Saturday, May 12, 2012

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[5]


Historically, the claim of precedent has been the first refuge of scoundrels; we have always done it this way; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.[1] 
To assume that the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution of the United States of America as the supreme Law of the Land,[2] intended sub silentio,[3] all evidence to the contrary, to exempt ANYONE, especially those judicially tasked with its enforcement, from its binding effect is a fantastic or delusional scenario.[4]  

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[5]


There is no royal absolutely immune ruling person/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[6]  We the People incorporated ourselves, in 1788, into a government, based on equality, of the people, by the people and for the people to establish Justice and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity with a lawfully un-abridge-able right of the people to justifiably petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[7]
ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity,[8] in a government of free and equal persons on THIS PLANET!!!!! 
ANY assertion of governmental ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, acknowledging un-avoidable human fallibility, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity, in a government of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!
The ministerial[9] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[10] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[11] "before out of Court"[12] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[13]
"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity."   I say it NOW, 2011!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [14]  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[15]. 

Impeach[16] the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[17]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[18] and
"fraud upon the court."
Before they have a chance to screw-up Healthcare for
100 years!!!!!!
Impeach the current Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[19]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[20] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[21] justice between the government and the people, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98  Decided May 31, 2011!!!
        The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people.  We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"[22]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[23] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[24] "The Exclusionary Rule," "Grounds for Impeachment."
        Most of the 99% of Americans have not had the pleasure and are silently intimidated by the prospect of being dragged through our corrupt COURTS kicking and screaming!!!!!!  I have been kicking and screaming for nearly 8 years.  I have suffered through 411 days of illegal incarceration, 4 years of homelessness and two psychological examinations.  I ask you to review Jeep v Obama 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case #11-2425, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947," Jeep v Bennett 08-1823, "Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and the most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115."
        I have referenced "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process," in several of my papers, I do so only because the facts of the case in "To Kill a Mocking Bird" are generally known.  The abuses are happening EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE Mr. Thompson (No. 09–571),[25] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [26] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[27] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[28]   The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[29] PROVES "We the People" have NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN America today!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evidence as posted on this blog
Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Saturday, May 12, 2012, 3:54:19 PM, 2012 05-12-12 Historically.doc

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge, 1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred) www.DGJeep.blogspot.com
(314) 514-5228



[1] Paraphrased from "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." Michael Crichton
[2] "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
[3] "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!!!!!
[5] Aldous Huxley
[6] You some how want to argue that "the grant of Nobility" was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY.  You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility?  That would undermine Free-Enterprise. 
Anyone that wants to assertion "the prohibition of titles of nobility' was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.
There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law?  Did Nat King Cole violate the constitution?  No one is that petty.  Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[7] 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 (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
[8] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered.  I have been forced into homelessness for FOUR YEARS!  The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  The 7th Amendment's secures the right to settle all disputes/suits: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law" assures justice as regards equity.
[9] 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.
[10] "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[11] 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."
[15] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[16] "And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments… upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations." Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 81, "The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 stated that impeachment was to be used as an integral check for "Judicial Authority"
[18] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[19] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" Yes it is spelled wrong in the Constitution
[20] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[21] 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.
[22] "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[24] Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts stated: "Now, it is an effectual denial by a State of the equal protection of the laws when any class of officers charged under the laws with their administration permanently, and as a rule, refuse to extend that protection. If every sheriff in South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) refuses to serve a writ for a colored man, and those sheriffs are kept in office year after year by the people of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), and no verdict against them for their failure of duty can be obtained before a South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) jury, the State of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), through the class of officers who are its representatives to afford the equal protection of the laws to that class of citizens, has denied that protection. If the jurors of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) constantly and as a rule refuse to do justice between man and man where the rights of a particular class of its citizens are concerned, and that State affords by its legislation no remedy, that is as much a denial to that class of citizens of the equal protection of the laws as if the State itself put on its statute book a statute enacting that no verdict should be rendered in the courts of that State in favor of this class of citizens. " Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 334.( Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 177) Senator Pratt of Indiana spoke of the discrimination against Union sympathizers and Negroes in the actual enforcement of the laws: "Plausibly and sophistically, it is said the laws of North Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) do not discriminate against them; that the provisions in favor of rights and liberties are general; that the courts are open to all; that juries, grand and petit, are commanded to hear and redress without distinction as to color, race, or political sentiment." "But it is a fact, asserted in the report, that of the hundreds of outrages committed upon loyal people through the agency of this Ku Klux organization, not one has been punished. This defect in the administration of the laws does not extend to other cases. Vigorously enough are the laws enforced against Union people. They only fail in efficiency when a man of known Union sentiments, white or black, invokes their aid. Then Justice closes the door of her temples."  Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 505. (Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 178) non italic parenthetical text added fro clarity.
[28] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211
[29] "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners" and you have the moronic audacity to ask why???? "Why We Must Fix Our Prisons", By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009, U.S. Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: February 29, 2008, Our Real Prison Problem. Why are we so worried about Gitmo? Newsweek by Dahlia Lithwick Published June 5, 2009
Posted by at
Labels: ,

