Tuesday, May 19, 2015

​The Clerk’s re​c​​en​t letter, dated May 12, 2015, if there is anything more sincerely ignorant or a better example of conscientious stupidity, I can not imagine it.

No.    PWC 14-10088          
Eastern Missouri U.S. District Court Case No. 4:14-cv-02009-DDN
A humble pro se[1] EMERGENCY[2] PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 11.97 years[3] of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
________________________________________________________________
PETITIONER FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
David G. Jeep and heir Petitioners
v.
RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
The Government of the United States of America, et al, Defendants/Respondents
·         The Government of the United State of America
·         US Supreme Court, 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 13-5193,13-7030 & 14-5551 )
·         8th District US Court of Appeals and The Government of the United States of America (07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435, and 13-2200),
·         Rodney W. Sippel, US District Court Judge and The Government of the United States of America, 4:13-cv-2490-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
·         US Supreme Court, 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)
·         Chief United States District Judge Eastern Missouri 8th Circuit Catherine D. Perry and The Government of the United States of America (8th District 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 District 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, Chief Justice 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), [4]
·         Scott O. Wright, Senior US District Judge 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 (Presiding Judge in 2003), 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), [5]
All Defendants/Respondents are included and asserted liable, as Government actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS
________________________________________________________________
LAST COURT(S) TO RULE ON THE MERITS:
IN THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DIVISION 65
Commissioner Phillip Jones, Presiding (03FC-010670)
(07-2614, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435, 13-2200, 14-1470 and 15-1057 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals)
and
IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION
The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge (CR203-1336M)
(08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435, 13-2200 14-1470 and 15-1057 8th U.S. Circuit Court Appeals) [6]

________________________________________________________________

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED:

                                                                
1. With “absolute immunity”[7] as conceived by the self serving Article III Supreme Court precedent how do “We the People” avoid “before out of court”[8]a tribunal without juries, which will be a Star-Chamber as to Civil cases”?[9]
2. How[10] did strict scrutiny[11] for inalienable reckonable[12] rights[13] ever result[14] in anything less than STRICT LIABILITY?[15]
3. How did the “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” [16] ever be construed to EXCLUDE the bicameral justice system, judge and jury, that We the People’s “Republican Form of Government” is constitutionally, criminally[17] and civilly,[18] dependent upon. 
4. How can “We the People” “establish Justice,” as secured by the Constitution for the United States of America, with the “sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid”[19] despotic[20] Black Robed Royalist Judiciary’s unconstitutional self-serving ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY (both criminal[21] and civil[22]) for the deprivation of inalienable constitutional rights constructed[23] as an “excess of power[24] e.g.:
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)[25] the origin of judicial criminal sophisticated[26] “absolute immunity,” Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872)[27] origin of sophisticated[28] Judicial civil “absolute immunity,” Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871) sophisticated[29] “absolute immunity” for racially motivate mass murder, United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875) sophisticated[30] deprivation of the 15th 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[31] “absolute immunity” for racially motivated massacre (Colfax Riot/pogrom), United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883) sophisticated[32] “absolute immunity” for the state’s sanctioned kidnapping, assault and murder without regard to the 14th Amendment’s security, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) creating sophisticated[33] 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[34] 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)),[35] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)), [36] the “knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),[37] the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[38] actions[39] 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)[40] and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[41] actions of “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),[42]
to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION[43] of inalienable constitutional rights under color of law?
________________________________________________________________

LIST OF PARTIES [X]

                                                                
All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.
________________________________________________________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

                                                                
Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.
________________________________________________________________

OPINIONS BELOW

                                                                
 [X] For cases from federal courts:
The opinion of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division and United States Eighth Circuit Court of appeals are included, listed in the appendix with the petition, and are unpublished.

________________________________________________________________

JURISDICTION

                                                                
[X] For cases from federal courts:
The appellate jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under THE RULE OF LAW and 29 USC § 412 - CIVIL ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS; JURISDICTION and 28 USC § 1254 - Courts of appeals; certiorari; certified questions (acknowledging pro-se 28 U.S.C. § 2111. Harmless error[44] that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties).
While some might assert that “the domestic relation exception” divests the federal Article III courts of jurisdiction.  That is impossible.  The 14th Amendment clearly states: “No state shall make or enforce ANY LAW which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The Article III Courts thus have 14th Amendment constitutional jurisdiction for ANY (state) LAW and ANY (individual) PERSON.
________________________________________________________________

HISTORICAL, CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED:

                                                                
Historical, Constitutional and Statutory provisions involved step by step chronologically so “a four-year-old” [45] can understand it:
1.    Floyd and Barker., (1607) while Supreme Court Precedent references this case as instigating support and I then try to discredited it as precedent - I also use it in support my assertion that “absolute immunity” “before out of court,” in non-exigent circumstances, is both unreasonable and without precedent.
a. I quote the “Star Chanber” precedent:
    “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.
a. The Star Chamber’s authority was “repealed and absolutely revoked and made void” for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for “absolute immunity” in Star Chamber, thus SQUASHING the precedent Floyd and Barker (1607) in the Star Chamber 1641, 227 years before judicial sophistry[47] irresponsibly used it, Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 539 (1868),[48] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 564 (1967), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), the originating sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
3. 1689 English Bill of Rights Jury REQUIREMENT’s raisons d'etre was to restrain lawless and bloody judges like Lord Chancellor George Jeffreys, 1st Baron Jeffreys of Wem, PC [49] who had overseen the “Bloody Assizes.”[50]                   

   The criminal actions of judges in the “Bloody Assixes” was common knowledge, “in the late eighteenth century, every schoolboy in America knew that the English Bill of Rights’ 1689… arose as a response to the gross misbehavior of the infamous Judge Jeffreys.”[51] 

a. 1689 English Bill of Rights had as its premise: 

     The Heads of Declaration of Lords and Commons, recited.  Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome

4. Zenger Case - On November 17, 1734, On the colonial governor, William Cosby's orders, the sheriff arrested Zenger. After a grand jury refused to indict him, the attorney general Richard Bradley charged him with libel in August of 1735.  The case was now a cause célèbre, with public interest at fever-pitch. Rebuffed repeatedly by Chief DeLancey during the trial, Hamilton decided to plead his client's case directly to the jury. After the lawyers for both sides finished arguments, the jury retired—only to return in ten minutes with a verdict of not guilty.
a. Juries are and always have been ESSENTIAL check on the Judiciary for the preservation of We the People’s Justice
5.    Writs of Assistance – John Wilkes’s publication (1763) of North Britain No. 45 enraged the Crown.  One of the secretaries of state issued general search warrants for the arrest of anyone associated North Britain No. 45.  They ransacked Print Shops, houses and arrested 49 persons, including Wilkes, a Member of Parliament, his printer, publisher and bookseller.  Wilkes filed suit for trespass against everyone from flunky to minister.  Although Wilkes focused on mainly on the danger of general warrants and the seizure of private papers.                                                                                              

            In the Colonies, “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.                                       
             Chief Justice Charles Pratt said when charging the Jury, “To enter a man’s house by virtue of a nameless warrant, in order to procure evidence, is worse than the Spanish Inquisition, a law no Englishman would whist to live an hour. The jury awarded three hundred pounds of damages, an excessive sum for the deprivation of a journeyman printer’s liberty for six hours, but on appeal Chief Justice Charles Pratt that the small injury done to one of low rank meant nothing compared to the “great point of the law touch the liberty of the subject” invaded by a magistrate of the King in an exercise of arbitrary power “violating the Magna Carta, and attempting to destroy the liberty of the kingdom, by insisting on the legality of this general warrant.”                          
            In Wilkes v. Wood Chief Justice Charles Pratt presided over a similar trial and engaged in similar rhetoric (“totally subversive to the liberty of the subject”): the jury awarded a THOUSAND POUNDS to Wilkes.  Wilkes later got an award of FOUR THOUSAND PONDS against the secretary of state who issued the warrant.  IN FACT THE GOVERNMENT PAID a total of about ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS in cost and judgments in the Wilkes Cases.”                                                                                                   
            To say now the arbitrary power of a Judge defeats the constitutional protection of “reasonable probable cause” and a Jury’s ruling defeats American and English Law’s evolution.  It is not about who authorizes the warrant it is about the “reasonable probable cause” and ultimately We the People’s Jury ruling for the WARRANT.

