Thursday, December 4, 2014

Thursday, December 04, 2014 -David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs. Government of the United States of America, et al Defendants/Respondents Thursday, December 04, 2014

U.S. Attorney Richard Callahan DELIVERY BY HAND

Thomas Eagleton U.S. Courthouse

111 S. 10th Street, 20th Floor

St. Louis, MO 63102

Re: Petition David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs. Government of the United States of America, et al Defendants/Respondents

Dear Mr. Callahan,

I stress, as always, "time is of the essence." This will be my 8^th Christmas homeless and alone. I have spent 411 days in jail[1]; I have been to the self-serving-supreme-court 5 times,[2] I am impoverished and have been homeless for 7.08 years, all in this 11.55 year effort,[3] in the Jane Crow era,[4] to establish EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL.

"If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"[5]

Kipling thought, maybe erroneously, that then "And—which is more—you'll be a Man…!"

Please find the enclosed the lawfully un-abridge-able petition[6] and MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS dated Thursday, December 04, 2014. I include also as referenced in the petition a spreadsheet breakout of the escalating damages as of Monday December 01, 2014 03:41:45.00 PM.

I should not need to remind you but, "The Attorney General has the inherent authority… to abandon the defense of any action insofar as it involves the United States of America, or any of its agencies, or any of its agents who are parties in their official capacities."[7]

If your employer so chooses we can once and for all "establish Justice" and END "absolute immunity" before it, "absolute immunity," is even asserted by "abandon(ing) the defense of any action insofar as it involves the United States of America, or any of its agencies, or any of its agents who are parties in their official capacities." The EXECUTIVE can then assume the constitutional responsibility that King George III of England had and the founding fathers thought they had constitutionally secured with the 1^st and 7^th Amendments, with the "Wilkes Cases" (1763) in mind. [8]

You think the problems in Ferguson, Missouri were noteworthy. The problems in America go well beyond one unfortunate death!!!! America has lost faith in our justice system and thus our faith in each other. We need to re-establish Justice via "the love of virtue" that this country was founded upon.[9] We were great once and we can be great again, but we have "to establish Justice" for all to unify us in our RENEWED colonial effort "the love of virtue."

I realize it sounds almost ludicrous but do "We the People" need a NEW Constitutional Amendment:

"Corruption, malice, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and incompetence ARE NOT and never have been covered by ANY grant of immunity, under color of "We the People's" CONSTITUTIONAL law.

Furthermore the constitutional government of the United States of America is civilly strictly liable to the instant injured individual person whenever or wherever any government agent acts, under color of law, to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

This civil liability is and has always been enforceable by the 1^st Amendment's right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 7^th Amendment's "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."[10]

Because to hear the supreme court tell us, via their self-serving sophistry[11] of unrestricted absolutely immune power, We the People, all evidence to the contrary, traded the "King can do no WRONG" for the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the "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)), 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 (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who 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.

Again do "We the People" need a constitutional amendment to "establish justice and END the GOVERNMENT sanction of malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence?[12]

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. "Petition David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs. Government of the United States of America, et al Defendants/Respondents" dated Thursday, December 04, 2014

cc: My Blog - Thursday, December 04, 2014, 3:07:18 PM

[1] Charges are Dismissed without Prejudice for failure to comply with the Speedy Trial Act Case No.4:09-cr-00659-CDP, Habeas Cases 4:09-CV-831 CAS, 4:09-MJ-1052 TIA, 09-2848 David Jeep vs. United States

http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2010/04/charges-are-dismissed-without-prejudice.html

[2] Docket for 07-11115, Title: David G. Jeep, Petitioner v. Philip E. Jones, Sr., et al. David G. Jeep, Petitioner Philip E. Jones, Sr., et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed Party name: David G. Jeep, Docket for 11-8211, Title: David G. Jeep, Petitioner v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al., David G. Jeep, Petitioner Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and Party name: David G. Jeep, Docket for 13-5193, Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al., David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit David G. Jeep Party name: David Gerard Jeep, Docket for 13-7030, Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. United States, David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma David G. Jeep Party name: David Gerard Jeep, Docket for 14-5551, Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. United States, David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma David G. Jeep Party name: David Gerard Jeep

[3] As of Monday December 01, 2014 03:41:45.00 PM

[4] 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." http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/1974/12/jane-crow-era.html

[5] "If—" by excerpt British Nobel laureate Rudyard Kipling, written in 1895

[6] Amendment I – "Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Amendment VII – "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."

