UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
FEDERAL COURT - St. Louis DIVISION
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff,
vs.
Government of the United States of America, et al
Defendants/Respondents
• The Government of the United State 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, 13-7030 & 13-5193)
• 8th Circuit US Court of Appeals and The Government of the United States of America (07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200),
• E. Richard Webber, US District Court Judge and The Government of the United States of America, 4:13-cv-0360-ERW
• President Barack Hussein Obama, His Justice Department and The Government of the United States of America
• Chief United States District Judge Eastern Missouri 8th Circuit Catherine D. Perry and The Government of the United States of America (8th Circuit 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 Circuit 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, John G. Roberts and The Government of the United States of America (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115)
• 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 (Western District) 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
I. Jurisdiction:
I assert Federal Jurisdiction under Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 85, Section §1331. Federal question:
"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
I am asserting a "jury demand" for the civil protection of the "Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber"[1] (July 5, 1641), the Constitution for the United States of America Article VI. Second paragraph,[2] 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America, Civil Rights Act of 1866,[3] Civil Rights Act of 1871[4] and Civil Rights Act of 1964.[5]
II. Plaintiff:
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
III. Defendants/Respondents:
As listed above best guess addresses would be City of Osage Beach, Camden County, DOJ State of Missouri, 26th Judicial Circuit Court State of Missouri, 21st Judicial Circuit Court State of Missouri, FBI St. Louis Office, USMS St. Louis Office, AUSA St. Louis Office, UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI FEDERAL COURT - St. Louis DIVISION, UNITED STATES WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI FEDERAL COURT – Kansas City DIVISION, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, USDOJ Washington DC, Supreme Court of the United States or The White House
IV. Statement of Claim:
The Statement of Claim is based on the "Jane Crow"[6] fraudulent[7] combination in 2003 (03FC-010670), an ex parte NOT "facially valid court order"[8] of protection and 2004 (CR203-1336M),[9] an unconstitutional misdemeanor traffic conviction based on a violation of "the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83… the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury"[10] in the State Courts of Missouri. I was charged and held on TWO infamous crimes fraudulently,[11] unreasonably and unconstitutionally combined[12] into one while being denied the most basic elements of Due Process of Law,[13] probable cause[14] and exculpable evidence.[15]
The Judicial sophistry [16] of "absolute immunity" creates "absolute power" "before out of court"[17] to the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION [18] of We the People's unalienable rights under color of law... the AUDACITY of the INSANITY, ignorance and stupidity in support of a "fantastic or delusional"[19] scenario. "Even if the doctrine had existed in common law, constitutional supremacy dictates that it must bow before the American idea of procedural justice embodied in the guarantee of due process." [20]
The protection of the law is and always has been the "raison d'être"[21] for the Constitution as Amended, Civil Rights Act of 1866,[22] Civil Rights Act of 1871[23] and Civil Rights Act of 1964. "(I)immunity for any state official must be abolished because immunity "is the very doctrine out of which the (revolution and) rebellion was hatched."[24] "A state court's authority over anyone, including out-of-state residents, was restricted not by political boundaries but by the conception of fair play and procedural justice embodied in the Constitution" [25] i.e., Due Process of Law. The 14th Amendment with the FEDERAL COURTS were enacted / established to give efficacy and authority to this "raison d'être."[26]
The Federal Court in essence, numerous times, has confirmed my case by asserting "as these officials are entitled to absolute immunity" "before out of court."[27] Any assertion of "absolute immunity" "before out of court,"[28] in the post "divine right of the nobility,"[29] REAL WORLD of human fallibility is inherently UNREASONABLE and confirms the party making the inherently UNREASONABLE assertions of infallibility to be "sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid"[30] and any resultant scenario to be "incredible,"[31] "fantastic or delusional."[32]
Clearly the 4th Amendment's requirement for reasonable probable cause[33] limits jurisdiction for a "facially valid court order"[34] or it is without efficacy or authority.[35] The issuing Judge (Goeke) did not have "facially" reasonable probable cause[36] for the stated charge[37] it was fraudulent[38] and not a "facially valid court order."[39] "Reasonable probable cause" [40] is a requirement for "facially valid" jurisdiction per reason and the 4th Amendment. Thus:
Ø the original order of,
Ø the original service of,
Ø the original hearing for,
Ø and all the subsequent findings in favor of
the unwarrantable, unconstitutional and NOT "facially valid court order"[41] were taken in "a complete absence of all jurisdictions."[42] Additionally all findings on appeal in favor of the NOT "facially valid court order,"[43] after being made aware of the constitutional issues, were, are and have been felonious,[44] if not treasonous, violations of their oath of office "to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic"[45] that ALL federal officers and Article III Judicial Officers are bound by.[46]
Since the origination of these two deprivations, fraudulently[47] and unconstitutionally combined[48] by the respondents into one issue,[49] I have been deprived of the property[50] in rights of my liberty, my paternity, my pecuniary assets and then subsequently forced into a condition of unconstitutional involuntary servitude.