6.    “The Commentaries on the Laws of England,” 1765–1769, the influential 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone that establishes the state of the COMMON LAW prior to the America Revolution:
a. "it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded." third volume of his Commentaries, page 23.
b. And therefore the principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple
7.    The Declaration of Independence - IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. - The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
a. “To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
                        (i.)   (18) For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury”
b. “Absolute Immunity” “before out of court”[52] deprives “We the People” of their constitutional right to a Jury of their peers criminal[53] and civil[54] as was the case at the time of the “Declaration of Independence.”
8.    Constitution for the United States of America, Article I, Section 9 & 10 There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity," Article 1, Section 9, § 7: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, § 1: "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility.
a. Those with Title of Nobility were not subject to the Due Process of the Common Law. 
b. Additionally I cite James Madison, FEDERALIST No. 39 “The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles” For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, January 16, 1788
         (i.)   Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility (i.e., absolute immunity) , both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter.” (No. 39)
c. and 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:
         (i.)   "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." (No. 84)
d. You somehow want to argue that “the grant of Nobility” was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY from Due Process of the Common Law. You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility?  That would undermine Free-Enterprise.
e. 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 from Due Process of the Common Law, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility i.e., “divers commissions directed to sundry commissioners.”
f. There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity from Due Process of the Common Law - being above the common 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!  
9.    Article III., Section. 1. § 1. “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
a. The Anti-Federalists harbored grave fears that the new national government would necessarily fall under the control of a small elite of moneyed interests. THERE WAS NO QUESTION THAT THE UNELECTED, LIFE-TENURED FEDERAL JUDICIARY WOULD BE SELECTED FROM AND WOULD SERVE THAT ELITE. "Judges, unencumbered by juries, have been ever found much better friends to government than to the people. Such judges will always be more desirable than juries to ... those who wish to enslave the people."  The Complete Anti-Federalist 49 (An Old Whig).
10.  Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, § 2:
a. “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” 
         (i.)   This furthers the ORIGINAL intent for the ex industria statue (18 USC §241 - §242[55] and 42 USC §1983 - §1985[56]) power to enforce legislation established under the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. 
11.  Constitution for the United States of America, Article IV, Section 4, § 1:
a. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”
         (i.)   The FIAT un-representative governing empowered by across the board “absolute immunity” for the Article III Judiciary negates the constitutional guarantee of “a Republican Form of Government” (Constitution for the United States of America, Article IV , Section 4, § 1) as secured by the representation of the 7th Amendment’s civil jury of one's peers.
12.  Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI § 2:
a. “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.”
13.  1st Amendment (December 15, 1791) to the United States Constitution:
a. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
         (i.)   “In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.”[57]
14.  4th Amendment (December 15, 1791) to the United States Constitution:
a. “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.”
15.  5th Amendment (December 15, 1791) to the United States Constitution:
a. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, 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.”
16.  7th Amendment (December 15, 1791) to the United States Constitution:
a. 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 reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
  1. Elbridge Thomas Gerry, stated the objections which determined him to withhold his name from the Constitution. He could however he said get over all these, if the rights of the Citizens were not rendered insecure - to establish a tribunal without juries, which will be a Star-Chamber as to Civil cases.[58] The Star-Chamber as a prerogative court immune from the reach of jury was known and feared in the mind of the Constitutional founders. The VII Amendment was ULTIMATELY the result and they thought solution.
  2. George Mason picked up the casual comment of another delegate that “no provision was yet made for juries in civil case”[59]
17.  8th Amendment (December 15, 1791) to the United States Constitution:
a. “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
b. 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[60] i.e., a misdemeanor traffic violation as probable cause for an ex parte order of protection is “cruel and unusual” to say the least.
18.   “Property” James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792, 27 March 1792
a. “Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.”
b. “Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite cause.”
c. “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals as that which the term particularly expresses.”
d. “If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.”
e. Clearly James Madison the 4th President of the United States and arguably the FATHER of the Constitution clearly believed that rights had to be considered as “any person(’s)” property under the 5th Amendment i.e., “nor shall any person… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
19.  “The very (organic) essence of civil liberty (Common Law) certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court...” (emphasis, underlining and parenthetical text added Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))   
20.  The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible (i.e., unrepresentative) body - working like gravity by night and day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." --Thomas Jefferson”[61]
21.  “At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Monday, March 4, 1861
22.  13th Amendment (December 6, 1865) to the United States Constitution:
a. “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.
b. In that petition in question was without reason or warrant, petitioner was FORCED into “involuntary servitude” to sustain his parental rights to see his son.
c. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
23.  The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 § 2 (Veto Overridden by the House and became law on April 9, 1866)now codified as 18 USC §241 - §242[62] Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law indisputably fell under the ex industria, power to enforce with “such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make[63] and the “ex industria, power to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment by appropriate legislation was expressly granted”[64]:“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
24.  Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 539 (1868) was a sophisticated[65] judicial timely[66] subterfuge to assert CRIMINAL ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY based on the fraudulent[67] premise of Floyd and Barker (1607), from a court abolished for cause, abuse of said absolute immunity.  Additionally Randall was a professional dispute between a judge and an attorney regarding the judges’s administration of his court; it should never have been generalized to abolish inalienable constitutional rights.  To allow that to take precedence would be to require that all persons be required to maintain the elevated professional decorum of a courtroom all the time.
25.  14th Amendment (July 9, 1868)to the United States Constitution:
a. Section 1 “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
b. Section 5 “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
26.  The Civil Rights Act of 1871 signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871 now codified as 42 USC §1983 - §1985[68] Civil action for deprivation of rights indisputably fell under “such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make[69]: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”
27.  Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871) ) was a sophisticated[70] judicial timely[71] subterfuge to assert CIVIL ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY based on the fraudulent[72] premise of Floyd and Barker (1607), from a court abolished for cause, abuse of said absolute immunity.  Additionally Bradley and Randall were BOTH based on a professional dispute between a judge and an attorney regarding the judges’s administration of his court; it should never have been generalized to abolish inalienable constitutional rights.  To allow that to take precedence would be to require that all persons be required to maintain the elevated professional decorum of a courtroom all the time.
28.  William O. Douglas dissenting "It is one thing to say that the common law doctrine of judicial immunity is a defense to a common law cause of action. But it is quite another to say that the common law immunity rule is a defense to liability which Congress has imposed upon "any officer or other person" as in Ex parte Virginia, or upon "every person," as in these cases."  Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 563 (1967)
29.  "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."[73]  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).
30.   28 U.S.C. § 2111. Harmless error - In the age of Article III blind-eye affirmation of malice, corruption,[74] “sincere Ignorance and conscientious stupidity”[75] I ask for reconsideration based on the specific protection of the above referenced statute:
On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”
31.  The following are all voided by the irrefutable fraud[76] in the assertion of “absolute immunity” as precedent from a court, “The Star Chamber” that was ABOLISHED for the abuse of said “absolutely immune” prerogative power.
a. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967)
c. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) “the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor”, [78]
d. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)[79] the “knowingly false testimony by police officers"
e. 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)[80] the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[81] actions[82] of federal, state, local, and regional legislators
f. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983))Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 564 (1967), the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[83] actions of “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process
g. Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 where liability for individual rights was reduced from what should have been Strict Liability to somewhere less than respondeat superior liability.  
Not only were they based on the fraudulent[84] assertion of Floyd and Barker (1607) they were all sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid as regards the NULLIFICATION of inalienable constitutional rights, the constitution’s raisons d'etre.  
32.  Treaties made “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[85] (PART II, Article 2, Section 3. (a):
a.      Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
         (i.)   Absolute Immunity for any government actors violates the International TREATY Law protected by the Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, § 2, “2.  This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”
33.  Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035Upon 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.
34.  Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Proceedings independent of others - Section 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)
a. The Statue itself disavows the “the domestic relation exception” and invites other remedies. 
35.  In Connick, District attorney, et al. V. Thompson no. 09–571 563 U. S. ____ (2011) argued October 6, 2010—decided March 29, 2011 ““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.12 Bryan County, 520 U. S., at 406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392.””
36.  Due Process of Law MUST exist upon a procedure that is not arbitrary, nor inventive, but which is formal, foreseeable and legally ordained.  
________________________________________________________________
THE STATEMENT OF CASE
                                                                
