No.
Eastern Missouri U.S. District Court Case No. 4:12-cv-703-CEJ
A humble pro se[1] EMERGENCY PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 9.34 years[2] of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
— PETITIONER FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
David G. Jeep and heir
v.
- RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
The Government of the United States of America,[3] et al, Defendants/Respondents
- President Barack Hussein Obama, His Justice Department and The Government of the United States of America
- Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and The Government of the United States of America (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211)
- The Supreme Court of the United States of America and The Government of the United States of America (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211 and 07-11115)
- Chief United States District Judge Eastern Missouri 8th Circuit Catherine D. Perry and The Government of the United States of America (8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, 11-2425 and 12-2435),
- Mike Christian (FBI), Lyonel Mrythill (FBI), Dan Bracco (FBI), Robert O'Connor (USMS), Chris Boyce (USMS) and Raymond Meyer (AUSA) and The Government of the United States of America (8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947),
- US Supreme Court, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts and The Government of the United States of America (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115)
- 8th District US Court of Appeals and The Government of the United States of America (07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425 and 12-2435),
- Carol E. Jackson, US District Court Judge and The Government of the United States of America, 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al and Jeep v. Government of the United States of America 4:12-cv-703-CEJ (07-2614 and 12-2435),
- Charles A. Shaw, Senior US District Judge and The Government of the United States of America, Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM Jeep v. United States of America, et al & 4:11-cv-00931-CAS Jeep v. Obama(10-1947 & 11-2425),
- Scott O. Wright, Senior US District Judge and The Government of the United States of America, 4:07-cv-0506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al (08-1823),
- Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr., Sharon G. Jeep (ex-wife), Kristen M. Capps (ex-stepdaughter), 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, Camden County, and City of Osage Beach (4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M),
All Defendants/Respondents are included and asserted liable, as Government actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors
Defendants/Respondents
(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)PETITION
IN THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DIVISION 65
Commissioner Phillip Jones, Presiding (03FC-010670)
(07-2614, 10-1947, 11-2425 and 12-2435 (typo revised 09-21-12) 8th U.S. Court of Appeals)
and
IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION
The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge (CR203-1336M)
(08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, and 12-2435 (typo revised 09-21-12) 8th U.S. Court Appeals)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I am requesting the court to rule on 2 questions:
1. "Give(n) a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice"[4] who makes the reckonable[5] supreme law[6] in the United States of America - not an ambiguous text, to be explained by sophistry into any meaning which may serve any personal judicial, prosecutorial or enforcement malice,[7] corruption or incompetence[8] - "We the People" via our elected representatives and the Jury System or the Judiciary?[9]
2. The assertion that the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution for the United States of America as the supreme Law of the Land,[10] "intended sub silentio to exempt,"[11] under color of law, "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[12] especially those entrusted with judicial,[13] prosecutorial[14] and enforcement[15] power, all evidence to the contrary, from the federal Constitution's paramount binding authority[16] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice[17] is an incredible,[18] fantastic or delusional scenario?[19]
LIST OF PARTIES [X] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.
OPINIONS BELOW
[X] For cases from federal courts:
The opinion of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division and United States Eighth District Court of appeals are included with the petition and are unpublished.
JURISDICTION
[X] For cases from federal courts:
The decision and the date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was:
"Appellant's motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is granted. This court has reviewed the original file of the United States District Court. It is ordered by the court that the judgment of the district court is summarily affirmed." August 2, 2012,
And
"The petition for rehearing by the panel is denied." September 12, 2012.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under THE RULE OF LAW and 29 USC § 412 - CIVIL ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS; JURISDICTION and 28 USC § 1254 - Courts of appeals; certiorari; certified questions (acknowledging pro-se 28 U.S.C. § 2111. Harmless error[20] that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties).
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED:
The Constitution for the United States of America Article VI. Second paragraph, 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, treaties made "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights " (PART II, Article 2, Section 3), Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 and Blackstone's English Common Law (1765–1769) as quoted into Supreme Court precedent by Chief Justice John Marshal in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803).
