Wednesday, January 28, 2015

SUA SPONTE CONSIDERATION IN APPELLATE REVIEW Appeal 15-1057

Michael E. Gans Clerk of Court
U. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329
St. Louis, MO. 63102-1123

Re: Appeal 15-1057 David G. Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America - Case #: 4:14-cv-2009 Motion for SUA SPONTE CONSIDERATION IN APPELLATE REVIEW

Dear People,

I appreciate you continued patience and consideration of this, not so humble, pro se petitioner.  Please accept the above referenced motion for SUA SPONTE CONSIDERATION IN APPELLATE REVIEW.

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"

David G. Jeep

enclosure
a.     "Motion for SUA SPONTE CONSIDERATION IN APPELLATE REVIEW" Wednesday, January 28, 2015, 1:43:22 PM"

cc:  My Blog - Wednesday, January 28, 2015, 1:42:06 PM

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Eighth Circuit

David G. Jeep,         Petitioner,
                vs.
Government of the United States of America, et al Respondents
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case #:   15-1057   

Case #:   4:14-cv-2009   

Motion for SUA SPONTE CONSIDERATION IN APPELLATE
REVIEW
____________________________________________________________________________________

SUA SPONTE[1] CONSIDERATION IN APPELLATE REVIEW

The warrant/order "was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction."[2]  To any sane interpretation of the Common Law,[3] Constitutional Law[4] and Statute[5] Law jurisdiction requires, at a minimum three elements for probable cause:
1.    Subject Matter Jurisdiction
2.    Personal Jurisdiction
3.    Geographic Jurisdiction
Now granted if you take the literal assertion of the Supreme Court, "Jurisdiction is to be considered broadly," there is no limitation on jurisdiction, BROADLY is without limit.  But that defeats the constitution's raison d'ĂȘtre, to establish a knowable law and eliminate the discretion of titles of nobility's (i.e., "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby") "absolutely immune" prerogative. 

The Supreme Court has repeatedly REFUSED to see this clearly manifest deficiency.  Having continuously and REPEATEDLY asserted "judicial absolute immunity" and "Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) ("The domestic relations exception . . . divests the federal courts of jurisdiction"  over any action for which the subject is a divorce, allowance of alimony, or child custody")."
         
Now I ask the 8th Circuit to consider sua sponte the statutes[6] own expressed limitations to disavow the "The domestic relations exception" AND the District, Circuit and Supreme Court's own sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid repeated DISMISSAL based on "judicial absolute immunity."  

We the People will then once again "establish Justice" in this country as the founders had intended without any "grant of titles of nobility" or immunity from what the founders clearly asserted to be the KNOWABLE "supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby." 

JUDGES COULD NOT ASSERT IMMUNITY FROM THE KNOWABLE[7] "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND."
 ____________________________________________________________________________________

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Signature of Plaintiff(s)



______________________________________________
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO  63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228



[1] "To say that appellate courts must decide between two constructions proffered by the parties . . . would be to render automatons of judges, forcing them merely to register their reactions to the arguments of counsel at the trial level."  Rentways, Inc. v. O'Neill Milk & Cream Co., 308 N.Y. 342, 349, 126 N.E.2d 271, 274 (1955)
[2] 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)
[3] Magna Carta in 1215 to Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98
[4] "AMENDMENT IV "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" (ratified December 15, 1791).
[5] "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" M.R.S., Protective Orders Section 455.035
[6] Proceedings independent of others. 
455.070 All proceedings under sections 455.010 to (This includes Protective Orders Section 455.035) 455.085 are independent of any proceedings for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, separate maintenance and other actions between the parties and are in addition to any other available civil or criminal remedies, unless otherwise specifically provided herein. (L. 1980 S.B. 524 § 13)
[7] Knowable is limited only by a jury of my equal's decision based on facts in evidence.



Thanks in advance,
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com orDGJeep01@yahoo.com

(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis , MO 63155-9999