Thursday, May 10, 2012

To assume that the founding fathers, who had just enacted the Constitution of the United States of America as the supreme Law of the Land, intended sub silentio, all evidence to the contrary, to exempt ANYONE, especially those judicially tasked with

-->

U.S. Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit



David G. Jeep,          Plaintiff/Petitioner,

            vs.

The Government of the United States of America, et al,

Defendants/Respondents
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)






Appeal # _______________

Case No   4:12-cv-00703-CEJ  _

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A humble APPEAL for a jury demand, AS I HUMBLY GROVEL IN YOUR PRESENCE, from the decision Case No. 4:12-cv-703-CEJ in

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri


1.      First I take humble exception to the TWO denials of the motions to correct typographical errors in Case No. 4:12-cv-703-CEJ dated Tuesday, May 01, 2012 “A motion to correct a typographical error in the original pleading” and Sunday, May 06, 2012, “Petitioner again asks for correction of another typographical error”
2.      The right to “establish Justice” [1] is a natural and constitutionally[2] secured right without a statute of limitation.
3.      Historically, the claim of precedent and / or consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.[3]  To assume that the founding fathers, who had just enacted the Constitution of the United States of America as the supreme Law of the Land, intended sub silentio,[4]all evidence to the contrary, to exempt ANYONE, especially those judicially tasked with its enforcement, from its binding effect is a fantastic or delusional scenario.[5]  "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."[6]
            There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[7]  We the People incorporated ourselves, in 1788, into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity with a lawfully un-abridge-able right of the people to justifiably petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 
4.      Immunity from the rule of law is diametrically opposed to the rule of law by definition.  Just as, if not more importantly the rule of law that is not knowable to “a person of ordinary intelligence” (United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 114, 123 (1979), SYKES v. UNITED STATES, 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, SCALIA[8], J., dissenting) is without enforceable authority in our constitutional government of We the People.
5.      Because I have been impoverished[9] by this issue I cite the potential for Harmless error - 28 USC § 2111, “On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”  The inherent unconstitutional denial of justice[10] based on the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, incompetent[11] and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983), “the common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,” makes a professionally prepared petition and or appeal untenable to the average person. 
            If I may have inadvertently not utilized the correct method and/or legal Latin jargon in making my prior petitions (see 8th Circuit court of Appeals Filings in 11-2425, 10-1947,[12] 08-1823 and 07-2614) e.g., a writ of habeas corpus, a writ of audita querela, a writ of coram nobis, a writ of error, a writ of praemunire, a writ of supersedeas, or a writ of recurso de amparo, it is as result of my impoverishment resultant from the unconstitutional denial of rights.
6.      The inherent reciprocity of the incontestable right to a jury of my peers[13] as defined by the Constitution of the United States of America limits judicial power.
7.      Any assertion of Justice that is based on a fraudulent denial of rights, where an officer of the court is complicit in the fraudulent denial, is a fraud upon the court and makes void the orders of that court and all orders based on that court’s fraudulent order.
            Fraus omnia vitiate, fraud vitiates everything it touches.  When fraud is involved in civil contract or in the establishment of a law, all such laws, contracts or court orders are unraveled, made into nothing at all. If inherent fraud can be proven, such laws and or orders by their natures could not exist, for they were created under both a false pretense, as well as created with understanding and assent on false pretenses. It is a settled and invariable principle in the law that a party who obtained an award through fraud should not be entitled to keep that award.  Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.
