Label Number: 7012 1010 0001 4416 3690
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivered WASHINGTON
DC 20543 09/18/12 10:57am
Notice Left (No WASHINGTON
DC 20543 09/18/12 10:52am
Authorized Recipient Available)
Arrival at Unit WASHINGTON
DC 20018 09/18/12 10:38am
Dispatched to Sort SAINT
LOUIS MO 63101 09/14/12 3:28pm
Facility
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 09/14/12 1:38pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility
Acceptance SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 09/14/12 1:38pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected Delivery By:
September 18, 2012
September 18, 2012
Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the United
States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: Writ of Certiorari on
Appeal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case #12-2345
Dear People,
Please find the enclosed as referenced above.
Because I am a humble non-legal professional
and I have been impoverished by this criminal issue I cite the potential for Harmless
error - 28 USC § 2111, "On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari
in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without
regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties." The inherent unconstitutional denial of justice
based on the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, incompetent and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling
in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983), "the common law provided absolute
immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise
-- who were integral parts of the judicial process," makes a professionally
prepared petition and or appeal untenable to the average victim. Most are not only impoverished by the injustice,
but also in jail behind bars. With 5% of
the world's population our POLICE STATE now incarcerates 25% of the world's prisoners.
If I may have not been humble enough or ignorantly
or inadvertently not utilized the correct humble enough method and/or legal Latin
jargon in making my prior petitions (see 8th Circuit court of Appeals prior Filings
in 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614) e.g., a writ of habeas corpus, a writ
of audita querela, a writ of coram nobis, a writ of error, a writ of praemunire,
a writ of supersedeas, a writ of recurso de amparo or etc., it is as result of my
impoverishment via the unconstitutional denial of rights.
I have complied to the best
of my humble pro se abilities. I n,ote I
have included an appendix this time.
If there is anything further
I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
enclosure
a. "A humble pro se[1] EMERGENCY PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 9.34 years[2] of deprivation, IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES"
If I may have not been humble
enough or ignorantly or inadvertently not utilized the correct humble enough method
and/or legal Latin jargon in making my prior petitions (see 8th Circuit court of
Appeals prior Filings in 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614) e.g., a writ of
habeas corpus, a writ of audita querela, a writ of coram nobis, a writ of error,
a writ of praemunire, a writ of supersedeas, a writ of recurso de amparo or etc.,
it is as result of my impoverishment via the unconstitutional denial of rights.
No.
A humble pro se[1] EMERGENCY PETITION for a
WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 9.34 years[2] of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
— PETITIONER FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI
David G. Jeep and heir
- RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
The
Government of the United States of America, et al, Defendants/Respondents
- President Barack Hussein Obama,
His Justice Department and The
Government of the United States of America
- Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito,
Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and The Government of the
United States of America (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211)
- The Supreme Court of the United
States of America and The Government of the United States of America
(Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211 and 07-11115)
- Chief United States District Judge
Eastern Missouri 8th Circuit Catherine D. Perry and The Government of the
United States of America (8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947,
11-2425 and 12-2435),
- Mike Christian (FBI), Lyonel Mrythill
(FBI), Dan Bracco (FBI), Robert O'Connor (USMS), Chris Boyce (USMS) and Raymond
Meyer (AUSA) and The Government of the United States of America (8th
District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947),
- US Supreme Court, Justices John
Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia,
Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts
and The Government of the United States of America (Petition for a Writ
of Certiorari 07-11115)
- 8th District US Court of Appeals
and The Government of the United States of America(07-2614, 08-1823,
10-1947, 11-2425 and 12-2435),
- Carol E. Jackson, US District Court
Judge and The Government of the United States of America, 4:07-CV-1116
CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al and Jeep v. Government of the United States of America
4:12-cv-703-CEJ (07-2614 and 12-2435),
- Charles A. Shaw, Senior US District
Judge and The Government of the United States of America, Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM
Jeep v. United States of America, et al & 4:11-cv-00931-CAS Jeep v.
