Friday, July 11, 2014

Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge[1] - Re: PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS‎ - Cause No. CR203-1336M - STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff, v. DAVID G. JEEP, Defendant

Certified Mail™ Label Number: 7013 2630 0002 2118 0040
July 14, 2014 , 10:05 am
Delivered
CAMDENTON, MO 65020 
Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge[1]
c/o Jo McElwee, Circuit Clerk
1 Court Circle, Suite 8
Camdenton, MO 65020

(573) 346-4440
(573) 346-5422 (facsimile)

Re: PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS‎ - Cause No. CR203-1336M - STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff, v. DAVID G.  JEEP, Defendant

Dear Sir,

I remind you that your primary MORAL and CONSTITUTIONAL obligation, as a Judicial Officer, is to “establish Justice” under color of law.[2]  I realize We the People’s Supreme Court Certified[3] Constitutional Rights mean nothing in the face of irresoponcible expediency.  The morally bankrupt Black Robed Royalist unconstitutional judiciary assert they and others[4] cannot expediently, ENOUGH, be held accountable for malice, corruption or most devastatingly the “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity[5] of their incompetence.  

REGARDLESS, I assert that you should be a MORAL man of conscience, independently capable of taking RESPONSIBILITY for his actions regardless of the consequences.

But alas, I admit you are a member of the fetid Black Robed Royalist Guild of Judges that assert they cannot expediently function with culpability for the malice, corruption or most devastatingly the “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity[6] of their incompetence.

I have spent 11 years attempting to pro se re-establish myself, the result of yours and others[7] CRIMINAL ACTIONS[8] as regards the deprivation of rights in the above referenced case.  To establish your criminal[9]sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity[10] I site United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)[11]:

“The rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, arguably applies in three quite different situations. Each involves the discovery, after trial, of information which had been known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense.

In the first situation, typified by Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury. [Footnote 7]  ”[12]

As I made clear, in my POST trial motions for a miss trial dated Wednesday, 17-Mar-2004 prior to sentencing, the Prosecution withheld evidence, REQUESTED VIA PRETRIAL MOTION FOR SAME DATED WEDNESDAY, 03-SEP-2003, of the certified procedure for administering the field sobriety test that proved the false and thus perjured testimony[13] of self-professed incompetent Alex Little, Officer Badge #920 that clearly “affected the judgment of the jury:

“(T)the Court has consistently held that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, [Footnote 8][14] and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. [Footnote 9] [15] It is this line of cases on which the (Page 427 U. S. 104) Court of Appeals placed primary reliance. In those cases, the Court has applied a strict standard of materiality not just because they involve prosecutor trial misconduct, but more importantly because they involve a corruption of the truth-seeking function of the trial process.”[16]

I am requesting, based on the undisputed incriminating court record

1.    A Writ of Habeas Corpus setting aside the DWI conviction - Case No.:CR203-1336M

2.    Removal of the 33 year old 1978 DWI conviction per Missouri Revised Statute 577.054[17]

3.    Your confession as to your and others criminal culpability and civil liability in the creation of the COURT RECORD for violation of the Federal statue 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law and Civil 42 USC § 1983 and 1985 - Civil Action for the Deprivation of rights under color of law respectively

Sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity[18]
is NO excuse!

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.  All the evidence, as referenced above, is confirmed and PUBLICALLY available on my blog www.DGJeep.blogspot.com.

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

cc:  My Blog - Friday, July 11, 2014, 3:12:57 PM







[1] Originally sent First-Class Mail®, Certified Mail™ Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge, c/o Edith Katie Burkhart, Court Administrator, 437 W US Hwy 54, Camdenton, MO 65020 - Tuesday, July 08, 2014 http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2014/07/bruce-colyer-associate-circuit-judge.html
[3] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (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.”
[4] We the People have fallen under the despotic  spell of the self-servingly  constructed  “excess of power”  in the Supreme Court that has constructed  ABSOLUTE POWER  from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for  denial of INALIENABLE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 ) by “malicious or corrupt” judges(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) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)),  the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)),   the “knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),  the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid  actions  of federal, state, local, and regional legislators (Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138)  and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid  actions of “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983))   acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION  of inalienable rights under color of law.
[5] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King - Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
[6] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Ibid.
[7] Missouri State Courts case no. 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243 (St. Louis, Judicial Circuit 21) and CR203-1336M (Camden, Judicial Circuit 26)…Missouri Court of Appeals (Eastern and Southern) case no. ED84021 and SD26269…United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and Western District of Missouri Federal Court – St. Louis Division Cases No. 4:07-CV-1116-CEJ, 4:07-cv-506-SOW (WD), 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 4:11-cv-00931-CAS, 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, 4:13-cv-360-ERW and 4:13CV2490-RWS… United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Case #07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435, 13-2200 and 14-1470…Docketed and denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193 & 13-7030
[10] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Ibid.
[11] TO BE CERTAIN THIS PRECEDENT IS NOT NEW IT HAD 28 YEARS OF STANDING IN 2003. 
[12] United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 103 (1976) emphasis and underlining added for clarity
[13] See page 83 and 84 of the Certified Trial transcript for the appeal S. D. No. 26269
[14] Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213; Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U. S. 28; Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264; Miller v. Pate, 386 U. S. 1; Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150; Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U. S. 637.
[15] See Giglio, supra at 405 U. S. 154, quoting from Napue, supra at 360 U. S. 271.
[16] United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 103 (1976) emphasis and underlining added for clarity
[17] Chapter 577-Public Safety Offenses-Section 577.054 Alcohol-related driving offenses, expunged from records, when--procedures, effect—limitations: After a period of not less than ten years, an individual who has pleaded guilty or has been convicted for a first alcohol-related driving offense which is a misdemeanor or a county or city ordinance violation and which is not a conviction for driving a commercial motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and who since such date has not been convicted of any other alcohol-related driving offense may apply to the court in which he or she pled guilty or was sentenced for an order to expunge from all official records all recordations of his or her arrest, plea, trial or conviction.
[18] Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King - Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3








Shipment Activity--------------------------- Location--------------------- Date & Time
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procsd thru USPS Srt Fac.-- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155--- July 11, 2014 9:30 pm
Depart USPS Sort Facility--- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155--- July 11, 2014 8:40 pm
Depart Post Office-------------- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101--- July 11, 2014 5:34 pm
Acceptance----------------------- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101--- July 11, 2014 2:33 pm
---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------
Expected Delivery Day: Monday, July 14, 2014
First-Class Mail®

Certified Mail