            Fraud upon the court defiles the court itself, so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner; its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.
8.      Clearly to any sane unbiased reading of the ADULT ABUSE PETITION FOR ORDER OF PROTECTION statute, Missouri Revised Statutes Protective Orders Section 455.035,[14] the petition in question (see copy dated Nov 3, 2003, front and back, enclosed at the end of this petition), was a fraudulent denial of rights based on Missouri Revised Statute law  Protective Orders Section 455.035, the 4th[15], 5th[16], and 14th[17] Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America, and United States of America Federal Statue law (Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985); there was no specific pertinent probable cause for the charge listed i.e., “abuse.”  It was merely an unrelated infamous, slanderous allegation, unsupported by the facts.[18]  The original petition dated Nov 3, 2003 FRAUDULENTLY applied for by Sharon G. Jeep, FRAUDULENTLY ordered served by Judge Joseph A. Goeke’s and then FRAUDULENTLY ordered heard and ruled[19] on by Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr. over the timely prior repeated in court objections of the victim, was fraud upon the court.
            This fraud upon the court was a denial of rights and a violation of authorizing statute law Missouri Revised Statutes Protective Orders Section 455.035 and “the paramount authority of the federal Constitution,”[20] the 4th[21], 5th[22], and 14th[23] Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America.
9.      ANY assertion of personal or professional ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity,[24] in a government of free and equal persons on THIS PLANET!!!!! 
10. ANY assertion of governmental ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, acknowledging un-avoidable human fallibility, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity, in a government of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!
11. Self-serving “Absolute Immunity” ministerially[25] granted by “constitutionally commissioned public Ministers” [26] for “constitutionally commissioned public Ministers”  is repugnant to a democratically established limited constitutional government.  Why would We the People even have written “the supreme Law of the Land”[27] if “constitutionally commissioned public Ministers” i.e., judges both federal and state were not to “be bound thereby.” [28] 
12. There is no elite absolutely immune ruling persons/class in the United States of America.  There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility[29] 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[30]). This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.” [31]
How can a “constitutionally commissioned public Ministers,” a delegated authority, acting under a sworn[32] to constitutional commission even ask for immunity from said constitution they have sworn to protect and defend?
13. Immunity is “before out of Court”[33] an “unlawful Conspiracy”[34] “extrajudicial”[35] self-serving ministerial rule, at the highest levels of the United States of America’s Executive[36] (prosecutorial) and Justice (judicial) Departments, to deprive We the People the protection of the constitutionally secured Due Process of Law.  Immunity “before out of Court,” [37] as handed out in the American Justice System like Halloween candy,[38] in purpose and in effect unlawfully covers-up “false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he/she/they knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty,”[39] denies due Process of Law and, again, most importantly “before out of Court.” [40]
14. As regards “absolute immunity” I humbly cite the Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph – “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”  There is NO IMMUNITY from the Supreme Law of the Land, especially as noted “Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”  I mean “give(n) a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice” (United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 114, 123 (1979),[41] SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting) there is no immunity from the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. 