The Petitioner states that exigent circumstances were never a consideration in instigating the petition in 2003.  The lack of probable cause i.e., subject matter jurisdiction, confirms that without dispute. 
Now, exigent circumstances currently exists the result of the federal court’s years of repeated deprivation of rights. 
In confirmation the petitioner states the warrant/order, at the center of this issue, “was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction."”[86]  To any sane interpretation of the Common Law,[87] Constitutional Law[88] and Statute[89] Law jurisdiction requires, at a minimum three elements for probable cause:
1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
2. Personal Jurisdiction
3. Geographic Jurisdiction
I am going to try to explain step by step chronologically so “a four-year-old” [90] can understand it.
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, personal and geographic jurisdiction i.e., “a complete absence of all jurisdictions.”[91]  The warrant was an obviously frivolous ex parte order of protection, thus not a “facially valid court order.[92]
The effect was instantaneous… has been and is currently DEVASTATING.  The not “facially valid court order[93] 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, over 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[94] during a disputed divorce where his adversary, the criminal respondents Sharon G. Jeep and Kristen Capps[95] had been empowered by EVERYTHIG that had been taken from him.
The warrant, an ex parte order of protection, included the sworn petition that 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” [96] the statute mandated i.e., “for good cause shown in the petition… An immediate and present danger of domestic violence.[97]  The warrant/Order that included the respondent’s, Sharon G. Jeep’s hand written petition was not a “facially valid court order.[98] 
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III clearly had no “subject matter” [99] jurisdiction for the statute’s stated “subject matter,”[100] “An immediate and present danger of domestic violence.”[101]
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III had no personal jurisdiction, in that the issue, the alleged misdemeanor traffic violation, was already under the bonded[102] personal jurisdiction of another judge, Associate Circuit Judge Jack A. Bennett of 26th District of Missouri.
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III had no geographic jurisdiction, in that Judge Joseph A. Goeke III was a part of the 21st 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 26th 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. 
Judge Joseph A. Goeke’s III JUDICIAL ACTION WAS TAKEN IN “a complete absence of all jurisdictions.”[103] 
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III on Monday November 3, 2003 deprived the petitioner of his constitutional 4th, 5th and 14th 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 [104] to anyone that read it who was not sincerely ignorant or conscientiously stupid.  It was, at a minimum, a violation of the 8th Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments” but more importantly and flagrantly a violation of the 4th Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches and seizures,” 5th 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.” and the Now I fully admit the Supreme Court likes to obscure as much law as possible to make it un-reckonable[105] thus insuring its continued existence.
The police, the Family Commissioner[106] (Philip E. Jones, Sr.), the presiding judge of the 21st District Court (Barbara W. Wallace), the family commissioner’s employers (21st District Court of Missouri, en banc) the State Appeals Court, The Federal District Court, the Federal Circuit court, the FBI, the USMS, and the United States Supreme Court are all professionals and thus should be able to determine facially valid “reckonable”[107]subject matter jurisdiction,”[108] personal jurisdiction and geographic jurisdiction at a glance.  Thus:
Ø  the original order of,
Ø  the original service of,
Ø  the original hearing for,
Ø  and all the subsequent findings in favor of
the unwarrantable, unconstitutional and NOTfacially valid court order[109] were taken in “a complete absence of all jurisdictions.”[110] [111]
Additionally all findings on appeal in favor of the NOTfacially valid court order, [112] after being made aware of the constitutional issues, were, are and have been felonious,[113] if not treasonous, violations of their oath of office “to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic”[114] that ALL federal officers and Article III Judicial Officers are bound by.[115] [116]
The Circuit court has declined to absolutely deny jurisdiction, therefore the only real question is does the “petition” have merit? 
There is no certified RECORD to consider, because everything to this point has been “before out of court.”[117] Thus the District court’s self-serving obstructionism and the admittedly non-professional, pro se, indigent, prone to “harmless error,” limited abilities of the petitioner have note produced a record.
Even though the facts asserted are unquestioned and the damages resultant from the facts are similarly unquestioned. The District court says in its December 11, 2014 “ORDER”:
The nature and tone of the allegations demonstrate that plaintiff’s purpose is to harass the named defendants rather than vindicate a cognizable legal right.”
What the District court calls harassment is justice to the petitioner JUSTICE - with compensatory, admittedly treble, damages for an admittedly “thick skulled”[118] victim of 11.89 years[119] of COURT SANCTIONED DENIAL OF RIGHTS AND FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT
How are IV, V, VI and XIV Amendment rights to the most basic elements of Due Process of Law,[120] - reasonable probable cause,[121] “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation”[122] with the “presentment” of the charge[123] and exculpable evidence[124] not Supreme court sanction constitutional “cognizable legal right(s)”? 
I make no excuse for seeking to stubbornly, admitting my “thick skull,” to ESTABLISH JUSTICE via a constitutional VII Amendment Due Process of Law for the fraud sustained by this 11.89-year-blind-eye[125] to malice, corruption, sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”[126] by the Article III courts unjust malice, corruption, sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. 
The District Court Judge Jean C. Hamilton is inserting an uninformed emotional opinion of the petitioner’s allegations without the constitutionally required benefit of Due Process.
Both the District and Circuit courts have refused to acknowledge two mandatory FACTS:
1. ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud by any standard of Justice in a government/civilization of free and equal persons on THIS PLANET!!!!![127]
2. ANY assertion of governmental ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, acknowledging human fallibility, is repugnant to a government/civilization of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!! [128]
The Petitioner, as the victim of an unwarranted denial of constitutional rights, parental rights and property rights during already tumultuous life events, a divorce and a new job on the eve of the holidays in 2003 was in a “post traumatic stress” detachment form reality that, although not diagnosed, fits clinical definition of the psychological disorder.[129]  The Petitioner will never fully recover and suffers from the recurring memories, if not flashbacks, to this day. 
________________________________________________________________
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
                                                                
