’s rights.  The reversal of that flagrantly fraudulent judicial order was denied by the commissioner, the commissioner’s bosses the superior court judicial officer’s en banc, the state court of appeals, the U.S. District Court (4 times), the 8th circuit Court of appeals (4 times) and on a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (07-11115) criminally denied by the U.S. Supreme Court’s prior precedent.  This is not an issue open for debate, there is NO probable cause listed in the original petition as required by the Statute,[13] the 4th amendment and 14th Amendment’s Due Process of LAW.
  Kahn v. Kahn 21 F.3d 859, 861 as referenced and affirmed by Judge Shaw and others is unconstitutional on its face.  It attempts to deny the protection of Due Process of Law.  There is NO ESCAPE from the Constitution of the United State’s undeniable reliance on Due Process of Law for the clear deprivation of life, liberty and property per the Supreme Law of the Land as specified by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America.
2. For the sake of brevity I would assert they claim or assert “Absolute Immunity” for the defendants.  Again there is NO immunity from the Supreme Law of the land, the requirement for due process of law in advance of any deprivation of life, liberty and property.
The opinion of the United States District Court and United States Court of Appeals are included with the petition and are [X] unpublished.
________________________________________________________________
JURISDICTION
[X] For cases from federal courts:
The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was October 4, 2011
I invoke Federal Jurisdiction under THE RULE OF LAW, the Establishment of Justice, TITLE 28 PART IV CHAPTER 81 § 1254. Courts of appeals; certiorari; certified questions and Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 85, Section § 1343. Civil rights and elective franchise.  Defendants in this issue want to side step the Rule of Law, the establishment of Justice and Due Process of Law as required by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America.(acknowledging pro-se 28 U.S.C. § 2111. Harmless error[14] that does not affect the affect the substantial rights of the parties). 
This is a Civil rights issue, where the petitioner has been denied rights protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.
________________________________________________________________
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED:
The Constitution for the United States of America Article Preamble, VI. Second paragraph, 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, treaties made “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ” PART II, Article 2, Section 3), Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 and Blackstone’s English Common Law as of 1803[15] superseding Lord Coke, , Floyd and Barker (1607)as referenced in Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868), Bradley v. Fisher, (13 Wall) 80 U. S. 335 (1871) @ Page 80 U. S. 349) (origin Judicial "Absolute Immunity), and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) (Judicial Immunity as it specifically relates to Civil Rights Statute)

The Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph:
     This Constitution, and the Laws[16] of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,[17] 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[18]

1st Amendment
“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

4th Amendment
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.

5th Amendment
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 offense 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. 

14th Amendment
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….

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as adopted by the United Nations  on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977:
PART II, Article 2, Section 3.
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

Title 42§1983 (1885 Conspiracy) Deprivation of Civil Rights :
“Every person who, under color of any statute… subjects… any citizen of the United States… 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….”

English common law per the Commentaries on the Laws of England, the 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone and as quoted by John Marshal in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163:
"It is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded…" (Page 5 U. S. 163)
“It is a settled and invariable principle in the law… that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." (Page 5 U. S. 163)
AND
“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. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.” (Page 5 U. S. 163) [19]
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The case in chief, In 2003 (03FC-010670) and 2004 (CR203-1336M) in the State Courts of Missouri I was charged and held on TWO infamous flagrantly fraudulent issues while being denied my (paternal, property and liberty) rights and the most basic elements of Due Process of Law i.e., probable cause and exculpable evidence.  That this criminal corruption has worked its way through the Federal Courts 4 times (07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425) and formally in the Supreme Court at least one other time (Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 and several other un-docketed petitions) with out being checked only further exemplifies the massive, corrupt, malicious, dishonest and incompetent[20] nature of this insidious unlawful criminal conspiracy[21]before out of Court.[22]
Fraus omnia vitiate… Fraud vitiates everything it touches. When fraud is involved in civil contract or in the establishment of a law, all such laws or contracts are unraveled, made into nothing at all.
The facts of the fraud and crimes have never even been questioned.  I briefly include a description here:

