E. Richard Webber
c/o Clerk of Court – J. G. Woodward
St. Louis - Eastern Division
Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
St. Louis, MO 63102-1123
Re: Motion for reconsideration - David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs. Government of the United States of America, et al, 4:13-cv-00360-ERW
Dear Mr. Webber,
I apologize for my prior motion dated April 19, 2013. Please disregard it. I was too hasty in my submission. Emotions had driven me to forget that the Federal Judiciary is, for self serving criminal[1] REASONS, ignorant of the "sense and reason"[2] of a reckonable[3] Rule of Law and the Constitution of the United States. [4] This malicious ignorance is in spite of their professional responsibility and sworn oath, "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."
There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for title of nobility[5] i.e., absolute immunity, the "sense and reason"[6] of the prohibition. Yet somehow? Your ilk illogically and criminally asserts ABSOLUTE POWER using ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt"[7] judges, the "malicious or dishonest"[8] prosecutor, the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[9] and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[10] actions by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[11] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[12] Your ilk clearly criminally disregards the idea of professional and constitutional obligations
When I became homeless, 5 years ago, I wrote out my first Will and Testament. At that time, even as about to become homeless, I thought that I had assets worthy of note. Now as I approach the end of this 9 year criminal JUDICIAL[13] action, I have nothing of note except this action that I now bequeath to my soul heir, Patrick Brandon Jeep. I will not be the first to have been pilloried and lynched by this criminal[14] conspiracy on their gallows trap door of absolute immunity. Suffering inconsequential persons have been at the discretion of the absolutely immune for 10,000 years. Now "We the People" have been sold your corrupt, malicious, and incompetent bill of goods. And it may take another generation to see that absolute immunity quashes the idea of reckonable inalienable rights and a constitutionally limited Government… a reckonable Supreme Law of the Land.
Your reference, for my heir's sake, to a fixed dollar amount of damages is in error, it is an escalating amount e.g., as of Friday April 19, 2013 - 12:12 PM the amount is $208,114,000.00.[15] As to your assertion that the admittedly large list of respondents is delusional, I would ask, if you deny this motion, please add your name as an additional CRIMINAL respondent. Everyone on the complaint as listed respondents has, at one time or another had the issue's criminally unashamed "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" presented to them and per statute as government actors tasked with Justice and or enforcement of rights under color of law they "shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
People have been, since at least 1871, and continue to be pilloried and lynched by the CRIMINAL[16] judicial assertion of absolute immunity. "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, Sunday, April 21, 2013!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.[17] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[18].
I take exception to your attempt to discredit my complaint by saying that I am "a frequent litigant before this court." I would describe myself as an unfortunate frequent repeated VICTIM before this corrupt, malicious, dishonest, incompetent and CRIMINAL[19] court as I clearly and UNASHAMEDLY assert in the listed respondents to this complaint. From the very beginning, I have had the uncontested PROOF of the criminal[20] judicial officer's criminal denial of rights, this court and others have REPEATEDLY conspired to refuse to see it. Now additionally I list all the Local, State and Federal Governments as liable also. We the People, as individual person incorporated with each other to establish Justice and secure the Blessings of liberty. My government as a corporate entity has clearly had a hand in this deprivation facilitated at the hands of the individual persons listed as government actors and respondents.
I RESTATE for the RECORD:
Neither Judge Goeke, nor Commissioner Jones had Jurisdiction. The essential requirement for any Government action is reasonable "probable cause." On its face the original petition,[21] from the now respondent, did not have REASONABLE constitutional probable cause for the asserted violation of the Missouri Revised Statutes Protective Orders Section 455.035[22] thus the two Judicial Officers had a "complete absence of jurisdiction" and Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003) does not preclude this complaint. Constitutionally and statutorily Jurisdiction requires reasonable probable cause; see 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States and Missouri Revised Statutes Protective Orders Section 455.035.[23] I was held to answer a warrant that lacked reasonable probable cause shown on its face in the petition. Not only was the original petition, a violation statutorily and constitutionally, it defies logic to ask someone to answer a charge without specific reasonable probable cause. How do you logically answer a charge without probable cause? I did not do what I am not accused of? This is, WAS and has been a violation of my constitutional right and the protection of the Law, see 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States and Missouri Revised Statutes Protective Orders Section 455.035.[24] This ongoing violation creates ever escalating damages.