First the Federal District Court and Circuit Court both referenced a question of jurisdiction   as regards “The domestic relations exception that divests the federal courts of jurisdiction over any action for which the subject is a divorce, allowance of alimony, or child custody” (Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994)). 
This Jurisdiction issue does exist, for two reasons, first and foremost because this is a State law and the 14th Amendment clearly provides jurisdiction “No State shall make or enforce any law.”
Secondly, In response to this jurisdictional issue the “Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455 - Abuse--Adults and Children--Shelters and Protective Orders” itself asserts it is “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.”[130]
THE LIFE-TIME-TENURE OF THE ARTICLE III JUDICIARY WAS NEVER INTENDED TO COMPULSORILY EMPOWER AND/OR LOOK-THE-OTHER-WAY “BEFORE OUT OF COURT[131] TO THEIRS AND THEIR PEERS INJUSTICES. 
The court’s assertion of absolute immunity was initially made precedent in Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523 (1868) and then subsequently in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978, and ultimately in Mireles v. Waco, 112 S.Ct. 286 (1991) the Supreme Court has refused to acknowledge two mandatory FACTS:
Ø  ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud by any standard of Justice in a government/civilization of free and equal persons on THIS PLANET!!!!![132]
Ø  ANY assertion of governmental ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, acknowledging human fallibility, is repugnant to a government/civilization of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!! [133]
Asserting “absolute immunity” and refusing to admit the human fallibility of malice, corruption,[134] “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”[135] has DEPRIVED We the People of the protection of a republican form of Government based on our constitution’s explicit requirement for a republican bicameral justice system with both Judge and Jury in criminal[136] and civil[137] courts.
Rereading the “ORDER” I thought of a similar dismissal of Ida B. Wells’ suit for being dragged out of the railroad car by the conductor and two men i.e., forcible removal from a train where she had purchased a “first-class” ticket, 71 years before the activist Rosa Parks showed preplanned, protected and STAGED resistance on a bus:
"We think it is evident that the purpose of the defendant in error was to harass with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain a comfortable seat for the short ride."[138]
It was too unconstitutionally easy for the for the Supreme Court with the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 34 (1883)[139] and the Tennessee Supreme Court to reverse the lower court's VII Amendment bicameral, judge and jury ruling in 1887.  Clearly the reversal in 1887 and the December 11, 2014 dismissal by the District Court attempt to abolish the Constitutional authority of the VII Amendment’s bicameral, judge and jury remedy:
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.”
The Tennessee Supreme Court in 1887 over ruled the lower court’s VII Amendment constitutional bicameral, judge and jury decision.  The Tennessee Supreme Court had only the might, NOT THE RIGHT, to do so.  The District Court today attempts to thwart the potential for a lower court’s bicameral, judge and jury decision by asserting the “purpose is to harass.” 
The Founding Fathers were very aware of what an unrestrained judiciary could do, the history books of the day were replete with accounts of the “Star Chamber’s” abuses and subsequent abolition as I noted in my original petition.  Elbridge Thomas Gerry, one of three member of the constitutional convention to withhold his approval did so because the constitution “establish(ed) a tribunal without juries, which will be a Star-Chamber as to Civil cases.”  This was remedy by the VII Amendment. 
Obviously to any unbiased review of the asserted unquestioned facts, please note the enclosed copies of the court RECEIVED AND FILED original motion enumerating the constitutional issues dated December 5, 2003 and the subsequent court stamped dismissal dated December 18, 2014. [140]
Additionally as Connick might bare on the “Brady” issue in Jeep v. Bennett et al (08-1823).  In Connick, District attorney, et al. V. Thompson no. 09–571 563 U. S. ____ (2011) the Supreme Court of the United States of America with their sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity, malice and corruption unrestrained asserted ““difficult problems of proof,” and we must adhere to a “stringent standard of fault,” lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.”
The Supreme Court has lost its way, un-“bound” by “a Republican form of Government” or “the supreme Law of the Land” to deny We the People’s constitutional protection for an individual’s redress (remedy) for the deprivation of an Supreme Court established constitutional right. How did the strict scrutiny afford inalienable rights constitutionally secured rights EVER RESULT IN ANYTHING LESS THAN STRICT LIABILITY? 
We the People’s constitutional Republican Government based on the 14th Amendment states unequivocally “nor shall any State deprive any person (INDIVIDUAL) of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person (INDIVIDUAL) within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..”  The 14th Amendment thus confirms:
“This argument (Connick) with respect to volume of traffic seems to us to be without merit. It makes the constitutional right depend upon the number of persons who may be discriminated against, whereas the essence of the constitutional right is that it is a personal one.” McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914)
Even though there is no mandate to provide a group of similar individual victims to establish the deprivation of an INDIVIDUAL’s constitutional right, I want to establish the group to confirm the overwhelming critical mass of the conspiracy against rights.
Since the enactment of the “The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in 1974 (CAPTA)” that morphed into the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 (VAWA), feminist have been, EVER INCREASINGLY in the Jane Crow era, asserting Women’s “victimhood” at the expense of Men’s rights in legal disputes.
George F. Will recently asserted “victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate.” [141] His frame of reference for the coveted status of victimhood was limited to college campus rape, a difficult infamous crime[142] as a starting point to say the least.  On College Campuses I would at least assert the Duke Lacrosse team’s[143] experience.  And although on College Campus it might be more obscure, in the EVERYDAY world of divorce and domestic dispute it is OMNIPRESENT.  The coveted status of victimhood unacknowledged omnipresence proves Martin Luther King’s assertion “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” is true.
With the coveted status of victimhood in the Jane Crow era:
“It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman (with the coveted status of victimhood) is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an ex parte 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.”[144]
And for the victim of the “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” deprivation of DUE PROCESS it becomes a fait accompli,
"A man against whom a frivolous ex parte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD). They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order." 
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, dissenting "Our adherence to the exclusionary rule, our resistance to change, and our refusal even to acknowledge the need for effective enforcement mechanisms bring to mind Holmes' well known statement:
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."[145] 
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):
"(W)where federally protected rights have been invaded, it has been the rule from the beginning that courts will be alert to adjust their remedies so as to grant the necessary relief." (Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. at 327 U. S. 684 (footnote omitted); see Bemis Bros. Bag Co. v. United States,289 U. S. 28, 289 U. S. 36 (1933) (Cardozo, J.); The Western Maid,257 U. S. 419, 257 U. S. 433 (1922) (Holmes, J.). Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 392 (1971)).
If the life-time-tenure of the Article III judiciary was intended for anything it was intended to empower a SUA SPONTE remedy for any injustice before them.  Human beings, who all inevitably make mistakes, were to be empowered SUA SPONTE to remedy any injustice, their own included, before them, without fear of retribution. 
THE LIFE-TIME-TENURE OF THE ARTICLE III JUDICIARY WAS NEVER INTENDED TO COMPULSORILY EMPOWER AND/OR LOOK-THE-OTHER-WAY “BEFORE OUT OF COURT[146] TO THEIRS AND THEIR PEERS INJUSTICES
The “Star Chamber,” as referenced earlier and well documented in English History, had shown unrestrained judicial power to have self-corrupting-results.  The RIGHT OF PETITION/APPEAL means nothing when the courts self-servingly, without affording access to trial or jury i.e., Due Process, conspire “before out of court[147] that they and their brethren can do no wrong.
JUDGES CAN NOT ASSERT IMMUNITY FROM THE KNOWABLE[148] “SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.”
Blanket absolute immunity is diametrically opposed to establishment of justice in a humanly fallible government of the people, by the people, for the people.
________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION
________________________________________________________________
The petition should be granted David G. Jeep to give creditability AGAIN to the reckonable[149] rule of the Constitution for the United States of America (Article VI § 2) i.e., “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.”
The Founding Fathers and We the People as represented by BOTH houses of congress in 1866, 1871 and 1875[150] were not and are not delusional.  The Founding Fathers and We the People did NOT,
I repeat, DID NOT,
“intended sub silentio to exempt”[151] under color of law "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[152] especially those entrusted with judicial,[153] prosecutorial[154] and enforcement[155] power from the federal Constitution's paramount binding authority[156] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice![157]
Clearly the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 and § 2 Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified into the US Code, 18 USC §241 - §242[158] and as 42 USC §1983 - §1985,[159] indisputably fell under “such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make[160]  And any precedent originating in 1607 in a subsequently REPEATEDLY[161] discredited court[162] proves but one thing “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.[163]
One last argument, I just read “MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, dissenting (Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 430 (1971)).  I quote him here:
I, too, dissent. I… feel that the judicial legislation, which the Court by its opinion today concededly is effectuating, opens the door for another avalanche of new federal cases. Whenever a suspect imagines, or chooses to assert, that a Fourth Amendment right has been violated, he will now immediately sue the federal officer in federal court. This will tend to stultify proper law enforcement, and to make the day's labor for the honest and conscientious officer even more onerous and more critical. Why the Court moves in this direction at this time of our history, I do not know. The Fourth Amendment was adopted in 1791, and, in all the intervening years, neither the Congress nor the Court has seen fit to take this step. I had thought that, for the truly aggrieved person, other quite adequate remedies have always been available. If not, it is the Congress, and not this Court, that should act.”
The “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” [164] of the arrogance in the dissent is so thick I can barely stand it.  First I object to the arrogant premise that the Judiciary was legislating, in 1971, creating a new “cause of action” for a constitutional violation.  A cause of action in the criminal[165] and civil[166] courts of the land for violation of the Constitution for the United States of America was its raison d'être from the start.  Without access to a jury everything “will be a Star-Chamber.” [167]  Additionally the congress with the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871[168] clearly, for “Whoever” and “Every person” acting “under color of law” had RECONFIRMED this raison d'être from 100 years earlier, post Civil War. 
The UNMITIGATED condescension of MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN in begging the question with an assertion that there will now be “an avalanche of new federal cases” is quite literally unbelievable.
First there was not “an avalanche of new federal cases” in 1972 or later as a result.  But secondly and MORE REVEALINGLY he assumes that there could be “an avalanche of new federal cases.”  MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN clearly to his own judicial personal and argumentative shame asserts there are possible violations galore out there that could provide probable cause for “an avalanche of new federal cases.” 
Who do we believe those that assert we need a causes of action for the deprivation of rights per the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871[169] or the ones that assert there are too many causes of actions to deal with i.e., “an avalanche of new federal cases?”
Either way a REMEDEY is beyond the scope of MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN’s assertion “quite adequate remedies have always been available” because they ARE NOT AVAILABLE! And CONGRESS has already acted with the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871.[170]  Only those to blind by their “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” [171] cannot see that.
A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR THE DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS WAS ALWAYS THE CONSTITUTION’S RAISONS D'ETRE.
I quote Blackstone via Chief Justice John Marshall[172] "it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded."
________________________________________________________________
CURRENT STATUS
________________________________________________________________ 
I still am haunted by the not only the memories but the subsequent denials paternity and property rights.  
I have, in the Jane Crow era, been fighting this for 11+ years, I spent 411 days in jail, I have been homeless for 7+ years, I have been through the Federal Article III Judicial System 7 times and I have presented 5 DOCKETED AND DENIED Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United states i.e., 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030 and 14-5551!!!!
The deprivation is ongoing in this 11+ year struggle and the damages, stated as an escalating amount, reflect this.  Yes my son who was 8 years old when this started on the Tuesday, November 3, 2003 (Judge Goeke’s unconstitutional warrant), Patrick turned 20 on December 22, 2014, I have lost his irretrievable childhood.
The Pain and suffering has not abated and NEVER WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
________________________________________________________________ 

