U.S. Court of Appeals For
The Eighth Circuit
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff/Petitioner,
vs.
The Government of the
Defendants/Respondents
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
Appeal # _______________
Case No 4:12-cv-00703-CEJ _
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A humble APPEAL for a jury demand, AS I HUMBLY GROVEL IN YOUR PRESENCE, from the decision Case No. 4:12-cv-703-CEJ in
U.S.
1.
First I take humble exception to the TWO denials
of the motions to correct typographical errors in Case No. 4:12-cv-703-CEJ dated
Tuesday, May 01,
2012 “A motion to correct a typographical error in the original
pleading” and Sunday, May 06, 2012 , “Petitioner again asks for correction of
another typographical error”
2. The right to “establish Justice” [1] is a natural and
constitutionally[2] secured right without a
statute of limitation.
3.
Historically, the claim of precedent and / or
consensus has been the first refuge
of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter
is already settled.[3] To
assume that the founding
fathers, who had just enacted
the Constitution of the United
States of America
There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[7] We the People incorporated ourselves, in 1788, into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to secure the Blessings ofLiberty
There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[7] We the People incorporated ourselves, in 1788, into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to secure the Blessings of
4. Immunity
from the rule of law is diametrically opposed to the rule of law by definition. Just as, if not more importantly the rule of
law that is not knowable to “a person of ordinary intelligence” (United
States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S.
114, 123 (1979), SYKES v. UNITED STATES, 564 U. S.
____ (2011) 7, SCALIA[8],
J., dissenting) is without enforceable authority in our constitutional
government of We the People.
5. Because I have been impoverished[9] by this issue I cite the
potential for Harmless
error - 28 USC § 2111, “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.” The inherent unconstitutional denial of
justice[10] based on the malicious,
corrupt, dishonest, incompetent[11] and UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ruling in Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983), “the common law provided absolute
immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or
otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,” makes a
professionally prepared petition and or appeal untenable to the average
person.
If I may have inadvertently not utilized the correct method and/or legal Latin jargon in making my prior petitions (see 8th Circuit court of Appeals Filings in 11-2425, 10-1947,[12] 08-1823 and 07-2614) e.g., a writ of habeas corpus, a writ of audita querela, a writ of coram nobis, a writ of error, a writ of praemunire, a writ of supersedeas, or a writ of recurso de amparo, it is as result of my impoverishment resultant from the unconstitutional denial of rights.
If I may have inadvertently not utilized the correct method and/or legal Latin jargon in making my prior petitions (see 8th Circuit court of Appeals Filings in 11-2425, 10-1947,[12] 08-1823 and 07-2614) e.g., a writ of habeas corpus, a writ of audita querela, a writ of coram nobis, a writ of error, a writ of praemunire, a writ of supersedeas, or a writ of recurso de amparo, it is as result of my impoverishment resultant from the unconstitutional denial of rights.
6. The inherent reciprocity of the incontestable right to a jury of
my peers[13] as defined by the
Constitution of the United
States of America
7. Any assertion of Justice that is based on a fraudulent denial of
rights, where an officer of the court is complicit in the fraudulent denial, is
a fraud
upon the court and makes void the orders of that court and all
orders based on that court’s fraudulent order.
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, contracts or court orders are unraveled, made into nothing at all. If inherent fraud can be proven, such laws and or orders 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. It is a settled and invariable principle in the law that a party who obtained an award through fraud should not be entitled to keep that award. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.
Fraud upon the court defiles the court itself, so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner; its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.
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, contracts or court orders are unraveled, made into nothing at all. If inherent fraud can be proven, such laws and or orders 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. It is a settled and invariable principle in the law that a party who obtained an award through fraud should not be entitled to keep that award. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.
Fraud upon the court defiles the court itself, so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner; its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.
8. Clearly to any sane unbiased reading of the ADULT ABUSE PETITION
FOR ORDER OF PROTECTION statute, Missouri Revised Statutes Protective Orders Section 455.035,[14] the petition in question (see
copy dated Nov 3,
2003 , front and back, enclosed at the end of this petition), was a fraudulent
denial of rights based on Missouri Revised Statute law Protective Orders Section 455.035,
the 4th[15], 5th[16], and 14th[17] Amendments to the Constitution
for the United States of America, and United States of America Federal Statue
law (Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil
42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985); there was no specific
pertinent probable cause for the charge listed i.e., “abuse.” It was merely an unrelated infamous,
slanderous allegation, unsupported by the facts.[18] The original petition
dated Nov 3, 2003
FRAUDULENTLY applied for by Sharon G. Jeep, FRAUDULENTLY
ordered served by Judge Joseph A. Goeke’s and
then FRAUDULENTLY ordered heard and ruled[19] on by Commissioner Philip
E. Jones, Sr. over the timely prior repeated in court objections
of the victim, was fraud upon the court.