Obama(10-1947 & 11-2425),
- Scott O. Wright, Senior US District
Judge and The Government of the United States of America, 4:07-cv-0506-SOW
Jeep v. Bennett et al (08-1823),
- Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr.,
Sharon G. Jeep (ex-wife), Kristen M. Capps (ex-stepdaughter), Joseph A. Goeke,
Robert S. Cohen, Michael T. Jamison, Emmett M. O'Brien, Steven H. Goldman,
Barbara W. Wallace, James R. Hartenbach, John A. Ross, Michael D. Burton, Larry
L. Kendrick, Richard C. Bresnahan, Melvyn W. Wiesman, Maura B. McShane, Colleen
Dolan, Mark D. Seigel, Barbara Ann Crancer, Mary Bruntrager Schroeder, Brenda
Stith Loftin, Dale W. Hood, Thea A. Sherry, Gloria Clark Reno, John R. Essner,
Ellen Levy Siwak, Patrick Clifford, Bernhardt C. Drumm, Dennis N. Smith, Judy
Preddy Draper, Sandra Farragut-Hemphill,
Douglas R. Beach, John F. Kintz, Gary M. Gaertner, Phillip E. Jones, Carolyn
C. Whittington, Tom W. DePriest, David Lee Vincent, St. Louis County
and State of Missouri (4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243),
- Jack A. Bennett, Associate Circuit
Judge, Devin M. Ledom, Asst. Prosecuting Attorney, Alex Little, Officer Badge
#920, Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913, W. Steven Rives, Prosecuting Attorney,
W. James Icenogle, Prosecuting Attorney, Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge,
Jay Nixon Attorney General, State of Missouri, Camden County,
and City of Osage Beach (4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M),
All Defendants/Respondents
are included and asserted liable, as Government actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors
Defendants/Respondents
(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR
CASE)PETITION
IN THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY STATE
OF MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
DIVISION 65
Commissioner Phillip Jones,
Presiding (03FC-010670)
(07-2614, 10-1947, 11-2425
and 12-2345 8th U.S. Court of Appeals)
and
IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY STATE
OF MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
ASSOCIATE DIVISION
The Honorable Bruce Colyer,
Judge (CR203-1336M)
(08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425,
and 12-2345 8th U.S. Court Appeals)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I am
requesting the court to rule on 2 questions:
1. "Give(n)
a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice"[3] who
makes the reckonable[4] supreme law[5]
in the United States of America - not an ambiguous text, to be explained by
sophistry into any meaning which may serve any personal judicial, prosecutorial
or enforcement malice,[6] corruption
or incompetence[7] - "We the People" via
our elected representatives and the Jury System or the Judiciary?[8]
2. The assertion
that the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution for the United States
of America as the supreme Law of the Land,[9] "intended
sub silentio to exempt"[10] under color
of law "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts
of the judicial process,"[11] especially those entrusted with judicial,[12] prosecutorial[13] and
enforcement[14] power, all evidence to the contrary,
from the federal Constitution's paramount binding authority[15] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice[16] is an incredible,[17]
fantastic or delusional scenario?[18]
LIST OF PARTIES [X] All parties appear in the caption of the
case on the cover page.
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner respectfully prays
that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.
OPINIONS
BELOW
[X] For cases from
federal courts:
The opinion of the United
States court of appeals included with the petition and is unpublished.
JURISDICTION
[X] For cases from
federal courts:
The decision and the date
on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was:
"Appellant's motion
to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is granted. This court has reviewed the original file of
the United States District Court. It is ordered by the court that the judgment of
the district court is summarily affirmed." August 2, 2012,
And
"The petition for rehearing by the panel is
denied." September 12, 2012.
The jurisdiction of this
Court is invoked under THE RULE OF LAW and 29 USC
§ 412 - CIVIL ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT OF
RIGHTS; JURISDICTION and 28 USC § 1254 - Courts of appeals; certiorari; certified questions (acknowledging pro-se 28 U.S.C. § 2111. Harmless error[19] that does not affect the substantial rights of the
parties).
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED:
The Constitution for the
United States of America Article VI. Second paragraph, 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments
to the United States Constitution, treaties made "The International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights " (PART II, Article 2, Section 3), Title
Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 and Blackstone's English Common Law (1765–1769)
as quoted into Supreme Court precedent by Chief Justice John Marshal in the landmark
case Marbury
v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803).
"The very essence of
civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the
protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first
duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself
is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never
fails to comply with the judgment of his court." (Marbury
v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))[20]
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
The case in chief, in 2003 (03FC-010670) and 2004 (CR203-1336M) in
the State Courts of Missouri I was charged and held on TWO fraudulently infamous
crimes fraudulently combined into one while being denied the most basic elements
of Due Process of Law, Probable cause and Exculpable evidence. The facts of the issues have never even been
questioned; I thus see no need in presenting them AGAIN here. Since the origination of these two denials, fraudulently
combined by the respondents into one issue,[21] I have been
deprived of my LIBERTY, my Paternal Rights, and my Property rights.
I have since the origination
of the denial of rights been seeking the protection of the law in the original courts,[22] the courts of appeals i.e., Missouri State Court of Appeals
(SD26269 and ED84021), US Federal Court Eastern Missouri District (4:07-cv-00506-SOW,
4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 4:11-cv-931-CAS and 4:12-cv-703-CEJ), 8th
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425 and 12-2345),
U.S. Supreme Court (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 and 11-8211) and
with additional efforts in written correspondence to the President of the United
States, the Governor of Missouri, Police enforcement (local, state and federal {FBI
and USMS})and the Attorneys General (State and Federal).