I have since the origination of the denial of "property in rights"[51] and involuntary servitude been relentlessly seeking the protection of the law in the original courts,[52] the state courts of appeals, federal district courts, federal circuit courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of the United states.[53]
I am AGAIN, now, petitioning the Government of the United States of America for protection of the law. The protection of the LAW as declared by United States Senator from Illinois Lyman Trumbull (1813 – 1896) speaking in the Senate, 4th of April 1866 for the reconsideration and subsequent passage of the Civil Rights Bill, the question being, "Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President notwithstanding," it devolved upon Mr. Trumbull, the author of the bill, to successfully answer the objections of the President:
"Every person residing in the United States is entitled to the protection of that law by the Federal Government, because the Federal Government has jurisdiction of such questions. American citizenship would be little worth if it did not carry protection with it."[54]
Numerous times the Black Robed Royalist Guild of Judges has corruptly, and maliciously with their "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity,"[55] unrestrained by REASON, attempted to QUASH "the protection of that law" - the "raison d'être" [56] for their very existence. They assert via the judge made law of precedent that the Guild of Judges can "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[57] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[58] by asserting "absolute immunity" thus DENYING "before out of court"[59] the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment JURY DEMAND for Justice, law and equity?[60]
"How is it that every person born in these United States owes allegiance to the Government? Every thing that he is or has, his property and his life, may be taken by the Government of the United States in its defense, or to maintain the honor of the nation. And can it be that our ancestors struggled through a long war (Revolutionary War 1775–1783) and set up this Government, and that the people of our day have struggled through another war (Civil War 1861-1865), with all its sacrifices and all its desolation, to maintain it, and at last that we have got a Government which is all-powerful to command the obedience of the citizen, but has no power to afford him protection? Is that all that this boasted American citizenship amounts to? Go tell it, sir, to the father whose son was starved at Andersonville; or the widow whose husband was slain at Mission Ridge; or the little boy who leads his sightless father through the streets of your city, made blind by the winds and the sand of the Southern coast; or the thousand other mangled heroes to be seen on every side, that this Government, in defense of which the son and the husband fell, the father lost his eyes, and the others were crippled, had the right to call these persons to its defense, but has no right to protect the survivors or their friends in any right whatever in any of the States. Sir, it can not be. Such is not the meaning of our Constitution. Such is not the meaning of American citizenship. This Government, which would go to war to protect its meanest--I will not say citizen--inhabitant,[61] if you please, in any foreign land, whose rights were unjustly encroached upon, has certainly some power to protect its own citizens in their own country. Allegiance and protection are reciprocal rights." [62]
I have to add in modern terms with current restrictions - How many heroes on the battle fields in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII or any of the lesser conflicts would have actually given up their lives for rights that require "difficult problems of proof" above and beyond even respondeat superior liability for §1983 as asserted by the Black robed Royalist Supreme Court five[63] in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011?
The State Courts of Missouri, the Federal Courts, The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and a myriad of others have refused to consider or even investigate the possibility of the undisputed charges of deprivation of a constitutionally secured right. I have been RETENTLESSLY appealing.[64]
The hand written petition that was served on me Monday November 3, 2003, as compliant with the Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, where the Judicial officer is restrained by statute to "for good cause shown in the petition" issue a warrant, was A FRAUD.[65] The original Judge in question, Joseph A. Goeke, issued a warrant without "good cause shown in the petition" for the stated charge much less reasonable probable cause as secured by the 4th and14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America. Commissioner Jones then held me to answer his yet to be adduced charges, in FLAGRANT denial of my attorney's objection as to the violation of my constitutionally secured RIGHTS[66] to be informed as to the charges prior to the hearing.[67]
The issue in this FRAUDULENT,[68] on its FACE, warrant is just the tip of the on going denial of rights. I am DEMANDING a JURY TRIAL as regards the Court's and Law enforcement's refusal to consider and investigate the criminal denial of rights in the complete ONGOING issues, 2003 thru present. There are two main issues that were fraudulently and criminally linked in 2003 by corrupt, malicious, "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"[69] of said Government officers. In 2009 I presented this to the FBI by reference to the 8th Circuit Court Appeals cases 07-2614 & 08-1823.