15. As regards Kahn v. Kahn (21 F.3d 859) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), I humbly assert that Kahn v. Kahn and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) in the Jane Crow[42] era are part of an “unlawful Conspiracy”[43] “extrajudicial”[44] self-serving ministerial rule at the highest ministerial levels of the United States of America’s Government, “before out of Court”[45] to deprive men the protection of the 14th Amendment.  That is to say deny Equal Protection of the Law and Due Process of Law in both State and Federal Court.
16. At both my original trials[46] my attorney and myself made repeated PRE-trial, AT-trial and POST-TRIAL objections and motions to make the violations of my Constitutional rights unavoidable TRIPPING HAZARDS for anyone of “ordinary intelligence.”  There was nothing short of setting off fireworks INDOORS that we could have done to emphasize the deprivation of my “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”[47] anymore clear.  And in the nearly 8 years since (2003) I have been as vocally as possible restating the criminal denial of rights in on going appeals, actions, complaints and correspondence.  The defendant’s actions can thus be considered manifest, willful, corrupt and malicious.
17. I cite Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U. S. 357 (1871) the dissent did not think opposing absolute immunity was frivolous, MR. JUSTICE DAVIS, with whom concurred Mr. Justice CLIFFORD, dissenting “But I dissent from the rule laid down by the majority of the Court that a judge is exempt from liability in a case like the present, where it is alleged not only that his proceeding was in excess of jurisdiction,[48] but that he acted maliciously and corruptly. If he did so, he is, in my opinion, subject to suit the same as a private person would be under like circumstances.”  I may sound a little overly sensitive, I think the Judges in Camden County and the Judges in St. Louis County were all corruptly and maliciously out to get me.  None of them had any clear and credible probable cause and or proof that would standup to exculpable information.  I was clearly deprived the “fair notice” of “probable cause” not to mention my “fair notice” 14th amendment right to Due Process of law given “a person of ordinary intelligence.”[49] 
18. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 558 (1967) did not think opposing immunity was frivolous, “I do not think that all judges, under all circumstances, no matter how outrageous their conduct, are immune from suit under 17 Stat. 13, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court's ruling is not justified by the admitted need for a vigorous and independent judiciary, is not commanded by the common law doctrine of judicial immunity, and does not follow inexorably from our prior decisions.” 
19. In Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) while the decision was unanimous as regards Mr. Pachtman; MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring in the judgment stated, they did not think “that absolute immunity for prosecutors extends to suits based on claims of unconstitutional suppression of evidence.”  The Judges, the Prosecutors, the Police and the original petitioner all suppressed evidence in my issues.  I quote from Page 424 U. S. 432 “I concur in the judgment of the Court and in much of its reasoning... I write, however, because I believe that the Court's opinion may be read as extending to a prosecutor an immunity broader than that to which he was entitled at common law; broader than is necessary to decide this case; and broader than is necessary to protect the judicial process. Most seriously, I disagree with any implication that absolute immunity for prosecutors extends to suits based on claims of unconstitutional suppression of evidence, because I believe such a rule would threaten to injure the judicial process and to interfere with Congress' purpose in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983, without any support in statutory language or history.”
20. In Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 365 (1978) Justices STEWART, J., MARSHALL and POWELL, JJ. did not think opposing absolute immunity was frivolous, “But the scope of judicial immunity is limited to liability for "judicial acts," and I think that what Judge Stump did on July 9, 1971, was beyond the pale of anything that could sensibly be called a judicial act.”  I feel that Judge Goeke’s and Commissioner Jones fraud upon the court in ordering and hearing a case lacking probable cause for the order, on its face, steps outside the acts "normally performed by a judge" (435 U. S. 365)