When this started over 9.34
years[23] ago my son was 8 years old, he will be 18 years
old very shortly (12-22-2012). They stole
his childhood from me.
I seek an EMERGENCY ORDER,
escalating damages and injunctive relief, as detailed in the most recent appeal
12-2345, appendix.
As a person, a 56 year old
NATURAL born citizen of the United States of America all I can do is HUMBLY beg,
HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
The CORRUPT, malicious, dishonest
and incompetent[24] Justice system will not even hear a
7th Amendment[25] respectfully submitted civil[26] petition questioning the criminal[27]
assertion of the corrupt and malicious ennobled[28] guild
of Judges?[29]
Blanket absolute immunity
quashes the very essence of a Constitution, the Supreme Law of Law. "We the People of the United States, in Order
to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America."[30] "We the People" wrote the constitution
to establish a reckonable[31] justice based rule of law
to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
not an ambiguous text, to be explained by sophistry into any meaning which may serve
personal malice.[32]
The reckonable[33] protection of the law is the raison d'être[34] for a
constitution, courts, a government… for Civilization.[35] Without the reckonable[36]
protection of the law the Blessings of Liberty is forfeit, civilization breaks
down and we are back at the entrance to the cave VIOLENTLY fighting for dominance
to endure a trial by ordeal.
1. The
United States of America is a government of the People, for the People and by the
People. This is to be constitutionally supported
and maintained by the undeniable reliance on the inherent reciprocity of the jury
system in both criminal and civil disputes.
2. "We
the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote
the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and
our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America."[37]
3. "Justice
is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever
will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."[38]
4. Justice
without civility, equity consideration, is unsustainable. The pursuit of Justice without equity consideration
impoverishes the victim at the expense of the injustice that has overwhelmed them. Our forefathers knew this would be the case and
provided a remedy with the 1st Amendment's lawfully un-abridge-able right
to petition/sue[39] the government for redress of grievances
with the 7th Amendment's security "where the value in controversy
shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."
5. Immunity
by definition is irreconcilable with the Supreme Law of the Land. A reckonable Supreme Law of the Land cannot be sustained if it is open to re-interpretation
by any unrestrained, absolutely immune[40] person.
6. The assertion
that the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution for the United States
of America, and "We the People," as represented by BOTH houses
of congress, enacted into law the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866[41] and The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, enacted April 20, 1871,[42] over the specific expressed objections to judicial,
legislative and ministerial officer's liability of President Johnson's Veto,[43] as the reckonable[44] supreme
Law of the Land,[45] "intended sub silentio
to exempt"[46] under color of law "all persons
-- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[47] especially those entrusted with judicial,[48] prosecutorial[49] and enforcement[50] power, all evidence to the contrary, from
the federal Constitution's paramount binding authority[51]
and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice[52]
is an incredible,[53] fantastic or delusional
scenario.[54]
- It all comes down to the oath of
office[55] all federal officials, Judges included,
take - "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same."[56] The oath of office constitutionally requires
that if anyone and/or the government are sued in the respectful form of a petition[57] for a redress of grievances, per the 1st
Amendment, they are constitutionally obligated to comply with the judgment
of a 7th Amendment[58] civil court[59] as a constitutional remedy.
8. I enclose
as a part of this petition, the two pages prior to the signature page, the unequivocal
undisputed and indisputable evidence of the original manifest criminally[60] fraudulent, corrupt, Jane Crow,[61]
judicial abuse, the criminally fraudulently frivolous infamous petition for an ex-parte
order of protection (front and back - 2 pages) dated Monday November 03, 2003.
9. This
fraudulent criminally corrupt warrant is at the epicenter of all my pleadings. The petition, became a criminally corrupt FRAUDULENT[62] warrant i.e., a "frivolous ex parte order
of protection" in the Jane Crow[63] era lacking probable
cause, dated Nov 3, 2003, FRAUDULENTLY applied for by Sharon G. Jeep,
FRAUDULENTLY ordered served by Judge Joseph A. Goeke and then
FRAUDULENTLY ordered heard and ruled on by Commissioner Philip E. Jones,
Sr.[64] over the timely repeated PRE-trial,
AT-trial and POST-TRIAL in court formal verbal and written constitutionally
based objections to the respondent's fraud[65] by the victim/now
pettiotner. The criminal warrantless court
order,[66] without probable cause, took my son, my
home… my EVERYTHING!!!!! The now petitioner
was left destitute, penniless with little more than clothes on his back to struggle
through the post-traumatic stress of being wrongfully adjudicated
of two infamous crimes, spousal abuse and drunkenness.
With the
subsequent appeals in the State and Federal Courts those courts were in a timely
fashion made aware of the manifest fraud.