I was held to answer TWO infamous fraudulent charges, spousal abuse and DWI, without the most basic and essential requirements of Due Process rights, probable cause and exculpable evidence.  Everything I ever cared about was taken from me as a result, from my son and my home, to my little league baseball glove.  I was then forced into a fight, where my adversary had been empowered by all that had been criminally and fraudulently taken from me. 
Just a bare minimum cursory look at the evidence, a hand written petition at the commencement of the fraud,[23] as included here, exposes this unavoidable conclusion.  The petition for the order of protection lists no probable cause that could require the court’s involvement for protection of the alleged victim, given a person of ordinary intelligence. [24]  What it fraudulently gives as probable cause is a sensationalized hearsay account of an infamous charge from a preliminary hearing for a charge of DWI, a different subject matter jurisdiction, in a different geographical jurisdiction under a different judicial officer’s[25] jurisdiction, where the alleged victim was not even present, by her own admission.  If ever there was a more COMPLETE lack of jurisdiction and probable cause I would like to see it.
After being served and ordered by a warrantless court order, I was forced into a court to defend myself against an infamous charge that had no probable cause.  My adversaries were allowed to take unfair surprise random unsubstantiated sensationalized accusatorial potshots[26] at me.  The Family Commissioner, a judicial officer of LIMITED jurisdiction, then found and 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 of the amended petition to be true.”[27]
My attorney of record objected pre-trial, at trial in court and immediately after made TWO post trial written motions for a copy of the alluded to the “amended petition” and then to be heard on said petition.  Neither motion was ever granted!!!!!!!!!!  I was thus denied my God given custody rights to MY SON!!!
On the Second fraudulent[28] charge, the DWI, [29] then presiding Judge, Judge Bennett, recused himself for his bad acts that had been fraudulently blamed on the respondent in the ex-parte order of abuse.  During the pretrial motions FORMAL written request for specific exculpable evidence were heard and DENIED.  At trial, the two arresting officers knowingly gave false testimony, fraud, [30] incriminating themselves to contradict the exculpable evidence that had been criminally[31] DENIED the defendant!
I thus see no need in presenting evidence AGAIN here.  Since the origination of these two[32] flagrantly fraudulent denials, unlawfully combined by some of the defendants into one issue, I have been criminally[33] deprived of my LIBERTY, my Paternal Rights, and my Property rights as secured by the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America.
In the 8+ years since the origination of the denial of rights, I have been relentlessly seeking the protection of the law in the original courts, the courts of appeals Missouri State Court of Appeals (SD26269 and ED84021), U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missour1 (4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al (07-2614), 4:07-cv-0506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al (08-1823), Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM (10-1947), 4:11-cv-00931-CAS (11-2425))8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals), U.S. Supreme Court (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115) and with additional efforts in written correspondence to the President of the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States, the Governor of Missouri, Police enforcement (local, state and federal[34])and the Attorneys General (State and Federal). 
When this issue[35] started over 8 years ago my son was 8 years old, he will be 17 years old very shortly (12-22-2011). 
I seek an EMERGENCY ORDER, damages and injunctive relief, as described in the most recent appeal 11-2425.  

As a person, a 55 year old NATURAL born citizen of the United States of America all I can do is beg, HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
I have already spent 411 days in jail[36] for just considering the Supreme Court’s suggestion of “the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime.”[37]
HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
The protection of the law and/or Justice is the raisons d'etre for a constitution, courts, a government… for Civilization.[38]  Without the protection of the law civilization breaks down and we are back at the entrance to the cave VIOLENTLY fighting for dominance to endure a trial by ordeal.  For “it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded.”
“It is a settled and invariable principle in the law… that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Page 5 U. S. 163
To me, a person of average intelligence, I have been injured by the flagrantly fraudulent denial of my rights, my son, my property, and my liberty without the protection of the law.  I have not been able to find a remedy or proper redress because of the “unlawful criminal conspiracy[39] of deliberate indifference”[40] to ministerially[41] award themselves “Absolute Immunity”[42]before out of Court[43] to COVER-UP[44]false and malicious Persecutions[45] to wit, the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?[46]  I quote again from the same un-contradicted Supreme Court Precedent:
“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. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition,[47] and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.” Page 5 U. S. 163
I claim not only the above, the referenced precedent, as justification but the establishment of Justice as the essential basis common law, the raisons d'etre for any civilization.  The first and MOST important right of any person anywhere is the unalienable right to Justice.  The raisons d'etre for Civilization and Government is the establishment of Justice.  All rights are based on a foundation of Justice.  Justice is diametrically and irreconcilably opposed to the sanctioning of malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[48] actions. 
Jmaes Madison expressed it better than I could hope to:
“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.” [49]
________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION
Immunity by definition is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the RULE OF LAW, by definition!  The rule of law is incompatible with Immunity.  I could see stretching the limits of a good faith immunity, because after all, we are civilized.  But in this case, 8 years of denial of flagrant fraud and the denial of rights in the face of my RELENTLESS pursuit of my inalienable rights goes beyond the bounds of civility. 
Judicial interpretation of the law has for toooo long been afforded toooo much independence, for as Thomas Jefferson expressed in 1810 still holds true today, “the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice[50] corruption or incompetence.
The petition should be granted to abolish absolute immunity and give creditability AGAIN to the RULE OF LAW. 