The only listed probable cause on the original handwritten petition for an ex parte order of protection was a misdemeanor traffic violation from a different geographic jurisdiction and a different subject matter jurisdiction, at that time prior, under the asserted UNRELATED judicial officer's jurisdiction (it should be noted that the Judicial officer in question on misdemeanor recused himself for his bad act) . That two geographic and subject matter jurisdictionally unrelated issues are linked together as one goes further to establish the over all UNREASONABLENESS and thus its jurisdictional criminal constitutional violation.
Now if you could somehow get past the constitutional requirement for REASONABLE probable cause, which you can not. The 8th Amendment's requirement that "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" for an alleged, later disproven, misdemeanor traffic violation precludes the imposed punishment, the deprivation of my home, my son, my paternity and my liberty.
The Rule of Law, as described by Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, the seminal Supreme Court case said, "The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."[25] The Founding Fathers, the Authors of the constitution, had lived for too long at the discretion of the Nobility's absolute immunity with "no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right" and sought to establish a reckonable[26] Rule of Law to replace the Rule of the Nobility's absolute immune prerogative. The Rule of Law is meaningless if the ubiquitous absolute immunity[27] that empowered the Rule of the Nobility in pre-revolutionary times, is allowed to circumvent the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is therefore, by definition, irreconcilably opposed to absolute immunity. There can be no Rule of Law if the law can be circumvented by absolute immunity.
I again humbly ask you to reconsider your error, We the People incorporated ourselves into a government to "establish Justice" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" in "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority."
Post Civil War we backed that up with the more explicit Federal Statute Law that deliberately nullified any prior common law assertions with first Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 and then Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985. To assert absolute immunity for the "malicious or corrupt"[28] judges, the "malicious or dishonest"[29] prosecutor, the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[30] and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[31] actions by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[32] acting under color of law is completely without reason.
As regards your assertion Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) I have to ask who in their RIGHT mind would give up their Constitutional Civil Rights in any case, but much more importantly when the dispute revolves around not only your own life, liberty or property but that of your heir's life, liberty or property. Kahn v. Kahn is an open example of your disregard for the intrinsic requirement of your oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Clearly to any reckonable[33] reading of the 14th Amendment requirement "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," Kahn v. Kahn can not hold when there is a deprivation of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and "equal protection of the laws."
As to your assertion that I am only complaining because I did not like the outcome, I agree 100%. If you had violated my rights and I had been awarded all that I seek, I would NOT be here right now. That is a little too obvious for serious consideration as an argument against my complaint.
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. "Spreadsheet of escalating damages dated Friday April 19, 2013 - 12:12 PM the amount is $208,114,000.00"
b. "Copy handwritten ORIGINAL petition dated November 3, 2003"
cc: My Blog- Sunday, April 21, 2013, 2:50:50 PM
[1] 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, 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." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 362 (1983)
[3] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Article. VI. 2nd Paragraph
[5] 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 somehow 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[7] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[8] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[9] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[10] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[11] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[12] "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.
[13]To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials… ibid.
[14] To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials… ibid.
[15] See the enclosed spreadsheet.
[16] To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials… ibid.
[17] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967)
[18] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[19] To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials… ibid.
[20] To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials… ibid.
[21] See the ATTACHED copy of the handwritten petition dated November 3, 2003
[22] 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.
[23] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455… ibid..
[24] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455… ibid.
[26] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia, ibid.
[27] After NINE years of Good Faith appeals, the issues of undeclared exigent circumstances and or Good Faith immunity are no longer available.
[28] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[29] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[30] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[31] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[32] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[33] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia, ibid.
--
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