"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))[21]
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The case in chief, in 2003 (03FC-010670) and 2004 (CR203-1336M) in the State Courts of Missouri I was charged and held on TWO fraudulently infamous crimes fraudulently combined into one while being denied the most basic elements of Due Process of Law, Probable cause and Exculpable evidence. The facts of the issues have never even been questioned; I thus see no need in presenting them AGAIN here. Since the origination of these two denials, fraudulently combined by the respondents into one issue,[22] I have been deprived of my LIBERTY, my Paternal Rights, and my Property rights.
I have since the origination of the denial of rights been seeking the protection of the law in the original courts,[23] the courts of appeals i.e., Missouri State Court of Appeals (SD26269 and ED84021), US Federal Court Eastern Missouri District (4:07-cv-00506-SOW, 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 4:11-cv-931-CAS and 4:12-cv-703-CEJ), 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425 and 12-2435 (typo revised 09-21-12)), U.S. Supreme Court (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 and 11-8211) and with additional efforts in written correspondence to the President of the United States, the Governor of Missouri, Police enforcement (local, state and federal {FBI and USMS})and the Attorneys General (State and Federal).
When this started over 9.34 years[24] ago my son was 8 years old, he will be 18 years old very shortly (12-22-2012). They stole his childhood from me.
I seek an EMERGENCY ORDER, escalating damages and injunctive relief, as detailed in the most recent appeal 12-2435 (typo revised 09-21-12), appendix.
As a person, a 56 year old NATURAL born citizen of the United States of America all I can do is HUMBLY beg, HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
The CORRUPT, malicious, dishonest and incompetent[25] Justice system will not even hear a 7th Amendment[26] respectfully submitted civil[27] petition questioning the criminal[28] assertion of the corrupt and malicious ennobled[29] guild of Judges?[30]
Blanket absolute immunity quashes the very essence of a Constitution, the Supreme Law of Law. "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."[31] "We the People" wrote the constitution to establish a reckonable[32] justice based rule of law to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, not an ambiguous text, to be explained by sophistry into any meaning which may serve personal malice.[33]
The reckonable[34] protection of the law is the raison d'être[35] for a constitution, courts, a government… for Civilization.[36] Without the reckonable[37] protection of the law the Blessings of Liberty is forfeit, civilization breaks down and we are back at the entrance to the cave VIOLENTLY fighting for dominance to endure a trial by ordeal.
1. The United States of America is a government of the People, for the People and by the People. This is to be constitutionally supported and maintained by the undeniable reliance on the inherent reciprocity of the jury system in both criminal and civil disputes.
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."[38]
3. "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."[39]
4. Justice without civility, equity consideration, is unsustainable. The pursuit of Justice without equity consideration impoverishes the victim at the expense of the injustice that has overwhelmed them. Our forefathers knew this would be the case and provided a remedy with the 1st Amendment's lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition/sue[40] the government for redress of grievances with the 7th Amendment's security "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."
5. Immunity by definition is irreconcilable with the Supreme Law of the Land. A reckonable Supreme Law of the Land cannot be sustained if it is open to re-interpretation by any unrestrained, absolutely immune[41] person.
6. The assertion that the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution for the United States of America, and "We the People," as represented by BOTH houses of congress, enacted into law the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866[42] and The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, enacted April 20, 1871,[43] over the specific expressed objections to judicial, legislative and ministerial officer's liability of President Johnson's Veto,[44] as the reckonable[45] supreme Law of the Land,[46] "intended sub silentio to exempt"[47] under color of law "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[48] especially those entrusted with judicial,[49] prosecutorial[50] and enforcement[51] power, all evidence to the contrary, from the federal Constitution's paramount binding authority[52] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice[53] is an incredible,[54] fantastic or delusional scenario.[55]
- It all comes down to the oath of office[56] all federal officials, Judges included, take - "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."[57] The oath of office constitutionally requires that if anyone and/or the government are sued in the respectful form of a petition[58] for a redress of grievances, per the 1st Amendment, they are constitutionally obligated to comply with the judgment of a 7th Amendment[59] civil court[60] as a constitutional remedy.
8. I enclose as a part of this petition, the two pages prior to the signature page, the unequivocal undisputed and indisputable evidence of the original manifest criminally[61] fraudulent, corrupt, Jane Crow,[62] judicial abuse, the criminally fraudulently frivolous infamous petition for an ex-parte order of protection (front and back - 2 pages) dated Monday November 03, 2003.