________________________________________________________________



APPENDIX (C-1): Original Exparte Order of Protection
Appendix
  1. Copy of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ORDER OF DISMISSAL NO. 4:11-CV-931 CAS, SIGNED AND DATED 8TH day of June, 2011 CHARLES A. SHAW. (A1-A8 PAGES)
  2. Copy of UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2425 JUDGMENT DATED October 04, 2011 Order Entered at the Direction of the Court: Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit /s/ Michael E. Gans (B1-B2 pages)
  3. A copy of the Original petition for an order of protection that was made into and order by Judge Goeke, served on the petitioner by the police and heard by ordered heard by Commissioner Jones November 20, 2003.  On its face it is flagrantly fraudulent as it lists NO PROBABLE cause, page _19_ of _21_ of this petition.
  4. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Signed and notarized Wednesday, November 02, 2011(D-1-D6)
  5. Copy of Letter of transmittal (3 pages) and “A Cause of Action, Jurisdictional Statement and Pleading for the “Protection of the Laws”” In the Supreme Court of the United States of America Wednesday (8 Pages), dated February 23, 2011 (E1 of E11 Pages)
  6. Copy of Letter to Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court of the United States dated September 15, 2011 Re: UN-acknowledged petition for the protection of the laws, dated Wednesday, February 23, 2011 as enclosed (F1 of F2 Pages)
  7. Copy of letter to William K. Suter, Clerk, c/o Gail Johnson, Supreme Court of the United States of America dated October 5, 2011 Re:I am in receipt of your letter dated September 22, 2011[51] with enclosure An EMERGENCY WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Appeal USCA8 11-2425, Case No. 4:11-cv-0931-CAS signed and dated October 5, 2011 (G1 of G15 Pages)
  8. Copy of letter to William K. Suter, Clerk, c/o Gail Johnson, Supreme Court of the United States of America dated October 20, 2011 Re:   I am in receipt of your letter dated October 13, 2011[52] (H1-H4 pages)with enclosures as listed above but not attached items 7, 5, 3, 4,and 2
  9. Copy of An EMERGENCY WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Appeal USCA8 11-2425, Case No. 4:11-cv-0931-CAS revised per the Clerks Letters signed and dated Monday, November 21, 2011.Monday, November 21, 2011 (I1-I21)
  10. A certificate addressing service for this and prior cases (J1 Pages)
  11. Copy of letter to William K. Suter, Clerk, c/o Gail Johnson, Supreme Court of the United States of America dated November 2, 2011, Re:  I have now received the enclosed petition. (K1-K2)




________________________________________________________________
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed and respectfully submitted, Monday, November 21, 2011 12:55.55 PM



______________________________________
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
The plaintiff is homeless and without the will to go on because of this issue AND SEEKS EMERGENCY RELIEF[53]!!!