[7] USAM Chapter, 4-3.000 COMPROMISING AND CLOSING, 4-3.100 Authority of the Attorney General

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/3mciv.htm#4-3.100

[8] The First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment found their origin in the Wilkes Cases 1763 in the English Courts. IN FACT THE English GOVERNMENT/Crown PAID a total of about ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS in cost and civil judgments in the Wilkes Cases. "Origins of the Bill of Rights" Page 160-161 (Yale Contemporary Law Series)Mar 1, 2001, by Leonard W. Levy

[9] http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-origin-of-love-of-virtue.html

[10] The First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment found their origin in the Wilkes Cases 1763 in the English Courts. IN FACT THE English GOVERNMENT/Crown PAID a total of about ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS in cost and civil judgments in the Wilkes Cases. "Origins of the Bill of Rights" Page 160-161 (Yale Contemporary Law Series)Mar 1, 2001, by Leonard W. Levy

[11] "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." (The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS" To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)

[12]http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-petition-for-constitutional-amendment.html

Clerk of Court - James G. Woodward DELIVERY BY HAND

St. Louis - Eastern Division

Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse

111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300

St. Louis, MO 63102-1123

Re:David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs. Government of the United States of America, et al Defendants/Respondents

Dear Mr. Woodard,

I stress, as always, "time is of the essence." This will be my 8^th Christmas homeless and alone. I have spent 411 days in jail[1]; I have been to the self-serving-supreme-court 5 times,[2] I am impoverished and have been homeless for 7.08 years, all in this 11.55 year effort[3] in the Jane Crow era[4] to establish EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL.

"If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"[5]

Kipling thought, maybe erroneously, that then "Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, And—which is more—you'll be a Man, my son!"

I realize it sounds almost ludicrous but do "We the People" need a NEW Constitutional Amendment:

Because to hear the supreme court tell us, via their self-serving sophistry[9] of unrestricted absolutely immune power, We the People, all evidence to the contrary, traded the "King can do no WRONG" for the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the "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)), 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 (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who 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.

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. "Petition David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs. Government of the United States of America, et al Defendants/Respondents" dated Thursday, December 04, 2014

cc: U.S. Attorney Richard Callahan (under separate cover)

My Blog - Thursday, December 04, 2014, 12:56:02 PM

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 & 14-5551)

• 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, 13-2200 and 14-1470),

• Rodney W. Sippel US District Court Judge and The Government of the United States of America, 4:13-cv-02490-RWS

• 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

Case No. _

~~______________________________________________________________________~~

Jurisdiction:

I site the jurisdiction of the Constitution for the United States of America. Clearly to any reasonable person the unquestionable "raison d'être"[11] of the Constitution for the United States of America was to give EVERY CITIZEN a civilized non-violent, due process of law, cause of action under bicameral (judge and jury) adjudication for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[12]

I therefore 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."

Additionally, chronologically and more specifically I am asserting jurisdiction for a "jury demand" for the civil protection with:

The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, established the right of redress:

"If we, our chief justice(judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon."

the "Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber" (July 5, 1641):

Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber"^{^[1]} July 5, 1641, 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 be 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!!!!!!!!. I quote the Act:

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 absolute immunity, "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void" all prior precedent of the said court and judges.

the "Wilkes Cases" (1763):

""Wilkes and Liberty" became a slogan that patriot leaders exploited in service of the American cause. The First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment found their origin in the Wilkes Cases. IN FACT THE GOVERNMENT PAID a total of about ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS in cost and civil judgments in the Wilkes Cases.[13]

Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98 (a Wilkes Case) the dictum of Camden LJ:

