Subject: Re: Please call
From: David G. Jeep (dgjeep01@yahoo.com)
To: Darryl.Piggee@mail.house.gov;
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 16:03:23
I have been without a phone, I will get back with you ASAP. I appreciate your interest.
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, MO63103-2316
From: "Piggee, Darryl"
To: "'dave@dgjeep.com'"
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 10:14 AM
Subject: Please call
Please call Darryl Piggee from Congressman Clay’s office
Darryl A. Piggee
Chief of Staff
Congressman Wm. Lacy Clay
1st District Missouri
2418 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-2406
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""
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 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!!!
[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"
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd as represented in the undisputed facts of the case by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals[1] (No. 06-36059) and confirmed by the United States Supreme Court (No. 10–98) is a clear and indisputable case of "Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court". For John Ashcroft to FRAUDULENTLY, without any true intention or direct knowledge of any pertinent controlling issue, represent something different to the court so as to invade Mr. al-Kidd's rights is a criminal act.
For "We the People" to allow it is to sacrifice the protection of our own "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[2] This was, on John Ashcroft's part, a criminal act redress able by private civil action, Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985, and punishable by a fine and imprisonment, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242.
If We the People passively allow our representative acting in our name under color of law to act without regard to our "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America,"[3] we deserve the domination and oppression we will soon have. We the People democratically established our Constitution for the United States of America to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[5] " 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)!!!
[5] 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"
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-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 , 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),
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,
CamdenCounty, and City of Osage Beach (4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M) ,
Defendants/Respondents
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No 4:11-cv-00931-??? _
A First[1] and Fourth[2] Amendment based REPEATED Petition for suit in “the most humble terms”[3] “for a Redress of Grievances”
1.The respondents deprived the plaintiff of the INDIVIDUAL security guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, by depriving him of his INDIVIDUAL constitutional rights and then requiring him to overcome an unrelated “stringent standard of fault” and “difficult problems of proof” with an otherwise unrelated group to sustain the government’s liability for individual constitutional rights to wit: Per the ruling in CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) a plaintiff, purporting to be a victim of a crime, must prove multiple other victims sustained the same criminal deprivation, via the same criminal, in a timely fashion before liability and or redress can be consider or established for the initiating individual plaintiff. This violates an individual’s rights by inserting this REQUIRED group connection and or affiliation.[4]The Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant in this case. It is Damages or nothing.[5]
2.This is discrimination not based on a victim’s affiliations, but on the lack of a victim’s affiliation. It would be as if when you were robbed, you not only had to find the robber, but you had to find other victims who had also been robbed by the same robber in similar and timely situation. The state has the obligation to, per the 14th Amendment, enforce the law equally[6] without regard to affiliation or lack of affiliation i.e., the first victim, the fourth victim and one hundred and fourth victim.
3.I seek the Security of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” In the originating issues (2 each) My son, ALL my property and my driving privileges were seized, without probable cause[7] and a denial of Due Process of Law,[8] via fraud upon the court. The deprivations of rights were over my attorney’s and my timely verifiable formal objections and motions, pre-trial, at-trial, post-trial and in the nearly 8 years of subsequent repeated petitions, appeals and complaints for redress of grievances. Since the originating issues my INDIVIDUAL security has been deprived by the unconstitutional requirement of proof requiring a GROUP affiliation to invoke the protection of civil liability, criminal penalties and treaties made.[9]
4.Constitutional Rights are not vested in a group! Constitutional Rights are vested with and in the INDIVIDUAL PERSON.
5.I site Bivens’s[10]implied cause of action for the deprivation of the Fourth Amendment’s security for rights as applicable to the Federal Government, the State Government and the Local Government via the 14th Amendment. The Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant in this case. It is Damages or nothing.[11]
6.I seek the constitutionally required strict scrutiny[12] for the Constitutionally Supreme Law of the Land for the thus strict liability per the lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition the government for a redress of grievances as provided for in the First Amendment. I can and will JUSTIFY my grievance for the deprivation of rights that instigated this issue in 2003 (see 8th Circuit court of Appeals Filings in 10-1947,[13] 08-1823 and 07-2614). I seek to establish the government’s justifiable liability for the deprivation of rights under the Constitution, Fist Amendment, Statute Law (Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985) and Treaties Made (“The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” PART II, Article 2, Section 3., (a), (b) and (c)).[14] The deprivations of rights were over my attorney’s and my timely verifiable formal objections and motions, pre-trial, at-trial, post-trial and in the nearly 8 years of subsequent repeated petitions, appeals and complaints for redress of grievances.