I seek declaratory and injunctive relief, noting that criminally offending Judicial Officers were involved, as follows:
A. Injunctive/declaratory relief to overturn and expunge the DWI Conviction (Case No.:CR203-1336M) and remove all reference of it from my Driving Record and the 33 year old 1978  DWI conviction. 
B. Injunctive/declaratory relief to overturn all orders of protection between Sharon G. Jeep and David G. Jeep and remove all record of them (Case No.:03FC-10670M).  
C. Injunctive/declaratory relief to overturn the subsequent and coupled Property and Custody Order (Case No.:03FC-12243) currently in effect between David G. Jeep and Sharon G. Jeep as regards the joint marital property as of November 3, 2003 and the custody of then Minor Child Patrick Brandon Jeep (DOB 12/22/94) and remand it to a new judge for resettlement based on this ruling.
D. Injunctive/declaratory relief to expunge from my record, WITH PREJUDICE, Eastern District Court of Missouri Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP.
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[173] demand for escalating DAMAGES:
Ø  Actual Damages in the amount of:                         

Ninety-two million eight hundred fifty-seven thousand dollars and zero cents                                     $92,857,000 [174]

Ø  Punitive damages in the amount of:                           

One hundred eighty-five million seven hundred fifteen thousand dollars and zero cents                                $185,715,000 [175]

Ø  Total:[176]

Two hundred seventy-eight million five hundred seventy-two thousand dollars and zero cents                      $278,572,000 [177]

________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX
________________________________________________________________
1. A humble pro se[178] EMERGENCY[179] PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 11.97 years[180] of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (25 pages)[181] dated Monday, May 04, 2015, notarized.
2. A copy of the original ex parte NOTfacially valid court order [182] of protection dated November 3, 2003.
3. A copy of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division MEMORANDUM AND ORDER and ORDER OF DISMISSAL both dated 11th day of December, 2014 as regards case 4:14CV2009 DDN.
4. A copy of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division MEMORANDUM AND ORDER and ORDER OF DISMISSAL, regarding motion for reconsideration, both dated 22nd Day of December, 2014 as regards case 4:13-cv-2490-RWS.
5. A copy of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals JUDGMENT (Entry ID: 4261702) dated April 03, 2015.
6. A copy of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Order denying rehearing by the panel dated May 01, 2015 (Entry ID: 4270984)
7. Statement of injunctive relief and escalating spreadsheet breakout for the damages[183] dated Tuesday July 15 2014 12:58 PM, THE "EXCLUSIONARY RULE"[184] IS SIMPLY IRRELEVANT… IT IS DAMAGES OR NOTHING.”[185].
8. Spreadsheet breakout for the escalating damages[186] dated Saturday May 02 2015 09:41:10.59 AM
9. A “MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS” “IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES” dated Monday, May 04, 2015, notarized’
10.  A “proof of service” for Solicitor General of the United States, Room 5614, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D. C. 20530–0001[187] 
11.  I note and acknowledge all prior court records in the State of Missouri District Court, State of Missouri District Appeals Court, Eastern Missouri U.S. District Court, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States Supreme Court and as confirmed in my blog www.DGJeep.blogspot.com.

FOR ATTACHMENTS see PDF FILE here 
Petition of Writ of Certiorari as enclosed        USAP8 15-1057

________________________________________________________________
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, Monday, May 04, 2015 01:47.47 PM
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.  
          
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO  63155-9999
(314) 514-5228

The plaintiff is homeless and without the will to go on because of this issue AND SEEKS EMERGENCY RELIEF!!!!