Their inactivity in correcting the obvious manifest fraud makes them complicit
in it. It was and is criminally corrupt manifest
fraud upon the court that denied David Gerard Jeep's, the petitioner,
constitutionally secured rights to probable cause on any warrant, due
process of law to defend himself from TWO infamous charges[67] fraudulently combined into one. It was and is currently criminal FRAUD
UPON THE COURT!
10. This ongoing manifest FRAUD[68] 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,[69] 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."
[70]
11. The massive on going manifest clear criminal conspiracy[71] against rights, has BOTH mens rea[72] and actus
reus[73]
for their ACTIONS! The assertion of the potential
of "continual calumniations"[74] and "vexatious
acitons"[75] does not excuse the denial of rights,[76] the raison d'être[77] for their existence. I seek the constitutionally[78]
and statutorily secured civil[79] and criminal[80] redress for the justifiable grievances, the denial
of rights.
12. The fraud exception to rei publicae, ut sit
finis litium,[81] and nemo debet bis vexari pro una
et eadam causa[82]
as noted in United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65 (1878) is applicable here "But there is an admitted
exception to this general rule in cases where, by reason of something done by the
successful party[83] to a suit, there was in fact no adversary
trial[84] or decision[85] of the
issue in the case. Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting
fully his case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping
him away from court." Not only
was the petitioner, the unsuccessful party, never given a chance to defend himself,
he was never even given the specifics of the cause for the finding under which his
son, his life and all his belongs were taken.
I quote from the court transcript:
"The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends
the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced. The Court does find the allegations of the amended
petition to be true."
The petitioner's attorney of record filed TWO post
trial motions both asking for details of the amended pleadings and then to be heard
on same. Because of this denial of rights, the petitioner
was quite literally thrown out in the street with little more than the clothes on
his back as an infamous scoundrel, drunken abuser.
I realize a decision in favor of the petitioner would
require exertion of necessary and proper authority from the federal Judiciary under
color of law, but that is exactly what the 14th Amendment requires by
asserting that No State Shall.[86]
The assertion in Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (1903)that the Federal Judiciary does not have the resources
or the responsibility is just FALSE. Not
only does the Federal Judiciary have the delegated constitutional authority to enforce
the 14th Amendment on the states, that is "the sense and reason
of the law,"[87] its "raison
d'être."[88]
13. The prior precedents[89]
in this case establishing ubiquitous "absolute immunity" proceeds, it
seems to me, upon grounds entirely too narrow and artificial. I cannot resist the
conclusion that the substance and spirit of the Statutes, the Constitution and the
amendments have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism, asserting
as the sole justification the potential for "continual calumniations"[90] and "vexatious actions."[91]
"It is not the
words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of
the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul."
Constitutional and Statute
provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing,
through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom
and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends
the founding fathers and the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted
to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their
fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by
considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express
an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring,
in the interpretation of statute[92]
and constitutional[93] provisions,
that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted.[94]
14. I note and acknowledge all prior communications
directly and indirectly sent to the court in the court record and on my blog in
its entirety www.DGJeep.blogspot.com.
15. Please expedite with all due haste the disposition
of this issue in your court, lives depend upon it!
CONCLUSION
- The petition should be granted to
give creditability AGAIN to the reckonable[95] rule
of the Supreme Law of the Land.
The Founding Fathers and We the People as represented by BOTH houses of congress in 1866 and 1871[96] were not and are not delusional. The Founding Fathers and We the People did not "intended sub silentioto exempt"[97] under color of law "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[98] especially those entrusted with judicial,[99] prosecutorial[100] and enforcement[101] power from the federal Constitution's paramount binding authority[102] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice![103] To assert otherwise, as Supreme Court precedent currently does, is an incredible,[104] fantastic or delusional scenario.[105] The Justice Department i.e., judicial,[106] prosecutorial[107] and enforcement,[108] obvious raison d'être[109] is "that justice shall be done under color of law."[110] The terror of a criminally malicious, corrupt and incompetent Justice system is antithetical to the spring, the love of virtue,[111] requisite for a democratic republic. - The assertion that this will open
up a massive issue that will overwhelm any attempt to address it, begs the
question with the assumption the issue is too big and that all we can
do is try to ignore it.[112] Neither of those two assumptions can be allowed
to control the issue. Yes the issue
is large, Yes the issue is growing as we speak, Yes the issue will be difficult
to deal with, it is therefore of the supreme importance that we deal with the
issue now and get it under control before it grows any larger. The innocent victims of Mount Vesuvius come
to mind, we can feel the rumblings and just waiting for it to explode is not
a solution. We need to take steps now
to avoid future malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence of the otherwise
unavoidable natural volcanic eruption if IGNORED! The residents at the foot of Vesuvius would
have had better luck plugging the volcano than the Government of the United
States, as represented on the front line by its Judiciary, would have quashing
the truth of their CONTINUED "deliberate indifference to rights."