7.I site the Declaration of Independence as Precedent for the Right to Petition as substantive justice between the Government and the People. 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.”[15] Obviously The Colonist were not content to just be filing petitions they were looking for more - SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE between themselves and the government of King George III with “Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” The deprivations of rights were over my attorney’s and my timely verifiable formal objections and motions, pre-trial, at-trial, post-trial and in the nearly 8 years of subsequent repeated petitions, appeals and complaints for redress of grievances.
8.I assert my grievance is and has been the deprivation of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[16] as documented in prior court cases[17] (8th District Federal Court of Appeals Cases, 10-1947,[18] 08-1823 and 07-2614). The Supreme Court and others as listed above have violated their strict liability as established by Strict Scrutiny[19] for Constitutionally Secured rights by depriving the individual Plaintiff’s right to redress for the grievances resultant from the deprivation of an individual‘s “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[20]
9.I am filing this as a cause of action 8th U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against The United States of America Government in the person of its “public Ministers”[21] at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive[22] and Justice[23] Departments. The ministerial grant of “Absolute Immunity”[24] is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional “unlawful Conspiracy”[25] “out of Court”[26] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.”[27] The Justice Department, The Judiciary, The President have NO POWER to ministerially grant themselves or others “Absolute Immunity.”[28] This involves the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, as an individual and as a public Minister responsible for the enforcement and prosecution of the laws for the United States of America Government - 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, as individuals and as public Ministers for the Judicial enforcement of the laws of the United States of America Government,”[29] and others listed as defendants. The pleading, the jurisdictional statement, the issue is in opposition to the ministerial policy, “Absolute Immunity,” adopted, supported and executed at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive and Justice Departments; “Absolute Immunity” is REPUGNANT to the Constitution, Statute Law and Treaties[30] Made[31]
10.I assert that Immunity is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the Rule of Law. “We the People” i.e., government of the people, by the people, for the people have civilized ourselves by establishing the Democratic Constitution as the Rule of Law, as the supreme law of the land. Immunity for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”[32] denies “We the People” the limited government, “protection of the laws,”[33] and very essence of civilization. “Absolute Immunity” a ministerial policy adopted, supported and enforced at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive and Justice Departments is repugnant to the Rule of Law, the Constitution, statute law, Civil[34] and Criminal,[35] treaties[36] made and the essence of civilization. I petition the President of the United States of America as the executive in charge and The Supreme Court Justices as the highest judicial ministerial levels of the FEDERAL, STATE and Local Government of the UnitedState of America... “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”[37] and “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court”[38] of the United States of America, as government “public Ministers”[39] for a redress of grievances as assured by the constitution, First Amendment, criminal and civil statute law, treaties made[40] and the very essence of civilization.
11.Immunity, as ministerially created law out of self-serving desire and then applied without constitutional or statute law authorization, is repugnant to the constitution, statute law, treaties made[41] and the very essence of civilization. And the current attempt by the Supreme Court in CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11) to limit liability via a shibboleth laden labyrinth of UNEQUAL protection is definitely verifiable NOT “good Behaviour.[42]”
12.I am petitioning for the protection of the laws and a redress of grievances resultant from the denial of the protection of the laws.