[1] Because I am a humble non-legal professional and I have been impoverished by this criminal issue I cite the potential for Harmless error - 28 USC § 2111, "On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties."  The inherent unconstitutional denial of justice based on the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, “sincere ignorance,” “conscientious stupidity” and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983), "the common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process," makes a professionally prepared petition and or appeal untenable to the average victim.  Most are not only impoverished by the injustice, but also in jail behind bars.  With 5% of the world’s population our POLICE STATE now incarcerates 25% of the world’s prisoners.
If I may have not been humble enough or ignorantly or inadvertently not utilized the correct humble enough method and/or legal Latin jargon in making my prior petitions (see 8th Circuit court of Appeals prior Filings in 13-2200, 12-2435, 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614) e.g., a writ of habeas corpus, a writ of audita querela, a writ of coram nobis, a writ of error, a writ of praemunire, a writ of supersedeas, a writ of recurso de amparo or etc., it is as result of my impoverishment via the unconstitutional denial of rights.
[2] After 6.70 years homeless, I have little prospects for survival!!!!!!!!!!
[3] Start Saturday May 17, 2003 01:00 AM as of Saturday May 02 2015 09:41:10.59 AM
[4] The link to this Brady constitutional issue is un-severable.  Proof of its sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity is available for the asking 
[5] The link to this Brady constitutional issue is un-severable.  Proof of its sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity is available for the asking 
[6] The link to this Brady constitutional issue is un-severable.  Proof of its sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity is available for the asking 
[7]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 15th 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 14th Amendment’s security, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) creating sophisticated[7] 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[7] actions[7] 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))
[8]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.
[9] 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 objection resulted in the 7th Amendment.  This is as quoted in Origins of the Bill of Rights,  By Leonard W. Levy, page 228
[10] “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)
[11] United States v. Carolene Products (1938), Korematsu v. United States (1944), and Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)
[12] "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)
[13] Due Process of Law under the 5th and 14th amendments
[14] 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.”
[15] “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.12 Bryan 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)
[16] “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.” Constitution for the United States of America, Article IV, Section 4, § 1.
[17] “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”  Constitution for the United States of America, Article III Section 2, § 3.
[18] “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.” 7th Amendment, Constitution for the United States of America
[19] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King “Strength to Love” 1963
[20] Montesquieu in his “De l'Espirit des Lois” (1748) (The Spirit of the Law) defines three main kinds of political systems: republican, monarchical, and despotic.  Driving each classification of political system, according to Montesquieu, must be what he calls a "principle". This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior on the part of the citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make it function smoothly. For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics), this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. For monarchies, the spring is the love of honor -- the desire to attain greater rank and privilege. Finally, for despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler.    We the People have currently despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
[21] Civil Rights Act of 1866 (18 USC §241-§242)
[22] Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC §1983-§1985)
[23] Alexander Hamilton’s assertions of danger of “constructive power” to rights with in Federalist number 84
[24] James Madison (1751–1836), the 4th President of the United States (1809 – 1817), often referred to as the “Father of the Constitution,” in his essay “Property” for the National Gazette March 27, 1792
[25] Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) , asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was judicial sophistry at its finest, a judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary immunity from the UNQUALIFIED recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866 (18 USC §241-§242).
[26] Judicial sophistry is the ABSOLUTE WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[27] Likewise Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), also asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was a subterfuge to give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the UNQUALIFIED civil liability for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States” enacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC §1983-§1985).
[28] Judicial sophistry is the ABSOLUTE WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[29] Judicial sophistry is the ABSOLUTE WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[30] Judicial sophistry is the ABSOLUTE WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[31] Judicial sophistry is the ABSOLUTE WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[32] Judicial sophistry is the ABSOLUTE WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[33] Judicial sophistry is the ABSOLUTE WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[34] Judicial sophistry is the ABSOLUTE WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.
[35] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[36] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[38] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King “Strength to Love” 1963
[39] The recent Government Shut Down comes to mind, but the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court had already handed our legislators absolute immunity for their legislative actions, Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997). 
[40] 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
[41] 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). 
As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series").  The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[42] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”
[43]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.
[44] 28 USC § 2111. Harmless error, On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
[45] Attorney Joe Miller REPEATED ASSERTION (Denzel Washington in “Philadelphia”): Now, explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old.
[46] Act of Parliament “Abolition of the Star Chamber”[46] July 5, 1641, statute law in the realm of England, or dominion of Wales, that “repealed and absolutely revoked and made void” for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for “absolute immunity” in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871) supra Star Chamber Floyd and Barker 1607.
·                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 cause, “repealed and absolutely revoked and made void” all prior precedent of the said court and judges. 
[47] “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)
[48] It should be noted that both Randall v. Brigham and Bradley v. Fisher were both the result of contrived ministerial courtroom issues, between a judge and lawyer, not necessarily related to the General Rule of Law for all persons.  Much like an umpire and or the league office can throw a manger out of the game or band him for life for the good of the game BUT are not be able to outside the game take the person’s life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  
[49] George Jeffreys, 1st Baron Jeffreys of Wem, PC (15 May 1645 – 18 April 1689), also known as "The Hanging Judge", was a Welsh judge. He became notable during the reign of King James II, rising to the position of Lord Chancellor (and serving as Lord High Steward in certain instances). His conduct as a judge was to enforce royal policy, resulting in a historical reputation for severity and bias.
[50] The Bloody Assizes were a series of trials started at Winchester on 25 August 1685 in the aftermath of the Battle of Sedgemoor, which ended the Monmouth Rebellion in England.
From Winchester the court proceeded through the West Country to Salisbury, Dorchester and on to Taunton, before finishing up at Wells on 23 September. More than 1,400 prisoners were dealt with and although most were sentenced to death, fewer than 300 were hanged or hanged, drawn and quartered. The Taunton Assize took place in the Great Hall of Taunton Castle (now the home of the Museum of Somerset). Of more than 500 prisoners brought before the court on the 18/19 September, 144 were hanged and their remains displayed around the county to ensure people understood the fate of those who rebelled against the king.
[51] “The Bill of Rights” by Akhil Reed Amar pub 1998 page 87 see also 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 372 (Oxford: Clarendon 1765)
[52]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.
[53] “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”  Constitution for the United States of America, Article III Section 2, § 3.
[54] “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.” 7th Amendment, Constitution for the United States of America
[55] § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27. (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866.  An excerpt from his remarks attached to his veto "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without invading the immunities of… the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order." "It is, therefore, assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment, for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose." See also BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460 U. S. 359 (1983)
[56] Originally enacted as The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 USC §1983 - §1985). The author of § 1 clearly stated the relationship between the two Acts in introducing the 1871 measure:
"My first inquiry is as to the warrant which we have for enacting such a section as this [§ 1 of the 1871 Act]. The model for it will be found in the second section of the act of April 9, 1866, known as the 'civil rights act.' That section provides a criminal proceeding in identically the same case as this one provides a civil remedy for, except that the deprivation under color of State law must, under the civil rights act, have been on account of race, color, or former slavery. This section of the bill, on the same state of facts, not only provides a civil remedy for persons whose former condition may have been that of slaves, but also to all people where, under color of State law, they or any of them may be deprived of rights to which they are entitled under the Constitution by reason and virtue of their national citizenship." BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460 U. S. 357 (1983)
[58] Origins of the Bill of Rights,  By Leonard W. Levy, page 228
[59] “The Bill of Rights” by Akhil Reed Amar pub 1998 page 83 see also “The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787m at 587-88 (Max Farrand rev. ed., 1937)
[60] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455 Abuse--Adults and Children--Shelters and Protective Orders  Section 455.050
[61] As quoted into the Congressional Record Senate Vol. 152, Pt. 1 page 80-81, Mr. Santorum and Bergh, 15:331. 1821
[62] § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27. (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866.  An excerpt from his remarks attached to his veto "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without invading the immunities of… the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order." "It is, therefore, assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment, for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose." See also BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460 U. S. 359 (1983)
[63] Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, § 2
[64] Jusitce Harlan Dissenting Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 34 (1883)
[65] 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)
[66] The, then, recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866 made it a crime for a judicial officer to deny constitutional rights. 
[67] Fraus omnia corrumpit “Fraud corrupts all.” A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[68] Originally enacted as The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 USC §1983 - §1985). The author of § 1 clearly stated the relationship between the two Acts in introducing the 1871 measure:
"My first inquiry is as to the warrant which we have for enacting such a section as this [§ 1 of the 1871 Act]. The model for it will be found in the second section of the act of April 9, 1866, known as the 'civil rights act.' That section provides a criminal proceeding in identically the same case as this one provides a civil remedy for, except that the deprivation under color of State law must, under the civil rights act, have been on account of race, color, or former slavery. This section of the bill, on the same state of facts, not only provides a civil remedy for persons whose former condition may have been that of slaves, but also to all people where, under color of State law, they or any of them may be deprived of rights to which they are entitled under the Constitution by reason and virtue of their national citizenship." BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460 U. S. 357 (1983)
[69] Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, § 2
[70] 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)
[71] The, then, recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1871 made “Every person” i.e., that included a judicial officer, civilly liable for the deprivation of constitutional rights. 
[72] Fraus omnia corrumpit “Fraud corrupts all.” A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[73] 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)
[74] “he should not have to fear that unsatisfied litigants may hound him with litigation charging malice or corruption. Imposing such a burden on judges would contribute not to principled and fearless decisionmaking, but to intimidation."” PIERSON V. RAY, 386 U. S. 553 (1967), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 368 (1978)
[75] MLKing  “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” ■Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
[76] Fraus omnia corrumpit “Fraud corrupts all.” A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[77] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[78] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[80] 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
[81] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King “Strength to Love” 1963
[82] The recent Government Shut Down comes to mind, but the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court had already handed our legislators absolute immunity for their legislative actions, Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997). 
[83] 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). 
As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series").  The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[84] Fraus omnia corrumpit “Fraud corrupts all.” A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[85] By the Constitution (art. 2, § 2) … the treaty must contain the whole contract between the parties, and the power of the Senate is limited to a ratification of such terms as have already been agreed upon between the President, acting for the United States, and the commissioners of the other contracting power. The Senate has no right to ratify the treaty and introduce new terms into it, which shall be obligatory upon the other power, although it may refuse its ratification, or make such ratification conditional upon the adoption of amendments to the treaty. (emphasis added) The Diamond Rings, 183 U.S. 176, 183-85 (1901).
The Senate's power under Article II extends only to the making of reservations…. (emphasis added) See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, … Igartua-De La Rosa v. U.S., 417 F.3d 145, 190-91 (1st Cir. 2005).
[86] 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)
[87] Magna Carta in 1215 to Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98
[88] “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).
[89]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
[90] Attorney Joe Miller REPEATED ASSERTION (Denzel Washington in “Philadelphia”): Now, explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old.
[91] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[92] 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). 
[93] 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). 
[94] A condition that REALLY has not changed in 11 years!!!!!!!!!!!!
[95] 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.
[96] 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.
[97] 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.”
[98] 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). 
[99] “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.
[100] Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 356 NOTED exception Footnote 6 - ibid.
[102] It should be noted that the respondent Sharon G. Jeep actively assisted bonding the petitioner on the alleged misdemeanor traffic violation
[103] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[104] "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)
[106] 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. 
[108] “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.
[109] 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). 
[110] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[111] 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
a.     “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
b.     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[111] i.e., a misdemeanor traffic violation as probable cause for an ex parte order of protection is “cruel and unusual” to say the least.
[112] 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). 
[113] 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,
[115] 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.
[116] 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
a.     In that petitioner was without reason or warrant, petitioner was FORCED into “involuntary servitude” to sustain his parental rights to see his son.
b.     “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.
c.      “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

