Thursday, June 14, 2012

Talk about embarrassing the Future?




Clerk’s Office, St. Louis - Eastern Division
Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
St. Louis, MO 63102-1125

Phone: (314)244-7900
Fax: (314)244-7909

Re:      Judicial Improvements Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-273) 
Judicial Complaint regarding: 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals cases 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425

Dear People,

The fact that I even have to assert this complaint embarrasses the future and the past.[1]  There is NO way “absolute immunity” and its inevitable progeny, absolute power and then absolute corruption should have ever been promulgated in a government of, for and by free and equal people.
This Judicial Complaint is based on the malicious, corrupt and incompetent, incredible,[2] fantastic or delusional [3] rulings in the cases: 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals cases 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425.  The petitioner in the referenced cases, David G. Jeep was held to answer an infamous charge by a warrant that listed no probable cause related to the charge, abuse.  The Petitioner was then forced into a hearing, over the pre-trial and at-trial pleadings that the warrant listed no probable cause for the charge listed.  At the hearing the judicial officer surprised everyone by amending the pleadings at the hearing, “The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced.”  The petitioner’s attorney of record immediately object in court at-trial to no avail and then filed post-trial for a copy of the alluded to, but never defined, amended pleadings and to be heard on said pleadings and was denied!  These actions by the original judicial officers in this issue was a flagrant denial of the now petitioners constitutional rights to probable cause on any warrant and Due Process of Law to defend himself against said corruption.  These facts are uncontested. 
I am filing a complaint against the following Federal judges under Judicial Improvements Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-273) 28 USC § 351 – Complaints: Judge Defined in the ORIGINAL District Court for failure to uphold petitioner’s constitutional rights to probable cause and due process of law:
Chief United States District Judge Eastern Missouri, Catherine D. Perry, Carol E. Jackson, US District Court Judge (former Chief United States District Judge Eastern Missouri), Scott O. Wright, Senior US District Judge Western Missouri, and Charles Shaw, Senior US District Judge Eastern Missouri.
The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals Judges as relates to cases 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425.
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
This complaint revolves around the frivolous if not malicious[4] denial of broad judicial general jurisdiction[5] encompassing the refutation of the obviously incredible,[6] fantastic or delusional scenario[7] i.e., to assert that We the People enacted the Constitution for the United States of America as the Supreme Law of the Land[8] to replace the divine right of the Sovereign/King/Queen[9] with the intent to give absolute immunity sub silentio, to exempt[10]all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)), especially those tasked with judicial,[11] prosecutorial[12] and enforcement[13] power, all evidence to the contrary, from its binding authority and consequence[14] that has the conclusively and undeniable “good faith”[15] of the victim David G. Jeep.
Impeach[16] and or discipline the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[17] and the corrupt malicious and incompetent[18] royalist guild of judges for condoning the denial of a constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to procedural and substantive justice[19] and "fraud upon the court." Before they have a chance to screw-up Healthcare for 100 years!!!!!!
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 Definition of an incredible, “fantastic or delusional scenario””

cc:       Senator Claire McCaskill
5850 Delmar Blvd, Ste. A
St. Louis, Missouri  63112-2346

            My Blog - Sunday, June 17, 2012, 11:11:40 AM

The Definition of an
“incredible,”[20] “fantastic or delusional”[21] scenario
It embarrasses the Future and the PAST!!!
I sometimes feel like the waif in “The Emperor’s New Cloths”
AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
Why would We the People have enacted the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land[22] to replace the divine right of the King, if it was ever to be our intent sub silentio to exempt[23] Every person[24] or Whoever[25] i.e., give absolute immunity[26]to “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)), especially those tasked with judicial,[27] prosecutorial[28] and enforcement[29] power, all evidence to the contrary, from the federal Constitution’s paramount binding authority[30] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice.[31]  It is an incredible, [32] fantastic or delusional scenario[33]?
This embarrasses the future and the past!!!! [34]
To assume that the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution for the United States of America as the supreme Law of the Land,[35]intended sub silentio to exempt[36] all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)), especially those entrusted with judicial,[37] prosecutorial[38] and enforcement[39] power, all evidence to the contrary, from the federal Constitution’s paramount binding authority[40] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice[41] is an incredible,[42] fantastic or delusional scenario.[43]  
“The Judiciary has been allowed to foist an incredible,[44] fantastic or delusional scenario[45] on We the People i.e., the Judiciary has forced We the People to exchange the immunity of the divine right of Kings for “absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[46]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process.”[47] 
This in effect is an exchange for absolute immunity for ONE, the King, to many all malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[48] persons.  The Judiciary has done this by allowing its chief circuit judges to dismiss systematically 99.82% of the complaints filed against judges in the 12-year period, Tuesday October 01, 1996 thru Tuesday September 30, 2008. In that period, its judicial councils –the circuits all judge disciplinary bodies– denied up to 100% of the petitions to review those dismissals.   Up to 9 of every 10 appeals are disposed of ad-hoc through no-reason summary orders or opinions so “perfunctory” that they are neither published nor precedential, mere fiats of raw judicial power”[49] talk about a “fantastic or delusional scenarioto support ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY the self-serving seizure of ABSOLUTE POWER. 
It should be further noted that malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[50] Royalist Guild of Judges i.e., The Supreme Court has somehow for 147 years been able to further foist the “incredible,”[51] “fantastic or delusional” [52] scenario” on We the People over our Post Civil War constitutionally provided for statutorily criminalized assertions that Judges should be held criminally and civilly liable:
“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, 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.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 362 (1983)
Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) was the judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary immunity from the recently enacted, over President Johnson’s Veto[53] expressed concerns about “assailing the independence of the judiciary” that would result from The Civil Rights Act of 1866.[54]  Likewise Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) was a subterfuge to give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the constitutional congressionally enacted CIVIL LIABILITY by the Civil Rights Act of 1871.[55]  
There is no coincidence in the relative dates The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Randall 1869, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and Bradley 1871.  Judicial Immunity for civil rights enforcement went somehow unquestioned for nearly 100 years.  This hundred years it should be noted included the very worst of, post civil war, racial atrocities and civil rights abuses.  To think that somehow some one never thought to question a judge’s immunity from civil rights abuses seems almost nonsensical. 