13.I have been to the Missouri State Court, The Missouri State Court of Appeals, United States Eastern Missouri 8th District Court, 8th United States Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, Attorneys General (State and Federal), Governor State of Missouri and President of the United States of America and been denied.[43]
15.I site Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 Page 5 U. S. 163 “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.”[46]
16.I have been denied the protection of the laws because of “Absolute Immunity”[47] as currently held as a self-serving ministerial policy adopted at the highest levels of the Executive and Justice Departments. I have been denied the protection of the laws via agents (local Police, State Police, FBI, and USMS) and the courts (Local, State, Federal and Supreme) and public Ministers (Attorneys General (State and Federal), Governor and President) in numerous prior petitions, complaints, pleadings, appeals and motions on file with this court and others. (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America "Opposed to Immunity" currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk's office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243, Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/). The Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant in this case. It is Damages or nothing.[48]
17.Self-serving “Absolute Immunity” ministerially granted by “public Ministers”[49] for “public Ministers”is repugnant to a Democratically established limited constitutional government. There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility[50] i.e., “Absolute Immunity,” Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility."
18.These issues arise from a series of 2003 incidents where the Plaintiff, David G. Jeep was held to answer on two infamous charges, “false and malicious Persecutions,”[51] without any probable cause, much less proof of any wrong doing. The Judges, the Prosecutors, the Police and the then petitioner, Sharon G. Jeep, all withheld exculpable material. The Police (Alex Little, Officer Badge #920, Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913) State of Missouri, CamdenCounty, and City of Osage Beach Case 4:07-cv-0506-SOW / CR203-1336M presented false information. My Ex-wife Sharon G. Jeep, with the oversight of two judges, knowingly applied for and received a fraudulent Court Order without any probable cause in St. LouisCounty and State of Missouri Case 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ / 03FC-10670M & 03FC-12243. The facts[52] of the issues are online and also a matter of court record are not in dispute nor our they disputable. The deprivations of rights were over my attorney’s and my timely verifiable formal objections and motions, pre-trial, at-trial, post-trial and in the nearly 8 years of subsequent repeated petitions, appeals and complaints for redress of grievances.
19.The defendants unconstitutionally and illegally took my son, my home, my EVERYTHING. Because of absolute immunity I have had NO REDRESS to the protection of the laws. “Absolute Immunity” is a policy adopted at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive and Justice Departments of the United States of America. I have endured over 8.02 years (2,926 days +/-) of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[53] (where I was humiliated with the denial of the most basic of liberties - regularly and repeatedly subjected to strip searches), two psychological examinations, and 3 ½ years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America.
21.I am herewith making formal application, seeking redress for my grievances, the originating actions in 2003 and the subsequent denials per, in ascending chronological order, the Magna Carta § 61 (1215),[55]Floyd and Barker (1607), The Declaration of Independence (1776), the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America (1789),[56]Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242(1871), Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 (1871)and treaties made, “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[57]” (as adopted by the United Nations[58] on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977). I would say there is a consistent trend toward and for substantive justice between the Governed and Government.
22.The Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph –
“This Constitution (I.) , and the Laws (II.) of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made (III.), 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”[59]
I.Constitution - Constitutionally secured First Amendmentlawfully un-abridge-able right:
“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
II.Law:
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 21--CIVIL RIGHTS SUBCHAPTER I—GENERALLY Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights: 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.
TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS§ 241. A Conspiracy against rights -- If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same.
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping (they stole everything and then kidnapped my son) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill (they attempted to kill Mr. Thompson), they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
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.
23.In every stage of these Oppressions I have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: My repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A President, A group of Judges or Judicial Process whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.[62]Verifiable NOT “good Behaviour![63]”
24.I seek damages and injunctive relief, noting that criminally[64] offending Judicial Officers were involved, as follows:
I.Injunctive relief to overturn and expunge the DWI Conviction (Case # , CR203-1336M) and remove all reference of it from my Driving Record and the 33 year old 1978 DWI conviction.[65]
II.Injunctive relief to overturn all orders of protection between Sharon G. Jeep and David G. Jeep and remove all record of them (Case No.: 03FC-10670M).
III.Injunctive relief to overturn the subsequent and coupled Property and Custody Order (Case No.: 03FC-12243) 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
One Hundred Million Dollars and No Cents--------------- $100,000,000.00
25.I am homeless, destitute and unable to pay any filing fee for this complaint.