"If it is law, it will be found in our books. If it not to be found there, it is not law,"

the Constitution for the United States of America Article VI. Second paragraph,[14] 1^st, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 7^th, 8^th 13^th and 14^th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America, Civil Rights Act of 1866,[15] Civil Rights Act of 1871 [16] and Civil Rights Act of 1875/1964.[17]

To say now the "absolutely immune" arbitrary power of "all persons (i.e., judges and spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)) acting under color of law can defeat the constitutional protection of "reasonable probable cause" abrogates American and English Common Law. It is not about "titles of nobility" or who authorizes the warrant it is about the "reasonable probable cause" for the WARRANT. I argue that any citizen witnessing an exigent crime would be empowered to act REASONABLY under said exigent circumstances, again it does not take immunity, it does not take position or title it takes REASONABLENESS.

~~________________________________________________________________~~

Plaintiff:

David G. Jeep

GENERAL DELIVERY

Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999

E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)

Phone 314-524-5228

~~________________________________________________________________~~

Defendants/Respondents:

As listed above best guess addresses would be City of Osage Beach, Camden County, DOJ State of Missouri, 26^th Judicial Circuit Court State of Missouri, 21^st 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

~~________________________________________________________________~~

Statement of Claim:

The Statement of Claim is based on a sincerely ignorant, conscientiously stupid, unwarrantable, unconstitutional and NOT "facially valid court order"[18] taken in "A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ALL JURISDICTIONS."[19]

I was charged and held on TWO - infamous - sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid crimes fraudulently,[20] unreasonably and unconstitutionally combined[21] in "a complete absence of all jurisdictions,"[22] into one while being denied the most basic elements of Due Process of Law,[23] - probable cause,[24] a credible "presentment" of the charge[25] and exculpable evidence.[26]

On Monday November 03, 2003 at approximately 08:00 PM the petitioner was served a judicial order/warrant with a complete absence of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and geographic jurisdiction i.e., "a complete absence of all jurisdictions."[27] The warrant was an obviously frivolous ex parte order of protection, thus not a "facially valid court order."[28]

The warrant, an ex parte order of protection, included the sworn petition [29] that reasonably and statutorily limited the jurisdiction for the Judicial Act. The petition signed and dated by the criminal respondent, Sharon G. Jeep listed a BONDED misdemeanor traffic violation as the asserted "probable cause."

The issuing sincerely ignorant and/or conscientiously stupid Judicial officer, Judge Joseph A. Goeke III, obliviously did not read the petition or did not care what "subject matter" [30] the statute mandated i.e., "for good cause shown in the petition… An immediate and present danger of domestic violence."[31] The warrant/Order that included the respondent's, Sharon G. Jeep's hand written petition,[32] as its jurisdiction, was not a "facially valid court order."[33]

Judge Joseph A. Goeke III clearly had no "subject matter" [34] jurisdiction for the statute's stated "subject matter,"[35] "An immediate and present danger of domestic violence."[36]

Judge Joseph A. Goeke III had no personal jurisdiction, in that the issue, the alleged misdemeanor traffic violation, was already under the bonded[37] personal jurisdiction of another judge, Associate Circuit Judge Jack A. Bennett of 26^th District of Missouri.

Judge Joseph A. Goeke III had no geographic jurisdiction, in that Judge Joseph A. Goeke III was a part of the 21^st District of Missouri in St. Louis County some 170 miles away from the site of the alleged BONDED misdemeanor traffic violation and Associate Circuit Judge Jack A. Bennett in the 26^th District of Missouri, Osage Beach, Camden County Missouri.

Thus Judge Joseph A. Goeke III had no "subject matter" jurisdiction, he could not assert personal jurisdiction and he had no geographic jurisdiction for the bonded alleged misdemeanor traffic violation.[38]

Judge Joseph A. Goeke's III JUDICIAL ACTION WAS TAKEN IN "a complete absence of all jurisdictions."[39]

Judge Joseph A. Goeke III on Monday November 3, 2003 deprived the petitioner of his constitutional 4^th, 5^th and 14^th Amendment rights and put the petitioner into an emotional and financial depression that he has yet to recover from.

Sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity cannot excuse paid professionals relied on to be competent for their task.

The facially INVALID nature of this warrant should have been "reckonable" [40] to anyone that read it who was not sincerely ignorant or conscientiously stupid. It was, at a minimum, a violation of the 8^th Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments" but more importantly and flagrantly a violation of the 4^th Amendment's prohibition of "unreasonable searches and seizures," 5^th Amendment's prohibition "No person shall be held to answer…(an)infamous crime… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… without just compensation."

Now I fully admit the Supreme Court likes to obscure as much law as possible to make it un-reckonable[41] thus insuring its continued existence.

The police, the Family Commissioner[42] (Philip E. Jones, Sr.), the presiding judge of the 21^st District Court (Barbara W. Wallace), the family commissioner's employers (21^st District Court of Missouri, en banc) the State Appeals Court, The Federal District Court, the Federal Circuit court, the FBI, the USMS, the AUSA and the United States Supreme Court are all professionals and thus should be able to determine facially valid "reckonable"[43] "subject matter jurisdiction,"[44] personal jurisdiction and geographic jurisdiction at a glance.

Thus:

the original order of,

the original service of,

the original hearing for,

and all the subsequent findings in favor of

the unwarrantable, unconstitutional and NOT "facially valid court order"[45] were taken in "a complete absence of all jurisdictions."[46] [47]

Additionally all findings on appeal in favor of the NOT "facially valid court order," [48] after being made aware of the constitutional issues, were, are and have been felonious,[49] if not treasonous, violations of their oath of office "to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic"[50] that ALL federal officers and Article III Judicial Officers are bound by.[51] [52]

In the "Jane Crow"[53] era the fraudulent[54] combination in 2003 (03FC-010670), an ex parte NOT "facially valid court order"[55] of protection and in 2003 an unreasonably alleged misdemeanor traffic violation (CR203-1336M)[56] that subsequently became an unconstitutional misdemeanor traffic conviction[57] in the State Courts of Missouri.

With "absolute immunity"[58] as conceived by numerous malicious and corrupt self-serving-supreme-court precedents how do "We the People" avoid "a tribunal without juries, which will be a Star-Chamber as to Civil cases"?^{^[59]}

The Judicial sophistry [60] of "absolute immunity" creates "absolute power" "before out of court"[61] to the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION [62] 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"[63] 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." [64]

Not that "absolute immunity" has ever existed since the Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61):

"It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past."[65] Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv.L.Rev. 457, 469 (1897) and MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, dissenting, Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 411 (1971).

Martin Luther King, Jr. confirmed as much in the Civil Rights struggle of the last century when he said:

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." (Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3 )

The protection of the law is and always has been the "raison d'être"[66] for the Constitution as Amended, Civil Rights Act of 1866,[67] Civil Rights Act of 1871[68] 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."[69] "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" [70] i.e., Due Process of Law.

The 14^th Amendment with the FEDERAL COURTS were enacted / established to give efficacy and authority to this "raison d'être."[71]

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."[72] Any assertion of "absolute immunity" "before out of court,"[73] in the post "divine right of the nobility,"[74] 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"[75] and any resultant scenario to be "incredible,"[76] "fantastic or delusional."[77]

How[78] did strict scrutiny[79] for inalienable reckonable[80] rights[81] ever result[82] in anything less than STRICT LIABILITY?[83]

Since the origination of these two deprivations, fraudulently[84] and unconstitutionally combined[85] by the respondents into one issue,[86] I have been deprived of the property[87] in rights of my liberty, my paternity, my pecuniary assets and then subsequently forced into a condition of unconstitutional involuntary servitude.[88]

I have since the origination of the denial of "property in rights"[89] and involuntary servitude been relentlessly seeking the protection of the law in the original courts,[90] the state courts of appeals, federal district courts, federal circuit courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of the United states.[91]

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."[92]