9. This fraudulent criminally corrupt warrant is at the epicenter of all my pleadings. The petition, became a criminally corrupt FRAUDULENT[63] warrant i.e., a "frivolous ex parte order of protection" in the Jane Crow[64] era lacking probable cause, dated Nov 3, 2003, FRAUDULENTLY applied for by Sharon G. Jeep, FRAUDULENTLY ordered served by Judge Joseph A. Goeke and then FRAUDULENTLY ordered heard and ruled on by Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr.[65] over the timely repeated PRE-trial, AT-trial and POST-TRIAL in court formal verbal and written constitutionally based objections to the respondents' fraud[66] at every timely level on all issues by the then victim/now petitioner. The criminal warrantless court order,[67] without probable cause, took my son, my home… my EVERYTHING!!!!! The now petitioner was left destitute, penniless with little more than clothes on his back to struggle through the post-traumatic stress[68] of being wrongfully adjudicated of two infamous crimes, spousal abuse and drunkenness.
With the subsequent appeals in the State and Federal Courts those courts were in a timely fashion made aware of the manifest fraud. Their inactivity in correcting the obvious manifest fraud makes them complicit in it. It was and is criminally corrupt manifest fraud upon the court that denied David Gerard Jeep's, the petitioner, constitutionally secured rights to probable cause on any warrant, due process of law to defend himself from TWO infamous charges[69] fraudulently combined into one. It was and is currently criminal FRAUD UPON THE COURT!
10. This ongoing manifest FRAUD[70] UPON THE COURT was and has been a denial of rights and a violation of authorizing statute law, Missouri Revised Statutes Protective Orders Section 455.035,[71] the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America i.e., and thus "the paramount binding authority of the federal Constitution." [72]
11. The massive on going manifest clear criminal conspiracy[73] against rights, has BOTH mens rea[74] and actus reus[75] for their ACTIONS! The assertion of the potential of "continual calumniations"[76] and "vexatious acitons"[77] does not excuse the denial of rights,[78] the raison d'être[79] for their existence. I seek the constitutionally[80] and statutorily secured civil[81] and criminal[82] redress for the justifiable grievances, the denial of rights.
12. The fraud exception to rei publicae, ut sit finis litium,[83] and nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadam causa[84] as noted in United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65 (1878) is applicable here "But there is an admitted exception to this general rule in cases where, by reason of something done by the successful party[85] to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial[86] or decision[87] of the issue in the case. Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court." Not only was the petitioner, the unsuccessful party, never given a chance to defend himself, he was never even given the specifics of the cause for the finding under which his son, his life and all his belongs were taken. I quote from the court 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."
The petitioner's attorney of record filed TWO post trial motions both asking for details of the amended pleadings and then to be heard on same. Because of this denial of rights, the petitioner was quite literally thrown out in the street with little more than the clothes on his back as an infamous scoundrel, drunken abuser.
I realize a decision in favor of the petitioner would require exertion of necessary and proper authority from the federal Judiciary under color of law, but that is exactly what the 14th Amendment requires by asserting that No State Shall.[88]
The assertion in Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (1903)that the Federal Judiciary does not have the resources or the responsibility is just FALSE. Not only does the Federal Judiciary have the delegated constitutional authority to enforce the 14th Amendment on the states, that is "the sense and reason of the law,"[89] its "raison d'être."[90]
13. The prior precedents[91] in this case establishing ubiquitous "absolute immunity" proceeds, it seems to me, upon grounds entirely too narrow and artificial. I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the Statutes, the Constitution and the amendments have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism, asserting as the sole justification the potential for "continual calumniations"[92] and "vexatious actions."[93]
"It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul."
Constitutional and Statute provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends the founding fathers and the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring, in the interpretation of statute[94] and constitutional[95] provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted.[96]
14. I note and acknowledge all prior communications directly and indirectly sent to the court in the court record and on my blog in its entirety www.DGJeep.blogspot.com.
15. Please expedite with all due haste the disposition of this issue in your court, lives depend upon it!
CONCLUSION
- The petition should be granted to give creditability AGAIN to the reckonable[97] rule of the Supreme Law of the Land.