[117]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.
[118] Thick - Thin Skull Rule Legal Definition: An additional exposure in tort liability towards persons who are particularly vulnerable or more fragile than the norm, who may have inherent weaknesses or a pre-existing vulnerability or condition; the tort-feasor takes his victim as he finds them; he compensates for all damages he caused, even if damages are elevated compared to a norm because the plaintiff was thin skulled.
[119] Based on Saturday April 04, 2015 - 03:56:05.18 PM
[120] 5th and 14th Amendments
[121] 4th Amendment “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
[122] 6th Amendment “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. 
[123] AMENDMENT V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment
[124] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 and specifically in unconstitutional UNRELATED DWI convisction United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 103 (1976) See specifically “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. - United States v. Agurs - 427 U.S. 103 (1976)
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.”
[125] Based on Saturday April 04, 2015 - 03:56:05.18 PM
[126] MLKing  “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” ■Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
[129] American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. pp. 271–280. ISBN 978-0-89042-555-8.
[130] Proceedings independent of others. – Section 455.070. All proceedings under sections 455.010 to 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)
[131] Floyd and Barker (1607), (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber.
[134] “he should not have to fear that unsatisfied litigants may hound him with litigation charging malice or corruption. Imposing such a burden on judges would contribute not to principled and fearless decisionmaking, but to intimidation."” PIERSON V. RAY, 386 U. S. 553 (1967), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 368 (1978)
[135] MLKing  “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” ■Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
[136] Civil Rights Act of 1866 (18 USC §241-§242)
[137] Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC §1983-§1985)
[138] Ida B. Wells v Chesapeake, Ohio and Southwestern Railroad - Southwestern Reporter, Volume 4, May 16-August 1, 1887
[139] If there is only one thing you read this YEAR, please, PLEASE read MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 1883… AND THEN CONSIDER WHERE "We the People" would be had "WE THE PEOPLE" prevailed in 1883 with constitutionally authorized "necessary and proper" ex industria statute law the 1875 Civil Rights Act!!!!!!!
[140] Be assured that I can and will offer motions that I submitted to the Court and their police testimony to refute the misdemeanor traffic violation per United States v. Agurs - 427 U.S. 103 (1976) “In a series of subsequent cases, the Court has consistently held that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.”
[141] “Colleges become the victims of progressivism” Washington Post, By George F. Will, Published: June 6, 2014 and “Colleges mad with political correctness over campus rapes” New York Post By George F. Will, June 7, 2014
[142] The 5th Amendment farsightedly addresses “infamous crimes” and tries to abate their misuse in persecuting innocents.
[143] The Duke lacrosse case was a 2006 criminal case resulting from what proved to be a false accusation of rape made against three members of the men's lacrosse team at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, United States. The fallout from the case's resolution led to, among other things, the disbarment of lead prosecutor Mike Nifong.
[144]  “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.comThe Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08. 
[145] 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)
[146] Floyd and Barker (1607), (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber.
[147] Floyd and Barker (1607), (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber.
[148] Knowable is limited only by a jury of my equal’s decision based on facts in evidence.
[149] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."  Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[150] 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 (now Now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to hold “Whoever” criminally liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law) and The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, enacted April 20, 1871 (now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold “Every person” civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law).
[151] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]"  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[152] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[153] "It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[154] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
[155] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truth finding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers."  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[156]"There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution."  Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).  
"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" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[157] 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 6 YEARS! 
The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 
The 7th Amendment secures the right to settle all suits: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law" assures justice as regards equity.
[158] § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27. (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866.  An excerpt from his remarks attached to his veto "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without invading the immunities of… the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order." "It is, therefore, assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment, for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose." See also BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460 U. S. 359 (1983)
[159] Originally enacted as The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 USC §1983 - §1985). The author of § 1 clearly stated the relationship between the two Acts in introducing the 1871 measure:
"My first inquiry is as to the warrant which we have for enacting such a section as this [§ 1 of the 1871 Act]. The model for it will be found in the second section of the act of April 9, 1866, known as the 'civil rights act.' That section provides a criminal proceeding in identically the same case as this one provides a civil remedy for, except that the deprivation under color of State law must, under the civil rights act, have been on account of race, color, or former slavery. This section of the bill, on the same state of facts, not only provides a civil remedy for persons whose former condition may have been that of slaves, but also to all people where, under color of State law, they or any of them may be deprived of rights to which they are entitled under the Constitution by reason and virtue of their national citizenship." BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460 U. S. 357 (1983)
[160] Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, § 2
[161] It was not only Discredited by the it repeal in 1641 but redundantly 1689 English Bill of Rights.
[163] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King “Strength to Love” 1963
[164] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King “Strength to Love” 1963
[165] Civil Rights Act of 1866 (18 USC §241-§242)
[166] Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC §1983-§1985)
[167] Origins of the Bill of Rights,  By Leonard W. Levy, page 228
[171] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King “Strength to Love” 1963
[172] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163
[173] 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.”
[174] Start Saturday May 17, 2003 01:00 AM as of Saturday May 02 2015 09:41:10.59 AM
[175] Start Saturday May 17, 2003 01:00 AM as of Saturday May 02 2015 09:41:10.59 AM
[176] This amount is escalating based on the 8th Circuit Court of appeals Tuesday June 14, 2011 12:00.00 AM see attached dated (Saturday May 02 2015 09:41:10.59 AM) spreadsheet.
[177] Start Saturday May 17, 2003 01:00 AM as of Saturday May 02 2015 09:41:10.59 AM
[178] Because I am a humble non-legal professional and I have been impoverished by this criminal issue I cite the potential for Harmless error - 28 USC § 2111, "On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties."  The inherent unconstitutional denial of justice based on the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, “sincere ignorance,” “conscientious stupidity” and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983), "the common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process," makes a professionally prepared petition and or appeal untenable to the average victim.  Most are not only impoverished by the injustice, but also in jail behind bars.  With 5% of the world’s population our POLICE STATE now incarcerates 25% of the world’s prisoners.
If I may have not been humble enough or ignorantly or inadvertently not utilized the correct humble enough method and/or legal Latin jargon in making my prior petitions (see 8th Circuit court of Appeals prior Filings in 13-2200, 12-2435, 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614) e.g., a writ of habeas corpus, a writ of audita querela, a writ of coram nobis, a writ of error, a writ of praemunire, a writ of supersedeas, a writ of recurso de amparo or etc., it is as result of my impoverishment via the unconstitutional denial of rights.
[179] After 7.49 years homeless, I have little prospects for survival!!!!!!!!!!
[180] Start Saturday May 17, 2003 01:00 AM as of Saturday May 02 2015 09:41:10.59 AM
[181] V. Page Limitation - The petition for a writ of certiorari may not exceed 40 pages excluding the pages that precede Page 1 of the form. The documents required to be contained in the appendix to the petition do not count toward the page limit. See Rule 33.2(b).
[182] 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). 
[183] We hold a “4-Year-Old Can Be Sued.”  We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion.  We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion.  We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion.  But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence, malice and corruption of “our chief justice (judges), our officials (prosecutors), or any of our servants (law enforcement)”  and compensate the victims?
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!!!!
[184] In criminal case the “exclusionary rule” is an obfuscation of the Government’s Article III vicarious liability for 7th Amendment due Process rights.
[185] 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.”
[186] We hold a “4-Year-Old Can Be Sued.”  We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion.  We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion.  We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion.  But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence, malice and corruption of “our chief justice (judges), our officials (prosecutors), or any of our servants (law enforcement)”  and compensate the victims?
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!!!!
[187] Rule 29 - proof of service may be in the form of a declaration pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1746