Numerous times the Black Robed Royalist Guild of Judges has corruptly, and maliciously with their "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity,"[93] unrestrained by REASON, attempted to QUASH "the protection of that law" - the "raison d'être" [94] 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"[95] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[96] by asserting "absolute immunity" thus DENYING "before out of court"[97] the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1^st and 7^th Amendment JURY DEMAND for Justice, law and equity?[98]

"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,[99] 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." [100]

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[101] 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.[102]

The hand written petition that was served on me Monday November 3, 2003, as jurisdictionally compliant with the Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, where the Judicial officer's jurisdiction is restrained by statute to "for good cause shown in the petition" issue a warrant, was A FRAUD.[103] 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 4^th and14^th 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[104] to be informed as to the charges prior to the hearing.[105]

The issue in this FRAUDULENT,[106] 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"[107] of said Government officers. In 2009 I presented this to the FBI by reference to the 8^th 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"[108] defeats the "check and balance" of the jury trial as the constitutional and the congressional ex industira intent REQUIRES. As an additional 14^th 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"[109] The Federal District Court review the states, per the 14^th Amendment. The Federal Circuit Courts review on appeal[110] 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."[111]

Today the judicial sophistry[112] "the simple expedient of disguising a corrupt act as a routine judicial function guarantees immunity[113] from suit ("before out of court"[114]). 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)."[115] "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." [116] "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." [117] "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."[118]

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."[119] 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"[120] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[121] 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"[122] or "calumnious"[123] 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."[124]

~~________________________________________________________________~~

Relief:

The effect was instantaneous… has been and is currently DEVASTATING. The not "facially valid court order"[125] took the petitioner's son, his home, his most treasured possessions and sent his life into a severe, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) generated, detachment from reality that to this day, 11 years later, still haunts him. He was then kept at a distance from his son, his possessions, EVERYTHING he cared about in the world[126] during a disputed divorce where his adversary, empowered by their criminal fraud, respondents Sharon G. Jeep and Kristen Capps[127] had been empowered by EVERYTHING that had been taken from him.

"Even long-suffering people will not suffer forever. Patience expires. The heart can be broken only so many times before peace is broken…" [128]

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. As I originally stated in 2007, I am homeless, destitute and unable to pay any filing fee for this JURY DEMAND.

~~________________________________________________________________~~

Money Damages:

A Jury[129] demand for escalating TREBLE DAMAGES:

Ø Actual Damages in the amount of:

Eighty-seven million eight hundred forty-three thousand dollars and zero cents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $87,843,000.00[130]

Ø Punitive damages in the amount of:

One hundred seventy-five million six hundred eighty-eight thousand dollars and zero cents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $175,688,000.00[131]

Ø Total: [132]

Two hundred sixty-three million five hundred thirty-one thousand dollars and zero cents $ $263,531,000.00[133]

~~________________________________________________________________~~

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 20 on December 22, 2014, 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 Thursday, December 04, 2014.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signed this Thursday, December 04, 2014

Signature of Plaintiff(s)

______________________________________________

David G. Jeep

GENERAL DELIVERY

Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999

E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)

(314) 514-5228

http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2010/04/charges-are-dismissed-without-prejudice.html

[3] As of Monday December 01, 2014 03:41:45.00 PM

[5] "If—" by excerpt British Nobel laureate Rudyard Kipling, written in 1895

[6] Amendment I – "Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[7] http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-origin-of-love-of-virtue.html

[9] "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." (The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS" To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)

[10]http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-petition-for-constitutional-amendment.html

[11] 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)

[12] 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.

[13] "Origins of the Bill of Rights" Page 160-161 (Yale Contemporary Law Series)Mar 1, 2001, by Leonard W. Levy

[14] "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)

[15] 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

[16] Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

[17] 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.

[18] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[19] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[20] 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.

[21] Combining the TWO, punishing with one law, while holding me on the other charge violates the 8^th amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments."

[22] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[23] 5^th and 14^th Amendments

[24] 4^th 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."

[25] AMENDMENT V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment

[26] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 and specifically in unconstitutional UNRELATED DWI convisction United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 103 (1976)

[27] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[28] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte restraining order. Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge. "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003).