I am asking for the protection of the law as repeatedly and RELENTLESSLY asserted by the essence of civil liberty and in the seminal Supreme Court precedent "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection" Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803).
To assert "absolute immunity" "before out of court"[70] defeats the "check and balance" of the jury trial as the constitutional and the congressional ex industira intent REQUIRES. As an additional 14th Amendment ex industira "check" on the states congress made statute law, "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States"[71] The Federal District Court review the states, per the 14th Amendment. The Federal Circuit Courts review on appeal[72] the district courts. To this date nothing has been consider because "absolute immunity" has been maliciously, corruptly, sincerely ignorantly or conscientiously stupidly asserted "before out of court."[73]
Today the judicial sophistry[74] "the simple expedient of disguising a corrupt act as a routine judicial function guarantees immunity[75] from suit ("before out of court"[76]). In no other area of American life are public officials granted such license to engage in abuse of power and intentional disregard of the Constitution and laws they are sworn to defend. Those who are harmed, no matter how extensive and irreparable the injury, are deprived of any method of obtaining compensation. They are confined to disciplinary actions that only rarely result in the judge's removal from office despite the troubling frequency of judicial abuses (see Alschuler 1972)."[77] "Even if the doctrine had existed in common law, constitutional supremacy dictates that it must bow before the American idea of procedural justice embodied in the guarantee of due process." [78] "A state court's authority over anyone, including out-of-state residents, was restricted not by political boundaries but by the conception of fair play and procedural justice embodied in the Constitution." [79] "As early as 1613, English courts had recognized that Article 39 (of Magna Charta, ancient predecessor of the due process clause) restricted the power of judges. Early English decisions had found that judges lost immunity from suit for acts clearly beyond their jurisdiction."[80]
The FEAR MONGERS want to sell their self-serving ABSOLUTE POWER. They assert that We the People's Justice System, the prosecutors, the police and "the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence, and without fear of consequences."[81] The sophistry of the Guild of Judges interprets this as a power to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[82] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[83] And if We the People ever deny them their "absolute immunity" we will live in the constant FEAR of ANARCHY… the overwhelming and unavoidability of "vexatious"[84] or "calumnious"[85] actions. "Vexatious" or "calumnious" actions are normal and avoidable; they could easily be confirmed or denied on appeal. The Guild of Judges "should recognize that the most important policy that judicial immunity serves is the protection of the appellate system from improper collateral attacks on judgments and, therefore, that invoking judicial immunity to protect acts that prevent access to appellate review must not be permitted."[86]
V. Relief:
I seek declaratory and injunctive relief, noting that criminally offending Judicial Officers were involved, as follows:
A. Injunctive/declaratory relief to overturn and expunge the DWI Conviction (Case No.:CR203-1336M) and remove all reference of it from my Driving Record and the 33 year old 1978 DWI conviction.
B. Injunctive/declaratory relief to overturn all orders of protection between Sharon G. Jeep and David G. Jeep and remove all record of them (Case No.:03FC-10670M).
C. Injunctive/declaratory relief to overturn the subsequent and coupled Property and Custody Order (Case No.:03FC-12243) currently in effect between David G. Jeep and Sharon G. Jeep as regards the joint marital property as of November 3, 2003 and the custody of then Minor Child Patrick Brandon Jeep (DOB 12/22/94) and remand it to a new judge for resettlement based on this ruling.
D. Injunctive/declaratory relief to expunge from my record, WITH PREJUDICE, Eastern District Court of Missouri Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP.