- Why would "We the People"
even have written a constitution as the Supreme Law of the land if we "intended
sub silentio to exempt"[113] "whoever"[114] and "every person"[115] acting under color of law. Absolute Immunity[116] by definition is irreconcilable with
the authority of a Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land.
Appendix
1. A copy of the appeals Court Order dated August
2, 2012 and August 12, 2012
2. A copy of the original ex parte order of protection
dated November 3, 2003 page 25 and 26 of this petition.
3. A pro se EMERGENCY PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI,
9.34[117] years in the making, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES (27 pages)dated Friday, September 14, 2012.
4. Statement of injunctive relief and escalating
breakout for the damages[118]dated on or before Thursday,
September 13, 2012.
5. I note and acknowledge all prior court records
in the State of Missouri District Court, State of Missouri District Appeals Court,
Eastern Missouri U.S. District Court, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States Supreme Court and as confirmed in
my blog www.DGJeep.blogspot.com.
The petition for a writ of
certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, Friday,
September 14, 2012 12:49.49 PM
David G. Jeep
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
The plaintiff is homeless
and without the will to go on because of this issue AND SEEKS EMERGENCY RELIEF!!!!
[1] Because I am a humble non-legal
professional and I have been impoverished by this criminal issue I cite the potential
for Harmless error - 28 USC § 2111, "On the hearing of any appeal or writ of
certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the
record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights
of the parties." The inherent unconstitutional
denial of justice based on the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, incompetent and UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ruling in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983), "the common law provided absolute
immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise
-- who were integral parts of the judicial process," makes a professionally
prepared petition and or appeal untenable to the average victim. Most are not only impoverished by the injustice,
but also in jail behind bars. With 5% of
the world's population our POLICE STATE now incarcerates 25% of the world's prisoners.
If I may have not been humble
enough or ignorantly or inadvertently not utilized the correct humble enough method
and/or legal Latin jargon in making my prior petitions (see 8th Circuit court of
Appeals prior Filings in 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614) e.g., a writ of
habeas corpus, a writ of audita querela, a writ of coram nobis, a writ of error,
a writ of praemunire, a writ of supersedeas, a writ of recurso de amparo or etc.,
it is as result of my impoverishment via the unconstitutional denial of rights.
[2] 9.34 years, 3,407 calendar days, 54,519 waking hours,
3,271,161 waking minutes, 196,269,665 waking seconds, as of Thursday September 13, 2012 12:01:37.51
PM
[3] SYKES v. UNITED STATES Cite as: 564 U. S. (2011)
7, SCALIA, J., dissenting) United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 123 "It is
a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril
of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes."
Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. 453 (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid
if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his
contemplated conduct (probable casue) is forbidden." United States v. Harriss,
347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954). See
Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391-393 (1926); Papachristou
v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 405 U. S. 162
(1972); Dunn v. United States, ante at 442 U. S. 112-113. So too, vague sentencing
provisions may pose constitutional questions if they do not state with sufficient
clarity the consequences of violating a given criminal statute. See United States
v. Evans, 333 U. S. 483 (1948); United States v. Brown, 333 U. S. 18 (1948); cf. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S.
399 (1966)." (Underlining and parenthetical text added for
emphasis)
[5] 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.
[6] Paraphrased from a letter (May 26, 1810) Thomas
Jefferson to John Tyler, From "The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General
Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[7] Incompetence
is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty,
malice and corruption. As regards state Prosecutors,
"States can discipline federal prosecutors,
rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin
McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole.
Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense
attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police
themselves."
As regards law enforcement
"Convicted defendants left uninformed
of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: 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.
[8] "I always say, as you know, that if my fellow
citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. Its my job." Holmes, Oliver
Wendell, Source: Justice OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, letter to Harold J. Laski, March
4, 1920.Holmes-Laski Letters, ed. Mark DeWolfe Howe, vol. 1, p. 249 .Max Lerner,
The Mind and Faith of Justice Holmes, p. 222 , said, Holmes was exacting in construing
a statute and latitudinarian in construing powers under the Constitution. He
often said that there was nothing in the Constitution that prevented the country
from going to hell if it chose to. But once a statute was clearly constitutional
and it became a matter of construing it, Holmes put on his most scrupulous spectacles.
·
[9] 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
[10] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted
a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 &
242) Footnote 2/26] intended
sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches
the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[11] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[12] ""It is a principle of our law that no
action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act,
though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the
proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested
in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights
benefit We the People?) and was established
in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should
have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have
them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent
them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused"
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[13] 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)
[14] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly
false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the
possibility that, despite the truth finding safeguards of the judicial process,
some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false
testimony by police officers." Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[15] "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
[16] 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.
[17] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted
a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 &
242) Footnote 2/26] intended
sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches
the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[18] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton
v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[19] 28 USC § 2111.