The Founding Fathers and We the People as represented by BOTH houses of congress in 1866 and 1871[98] were not and are not delusional. The Founding Fathers and We the People did not "intended sub silentio to exempt"[99] under color of law "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[100] especially those entrusted with judicial,[101] prosecutorial[102] and enforcement[103] power from the federal Constitution's paramount binding authority[104] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice![105] To assert otherwise, as Supreme Court precedent currently does, is an incredible,[106] fantastic or delusional scenario.[107] The Justice Department i.e., judicial,[108] prosecutorial[109] and enforcement,[110] obvious raison d'être[111] is "that justice shall be done under color of law."[112] The terror of a criminally malicious, corrupt and incompetent Justice system is antithetical to the spring, the love of virtue,[113] requisite for a democratic republic. - The assertion that this will open up a massive issue that will overwhelm any attempt to address it, begs the question with the assumption the issue is too big and that all we can do is try to ignore it.[114] Neither of those two assumptions can be allowed to control the issue. Yes the issue is large, Yes the issue is growing as we speak, Yes the issue will be difficult to deal with, it is therefore of the supreme importance that we deal with the issue now and get it under control before it grows any larger. The innocent victims of Mount Vesuvius come to mind, we can feel the rumblings and just waiting for it to explode is not a solution. We need to take steps now to avoid future malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence of the otherwise unavoidable natural volcanic eruption if IGNORED! The residents at the foot of Vesuvius would have had better luck plugging the volcano than the Government of the United States, as represented on the front line by its Judiciary, would have quashing the truth of their CONTINUED "deliberate indifference to rights."
- Why would "We the People" even have written a constitution as the Supreme Law of the land if we "intended sub silentio to exempt"[115] "whoever"[116] and "every person"[117] acting under color of law. Absolute Immunity[118] by definition is irreconcilable with the authority of a Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land.
Appendix
1. A copy of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division MEMEORANDUM AND ORDER (Doc#5) and ORDER OF DISSMISSAL (Doc#6) both dated 04/27/12 as regards case 4:12-cv-703-CEJ.
2. A copy of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Order JUDGMENT (Entry ID:3938448, 3 pages) dated August 2, 2012 and ORDER Entry ID: 3952011) dated August 12, 2012
3. A copy of the original ex parte order of protection dated November 3, 2003 page 25 and 26 of this petition.
4. A pro se EMERGENCY PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 9.34[119] years in the making, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (27 pages) dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012, notarized.
5. Statement of injunctive relief and escalating DATED spreadsheet breakout for the damages[120] dated on or before Wednesday, September 26, 2012.
6. A "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" dated Wednesday, September 26, 2012, notarized
7. I note and acknowledge all prior court records in the State of Missouri District Court, State of Missouri District Appeals Court, Eastern Missouri U.S. District Court, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States Supreme Court and as confirmed in my blog www.DGJeep.blogspot.com.
8.
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, Wednesday, September 26, 2012 03:55.55 PM
David G. Jeep
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
The plaintiff is homeless and without the will to go on because of this issue AND SEEKS EMERGENCY RELIEF!!!!
[1] Because I am a humble non-legal professional and I have been impoverished by this criminal 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 based on the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, incompetent 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 victim. Most are not only impoverished by the injustice, but also in jail behind bars. With 5% of the world's population our POLICE STATE now incarcerates 25% of the world's prisoners.
If I may have not been humble enough or ignorantly or inadvertently not utilized the correct humble enough method and/or legal Latin jargon in making my prior petitions (see 8th Circuit court of Appeals prior Filings in 11-2425, 10-1947, 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, a writ of recurso de amparo or etc., it is as result of my impoverishment via the unconstitutional denial of rights.
[2] 9.34 years, 3,407 calendar days, 54,519 waking hours, 3,271,161 waking minutes, 196,269,665 waking seconds, as of Thursday September 13, 2012 12:01:37.51 PM
[3] This is not a typo, there was a motion made to correct this caption at the inception of the issue, see the court RECORD. I suing my Government in the respectful form of a petition!!!!!
[4] SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting) United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 "It is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. 453 (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct (probable casue) is forbidden." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954). See Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391-393 (1926); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 405 U. S. 162 (1972); Dunn v. United States, ante at 442 U. S. 112-113. So too, vague sentencing provisions may pose constitutional questions if they do not state with sufficient clarity the consequences of violating a given criminal statute. See United States v. Evans, 333 U. S. 483 (1948); United States v. Brown, 333 U. S. 18 (1948); cf. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399 (1966)." (Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis)
[5] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[6] 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.
