In the U.S. District Court
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff/Petitioner,
vs.
The Government of the United States of America, et al,
Defendants/Respondents
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
Case No 4:12CV703-CEJ _
|
A motion for RECONSIDERATION of the Order, dated
April 27, 2012, to dismiss
And a FIXED Court date
1. Petitioner freely concedes Judge Perry/Jackson's refusal to recuse herself. Petitioner has no personal issue with Judge Perry/Jackson. The issues in this and all prior petitions are of a nature that any and all sitting members of the judiciary are unavoidably impacted by the inherent malice, corruption, dishonesty, and incompetence,[1] of the prior unconstitutional and unsustainable assertion of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY of our so called Justice system.[2] I note and acknowledge all prior communications directly and indirectly sent to Judge Perry /Jackson (http://DGJeep.blogspot.com/search/label/Perry and on my blog in its entirety www.DGJeep.blogspot.com).
2. Our right of redress was based on the Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government. The right of redress as a petition was based the Petition of Right 1628 in England. Our 1st Amendment's lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition the government for a justifiable redress of grievances was and is based on the Declaration of Independence's assertion, "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury[3] (i.e., immunity from suit). A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people" and the 1803 Supreme Court precedent: "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803) Chief Justice John Marshal establishing Supreme Court precedent and quoting English common law per the Commentaries on the Laws of England, the 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone
3. Petitioner states and freely admits this petition is duplicative, except for the jury demand, of other complaints/petitions/grievances (see 4:07-cv-0506-SOW, 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 4:10-CV-101-TCM/CAS, 4:11-cv-00931-FRB/CAS and 8th District US Court of Appeals cases 07-2614 & 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425) as stated in the original petition dated Thursday April 19, 2012 (see the list of Defendants/Respondents and items 6, 10, 18, and 20). There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. This has been an unbelievable fantastic or delusional scenario in support of the Judiciary's malicious, corrupt, dishonest, incompetent,[4] unconstitutional and unsustainable assertion of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. This country is dedicated to the principal that all men are equal under color of law, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE RULE OF LAW as defined by the intrinsic reciprocity of the jury system,[5] not the rule of the black robed royalist judiciary.
4. The Petitioner has consistently and repeatedly asked for the constitutionally secured reciprocity of Due Process of law as defined by the Constitution,[6] the 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, 14th amendments, statute law[7] and treaties[8] made regarding the "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,"[9] as a result of the repeatedly consistently stated undisputed, undisputable facts of ALL, the same facts in all prior petitions. It is as if the Chief Judge Carol E. Jackson[10] and all other members of the judiciary were wearing blind and deaf.[11]
5. As regard the reference to a fantastic or delusional scenario under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Neitzke v. Williams, and Denton v. Hernandez, I assert the Federal Judiciary has the fantastic or delusional scenario with their black robed royalist's ministerial[12] grant of absolute Immunity from constitutional reciprocity of Justice, law and equity,[13] by and for themselves and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[14]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of (their) judicial process"[15] over the direct unquestionable Constitutional and statutorial direction of We the People.[16] It is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[17] "before out of Court"[18] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[19]
6. As further proof of the Federal judiciary's fantastic or delusional scenario I submit that "In the more than 223 years since the Federal Judiciary was created in 1789 under Article III of the Constitution – approximately 9,562 justices, judges, and magistrates, (based on 2,131[20] in office on Friday September 30, 2011) the number of those removed is only 8 (0.0837% of an estimate total of 9,562)! A person confirmed to the federal bench becomes an effectively unimpeachable[21] black robed royalist Judge Above the Law."[22] "The Judiciary has allowed its chief circuit judges to dismiss systematically 99.82% of the complaints filed against judges in a 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." [23]
7. Petitioner states that he has REPEATEDLY been denied access to the constitutionally SECURED reciprocity of a jury of his peers by the UNCONSTITUTIONAL denial of the black robed royalist guild of judge's assertions of unconstitutional nobility[24] i.e., absolute immunity, thus the current Jury Demand. All the prior petitions were disposed of ad-hoc through no-reason summary orders or opinions so "perfunctory" that they are neither published nor precedential, mere fiats of raw UNCONSTITUTIONAL judicial power DEVOID of the constitutionally SECURED reciprocity of a jury of his peers.
8. With the current petition the petitioner now demands the reciprocity of his 7th Amendment equity rights, a jury of his peers and a FIXED Court date.
9. As regards Kahn v. Kahn 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994), it is exclusively JUDGE made law and thus has no true binding constitutional effect, for the constitution says, per the 14th Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law[25] 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." Clearly per any sane reading of the facts of this case, the petitioner has been denied paternity, life, liberty, or property WITHOUT due process of law and the equal protection of the laws.
10. As regards Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003) it is again exclusively JUDGE made law and thus has no true binding constitutional effect, for the constitution says "and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."
Specifically as regards any assertion of absolute immunity; there are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility[26] to wit, "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:
"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility (i.e., absolute immunity[27]). 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." [28]
How can a minister, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn[29] to constitutional commission even ask for immunity from said constitution they have sworn to protect and defend?
11. As regards Judge Perry/Jackson's assertion that the petitioner is suing "the government officials for purported violation of his civil rights simply because he disagrees with the out come" the facts of the case clearly reveal, to any sane person, the petitioner's rights were and ARE CURRENTLY being denied. Judge Perry/Jackson is clearly acting out of a PREJUDICED self-serving perspective that has blinded her to the obvious undisputed, undisputable FACTS of the case. For the sake of brevity I will state, verbatim, only the evidence of the LARGEST and most damaging denial of Due Process:
"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."[30]
12. A Judge's finding can not amend the pleading during a hearing on that pleading or due process of law[31] is meaningless. This kidnapping and theft of all my worldly property was and continues to be devastating[32] and a flagrant denial of Due Process rights e.g., say we try you for petty theft, but find you guilty of murder?