E. I originally states in 2007, I am homeless, destitute and unable to pay any filing fee for this JURY DEMAND.
VI. Money Damages:
Ø Actual Damages in the amount of:
Seventy-six million five hundred fifteen thousand dollars and zero cents-----
Seventy-six million five hundred fifteen thousand dollars and zero cents-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $76,515,000.00 [88]
Ø Punitive damages in the amount of:
One hundred fifty-three million thirty-one thousand dollars and zero cents----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $153,031,000.00 [89]
One hundred fifty-three million thirty-one thousand dollars and zero cents----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $153,031,000.00 [89]
Ø Total [90]
Two hundred twenty-nine million five hundred forty-six thousand dollars and zero cents----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $229,546,000.00 [91]
Two hundred twenty-nine million five hundred forty-six thousand dollars and zero cents----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $229,546,000.00 [91]
VII. Current Status:
The deprivation is ongoing and the damages, stated as an escalating amount reflect this. Yes my son who was 9 years old when this started in the November 3, 2003 (Judge Goeke's unconstitutional warrant) is about to turn 19 on December 22, 2013, I have lost his irretrievable childhood. The Pain and suffering has not abated and NEVER WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I include and make a part of this petition a "MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT" signed and dated Friday, December 13, 2013.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Friday, December 13, 2013
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
______________________________________________
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
[1] Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber"[1] July 5, 1641, statute law in the realm of England, or dominion of Wales, that "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void" for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for "absolute immunity" in Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607). Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607) was NOT available to reasonably used as precedent for Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523 (1868), Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) and Stump v. Sparkman 435 U.S. 349 (1978). Per the Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber"[1] July 5, 1641 Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607) had/HAS NO authority!!!!!!!!.
· Article I "An act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber." "WHEREAS by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land:…
· § 9 of "but the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments than by any law is warranted"
· Article III "Be it ordained and enacted by the authority of this present parliament, That the said court commonly called the star-chamber, and all jurisdiction, power and authority belonging unto, or exercised in the same court, or by any the judges, officers, or ministers thereof, be from the first day of August in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred forty and one, clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away and determined"
· § 3 "every article, clause and sentence in them, and every of them, by which any jurisdiction, power or authority is given, limited or appointed unto the said court commonly called the star-chamber, or unto all or any the judges, officers or ministers thereof, or for any proceedings to be had or made in the said court, or for any matter or thing to be drawn into question, examined or determined there, shall for so much as concerneth the said court of star-chamber, and the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void."
The Act explicitly disbands the court for abusing said immunity, "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void" all prior precedent of the said court and judges.
[2] "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (6.1.2)
[3] Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
[4] Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[5] The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women.
[6] "Jane Crow" is the result of the perversion of justice fomented by the pervasive misandry in the Family Courts. "Jane Crow" started with the unequal protection in "The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in 1974 (P.L. 93-247) and its flagrant pervasive abuse is documented across the country "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. http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/1974/12/jane-crow-era.html
[7] Fraus omnia corrumpit -"Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[8] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[9] An unwarrantable charge of DWI, supported only by deprivation of exculpable evidence and Provably falsified police testimony and police reports.
[10] "the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury." United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 103 (1976)
[11] 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 to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial or decision 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." This describes ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY'S effect PERFECTLY.
[12] Combining the TWO, punishing with one law, while holding me on the other charge violates the 8th amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments."
[13] 5th and 14th Amendments
[14] 4th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
[16] "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice" (Thomas Jefferson, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)
[17] "but if he (a Justice sworn to do Justice) hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial" Floyd and Barker., (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber., The Reports, volume 12, page 23.
[18] "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.
[20] Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987) Page 463
[21] MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. "To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decisionmakers 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)
[22] Now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
[23] Now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[24] Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987) Page 467 - The speaker, Senator Trumbull, was referring to the South's rebellion in the civil war. I would assert that it holds also as the reason for the Revolutionary War (1776).
[25] Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987) Page 464
[26] MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. "To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decisionmakers 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)
[27] "but if he (a Justice sworn to do Justice) hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial" Floyd and Barker., (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber., The Reports, volume 12, page 23.
[28] "but if he (a Justice sworn to do Justice) hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial" Floyd and Barker., (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber., The Reports, volume 12, page 23.
[29] 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[30] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.
[31] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)
[33] 4th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
[34] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[35] see the subject attached ex parte "facially invalid court order" of protection dated November 3, 2003, the complete Commissioner's (Jones) UNWARRANTED hearing transcript and the post-trial motions declaring the hearing UNCONSTITUTIONAL are also available. They just confirm the prior coram non judice, extrajudicial act.
[36] 4th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
[37] An assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not meet the standard of "reasonable probable cause" for the stated charge.
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."
[38] 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 to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial or decision 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." This describes ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY'S effect PERFECTLY.
[39] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[40] 4th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
[41] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[42] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[43] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[44] 18 USC §241 - §242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law is clearly a felony under 18 USC § 3559(a)(5)- Sentencing classification of offenses,
[46] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 The absence of exigent circumstances should be noted.
[47] An assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not meet the standard of "reasonable probable cause" for the stated charge.
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."
[48] Combining the TWO, punishing with one law, while holding me on the other charge violates the 8th amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments."
[49] 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)
[50] 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
[51] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792
[52] 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.