This fraud upon the court was a denial of rights and a violation of authorizing statute law Missouri Revised Statutes Protective Orders Section 455.035 and “the paramount authority of the federal Constitution,”[20] the 4th[21], 5th[22], and 14th[23] Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America.
This fraud upon the court was a denial of rights and a violation of authorizing statute law Missouri Revised Statutes Protective Orders Section 455.035 and “the paramount authority of the federal Constitution,”[20] the 4th[21], 5th[22], and 14th[23] Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America.
9.
ANY assertion of personal or professional ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is
a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and
equity,[24] in a government of free and equal persons on
THIS PLANET!!!!!
10.
ANY assertion of governmental ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY,
acknowledging un-avoidable human fallibility, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity, in a government of the
people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!
11.
Self-serving “Absolute Immunity”
ministerially[25] granted by “constitutionally commissioned public
Ministers” [26] for “constitutionally commissioned public
Ministers” is repugnant to a democratically established
limited constitutional government. Why
would We the People even have written “the supreme Law of the
Land”[27] if “constitutionally commissioned public
Ministers” i.e., judges both federal and state were not to “be bound thereby.” [28]
12.
There is no elite absolutely immune ruling
persons/class in the United
States of America New
York May 28, 17 88 as further timely clarification
of the supreme law of the land:
“Nothing need be said to illustrate the
importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility (i.e., absolute immunity[30]). This
may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long
as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government
will be any other than that of the people.” [31]
How
can a “constitutionally commissioned public Ministers,” a delegated authority, acting under
a sworn[32] to constitutional commission even ask for
immunity from said constitution they have sworn to protect and defend?
13.
Immunity is “before out of Court”[33] an “unlawful Conspiracy”[34] “extrajudicial”[35] self-serving ministerial rule, at the highest
levels of the United States of America’s Executive[36] (prosecutorial) and Justice (judicial)
Departments, to deprive We the People
the protection of the constitutionally secured Due Process of Law. Immunity “before out of Court,” [37] as handed out in the American Justice System
like Halloween candy,[38] in purpose and in effect unlawfully covers-up
“false and malicious Persecutions,
out of Court, to such whom he/she/they knowes will be Indictors,
to find any guilty,”[39] denies due Process of Law and, again, most importantly
“before out of Court.” [40]
14.
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
15.
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[42] era are part of an “unlawful
Conspiracy”[43] “extrajudicial”[44] self-serving ministerial rule at the highest
ministerial levels of the United States of America’s Government, “before
out of Court”[45] to deprive 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.
16.
At both my original trials[46] 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
17.
I cite Bradley v. Fisher, 80
U. S. 357 (1871) the dissent did not think opposing absolute immunity was
frivolous, MR. JUSTICE DAVIS, with whom concurred Mr.
Justice CLIFFORD, dissenting “But 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,[48] 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
18.
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.”
19.
In Imbler v. Pachtman, 424
U.S. 409 (1976) while the decision was unanimous as regards Mr. Pachtman;
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. 432
“I 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.”
20.
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)
21.
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 § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act[50]:
“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)
22.
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 justifiable redress of grievances or the statutory law,
Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241
& 242 and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985. As I assert as part of
my pleading this is also a PRIVATE PROSECUTION of “penal statutes,”[51] 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[52]” 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.”
The Constitution, Probable cause and Due Process are NOT ambiguous text, to be explained by sophistry
into any meaning which may subserve personal malice.[53]
23.
Because I humbly know you are considering this
as an “extrajudicial”[54] “unlawful
Conspiracy”[55] “before
out of Court”[56] 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 petition, that became the FRAUDULENT ex-parte order of
protection, took my SON , my home…
everything. This petition is at the
center of all my issues and 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[57] 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[58] era a man’s life can be destroyed and
discarded without the fundamental Constitutional and internationally[59] asserted inalienable civil right to Due Process
of Law, as if a man’s life was frivolous as compared to a woman’s.