21. Justice Thurgood Marshall dissenting in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 362 (1983) did not think the idea of Judges being liable for their actions was frivolous.  He went beyond the issue briefed in the petition, witness immunity, and declared that he thought all common law IMMUNITY had been overridden by § 1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act[50]: “To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible.  Sheriffs and marshals, while performing a quintessentially judicial function such as serving process, were clearly liable under the 1866 Act, notwithstanding President Johnson's objections. Because, (Page 460 U. S. 363) as Representative Shellabarger stated, § 1 of the 1871 Act provided a civil remedy "in identically the same case" or "on the same state of facts" as § 2 of the 1866 Act, it obviously overrode whatever immunity may have existed at common law for these participants in the judicial process in 1871.” (emphasis added, internal footnotes not included)
22. And our current Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appears to agree in his recent VEHEMENT dissent as to the vagueness in SYKES v. UNITED STATES ““give a person of ordinary(sp) intelligence fair notice” of its reach” (Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 7, SCALIA, J., dissenting).  There is nothing vague about the constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the First Amendment’s lawfully un-abridge-able right to a justifiable redress of grievances or the statutory law, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985.  As I assert as part of my pleading this is also a PRIVATE PROSECUTION of “penal statutes,”[51] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, because the criminal conspiracy at work in the State Government and Federal Government will not prosecute the law in We the People’s defense.  The Constitution, penal and civil statutory law, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985, gives “a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice” that their rights are secured by criminal and civil liability for their deprivation.  The concept of “fair notice” swings both ways, yes the statute needs to be clear and understandable to be Constitutionally enforceable, but where the Constitution “and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made[52]” are clear they LIMIT the government’s intrusion i.e. the 4th Amendments requirement for “probable cause” and the 5th and 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “Due Process of Law.”  The Constitution, Probable cause and Due Process are NOT ambiguous text, to be explained by sophistry into any meaning which may subserve personal malice.[53] 
23. Because I humbly know you are considering this as an “extrajudicial”[54] “unlawful Conspiracy”[55] “before out of Court”[56] issue I enclose a copy of the original handwritten evidence of the most egregious violation of my Constitutional rights as an unavoidable TRIPPING HAZARD for anyone of “ordinary intelligence.”  This petition, that became the FRAUDULENT ex-parte order of protection, took my SON, my home… everything.  This petition is at the center of all my issues and adds all the veracity I need.  There is no credible PROBABLE CAUSE for the charge listed thus no 4th Amendment protection.  After repeated requests I was never provided the amended pleadings[57] nor was I ever allowed to be heard on them, it was a denial of the 5th and 14th Amendment Due Process of Law also.  In the Jane Crow[58] era a man’s life can be destroyed and discarded without the fundamental Constitutional and internationally[59] asserted inalienable civil right to Due Process of Law, as if a man’s life was frivolous as compared to a woman’s.
24. What it all comes down to is giving “a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice.”[60]  Absolute immunity is repugnant to the Rule of law by definition.  The Rule of Law, the Constitution of the United States of America as written, adopted and supported as the Supreme Law of the Land does not afford ANYONE immunity.
25. I am indigent.  I am self-represented, pro se.  I spent all the retirement I had on attorneys.  I DO NOT even have postage to mail this petition.  I have holes in the seat of my pants, holes in the soles of my shoes and nothing to eat and nowhere to live.  I am forced to seek out homeless shelters and clothing give-aways for the necessities of life.  Do I have to light myself on fire in the street to get the rights granted by my creator to all men, like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi?
26. I note and acknowledge all prior communications directly and indirectly sent to the court on my blog in its entirety www.DGJeep.blogspot.com.