Harmless error,
On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall
give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects
which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
[20] The oath office requires that if sued in the respectful
form of a petition (1st Amendment right to petition), never fail to comply
with the judgment of a 7th Amendment civil court.
[21] See end of this petition as referenced in the APPENDIX:
Original Exparte Order of Protection where one issue CR203-1336M (DWI) is used
as unrelated probable cause for the second issue 03FC-010670 (Exparte order of protection,
Abuse)
[22] See the NUMEROUS TIMELY objections and motions,
pre-trial, at-trial, and post-trial for all issues as a part of the undisputed court's
record.
[23] 9.34 years, 3,407 calendar days, 54,519 waking hours,
3,271,161 waking minutes, 196,269,665 waking seconds, as of Thursday September 13, 2012 12:01:37.51
PM
[24] Incompetence
is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishoesty,
malice andcorruption. As regards state Prosecutors,
"States can discipline federal prosecutors,
rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin
McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole.
Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense
attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police
themselves."
As regards law enforcement
"Convicted defendants left uninformed
of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: 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.
[25] 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."
[27] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted
a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 &
242) Footnote 2/26] intended
sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches
the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[28] There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the
grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity," Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by
the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any
Title of Nobility." Additionally I cite
Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous
Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition,
New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 as further timely clarification of the supreme
law of the land:
"Nothing need be
said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility(i.e.,
absolute immunity). This may truly be denominated the corner-stone
of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious
danger that the government will be any other than that of the people."
You some how want to argue
that "the grant of Nobility" was about something other than the ROYAL
Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked
to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility?
That would undermine Free-Enterprise.
Anyone that wants to assert
"the prohibition of titles of nobility' was meant to be anything more than
a prohibition of the absolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only
read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to
the asserted immunity of the nobility.
There is not now and there
was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being above
the law? Did Nat "King" Cole violate
the constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and
then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[29] 8th Circuit Court of Appeals cases Jeep v Obama
#12-2435, Jeep v Obama #11-2425, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947,"
Jeep v Bennett 08-1823, "Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and the most humble Petitions
for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211."
[30] 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
[31] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic
of any law worthy of the name." Antonin
Scalia (ibid.)
[32] Paraphrased from a letter (May 26, 1810) Thomas
Jefferson to John Tyler, From "The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1, General
Correspondence, 1651-1827 (Library of Congress)
[33] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic
of any law worthy of the name." Antonin
Scalia (ibid.)
[34] "Whatever other concerns should shape a
particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional
rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section
1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional
rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.
S. 656 (1980)
[35] "The very essence of civil liberty certainly
consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws
whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford
that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form
of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court."
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)(Page 5 U. S. 163)
[36] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic
of any law worthy of the name." Antonin
Scalia (ibid.)
[37] 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
[38] 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.
[39] The colonial link between
the right to petition and suit was confirmed by the Supreme Court, Chief Justice
Marshal, "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right
of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he
receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection.
In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a
petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his
court." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))
[40] 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.
[41] Now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 &
242 into the United States Code
of Law to hold "Whoever" criminally liable for the deprivation
of rights under color of law.
[42] Now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 &
1985 into the United States Code
of Law to hold "Every person" civilly liable for the deprivation
of rights under color of law.
[43] It is malicious, corrupt and incompetent to assert
ANY, much less absolute, immunity when both The Civil
Rights Act of 1866 and The Civil Rights Act
of 1871 were passed with the full knowledge of President
Andrew Johnson's Veto of the Civil Rights Bill, Washington, D.C., March 27, 1866,
To the Senate of the United States:
"This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary, as adequate
judicial remedies could be adopted to secure the desired end without invading
the immunities of legislators, always important to be preserved in the interest
of public liberty; without assailing the independence of the judiciary, always
essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency
of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and
order. The remedy proposed by this section seems to be in this respect not only
anomalous, but unconstitutional; for the Constitution guarantees nothing with certainty
if it does not insure to the several States the right of making and executing laws
in regard to all matters arising within their jurisdiction, subject only to the
restriction that in cases of conflict with the Constitution and constitutional laws
of the United States the latter should be held to be the supreme law of the land.…"
[44] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic
of any law worthy of the name." Antonin
Scalia (ibid.)
[45] 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.
[46] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted
a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act
of 1866 now codified as Title
Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio
to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible.
[(The Civil Rights
Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic
or delusional scenario!!!!!
[47] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[48] "There is no such avenue of escape from the
paramount authority of the federal Constitution." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).
The Supreme Court precedent has empowered itself
and the rest of the judiciary by saying ""It is a principle of our law
that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial
act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore
the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply
interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the
denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to
secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have
the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them
bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent
them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher,
80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[49] 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)
[50] 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)
[51] "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
[52] 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.