24.
What it all comes down to is giving
“a person of ordinary intelligence
fair notice.”[60] Absolute immunity is repugnant to the Rule of
law by definition. The Rule of Law, the
Constitution of the United
States of America
25.
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 life. 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?
26.
I note and acknowledge all prior communications
directly and indirectly sent to the court on my blog in its entirety www.DGJeep.blogspot.com.
I declare
under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 3:27:37 PM
Signature of
Plaintiff(s)
_________________________________________
David G. Jeep
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
2012 05-10-12 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
12-0000 Case Case No. 4-12-cv-703-CEJ REV 00
[1] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the
victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into homelessness for FOUR
YEARS! The 1st Amendment secures
the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance from
the government: “Congress shall make no law abridging the right
of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The 7th Amendment’s secures the right to settle all disputes/suits:
“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” assures justice
as regards equity.
[2] “We the People of the United States,
in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure
the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.” preamble to
the constitution for the United States of America
[3] Paraphrased from "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by
claiming that the matter is already settled." Michael Crichton
[4] “To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal
sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials
from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]” Briscoe v. LaHue,
460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[6] Aldous Huxley
[7] 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.
Anyone that wants to assertion
“the prohibition of titles of nobility’
was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute immunity of the nobility
had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent
aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[8] 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. United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S.
[9] The 8.99 year, 3,280 days, 78,731 hours,
4,723,876 minutes or 283,432,554 seconds intensely arduous struggle to
establish my inalienable constitutional and natural rights has taken nearly my
all(based on Wednesday May 09, 2012 12:15:54.01 PM ) and it has impoverished
me.
[10] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the
victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into homelessness for FOUR
YEARS! The 1st Amendment secures
the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance from
the government: “Congress shall make no law abridging the right
of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The 7th Amendment’s secures the right to settle all disputes/suits:
“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” assures justice
as regards equity.
[11] Incompetence
is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption
and dishonesty!!!! “Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic
flaws found by Justice Dept.” By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post
The Washington Post reported on cases
that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known
for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
As regards Prosecutors, “States
can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do” (“Federal
prosecutors series”) USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy. As regards federal prosecutors I assert the "OPR is a black hole. Stuff
goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys
and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves." As regards law enforcement “Convicted defendants
left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept.” By
Spencer S. Hsu,
The Washington Post
The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems
of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years
by the Justice Department.
[12] 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 and/or enforce the blatant denial of Civil
Rights in 07-2614 (03FC-10670M) and 08-1823 (CR203-1336M)
[13] Article
III., Section 2, third paragraph, “The Trial of all Crimes, except in
Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury,” 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.”
[14] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults
and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035,
where he is tasked by statute to “for good cause shown
in the petition”,[14] issued a warrant without any probable cause. A Judges’ power is necessarily limited by the
Constitution and statute. A Judge can not
issue a warrant without probable cause. Not
only did the petition for an Ex-Parte Order of protection not list any abuse, what
it did list was third party description of an incident in traffic court that was
being handled by another geographical JURISDICTION, 150 miles away and different
subject matter jurisdiction. For Judge Goeke
to even list it as a probable cause violated the respondents right to the elementary
principles of procedural due process.
[15] 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.”
[16] 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 offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
[17] 14th Amendment makes this a “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.”
[18] IN THE CAMDEN
[19] In the Jane Crow
era this UNCOSNTITUTIONAL ruling over timely repeated objections where I was stripped of my son, my own flesh and blood, my paternity
rights, my home, family heirlooms, photographs/memories, all my worldly
possessions, my constitutionally
SECURED rights and quite literally left on the side of the road for
dead is flagrantly fraud on the court by ruling:
“MR.
SCHLESINGER:
I renew my objection to all the testimony…
being outside the scope of the pleadings.
COMMISSIONER JONES:
Overruled.
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. The Court
does enter a full order of protection against the Respondent. This order will supercede the ex parte order
of protection entered in this cause on the 3rd day of November and serves to
terminate that order.
The Respondent should not use, attempt to use,
or threaten to use physical force against the Petitioner that would be
reasonably expected to cause her bodily harm, should not stalk, abuse, threaten
to abuse, molest, or disturb her peace wherever she may be found. He also shall not communicate with her in any
manner or through any means.