[7] Paraphrased from a letter (May 26, 1810) Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From "The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[8] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). 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 published 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.
[9] "I always say, as you know, that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. Its my job." Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Source: Justice OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, letter to Harold J. Laski, March 4, 1920.Holmes-Laski Letters, ed. Mark DeWolfe Howe, vol. 1, p. 249 .Max Lerner, The Mind and Faith of Justice Holmes, p. 222 , said, Holmes was exacting in construing a statute and latitudinarian in construing powers under the Constitution. He often said that there was nothing in the Constitution that prevented the country from going to hell if it chose to. But once a statute was clearly constitutional and it became a matter of construing it, Holmes put on his most scrupulous spectacles.
[10] 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
[11] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[12] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[13] ""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 by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[14] 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)
[15] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truth finding 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)
[16] "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).
"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
[17] 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 4.75 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.
[18] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[19] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[20] 28 USC § 2111. Harmless error, On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
[21] The oath office requires that if sued in the respectful form of a petition (1st Amendment right to petition), never fail to comply with the judgment of a 7th Amendment civil court.
[22] See end of this petition as referenced in the APPENDIX: Original Exparte Order of Protection where one issue CR203-1336M (DWI) is used as unrelated probable cause for the second issue 03FC-010670 (Exparte order of protection, Abuse)
[23] See the NUMEROUS TIMELY objections and motions, pre-trial, at-trial, and post-trial for all issues as a part of the undisputed court's record.
[24] 9.34 years, 3,407 calendar days, 54,519 waking hours, 3,271,161 waking minutes, 196,269,665 waking seconds, as of Thursday September 13, 2012 12:01:37.51 PM
[25] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishoesty, malice andcorruption. As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). 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 published 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.
[26] 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."
[28] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[29] There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility 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." Additionally I cite Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 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). 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."
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 assert "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] 8th Circuit Court of Appeals cases Jeep v Obama #12-2435, Jeep v Obama #11-2425, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947," Jeep v Bennett 08-1823, "Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and the most humble Petitions for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211."
[31] Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven states. It went into effect on March 4, 1789
[32] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[33] Paraphrased from a letter (May 26, 1810) Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, From "The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[34] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[35] "Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 656 (1980)
[36] "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)(Page 5 U. S. 163)
[37] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[38] Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven states. It went into effect on March 4, 1789
[39] James Madison, FEDERALIST No. 51, "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments" For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, February 6, 1788.
[40] The colonial link between the right to petition and suit was confirmed by the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshal, "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))
[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 4.75 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] Now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Whoever" criminally liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.
[43] Now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Every person" civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.
[44] 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.…"
[45] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[46] 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.
[47] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[48] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[49] "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).
The Supreme Court precedent has empowered itself and the rest of the judiciary by saying ""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 by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[50] 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)
[51] 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)
[52] "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).
"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
[53] 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 4.75 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.
[54] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[55] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[56] § 3331. Oath of office An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
[57] Title 5 › Part III › Subpart B › Chapter 33 › Subchapter II › § 3331 - OATH OF OFFICE - United State Code of Law
[58] 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law… abridging the… the right of the people peaceably… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[59] 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."
[60] "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U. S. 163 (1803)
[61] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[62] The "Jane Crow" Era, the courts preference for a mother's/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
[63] Fraus omnia corrumpit is a Latin legal maxim which means "fraud corrupts everything."
[64] The "Jane Crow" Era, the courts preference for a mother's/woman's rights over a father's/man's rights in Domestic Relation Law, ibid.
[65] 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 in 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) After repeated post trial request I was never allowed the amended pleading nor was I allowed my Due Process right to be heard on them
A Judge's finding can not amend the pleading during a hearing on that pleading or due process of law is meaningless. This kidnapping and theft of all my worldly property was and continues to be devastating and a flagrant denial of Due Process rights e.g., say we try you for petty theft, but find you guilty of murder?
[66] Fraus omnia corrumpit is a Latin legal maxim which means "fraud corrupts everything."
[67] Fraus omnia corrumpit is a Latin legal maxim which means "fraud corrupts everything."