[29] See SCANNED copy of the hand written petition that asserts the complete lack of jurisdiction with its very existence as served on 11-03-30 at the end of this petition.

[30] Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 356 NOTED exception Footnote 6 - "A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter. Where there is clearly no jurisdiction over the subject matter, any authority exercised is a usurped authority, and, for the exercise of such authority when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible." Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 351 (1871)"The Court of Appeals correctly recognized that the necessary inquiry in determining whether a defendant judge is immune from suit is whether, at the time he took the challenged action, he had jurisdiction over the subject matter before him."

[31] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035 – "Upon the filing of a verified petition pursuant to sections 455.010 to 455.085 and for good cause shown in the petition, the court may immediately issue an ex parte order of protection. An immediate and present danger of domestic violence to the petitioner or the child on whose behalf the petition is filed shall constitute good cause for purposes of this section. An ex parte order of protection entered by the court shall take effect when entered and shall remain in effect until there is valid service of process and a hearing is held on the motion."

[32] See SCANNED copy of the hand written petition that asserts the complete lack of jurisdiction with its very existence as served on 11-03-30 at the end of this petition.

[33] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte restraining order. Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge. "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003).

[34] "A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter. Where there is clearly no jurisdiction over the subject matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority, and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible." Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 351 (1871) AND Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 356 NOTED exception Footnote 6 - ibid.

[35] Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 356 NOTED exception Footnote 6 - ibid.

[36] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035 – ibid.

[37] It should be noted that the respondent Sharon G. Jeep actively assisted bonding the petitioner on the alleged misdemeanor traffic violation

[38] It should be noted that the alleged traffic violation ultimately resulted in what can be proven to be an unconstitutional conviction based "perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury." United States v. Agurs - 427 U.S. 103 (1976) See ongoing issue in 4:07-cv-0506-SOW(WDofMO) Jeep v. Bennett et al (08-1823)

[39] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[40] "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)

[41] "reckonability" Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)

[42] A Family Commissioner is indisputably a "reckonable" judicial officer of LIMITED jurisdiction, limited to family law issues not open to misdemeanor traffic violations under another judicial officer's personal jurisdiction bonded in another Geographic jurisdiction.

[43] "reckonability" Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)

[44] "A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter. Where there is clearly no jurisdiction over the subject matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority, and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible." Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 351 (1871) AND Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 356 NOTED exception Footnote 6 - ibid.

[45] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte restraining order. Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge. "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003).

[46] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[47] 8^th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

· "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Beyond the "complete lack of jurisdiction" STRESSED in the original order at the center of this issue, the Order created an infliction of a "cruel and unusual punishments" for an ex parte order of protection[47] i.e., a misdemeanor traffic violation as probable cause for an ex parte order of protection is "cruel and unusual" to say the least.

[48] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte restraining order. Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge. "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003).

[49] 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,

[50] 5 USC § 3331 - Oath of office

[51] 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.

[52] In that respondents were without reason or warrant, petitioner was FORCED into "involuntary servitude" to sustain his parental rights to see his son.

AMENDMENT XIII Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[53] "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

^{^[54]} Fraus omnia corrumpit -"Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision

[55] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)

[56] An unwarrantable charge of DWI, supported only by deprivation of exculpable evidence and Provably falsified police testimony and police reports.

[57] Based on a violation of "the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83… "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)

[58] "malicious or corrupt" judges(Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7 (1868) the origin of judicial criminal sophisticated "absolute immunity," Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) origin of sophisticated Judicial civil "absolute immunity," Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871) sophisticated "absolute immunity" for racially motivate mass murder, United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875) sophisticated deprivation of the 15^th Amendment's Voting Rights protection with the subterfuges of poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) sophisticated "absolute immunity" for racially motivated massacre (Colfax Riot/pogrom), United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883) sophisticated "absolute immunity" for the state's sanctioned kidnapping, assault and murder without regard to the 14^th Amendment's security, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) creating sophisticated[58] racial segregation and the ongoing Jim Crow discrimination over the "necessary and proper" "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) separate and UNEQUAL, clarifying sophisticated segregation over the necessary and proper "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, 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[58] actions[58] 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))

[59] Elbridge Thomas Gerry's, was one of three men who attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787 but refused to sign the United States Constitution because it did not then include a Bill of Rights. i.e., the objections resulted in the 7^th Amendment. This is as quoted in Origins of the Bill of Rights, By Leonard W. Levy, page 228

[60] "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)

[61] "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.