And he is also further restrained from the
residence at 16325 Centerpointe
Drive Wildwood ,
Missouri 63040
This order will expire the 19th day of
November, the year 2004.”
(IN
THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DIVISION 65,
Commissioner Phillip Jones, Presiding, SHARON JEEP, Petitioner, v. DAVID JEEP,
Respondent. Cause No. 03FC-010670, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 page 96 of the
TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL, E. D. No. 84021)
A Judge’s finding can
not amend the pleading during a hearing on that pleading or due process
of law[19] is meaningless. This kidnapping and theft of all my worldly
property was and continues to be devastating[19] and a flagrant denial of Due Process rights
e.g., say we try you for petty theft, but find you guilty of murder?
[20]
“There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the
federal Constitution. When there is a substantial showing that the
exertion of state power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution,
the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding
directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case
the federal judicial power extends (Article III, § 2), and, so extending, the Court
has all the authority appropriate to its exercise. Accordingly, it has been decided
in a great variety of circumstances that, when questions of law and fact are so
intermingled as to make it necessary, in order to pass upon the federal question,
the Court may, and should, analyze the facts. Even when the case comes to this Court
from a state court, this duty must be performed as a necessary incident to a decision
upon the claim of denial of federal right. Kansas City Southern
Ry. Co. v. Albers Commission Co., 223 U.
S. 573, 223 U. S. 591;
Creswill v. Knights of Pythias, 225 U. S. 246,
225 U. S. 261;
Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585,
236 U. S. 593;
Union Pacific R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n,
248 U. S. 67,
248 U.
S. 69; Merchants' National Bank v. Richmond, 256 U. S. 635,
256 U. S. 638;
First National Bank v. Hartford, 273 U. S. 548,
273 U. S. 552-553;
Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.
S. 380, 274 U. S. 385-386.”
Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932)
[21] 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.”
[22] 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 offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
[23] 14th Amendment makes this a “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.”
[24] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the
victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into homelessness for FOUR
YEARS! The 1st Amendment secures
the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance from
the government: “Congress shall make no law abridging the right
of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The 7th Amendment’s secures the right to settle all disputes/suits:
“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” assures justice
as regards equity.
[25] Ministerially
created rules by a constitutionally commissioned officer, in a Democratic Constitutional
form of government, are SECONDARY 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.
[27] Article VI., 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[28] Article VI., 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[29] 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.
Anyone that wants to assertion
“the prohibition of titles of nobility’
was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute immunity of the nobility
had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent
aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[30] 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.
Anyone that wants to assertion
“the prohibition of titles of nobility’
was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute immunity of the nobility
had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent
aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[31] FEDERALIST No. 84, Certain General and Miscellaneous
Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered From McLEAN's Edition, New York May 28, 17 88 , Alexander
Hamilton, non-italic parenthetical text, underlining and emphasis added for clarity
[32] 5 U.S.C. 3331 Oath of
office: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
[33] 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)
[36] “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully
executed” Article. II., Section 3 the Constitution of the United States of America
[38] The SUPREME COURT has abused, their
non-existent, authority to make law by the grant of absolute immunity for the conspiracy for the deprivation of rights i.e., first in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871)
followed by Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 1967 (JUDGES), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)
(PROSECUTORS), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 365 (1978) (Judge criminally
ordered forced non-consensual uninformed sterilization of a healthy, mind and
body, minor child) and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
(POLICE and ALLEGED victims i.e., immunity from perjury) “absolute immunity
from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise
-- who were integral parts of the judicial process.”
[41] 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. United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S.
[42]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.”
A 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
[43] 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)
[46] 03FC-10670M ( Divorce 03FC-12243) and
CR203-1336M
[48] With the flagrant disregard for credible probable
cause none of the Judicial Officers in the action had Jurisdiction.
[49] United States
v. Batchelder, 442 U. S.
[50] now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 &
1985
[51] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) Page
460 U. S. Id.
[52] “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
[53] The Letters of
Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810
– PARAPHRASED FROM - “We have long enough suffered
under the base prostitution of the law to party passion in one judge and the
imbecility of another. In the hands of
one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by
his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice.”
[57] 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
[58] 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
[59] “The International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights”
[60] United States
v. Batchelder, 442 U. S.