[69] Eighth Circuit court of appeals cases 07-2614 (4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243) and 08-1823 (4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M)
[70] Fraus omnia corrumpit is a Latin legal maxim which means "fraud corrupts everything."
[71] 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", 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 by a judicial officer that subsequently recused himself for his bad act.
For Judge Goeke to even list it as a probable cause violated the respondents right to the elementary principles of procedural due process.
[72] "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).
"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
[73] See the listed respondents in the original petition on appeal 12-2435
[74] The Legal Latin for "guilty mind"
[75] The Legal Latin for "guilty act"
[78] Justice William O. Douglas dissenting in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 565 (1967)confirmed this "I cannot believe that judges . . . would fail to discharge their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths and consciences . . . from any fear of exposing themselves to actions at law. I am persuaded that the number of such actions would be infinitely small, and would be easily disposed of."
Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, L.R. 5 Q.B. 94, 110 (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting).
[79] "Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 656 (1980)
[80] 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."
[81] Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 and 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."
[82] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242
[83] It is for the public good that there be an end of litigation.
[84] No-one shall be tried or punished twice in regards to the same event, "double jeopardy."
[85] The combination of the TWO issues into one created the DEVASTATION in my life. The successful parties to the suit include the Judge Goeke, Commissioner Jones, Sharon G. Jeep and Kristen Capps in 03FC-010670 and Judge Bennett's conspiracy, Judge Colyer, The Prosecutors (denial of exculpable evidence) and Police Officers (false testimony) in CR203-1336M.
[86] Probable cause is the most element of all evidence. How can you have a trial when there is no viable probable cause provided (Eighth Circuit court of appeals case 07-2614 (4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243))?
[87] Eighth Circuit court of appeals case 08-1823 (4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M) where the prosecutors denied pretrial motions for exculpable evidence (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 87 (1963), "We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request 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.")
[88] Amendment XIV, Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868., Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
[90] "Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 656 (1980)
[94] 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 (now Now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Whoever" criminally liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law) and The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, enacted April 20, 1871 (now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Every person" civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law).
[95] 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 4.75 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.
[96] Paraphrased from Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883)
[97] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[98] 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 (now Now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Whoever" criminally liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law) and The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, enacted April 20, 1871 (now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Every person" civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law).
[99] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[100] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[101] "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 by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[102] 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)
[103] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truth finding 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)
[104]"There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).
"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
[105] 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 4.75 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.
[106] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[107] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[108] "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 by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[109] 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)
[110] 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)
[111] "Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 656 (1980)
[112] The correct unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court was "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 88 (1935)
[113] Any political system, according to Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws (French: De l'esprit des lois) 1748, must have what he calls a "principle". This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior on the part of the citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make it function smoothly. For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics), this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. For monarchies, the spring is the love of honor -- the desire to attain greater rank and privilege. Finally, for despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler. A political system cannot last long if its appropriate principle is lacking. Montesquieu claims, for example, that the English failed to establish a republic after the Civil War (1642–1651) because the society lacked the requisite love of virtue.
The Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution applied Montesquieu's methods to the Constitution for the United States of America.
The Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution applied Montesquieu's methods to the Constitution for the United States of America.
[114] The assertion in Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (1903)that the issue is too big for the Federal Judiciary to enforce is not valid. The 14th Amendment says no state shall deny Due Process, thus the enforcement of Due Process fo ALL CITIZENS is a function of the Federal Judiciary no matter how large is the problem of their negligence and deliberate indifference has created.
[115] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[116] Now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Whoever" criminally liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.
[117] Now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Every person" civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.
[118] "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).
[119] 9.34 years, 3,407 calendar days, 54,519 waking hours, 3,271,161 waking minutes, 196,269,665 waking seconds, as of Thursday September 13, 2012 12:01:37.51 PM
[120] Whistle-Blower Awarded $104 Million by I.R.S., New York Times, September 11, 2012, By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI, Sometimes, crime does pay. If crime pays that well, I would think that my struggle for broad based Civil Rights for all should pay at least if not better than CRIME!!!!