[62] "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.

[63] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 328 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 32 (1992)

[64] Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987) Page 463

[65] Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv.L.Rev. 457, 469 (1897) and MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, dissenting, Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 411 (1971)

[66] 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)

[67] Now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

[68] Now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

[69] 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).

[70] Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987) Page 464

[71] 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)

[72] "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.

[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] 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[75] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

[76] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)

[77] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)

[78] "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." (The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS" To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)

[79] United States v. Carolene Products (1938), Korematsu v. United States (1944), and Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)

[80] "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)

[81] Due Process of Law under the 5^th and 14^th amendments

[82] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971) In a civil issue "the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant…, it is damages or nothing."

[83] "As our precedent makes clear, proving that a municipality itself actually caused a constitutional violation by failing to train the offending employee presents "difficult problems of proof," and we must adhere to a "stringent standard of fault," lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.¹²Bryan County, 520 U. S., at 406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392." Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson, Certiorari to the Supreme Court, No. 09–571. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 29, 2011

"The essence of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected, and any individual who is denied by a common carrier, under authority of the state, a facility or convenience which is furnished to another under substantially the same circumstances may properly complain that his constitutional privilege has been invaded." McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914)

[84] 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."

[85] Combining the TWO, punishing with one law, while holding me on the other charge violates the 8^th amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments."

[86] 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)

[87] 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."

[88] Amendment XIII AMENDMENT XIII Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[89] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792

[90] 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.

[91] 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), 8^th 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;[91] that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.

[92] 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.

[93] 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)..

[94] 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)

[95] 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"

[96] 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.

[97] "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.

[98] 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 1^st 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 7^th 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.

[99] 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

[100] 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.

[101] Supreme Court FIVE, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[102] 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 8^th 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.

^{^[103]} Fraus omnia corrumpit -"Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision

[104] 4^th, 5^th, 6^th and 14^th Amendments

[105] 5^th, 6^th and 14^th Amendment - Due Process of Law

^{^[106]} Fraus omnia corrumpit -"Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision

[107]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)..

[108] "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.

[109] 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."

[110] 28 USC § 1295 - Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

[111] "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.

[112] "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)

[113] "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

[114] "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.

[115] Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987) Page 462

[116] Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987) Page 463

[117] Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987) Page 464

[118] Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987) Page 465

[119] 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)

[120] 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"

[121] 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.

[122] 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,

[123] 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

[124] Duke Law Review VOLUME 1980 NOVEMBER NUMBER 5, Page 925, "STUMP V SPARKMAN AND THE HISTORY OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY," by J. RANDOLPH BLOCK*

[125] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte restraining order. Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge. "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003).

[126] A condition that REALLY has not changed in 11 years!!!!!!!!!!!!

[127] To make the issue clear, the Petitioner's Step Daughter a 21 year old college drop out, had been asked to move out in the spring of 2003. She fell on her face financially and had to ask to move back in. She was able by the fraudulent assertions in court to get the Petitioner thrown out of his house.

[128] "Fury After Ferguson" By Charles M. Blow –By Charles M. Blow - NOV. 26, 2014New York Times - NOV. 26, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/opinion/charles-blow-fury-after-ferguson.html

[129] 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."

[130] This amount is escalating based on the 8th Circuit Court of appeals Tuesday June 14, 2011 12:00.00 AM see attached dated (Monday December 01, 2014 03:41:45.00 PM) spreadsheet.

[131] 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 (Monday December 01, 2014 03:41:45.00 PM) spreadsheet.

[132] This amount is escalating based on the 8th Circuit Court of appeals Tuesday June 14, 2011 12:00.00 AM see attached dated (Monday December 01, 2014 03:41:45.00 PM) spreadsheet.

[133] 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!!!!