Thanks in advance,
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep
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

Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States,
Washington, D. C. 20543-0001

       USAP8 15-1057

Dear People,

PLEASE MAKE THIS RESPONSE a part of the petition. 

The assertion of the life-time tenure for the Article III Judiciary was never meant to be an obfuscation for or cover-up of injustice.

The intent of the life-time tenure for the Article III Judiciary was to provide the Judiciary with the freedom to establish Justice, without regard to any professional or personal culpability for correcting an otherwise un-remedied in-Justice. 

​​
The Clerk's re​c​ent letter, dated May 12, 2015, if there is anything more sincerely ignorant or a better example of conscientious stupidity, I can not imagine it.


The Clerk's re​c​ent letter, dated May 12, 2015, returning my Petition states in error that my affidavit "does not comply with Rule 39 in that questions 5 & 6 are unanswered."  I bring the Clerk's attention to the common sense of an unanswered question.  Question 5 directs the applicant to "List the assets, and their values, which you own or your spouse owns. Do not list clothing and ordinary household furnishings." Question 6 directs the applicant to "State every person, business, or organization owing you or your spouse money, and the amount owed."

If the question, left blank, is a part of a signed and notarized affidavit the answer is clearly there are none to list or state.  Especially so when that is consistent with the rest of the declaration of indigency. 
Additional I reference the last sentence of Rule 39 § 3 "While making due allowance for any case presented under this Rule by a person appearing pro se, the Clerk will not file any document if it does not comply with the substance of these Rules or is jurisdictionally out of time." 

Clearly to any reasonable person, not sincerely ignorant or conscientiously STUPID, leaving questions 5 & 6 blank when indeed the overall "substance" and intent of the rules and the indigent "person appearing pro se" is to determine that there are no assets, thus there are no assets listed. 

Because this REFUASL is such a repugnant, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid, action when the substance and intent of the rules when viewed via COMMON SENSE I have to ask for additional ACTUAL and PUNITIVE damages for this action. 

This delay will delay the petition for two weeks (+/-) based on your original receipt of May 12, 2015, my receipt of May 18, 2015 and the delay of return via holiday mail of May 26, 2015 (+/-) .  The cost tabulation is as follows:

Cost as of 5/26/2015 - 9:41:11 AM------------------------ $280,981,000
Cost as of 5/12/2015 - 9:41:11 AM------------------------ $279,575,000
Added COST for current issue------------------------------ $1,406,000

The added cost, with accruing interest - independent of the otherwise escalating cost, is:
One million four hundred six thousand dollars and zero cents-------- $1,406,000.

Additionally please accept this letter as proof of service for the revised MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA  PAUPERIS dated May 19, 2015 on Solicitor General.[1] 

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 for Writ of Certiorari, May 4, 2015" (Click here to download a PDF file of complete petition)​

b.     "Revised MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS dated May 19, 2015

cc:  My Blog - Tuesday, May 19, 20153:13:59 PM


[1] If the Solicitor General Needs another complete copy it is electronically available at http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-assertion-of-life-time-tenure-for.html or www.https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4HHbT8ifLodS1NNWU5SNW5rYTg/view




Posted Tuesday May 19, 2015, 04:30 pm
Shipment Activity--------------------------- Location----------------       Date & Time       
-- ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------
Acceptance----------------------- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101-- May 19, 2015, 1:48 pm
Departed Post Office---------- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101-- May 19, 2015, 5:28 pm
Arrived at USPS Facility------ SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155-- May 19, 2015, 8:30 pm
Departed USPS Facility------ SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155-- May 20, 2015, 4:00 am
Arrived at Hub------------------ WASHINGTON, DC 20018- May 24, 2015 , 8:17 am
Business Closed-------------- WASHINGTON, DC 20543 May 24, 2015 , 11:50 am
Delivered------------------------- WASHINGTON, DC 20543- May 26, 2015 , 6:00 am
---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------
Expected Delivery Day:    Friday, May 22, 2015
First-Class Mail®

Certified Mail