[53] 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, 4:12-cv-703-CEJ and 4:13-cv-00360-ERW), 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200), Supreme Court of the United States (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, and 13-7030) 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), acknowledging pro-se 28 U.S.C. § 2111. Harmless error;[53] that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
[54] Senator Trumbull as quoted in "HISTORY OF THE THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES" By WILLIAM H. BARNES, A.M., NEW YORK HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, 1868.
[55] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. Martin Luther King said it better, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963)..
[56] MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. "To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decisionmakers 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)
[57] Alexander Hamilton June of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, The Federalist Papers No. 78, "The Judiciary Department"
[58] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 The absence of exigent circumstances should be noted.
[59] "but if he (a Justice sworn to do Justice) hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial" Floyd and Barker., (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber., The Reports, volume 12, page 23.
[60] 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 5.69 years!!!! (as of Saturday July 13 2013 02:30 PM) 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.
[61] An 85 year old too vocal Korean War veteran comes to mind in current events. "Korean War veteran Merrill Newman gives details of detention by Pyongyang" washingtonpost.com
[62] Senator Trumbull as quoted in "HISTORY OF THE THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES" By WILLIAM H. BARNES, A.M., NEW YORK HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, 1868.
[63] Supreme Court FIVE, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[64] State Courts of Missouri Cause No. 03FC-010670, appeal E. D. No. 84021 (2003) and Cause No. CR203-1336, appeal S. D. No. 26269 (2004). I petitioned in the UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI FEDERAL COURT - St. Louis DIVISION with 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 4:07-cv-0506-SOW, 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 4:11-cv-00931-CAS, 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, and 4:13-cv-00360-ERW. I appealed in the United States 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case #07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200. I petitioned for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States as 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, and 13-7030.
[65] Fraus omnia corrumpit -"Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[66] 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments
[67] 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment - Due Process of Law
[68] Fraus omnia corrumpit -"Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[69]Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963)..
[70] "but if he (a Justice sworn to do Justice) hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial" Floyd and Barker., (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber., The Reports, volume 12, page 23.
[71] Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 85, Section §1331. Federal question: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
[73] "but if he (a Justice sworn to do Justice) hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial" Floyd and Barker., (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber., The Reports, volume 12, page 23.
[74] "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice" (Thomas Jefferson, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)
[75] "but if he (a Justice sworn to do Justice) hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial" Floyd and Barker., (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber., Reports, volume 12, page 23
[76] "but if he (a Justice sworn to do Justice) hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial" Floyd and Barker., (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber., The Reports, volume 12, page 23.
[77] Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987) Page 462
[78] Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987) Page 463
[79] Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987) Page 464
[80] Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987) Page 465
[81] Dred Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher (1871), supra, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
[82] Alexander Hamilton June of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, The Federalist Papers No. 78, "The Judiciary Department"
[83] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 The absence of exigent circumstances should be noted.
[84] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871) "prevent them (our judges and justice system) being harassed by vexatious actions," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
[85] Floyd and Barker (1607) "And those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual Calumniations," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or "calumnious" actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or "calumnious" actions are hazards in any human endeavor
[86] Duke Law Review VOLUME 1980 NOVEMBER NUMBER 5, Page 925, "STUMP V SPARKMAN AND THE HISTORY OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY," by J. RANDOLPH BLOCK*
[87] 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."
[88] This amount is escalating based on the 8th Circuit Court of appeals Tuesday June 14, 2011 12:00.00 AM see attached dated (Tuesday December 10, 2013 01:58 PM) spreadsheet.
[89] As regards Punitive Damages, without punitive damages the federal/state/local electorate may assume the risk. Is that not what the racist did with "Jim Crow." The Racist succeeded with "Jim Crow" because the odds of the risk were on their side with Judicial Immunity attached to their like minded criminal judges. The assumption of RISK has to be deterred by the potential for open ended punitive damages and the 7th Amendment. Let's not let the same thing happen with "Jane Crow," sexual discrimination in Family for the Mother over the Father, as we did with "Jim Crow." This amount is escalating based on the 8th Circuit Court of appeals Tuesday June 14, 2011 12:00.00 AM see attached dated (Tuesday December 10, 2013 01:58 PM) spreadsheet.
[90] This amount is escalating based on the the 8th Circuit Court of appeals Tuesday June 14, 2011 12:00.00 AM see attached dated (Tuesday December 10, 2013 01:58 PM) spreadsheet.
[91] If this is not whistle blowing I do not know what is. This is corruption on a massive scale. 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
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