[2] “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 an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[4] 28 USC § 1915 - Proceedings in forma pauperis, (e) (2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that— (i) is frivolous or malicious;
[5] Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.  Jurisdiction can not be limited per Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 363 (1978):
“The fact that the issue before the judge is a controversial one is all the more reason that he should be able to act without fear of suit. As the Court pointed out in Bradley:
“"Controversies involving not merely great pecuniary interests, but the liberty and character of the parties, and consequently exciting the deepest feelings, are being constantly determined in those courts, in which there is great conflict in the evidence and great doubt as to the law which should govern their decision. It is this class of cases which impose upon the judge the severest labor, and often create in his mind a painful sense of responsibility."
The Indiana law vested in Judge Stump the power to entertain and act upon the petition for sterilization. He is, therefore, under the controlling cases, immune from damages liability even if his approval of the petition was in error. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[6] “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 an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[8]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” Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[9] The King/Queen./Sovereign had absolute Immunity for “he/she/it could do no wrong”
[10] “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 an incredible, fantastic and/or delusional scenario!!!!!
[11] “"It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused” (Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Law Reports Exchequer 220) Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[12] Supreme Court precedent empowers the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor by saying, “To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
[13] Supreme Court precedent empowers the “knowingly false testimony by police officers"[13] by saying, “There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers.”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[14] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered.  The evil and  CORRUPT factions in the guild of judges know this VERY WELL!!! I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for FIVE YEARS!  Denied unfettered custody of my son for 9 years.  The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable 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 secures the right to settle all 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.
[15] 28 USC § 1915a(3)(a)(3) An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.
[16]And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments… upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations.” Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 81, “The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority” From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 stated that impeachment was to be used as an integral check for “Judicial Authority”
[18] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[19] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[20] “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 an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[22]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” Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[23]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 an incredible, INSANE, fantastic and/or delusional scenario!!!!!
[26]Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”  The Right to establish Justice is secured by the preamble to the Constitution. 
Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered.  I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for FOUR YEARS!  The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable 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 secures the right to settle all 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.
[27] Supreme Court precedent “"It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges (Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound tby those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused” (Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Law Reports Exchequer 220) Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[28] Supreme Court precedent empowers the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor by saying, “To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
[29] Supreme Court precedent empowers the “knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, “There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers.”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[30]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” Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[31] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered.  I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for FOUR YEARS!  The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable 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 secures the right to settle all 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.
[32] “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!!!!!
[35]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” Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[36] “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!!!!!
[37] “"It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges (Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound tby those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused” (Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Law Reports Exchequer 220) Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[38] Supreme Court precedent empowers the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor by saying, “To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
[39] Supreme Court precedent empowers the “knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, “There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers.”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[40]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” Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[41] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered.  I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for FOUR YEARS!  The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable 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 secures the right to settle all 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.
[42] “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!!!!!
[44] “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!!!!!
[46] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[47] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335 (non-italic parenthetical text, emphasis and underlining added for clarity)
[48] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[49] "My Articles Describing a Plan of Action," by Dr. Richard Cordero http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/2012_E/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf
[50] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[51] “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 an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[53] It is malicious, corrupt and incompetent to assert ANY much less absolute immunity when both The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Civil Rights Act of 1871 were passed with the full knowledge of President Andrew Johnson's Veto of the Civil Rights Bill, Washington, D.C., March 27, 1866, To the Senate of the United States:

“This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary, as adequate judicial remedies could be adopted to secure the desired end without invading the immunities of legislators, always important to be preserved in the interest of public liberty; without assailing the independence of the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order. The remedy proposed by this section seems to be in this respect not only anomalous, but unconstitutional; for the Constitution guarantees nothing with certainty if it does not insure to the several States the right of making and executing laws in regard to all matters arising within their jurisdiction, subject only to the restriction that in cases of conflict with the Constitution and constitutional laws of the United States the latter should be held to be the supreme law of the land.… “


--
Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

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