[53] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted
a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act
of 1866 now codified as Title
Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio
to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible.
[(The Civil Rights
Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic
or delusional scenario!!!!!
[54] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton
v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[55] § 3331.
Oath of office An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to
an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take
the oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
[56] Title 5 › Part III › Subpart B › Chapter 33 › Subchapter
II › § 3331 - OATH OF OFFICE - United State Code of Law
[57] 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law…
abridging the… the right of the people peaceably… to petition the Government for
a redress of grievances."
[58] 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."
[59] "The very essence of civil liberty certainly
consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever
he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection.
In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition,
and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." Marbury
v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U. S. 163 (1803)
[60] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted
a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act
of 1866 now codified as Title
Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio
to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible.
[(The Civil Rights
Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic
or delusional scenario!!!!!
[61] The
"Jane Crow" Era,
the courts preference for a mother's/woman's rights over a father's/man's rights
in Domestic Relation Law
The
"Jane Crow" Era,
"It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce,
what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an
exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is
"in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and
probably the house."
A fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte
order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding.
They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues,
and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying
in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole
vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family
and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect.
They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where
that person was prior to the restraining order." "The Booming Domestic
Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below
the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced
men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated
Press, Dads
to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com,The Federal Scheme
to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08
[62] Fraus omnia corrumpit is a Latin legal
maxim which means "fraud corrupts everything."
[63] The
"Jane Crow" Era,
the courts preference for a mother's/woman's rights over a father's/man's rights
in Domestic Relation Law, ibid.
[64] In the Jane Crow era this UNCOSNTITUTIONAL ruling
over timely repeated objections where I was stripped of my son, my own flesh and
blood, my paternity rights, my home, family heirlooms, photographs/memories, all
my worldly possessions, my constitutionally SECURED rights and quite literally left
on the side of the road for dead is flagrantly fraud on the court by ruling:
"MR. SCHLESINGER:
I renew my objection to all the testimony… being
outside the scope of the pleadings.
COMMISSIONER JONES:
Overruled.
The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the
pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced.
The Court does find the allegations of the amended petition to be true. The Court does enter a full order of protection
against the Respondent. This order will supercede
the ex parte order of protection entered in this cause on the 3rd day of November
and serves to terminate that order.
The Respondent should not use, attempt to use, or
threaten to use physical force against the Petitioner that would be reasonably expected
to cause her bodily harm, should not stalk, abuse, threaten to abuse, molest, or
disturb her peace wherever she may be found.
He also shall not communicate with her in any manner or through any means.
And he is also further restrained from the residence
at 16325 Centerpointe Drive in Wildwood, Missouri 63040.
This order will expire the 19th day of November,
the year 2004."
(IN THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTY-FIRST
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DIVISION 65, Commissioner Phillip Jones, Presiding, SHARON JEEP,
Petitioner, v. DAVID JEEP, Respondent. Cause No. 03FC-010670, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER
20, 2003 page 96 of the TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL, E. D. No. 84021) After repeated post trial request I was never
allowed the amended pleading nor was I allowed my Due Process right to be heard
on them
A Judge's finding can not amend the pleading during
a hearing on that pleading or due process of law is meaningless. This kidnapping and theft of all my worldly property
was and continues to be devastating and a flagrant denial of Due Process rights
e.g., say we try you for petty theft, but find you guilty of murder?
[65] Fraus omnia corrumpit is a Latin legal
maxim which means "fraud corrupts everything."
[66] Fraus omnia corrumpit is a Latin legal
maxim which means "fraud corrupts everything."
[67] Eighth Circuit court of appeals cases 07-2614 (4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 03FC-10670M
/ 03FC-12243) and 08-1823 (4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M)
[68] Fraus omnia corrumpit is a Latin legal
maxim which means "fraud corrupts everything."
[69] 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.
[70] "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
[71] See the listed respondents in the original petition
on appeal 12-2435
[72] The Legal Latin for "guilty mind"
[73] The Legal Latin for "guilty act"
[76] Justice William O. Douglas dissenting in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S.
565 (1967)confirmed this "I cannot believe that judges . . . would fail to
discharge their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths and consciences
. . . from any fear of exposing themselves to actions at law. I am persuaded that
the number of such actions would be infinitely small, and would be easily disposed
of."
Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, L.R. 5 Q.B. 94, 110 (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting).
[77] "Whatever other concerns should shape a
particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional
rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section
1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional
rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v.
City of Independence, 445 U. S. 656 (1980)
[78] 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."
[79] 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."
[80] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242
[81] It is for the public good that there be an end of
litigation.
[82] No-one shall be tried or punished twice in regards
to the same event, "double jeopardy."