26.I DO NOT even have postage to mail this petition. I have holes in the seat of my one pair of pants, holes in the soles of my one pair of shoes and nothing to eat and nowhere to 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, May 20, 2011
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
Revised and extended Tuesday, July 26, 2011, 5:12:14 PM -- 2011 05-25-11 First Amenment A Petition for Redress of grievances REV 07.doc
_________________________________________
David G. Jeep
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street
Saint Louis, MO63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
[1] “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
[2] 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.
[4] “falls below the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” We are de-evolving as a society back to the Divine Right of Kings
[5] “Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing.” Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) @ Page 403 U. S. 410
[6] 14th Amendment “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
[7] In 08-1823 (proof of the police standard) proved the probable cause to have been incompetently determined and 07-2614 probable cause was never even provided, much less proven, over my and my attorney’s pretrial, at trail and post trial objections.
[8] I was denied exculpable material in both 08-1823, proof of the police standard, and 07-2614, probable cause so as to defend myself against the charge. Over my attorney’s and my timely verifiable formal objections and motions, pre-trial, at-trial, post-trial and subsequent repeated appeals and complaints for redress of grievances.
[9] “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
[10] Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by federal agents.
[11] “Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing.” Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) @ Page 403 U. S. 410
[12] Strict Constitutional SCRUTINY is worthless without commensurate and credible strict liability for RIGHTS, privileges and immunities secured by the constitution.
[13] It should be noted that 10-1947 was filed after the initial denial of Writ of Certiorari 07-11115. It was filed based on the refusal of Federal Government agents (FBI and USMS) to investigate or enforce the blatant denial of Civil Rights in 07-2614 (03FC-10670M) and 08-1823 (CR203-1336M)
[14] “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
[17] For the sake of brevity in 07-2614 I was held to answer and infamous charge without having been provided probable cause. In 08-1823 The police presented verifiable FALSE INFORMATION at arrest and at trial over my pretrial, at trial and post trial objections. Both cases exemplify “Fraud on the Court” and deprivation of 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment Rights.
[18] It should be noted that 10-1947 was filed after the initial denial of Writ of Certiorari 07-11115. It was filed based on the refusal of Federal Government agents (FBI and USMS) to investigate or enforce the blatant denial of Civil Rights in 07-2614 (03FC-10670M) and 08-1823 (CR203-1336M)
[19] Strict Constitutional SCRUTINY is worthless without commensurate and credible strict liability for RIGHTS, privileges and immunities secured by the constitution.
[24] “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
[25]Lord CokeFloyd 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.”
[28] “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
[30] “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
[31]Article. VI., 2nd 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”.
[36] “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
[40] “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
[41] “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
[42] 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”
[44] Strict Constitutional SCRUTINY is worthless without commensurate and credible strict liability for RIGHTS, privileges and immunities secured by the constitution.
[45] “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
[46] Neither Sovereign Immunity (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 Page 5 U. S. 163) nor Absolute Judicial Immunity (Lord CokeFloyd and Barker (1607)) preexisted the Modern Supreme Courts self-serving ministerial assertion of it.
[48] “Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing.” Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) @ Page 403 U. S. 410
[50] You some how want to argue that “the grant of Nobility” was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility? That would undermine Free-Enterprise.
There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law? Did Nat King Cole violate the constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[54] “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
[55] The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, established the right of redress:
“If we, our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.”
[56]Amendment I, Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[57] “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
[58] “And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun.” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[59] Non italic parenthetical text, emphasis and underlining added for reference clarity
[60] “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
[61] “And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun.” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[62] Adapted from The Declaration of Independence: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[63] 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” “And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun.” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[65] 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.
[66] As regards Punitive Damage, without punitive damages the federal/state/local electorate may assume the risk. Is that not what the racist did with “Jim Crow.” The Racist succeeded with “Jim Crow” because the odds of the risk were on their side with Judicial Immunity attached to their like minded criminal judges. The assumption of RISK has to be deterred by the potential for open ended punitive damages and the 7thAmendment. Let’s not let the same thing happen with “Jane Crow,” sexual discrimination in Family for the Mother over the Father, as we did with “Jim Crow.”
[67] 7th Amendment – “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
Not to mention “And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun.” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