 
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 3:27:37 PM
Signature of Plaintiff(s)







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

E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
2012 05-10-12 8th Circuit Court of Appeals 12-0000 Case Case No. 4-12-cv-703-CEJ REV 00





[1] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered.  I have been forced into homelessness for FOUR YEARS!  The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance from the government: “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  The 7th Amendment’s secures the right to settle all disputes/suits: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law” assures justice as regards equity.
[2] “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” preamble to the constitution for the United States of America
[3] Paraphrased from "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." Michael Crichton
[4] “To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[6] Aldous Huxley
[7] You some how want to argue that “the grant of Nobility” was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY.  You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility?  That would undermine Free-Enterprise. 
Anyone that wants to assertion “the prohibition of titles of nobility’ was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.
There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law?  Did Nat King Cole violate the constitution?  No one is that petty.  Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[8] United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 “It is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. 453  (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954).
[9] The 8.99 year, 3,280 days, 78,731 hours, 4,723,876 minutes or 283,432,554 seconds intensely arduous struggle to establish my inalienable constitutional and natural rights has taken nearly my all(based on Wednesday May 09, 2012 12:15:54.01 PM ) and it has impoverished me.
[10] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered.  I have been forced into homelessness for FOUR YEARS!  The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance from the government: “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  The 7th Amendment’s secures the right to settle all disputes/suits: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law” assures justice as regards equity.
[11] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!  “Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept.” By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department. 
As regards Prosecutors, “States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do” (“Federal prosecutors series”) USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy.  As regards federal prosecutors I assert the "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."  As regards law enforcement “Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept.” By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[12] It should be noted that 10-1947 was filed after the initial denial of Writ of Certiorari 07-11115.  It was filed based on the refusal of Federal Government agents (FBI and USMS) to investigate and/or enforce the blatant denial of Civil Rights in 07-2614 (03FC-10670M) and 08-1823 (CR203-1336M)
[13] Article III., Section 2, third paragraph, “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury,” 7th Amendment “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
[14] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, where he is tasked by statute to “for good cause shown in the petition”,[14] issued a warrant without any probable cause.  A Judges’ power is necessarily limited by the Constitution and statute.  A Judge can not issue a warrant without probable cause.  Not only did the petition for an Ex-Parte Order of protection not list any abuse, what it did list was third party description of an incident in traffic court that was being handled by another geographical JURISDICTION, 150 miles away and different subject matter jurisdiction.  For Judge Goeke to even list it as a probable cause violated the respondents right to the elementary principles of procedural due process.
[15] 4th Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
[16] 5th Amendment,  “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
[17] 14th Amendment makes this a “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
[18] IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION Cause No. CR203-1336M, Associate Circuit Judge Jack A. Bennett RECUSED himself for the bad act FRAUDULENTLY alleged by Sharon G. Jeep to the victim David G. Jeep, the petitioner in this issue.
[19] In the Jane Crow era this UNCOSNTITUTIONAL ruling over timely repeated objections where I was stripped of my son, my own flesh and blood, my paternity rights, my home, family heirlooms, photographs/memories, all my worldly possessions, my constitutionally SECURED rights and quite literally left on the side of the road for dead is flagrantly fraud on the court by ruling:
“MR. SCHLESINGER: 
I renew my objection to all the testimony… being outside the scope of the pleadings. 
COMMISSIONER JONES: 
Overruled. 
The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced.  The Court does find the allegations of the amended petition to be true.  The Court does enter a full order of protection against the Respondent.  This order will supercede the ex parte order of protection entered in this cause on the 3rd day of November and serves to terminate that order. 
The Respondent should not use, attempt to use, or threaten to use physical force against the Petitioner that would be reasonably expected to cause her bodily harm, should not stalk, abuse, threaten to abuse, molest, or disturb her peace wherever she may be found.  He also shall not communicate with her in any manner or through any means. 
And he is also further restrained from the residence at 16325 Centerpointe Drive 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)
A Judge’s finding can not amend the pleading during a hearing on that pleading or due process of law[19] is meaningless.  This kidnapping and theft of all my worldly property was and continues to be devastating[19] and a flagrant denial of Due Process rights e.g., say we try you for petty theft, but find you guilty of murder?
[20] “There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution. When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the federal judicial power extends (Article III, § 2), and, so extending, the Court has all the authority appropriate to its exercise. Accordingly, it has been decided in a great variety of circumstances that, when questions of law and fact are so intermingled as to make it necessary, in order to pass upon the federal question, the Court may, and should, analyze the facts. Even when the case comes to this Court from a state court, this duty must be performed as a necessary incident to a decision upon the claim of denial of federal right. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Albers Commission Co., 223 U. S. 573, 223 U. S. 591; Creswill v. Knights of Pythias, 225 U. S. 246, 225 U. S. 261; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585, 236 U. S. 593; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 248 U. S. 67, 248 U. S. 69; Merchants' National Bank v. Richmond, 256 U. S. 635, 256 U. S. 638; First National Bank v. Hartford, 273 U. S. 548, 273 U. S. 552-553; Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380, 274 U. S. 385-386.” Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932)
