Clerk of Court - James G. Woodward
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
St. Louis, MO 63102-1123
Re: Notice of APPEAL - David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs. Government of the United States of America, et al, 4:13-cv-00360-ERW
Dear Mr. Woodard,
The original court order at the center and inception of this issue, in 2003, was NOT "a facially valid court order"[1] the issuing Judicial Officer did not have "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation."[2] for the stated charge[3] and thus it was "taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction."[4] In the 9.58 years since there has never been any mention of "exigent circumstances" nor "good faith" mistakes there for the order stands on its own as NOT "a facially valid court order."[5] Since the civil domestic issue has been on going for 9.58 years it is as it was for Bivens, "damages or nothing."[6] Since 2003 the Commissioner Jones and the original petitioner Sharon G. Jeep both contradicted their original assertions, although neither took RESPONSIBILITY!!! If you deny this petition you are again putting the rule of corrupt judges in front of the reckonable rule of We the People's law. You have done it before[7] and you probably will again unless We the People raise up in rebellion.
There are none so blind as those that REFUSE to SEE. Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003) has no bearing on the issue. The instigating criminally fraudulent petitioner, the original State Judges, the original local police officers, the Federal Judiciary, the FBI, the USMS and the Government of the United States of America[8] have deprived, the undersigned petitioner, his constitutional Due Process inalienable right and upheld the FRAUDULENT[9]
- NOT "facially valid court order"[10] -
"shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
If you disallow this petition your are then affirming that the rule of facially reckonable rule of law is without binding authority.
Judicial independence has become corrupt, malicious and incompetent blind obedience to their self-serving corruption of We the People's constitutional intent to "establish justice" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" with the Supreme Court's quashing of rights with the corrupt assertion of absolute immunity for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[11] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [12] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[13] and any and all malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[14] actions by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [15] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[16]
Who will BREAK down first, the openly corrupt, malicious and incompetent Third Branch or its victim, the petitioner? They took EVERYTHING, my son, my home, my EVERYTHING. It has been nearly 10 years, I have been homeless for 5 ½ years, I have suffered through 411 day of illegal incarceration and two psychological exams would anybody think ill of me for going berserk??
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
cc: District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig
District Judge E. Richard Webber
My Blog - Thursday, May 30, 2013, 12:08:19 PM
[1] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
[3] 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.
[5] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[6] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971) " Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing."
[7] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) "The opinion in these cases proceeds, it seems to me, upon grounds entirely too narrow and artificial. I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.
"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.""
[8] "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))[8]
[9] It should be noted that subsequently since 2003 the Commissioner Jones and the original petitioner Sharon G. Jeep both contradicted their original assertions, although neither took RESPONSIBILITY!!!
[10] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[11] 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.
[12] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[13] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[14] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[15] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[16] "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.
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