-->
Damages and Injunctive Relief
Thursday, September 27, 2012
I seek damages and injunctive relief, noting that criminally[1] offending Judicial Officers were involved, as follows:
1. Injunctive relief to overturn and expunge the DWI Conviction (Case No.:CR203-1336M) and remove all reference of it from my Driving Record and the 33 year old 1978 DWI conviction.[2]
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. A Jury[3] demand for DAMAGES:
Actual Damages in the amount of:
Sixty-three million three hundred ninety-two thousand three hundred thirty-three dollars and thirty-three cents .................................. $63,392,333.33
Punitive damages[4] in the amount of:
One hundred twenty-six million seven hundred eighty-four thousand six hundred sixty-six dollars and sixty-seven cents.......................... $126,784,666.67
Total[5] in the amount of:
One hundred ninety million one hundred seventy-seven thousand dollars and zero cents $190,177,000.00[6]
Sixty-three million three hundred ninety-two thousand three hundred thirty-three dollars and thirty-three cents .................................. $63,392,333.33
Punitive damages[4] in the amount of:
One hundred twenty-six million seven hundred eighty-four thousand six hundred sixty-six dollars and sixty-seven cents.......................... $126,784,666.67
Total[5] in the amount of:
One hundred ninety million one hundred seventy-seven thousand dollars and zero cents $190,177,000.00[6]
5. I am homeless, destitute and unable to pay any filing fee for this JURY DEMAND.
6. 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?[7]
7. I would also request that the case Eastern District Court of Missouri Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP be expunged from my record also, WITH PREJUDICE.
[1] Fraud is still a crime, fraus omnia corrumpit!!!! Not to mention the denial of rights, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 - These statute(s) makes it unlawful for (one or) two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
[2] Alcohol-related driving offenses, expunged from records, when--procedures, effect—limitations 577.054. :
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.
[3] 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."
[4] As regards Punitive Damages, 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 7th Amendment. 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."
[5] This amount is escalating based on the most recent denial in the 8th Circuit Court of appeals on Tuesday June 14, 2011 12:00.00 AM see attached dated spread sheet for current escalating total.
[6] If this is not whistle blowing I do not know what is. This is corruption on a massive scale. Whistle-Blower Awarded $104 Million by I.R.S., New York Times, September 11, 2012, By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI, Sometimes, crime does pay. If crime pays that well, I would think that my struggle for broad based Civil Rights FOR ALL should pay at least if not better than CRIME!!!!
[7] Tarek al-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi (29 March 1984 – 4 January 2011; Arabic: محمد البوعزيزي) was a Tunisian street vendor who set himself on fire on 17 December 2010, in protest of the confiscation of his wares and the harassment and humiliation that he reported was inflicted on him by a municipal official and her aides.
| ESCALATING from Motion to reconsider dated Tuesday June 14, 2011 12:00 AM | |||
| Waking Seconds | Rate | Totals | |
| Loss of unrestricted Driving Privileges | 197,085,757 | $0.016015612 | $ 3,156,449.01 |
| Loss of career potential WORK as related to driving | 148,876,957 | $0.031601280 | $ 4,704,702.39 |
| Loss of custody of my son | 187,248,157 | $0.069735301 | $ 13,057,806.65 |
| Alienation of affection immediate family | 148,876,957 | $0.013102970 | $ 1,950,730.26 |
| Alienation of affection immediate Friends | 148,876,957 | $0.012332207 | $ 1,835,981.42 |
| Loss of Little League, Cub Scouts, Pinewood Derby, Boy Scouts, 3 years of High School Memories | 187,248,157 | $0.064461203 | $ 12,070,241.44 |
| Loss of possessions | 187,248,157 | $0.031649279 | $ 5,926,269.09 |
| Homelessness less Jail | 79,296,157 | $0.069585073 | $ 5,517,828.86 |
| Jail Time | 23,707,200 | $0.076858535 | $ 1,822,100.65 |
| Loss of Sleep, Humiliation, Pain and Suffering | 197,085,757 | $0.050994250 | $ 10,050,240.29 |
| Punitive Damages | $ 60,092,350.07 | ||
| Legal Fees as a percentage of Punitive Damages | $ 60,092,350.07 | ||
| Annual Interest from Tuesday, June 14, 2011 | 4.25000000% | $ 9,900,889.41 | |
| AS OF Thursday September 27, 2012 04:03:56.05 PM | $190,177,939.62 | ||
| $ 190,177,000.00 | |||
--
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
