------------------------------------------------------
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff,
vs.
United States of America, et al
Defendants
|
)\
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
Appeal # 12-2435
Case No: 4:12-cv-703-CEJ
|
------------------------------------------------------
A humble brief and APPEAL for the summary affirmation of the lower court's dismissal of the Case, No: 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, with order in the appeal, No: 12-2435 (Entry ID: 3938448), dated August 02, 2012. Again I HUMBLY GROVEL IN YOUR PRESENCE and request an expedited response.[1]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- The United States of America is a government of the People, for the People and by the People. This is to be supported and maintained by the undeniable reliance on the inherent reciprocity of the jury system in both criminal and civil disputes.
- "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."[2]
- "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."[3]
- Justice without civil i.e., equity consideration, is unsustainable. The pursuit of Justice without equity consideration impoverishes the victim at the expense of the injustice that has overwhelmed them.
- Immunity by definition is diametrically opposed to the Supreme Law of the Land. A Supreme Law of the Land can not be sustained if it is open to re-interpretation by an unrestrained, absolutely immune, asserted, justice system.
- The assertion that the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution for the United States of America as the supreme Law of the Land,[4] "intended sub silentio to exempt"[5] "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[6] especially those entrusted with judicial,[7] prosecutorial[8] and enforcement[9] power, all evidence to the contrary, from the federal Constitution's paramount binding authority[10] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice[11] is an incredible,[12] fantastic or delusional scenario.[13]
- I enclose as undisputed and indisputable evidence of the original flagrant criminally[14] corrupt judicial abuse the fraudulently frivolous infamous petition for an ex-parte order of protection dated Monday November 03, 2003.
- This fraudulent criminally corrupt warrant is at the epicenter of all my pleadings. The petition, became a criminally corrupt warrant i.e., a "frivolous ex parte order of protection," 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 on by Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr. over the timely repeated PRE-trial, AT-trial and POST-TRIAL in court formal verbal and written objections of the victim, was criminally corrupt 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 an infamous charge. It was criminal FRAUD UPON THE COURT!
- This on going flagrant FRAUD 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[15] 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." [16]
- The massive on going criminal conspiracy[17] against rights, has BOTH actus reus (the Legal Latin for "guilty act") and a mens rea (the Legal Latin for "guilty mind") for their ACTIONS! I seek the constitutionally[18] and statutorily secured civil[19] and criminal[20] redress for the justifiable grievances, the denial of rights.
- I note and acknowledge all prior communications directly and indirectly sent to the court on my blog in its entirety www.DGJeep.blogspot.com.
- Please expedite with all due haste the disposition of this issue in your court, life depends upon it!
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Friday, August 03, 2012, 12:55:58 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 07-03-12 Motion for Rehearing of the appeal REV 00
[1] Because I am not a legal professional and I have been impoverished 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 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 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 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] 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
[3] 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.
[4] 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
[5] "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] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[7] ""It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound tby those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused" (Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Law Reports Exchequer 220) Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[8] 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)
[9] 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)
[10] "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
[11] 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.
[12] "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!!!!!
[13] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[14] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction (Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) 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!!!!!
[15] 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.
[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] See the listed respondents in the original petition on appeal 12-2435
[18] 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."
[19] 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."
[20] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242
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