[21] 4th Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
[22] 5th Amendment,  “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
[23] 14th Amendment makes this a “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
[24] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered.  I have been forced into homelessness for FOUR YEARS!  The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance from the government: “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  The 7th Amendment’s secures the right to settle all disputes/suits: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law” assures justice as regards equity.
[25] Ministerially created rules by a constitutionally commissioned officer, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, are SECONDARY to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law.  For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[26] Article III. Section. 2. 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[27] Article VI., 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[28] Article VI., 2nd paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[29] You some how want to argue that “the grant of Nobility” was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY.  You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility?  That would undermine Free-Enterprise. 
Anyone that wants to assertion “the prohibition of titles of nobility’ was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.
There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law?  Did Nat King Cole violate the constitution?  No one is that petty.  Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[30] You some how want to argue that “the grant of Nobility” was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY.  You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility?  That would undermine Free-Enterprise. 
Anyone that wants to assertion “the prohibition of titles of nobility’ was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.
There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law?  Did Nat King Cole violate the constitution?  No one is that petty.  Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[31] FEDERALIST No. 84, Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 , Alexander Hamilton, non-italic parenthetical text, underlining and emphasis added for clarity
[32] 5 U.S.C. 3331 Oath of office: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;  that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;  that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;  and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
[33] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) Third logical argument end of the paragraph “but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy.” (emphasis and underlining added)
[36] “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” Article. II., Section 3 the Constitution of the United States of America
[38] The SUPREME COURT has abused, their non-existent, authority to make law by the grant of absolute immunity for the conspiracy for the deprivation of rights i.e., first in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) followed by Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 1967 (JUDGES), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (PROSECUTORS), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 365 (1978) (Judge criminally ordered forced non-consensual uninformed sterilization of a healthy, mind and body, minor child) and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (POLICE and ALLEGED victims i.e., immunity from perjury) “absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process.”
[41] United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 “It is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. 453  (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617  (1954).
[42]The "Jane Crow" Era, the courts preference for mother’s/a woman’s rights over a father’s/man’s rights in Domestic Relation Law
The "Jane Crow" Era, “It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house.”
A fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."  “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08
[43] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) Third logical argument end of the paragraph “but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy.” (emphasis and underlining added)
[46] 03FC-10670M ( Divorce 03FC-12243) and CR203-1336M
[48] With the flagrant disregard for credible probable cause none of the Judicial Officers in the action had Jurisdiction. 
[49] United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 “fair notice” swings both ways, e.g. The statute against murder may clearly define murder, but that does not mean that you can use it outside its “fair notice” scope and charge a man for murder for a traffic violation.  You can not ask a man to defend himself against an ex-parte order of protection for a petitioner where the only probable cause is an unrelated, hearsay account of a traffic violation’s court proceeding from a month prior and 150 miles away where the said petitioning individual by her account was not even actually present.
[51] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) Page 460 U. S. 360-361 Representative Coburn stated that § 1 "gives a civil remedy parallel to the penal provision" in the Civil Rights Act. "If this penal section is valid, and no one dares controvert it, the civil remedy is legal and unquestionable." Id. at 461. See also id. at 429 (Rep. McHenry in opposition)

[52] “The Treaty “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” is presented for both its binding force as "Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies together under one Constitution?” 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[53] The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810 – PARAPHRASED FROM - “We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of the law to party passion in one judge and the imbecility of another.  In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice.”
[57] I quote Family Commissioner Jones from the trial transcript: "The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced.  The Court does find the allegations of the amended petition to be true."  Despite two post trial motions I was never given a set of those findings/amended pleadings.  07-2614
[58] The "Jane Crow" Era, the courts preference for mother’s/a woman’s rights over a father’s/man’s rights in Domestic Relation Law
[59] “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”
[60] United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 “fair notice” swings both ways, e.g. The statute against murder may clearly define murder, but that does not mean that you can use it outside its “fair notice” scope and charge a man for murder for a traffic violation.    You can not ask a man to defend himself against an ex-parte order of protection for a petitioner where the only probable cause is an unrelated, hearsay account of a traffic violation ‘s court proceeding from a month prior and 150 miles away where the said petitioning individual by her account was not even actually present.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)