[83] The combination of the TWO issues into one created
the DEVASTATION in my life. The successful
parties to the suit include the Judge Goeke, Commissioner Jones, Sharon G. Jeep
and Kristen Capps in 03FC-010670 and Judge Bennett's conspiracy, Judge Colyer, The
Prosecutors (denial of exculpable evidence) and Police Officers (false testimony)
in CR203-1336M.
[84] Probable cause is the most element of all evidence. How can you have a trial when there is no viable
probable cause provided (Eighth Circuit court of appeals case 07-2614 (4:07-CV-1116
CEJ, 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243))?
[85] Eighth Circuit court of appeals case 08-1823 (4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M)
where the prosecutors denied pretrial motions for exculpable evidence (Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 87 (1963), "We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution
of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the
evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good
faith or bad faith of the prosecution.")
[86] Amendment XIV, Passed by Congress June 13, 1866.
Ratified July 9, 1868., Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified
by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized
in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws."
[88] "Whatever other concerns should shape a
particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional
rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section
1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional
rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v.
City of Independence, 445 U. S. 656 (1980)
[89] Bradley v. Fisher, Pierson v. Ray, Stump v. Sparkman,
Imbler v. Pachtman and Briscoe v. LaHue
[92] 1866 Civil Rights Act,
14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 (now Now codified as Title
Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Whoever"
criminally liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law)
and The Civil
Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13,
enacted April 20, 1871 (now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983
& 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Every person"
civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law).
[93] 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.
[94] Paraphrased from Civil Rights
Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883)
[95] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic
of any law worthy of the name." Antonin
Scalia (ibid.)
[96] 1866 Civil Rights Act,
14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 (now Now codified as Title
Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Whoever"
criminally liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law)
and The Civil
Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13,
enacted April 20, 1871 (now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983
& 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Every person"
civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law).
[97] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted
a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act
of 1866 now codified as Title
Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio
to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible.
[(The Civil Rights
Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic
or delusional scenario!!!!!
[98] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[99] "It is a principle of our law that no action
will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though
it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed
allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested
in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights
benefit We the People?) and was established
in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should
have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have
them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent
them being harassed by vexatious actions" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[100] 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)
[101] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly
false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the
possibility that, despite the truth finding safeguards of the judicial process,
some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false
testimony by police officers." Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[102]"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
[103] 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.
[104] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted
a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act
of 1866 now codified as Title
Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio
to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible.
[(The Civil Rights
Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic
or delusional scenario!!!!!
[105] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton
v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[106] "It is a principle of our law that no action
will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though
it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed
allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested
in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights
benefit We the People?) and was established
in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they
should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent
to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land?
) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher,
80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[107] 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)
[108] 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)
[109] "Whatever other concerns should shape a
particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional
rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section
1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional
rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v.
City of Independence, 445 U. S. 656 (1980)
[110] The correct unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court
was "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party
to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is
as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore,
in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall
be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the
law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.
He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while
he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much
his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction
as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." Berger v.
United States, 295 U.S. 88 (1935)
[111] Any political system, according to Montesquieu's
The Spirit of the Laws (French: De l'esprit des lois) 1748, must have what he calls
a "principle". This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior
on the part of the citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make
it function smoothly. For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent
for aristocratic republics), this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness
to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. For monarchies,
the spring is the love of honor -- the desire
to attain greater rank and privilege. Finally, for despotisms, the spring is the
fear of the ruler. A political system cannot last long if its appropriate principle
is lacking. Montesquieu claims, for example, that the English failed to establish
a republic after the Civil War (1642–1651) because the society lacked the requisite
love of virtue.
The Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution applied Montesquieu's methods to the Constitution for the United States of America.
The Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution applied Montesquieu's methods to the Constitution for the United States of America.
[112] The assertion in Giles v. Harris,
189 U.S. 475 (1903)that the issue is too big for the Federal Judiciary to enforce
is not valid. The 14th Amendment
says no state shall deny Due Process, thus the enforcement of Due Process fo ALL
CITIZENS is a function of the Federal Judiciary no matter how large is the problem
of their negligence and deliberate indifference has created.
[113] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert
it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[114] Now codified as Title
Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to
hold "Whoever" criminally liable for the deprivation of
rights under color of law.
[115] Now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983
& 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Every person"
civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.
[116] "There is no such avenue of escape from the
paramount authority of the federal Constitution." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).
[117] 9.34 years, 3,407 calendar days, 54,519 waking hours,
3,271,161 waking minutes, 196,269,665 waking seconds, as of Thursday September 13, 2012 12:01:37.51
PM
[118] Whistle-Blower
Awarded $104 Million by I.R.S., New York Times, September 11, 2012,
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI, Sometimes, crime does pay. If crime pays that well, I would think that my
struggle for broad based Civil Rights for all should pay at least if not better
than CRIME!!!!
--
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
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