[1] I make note of the potential for Harmless error 28 USC § 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.
[2] It should be noted that the petitioner is pro se and does not have the uber-emphatic representation of a pro bono high priced law firm that is afforded a death row inmate (i.e., , Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 Smith v. Cain, No. 10-8145) much like most of the Supreme Court’s victims in this government of the people, by the people and FOR THE PEOPLE.  The only hope he has if the 1st and 7th remedy
[3][3] I have spent every penny I have in 8.51 years struggle (3,107 days).  I was incarcerated for 411 days, and then denied my day in court, on a false charge (“We live in a Lawless Society” via Eastern District Court of Missouri Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP Document #78, Attachments #(1) Exhibit, time stamped 3/25/2010, 5:30 PM CDT).  I have been indigent and living on the street for 4.04 years (1,474 days) in my struggle to regain my rights!
[4] While injunctive relief is a component of my petition monetary damages are the essential component of the remedy.
[5] Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) “Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, 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.”
[7] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law.  For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[8] “absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[10] 100 years of Jim Crow Laws denial of basic human rights can be directly linked to this cover-up… IMMUNITY
[13]for good cause shown in the petition” Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 455, Abuse--Adults and Children--Shelters and Protective Orders section 455.035

[14] 28 USC § 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.

[17] “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ” (as adopted by the United Nations on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 secures for Each State Party to the present Covenant i.e., PART II, Article 2, Section 3)
[18] Emphasis and underlining added for reference clarity
[19] Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803) establishing Supreme Court precedent and quoting English common law per the Commentaries on the Laws of England, the 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone (emphasis ADDED)
[20] Incompetence is the most insidious of human evils; but especially, if it is denied and covered up by the grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[23] Fraus omnia vitiate, Fraud vitiates everything it touches. When fraud is involved in civil contract or in the establishment of a law, all such laws or contracts are unraveled, made into nothing at all. If fraud can be proven, such laws by their natures could not exist, for they were created under both a false pretense, as well as created with understanding and assent on false pretenses, see enclosed copy of the hand written petition by Sharon G. Jeep on 11-03-03
[24] SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting, 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 (probable cause) is forbidden." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617  (1954). See Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391-393 (1926); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 405 U. S. 162  (1972); Dunn v. United States, ante at 442 U. S. 112-113. So too, vague sentencing provisions may pose constitutional questions if they do not state with sufficient clarity the consequences of violating a given criminal statute. See United States v. Evans,  333 U. S. 483  (1948); United States v. Brown, 333 U. S. 18  (1948); cf. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399  (1966).”  (Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis)
[25] It should be noted that Judge Bennett recused himself from the DWI issue for his bad acts that were unrelatedly, fraudulently, corruptly and maliciously blamed on the petitioner.  But the damage from the flagrantly fraudulent ex parte order of protection had already been done and the judicial officer of limited jurisdiction, Commissioner Jones could not and would not reconsider based on the potshot revision of probable cause at the hearing. 
[26]potshot” a shot fired at game merely for food, with little regard to skill or the rules of sport.
[27] IN THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DIVISION 65, Commissioner Phillip Jones, Presiding, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003, Cause No. 03FC-010670
[28] Fraus omnia vitiate, Fraud vitiates everything it touches.
[29] IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION, The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge, Cause No. CR203-1336M  (Jack A. Bennett, Associate Circuit Judge recused himself in November of 2003)
[30] Fraus omnia vitiate, Fraud vitiates everything it touches.
[32] - A.) CR203-1336M the fraudulent DWI, the denial of exculpable evidence to prove the incompetent fraudulent probable cause and fraudulent testimony to cover up the incompetence
 --- B.) 03FC-010670 the fraudulent Ex-parte Order without the jurisdiction of probable cause
[34] FBI and USMS
[35] See APPENDIX: Original Exparte Order of Protection where one issue CR203-1336M (DWI) is used for as unrelated probable cause for the second issue 03FC-010670 (Exparte order of protection, Abuse)
[37] United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882), Page 106 U. S. 219
[38] “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. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)(Page 5 U. S. 163)
[41] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law.  For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[42] “absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[44] 100 years of Jim Crow Laws denial of basic human rights can be directly linked to this cover-up… IMMUNITY
[47] Right to petition as confirmed here in Supreme Court should carry over to the 1st Amendments the lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition the government for a redress of grievances
[48] Incompetence is the most insidious of human evils; but especially, if it is denied and covered up by the grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[49] FEDERALIST No. 51, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments For the Independent Journal.  Wednesday, February 6, 1788.  James Madison
[50] The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS" To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810
[51] Return of Jeep v. Obama et al stamped received Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court U.S. September 21, 2011
[52] Return of Jeep v. Obama et al stamped received Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court U.S. Oct-12-2011
[53] Relief as referenced in USCA8 11-2425