13. In that this issue at its heart revolves around a life altering ongoing devastating Jane Crow Era[33] kidnapping I see the currently escalating damages, $177,431,000.00 as of Tuesday May 01, 2012 11:38:39.53 AM, as a mere pittance. I site the case of Ida B. Wells, where the "She won her case on December 24, 1884, when the local circuit court granted her a $500 settlement" but the Tennessee Supreme Court, reversed the lower court's ruling in 1885. It concluded, "We think it is evident that the purpose of the defendant in error was to harass with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain a comfortable seat for the short ride." Ms. Wells was not suing for "a comfortable seat for the short ride." Ms. Wells and myself were and are both suing for JUSTICE. What would the justice Ms. Wells sought have been worth if it could have avoided the subsequent 123 years of social and racial unrest? I will concede to the constitutional reciprocity as assured by the 7th Amendment's[34] right of trial by a jury of my peers.
14. I have TWO federally funded psychological exams attesting to my competency. This malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[35] kidnapping, theft and "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[36] has TAKEN EVERYTHING!!!! I have literally NOTHING left to lose. Do I have to light myself on fire in the street to get the rights granted by my creator to all men, like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi?
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
Signed and DELIVERED by HAND 5/2/12, 4:30PM and 5/3/12, 2:15PM
_________________________________________
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
[1] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!! "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[2] As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy. As regards federal prosecutors I assert "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves." As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[3] Clearly the Authors of the Declaration of Independence and the authors of Constitution thus were not wanting institute a policy of petitioning that could be ignored, via the immunity of a sovereign. There was to be NO such thing as domestic sovereign immunity, except possibly in times of war.
[4] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!! "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[5] "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury," Article III, Section 2, third paragraph and "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." 7th Amendment, The Constitution for the United States of America
[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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The Constitution for the United States of America, Article. VI., 2nd paragraph.
[8] "The Treaty "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" is presented for both its binding force as "Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies together under one Constitution?" 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[10] See my blog for a more complete listing of all the communications directly with Judge Perry/Jackson
[11] "The Judiciary has allowed (a fantastic or delusional scenario) its chief circuit judges to dismiss systematically 99.82% of the complaints filed against judges in the Tuesday October 01, 1996 thru Tuesday September 30, 2008, a 12-year period. 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" ("My Articles Describing a Plan of Action," by Dr. Richard Cordero http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/2012_E/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf) talk about a "fantastic or delusional scenario" to support ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY the self-serving seizure of ABSOLUTE POWER
[12] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law. For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[13] 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.
[14] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!! "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[15] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335 (non-italic parenthetical text, underlining and emphasis added for clarity)
[16] 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!!!!!
[17] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) "Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy."
[20] An estimate of the total number of Article III Federal judges to hold office from 1789 – 2011 = 9,562
[21] This in spite of Alexander Hamilton's assertion:
"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"
[22] "My Articles Describing a Plan of Action," by Dr. Richard Cordero
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/2012_E/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf Italic text added "black robed royalist"
[23] "My Articles Describing a Plan of Action," by Dr. Richard Cordero
[24] There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility to wit, "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
[25] Unless precedent wants to assert that the sate's action was somehow something other than "under color of law?" I do not see how, "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution… Accordingly, it has been decided in a great variety of circumstances that, when questions of law and fact are so intermingled as to make it necessary, in order to pass upon the federal question, the Court may, and should, analyze the facts. Even when the case comes to this Court from a state court, this duty must be performed as a necessary incident to a decision upon the claim of denial of federal right." (STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U. S. 398 (1932))
[26] I realize judicial sophistry would like us to believe that a Title of Nobility as constitutionally referenced meant some thing more than absolute immunity and admittedly it did. But I stress that absolute immunity was the constitutive element to be prohibited "the corner-stone of republican government."
[27] Anyone that wants to assertion "the prohibition of titles of nobility' was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.
[28] FEDERALIST No. 84, Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 , Alexander Hamilton, non-italic parenthetical text, underlining and emphasis added for clarity
[29] 5 U.S.C. 3331 Oath of office: "I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
[30] Page 96 of the Court Record, IN THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DIVISION 65, Commissioner Phillip Jones, Presiding, Cause No. 03FC-010670, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003
[31] "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution… Accordingly, it has been decided in a great variety of circumstances that, when questions of law and fact are so intermingled as to make it necessary, in order to pass upon the federal question, the Court may, and should, analyze the facts. Even when the case comes to this Court from a state court, this duty must be performed as a necessary incident to a decision upon the claim of denial of federal right." (STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U. S. 398 (1932)).
[32] In the Jane Crow Era, not only did it take my son and home it left me emotionally devastated, "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... 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
[33] The Jane Crow era was instigated to protect children and woman with the Rule of Law in 1974. The witch-hunt for villains has, in effect, done just the opposite. We have in the last 60 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 evolved from a misogynous Jim Crow era to a corrupt affirmative action Jane Crow Era where the former oppressors "white males" are now oppressed (denied equal protection of the law) for their forefathers asserted BAD acts.
[34] Amendment VII "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."
[35] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!! "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
