111 South 10th Street
Room 24.329
St. Louis, MO. 63102
PHONE: (314) 244-2400
FAX: (314) 244-2780
Re: Case #4:15CV1533HEA - David G.
Jeep and heir, Plaintiff, vs. Government (corporation) of the United States of
America, et al Defendants/Respondents Appeal 15-3403 BRIEFING
Dear Mr. Gans,
I realize the court did not ask for this
briefing. I write to you now because you
have always been forthright and fair. As
you probably know this issue, in one form are another has been before your
court TEN times prior[1] without consideration much less resolution.
From the beginning it has been a simple
4th Amendment deprivation of rights, to any one not self-servingly
blinded by hubris, who wanted to see.
Now that it has morphed
into a 12 year struggle for the deprivation based on a “Jane Crow”[2] non-exigent and NOT “facially valid court order” [3] issued “in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction"”[4]
that was “sufficiently
clear” that every “reasonable official would have understood that what he is
doing violates that right,”[5] clearly makes this issue coram non judice.
I feel it only fair
to warn the court that I hold the 8th Circuit and Supreme Court
responsible under 28 U.S.C. § 2111. Harmless
error.[6] In the age of Article III blind-eye
affirmation of malice, corruption,[7]
“sincere Ignorance and conscientious stupidity”[8] I
ask for the specific protection of the 28 U.S.C. § 2111. Harmless
error 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.”
When this comes
before a jury, and it will,
the 8th Circuit and Supreme Courts will have to explain their
refusal to see the simple 4th Amendment deprivation of rights from
12 years prior.
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.
“appellate brief”
cc: My Blog - Tuesday, November 03, 2015, 10:58:51 AM
[1](1.) 07-2614 David Jeep vs.
Philip Jones, Sr., (2). 08-1823 David Jeep
vs. Jack Bennett, (3.) 09-2848 David Jeep
vs. United States, (4.) 10-1947 David Jeep
vs. Jack Bennett, (5.) 11-2425 David Jeep
vs. Barack Obama, President, (6.) 12-2435 David Jeep
vs. Barack Obama, (7.) 13-2200 David Jeep
vs. Government of the USA, (8.) 14-1470 David Jeep
vs. Government of United States, (9.) 15-1057 David Jeep
vs. Government of United States, (10.) 15-3403 David G.
Jeep and heir, vs. Government (corporation) of the United States of America
[2] “unequal protection” of the
Laws based on gender discrimination via “fraud on the court” e.g., blatantly
false accusation of abuse for tactical reasons in divorce and child custody
proceedings.
[3] The assertion of a misdemeanor
traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte order of
protection. 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).
[4] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790
(2003)
[5] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_
(2011)), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).
[6] Page 35, line 17,
item 43 of my original brief dated Monday, October 05, 2015
[7] “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)
[8] MLKing “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than
sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” ■Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Eighth Circuit
|
vs.
Government
(corporation) of the United States of America, et al Defendants/Respondents
|
)
)
)
)
) )
)
|
Circuit Appeal Case #: 15-3403
District Case #: 4:15CV1533HEA
|
Appellate BRIEF
I.
• A
statement of the facts of your case.
My petition is a simple
“petition for redress of grievances” i.e., a 7th Amendment claim (42 USC §1983 - §1985[1] Civil action for deprivation of rights)
for civil damages, the CORE issue is
the FRAUDULENT,[2] unwarranted, unreasonable, criminal[3] & unconstitutional combination of two
UNRELATED infamous issues into a not “facially valid court order”[4] i.e.,:
1.
Exparte Order of Protection
(03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243)
2. (at the time alleged)
Misdemeanor Traffic Issue (CR203-1336M),
issued
or adjudicated, respectively, coram
non judice because of “a complete absence of all jurisdictions.”[5]
II.
• What
the originating court decided.
The District Court (4:15CV1533HEA) dismissed i.e., “This
Court lacks jurisdiction over family court matters. Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859,
861 (8th Cir. 1994) (“The domestic relations exception . . . divests the
federal courts of jurisdiction over any action for which the subject is a
divorce, allowance of alimony, or child custody.”).
The District Court dealt with the specifics of my 51 page
petition with two over-reaching statements and footnote:
Ø
Statement 1 - “The complaint is a longwinded,
rambling diatribe about the unfairness of the courts and overreaching
government powers... an order of protection barring him from contact with his
ex-wife”
Ø
Statement 2 – “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.”
Ø
Footnote - Plaintiff cites to the recent Supreme
Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges, 125 S.Ct. 2071 (2015)… It does not speak to
this Court’s ability to interfere in a state court/family court matter, or to
modify child custody or divorce proceedings.”
III.
• The
issues in your appeal.
“The domestic relations exception . . . divests the
federal courts of jurisdiction over any action for which the subject is a
divorce, allowance of alimony, or child custody.”
The Core of my issue the Exparte Order and the Misdemeanor
Traffic ticket neither fall within the “domestic relations exception.”
The Exparte Order is by statute 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.”
And obviously the Misdemeanor Traffic ticket is just not a “domestic
relations” issue. Now I do admit that my
issues of relief do impact a “domestic relations” issue. Not that is the only solution.
Statement 1
While I take umbrage with the
court’s, in my opinion, over reaching and insulting order, I am now possibly willing
to consider it is a miss understanding between a pro se litigant and the fully informed and blinded Article III
Courts.
FIRST nowhere in my brief do I
reference anything related to the over-reaching assertion of personal contact
with Sharon Jeep. Personal contact was
never an issue.
What the Court has repeatedly
REFUSED to acknowledge is the difference between law and fact. The law
restricted me from contact with Sharon G. Jeep, at her uncontested request. I
have never contested that. I never stalked
her or tried to stop her from doing anything!
BUT the UNCONTESTED facts are she filed the FRAUDULENT[6] non-exigent
petition that became the NOT “facially
valid court order” [7] for corrupt
and malicious reasons. The fraudulent
generated results were and are, I excerpt from my original petition:
“Nonetheless
the subsequent and debilitating consequences, of the “Jane Crow”[8] non-exigent and NOT
“facially valid court order” [9] issued
“in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction"”[10] that was “sufficiently clear” that every “reasonable
official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,”[11] were devastating to
this PETITIONER, his whole world was taken from him without warrant or
realistic access to appeal.
He did start decompensating and fell into a
severe emotional depression, a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He was
left to deal with the infamous and unwarranted convictions alone and on his own
while struggling through a divorce, to just keep a safe place for himself and
son to possibly visit. ” [12]
Issues of fact are for the jury.
Statement 2
Now if the court wants to say “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.”
In the Jim Crow epoch Ida B.
Wells refused to give up her seat, 71 years before the activist Rosa Parks. In 1884 Wells took the Railroad to court and
won at the trial level. The Tennessee
Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling in 1887. The Tennessee Supreme
Court concluded, "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." How many others got
swept under the self-serving legal fiction of asserted harassment, before the
court finally listened to Rosa Park’s employer the NAACP?
I state again “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.” (14th Amendment to the United States Constitution)
Article III courts cannot claim ignorance of the constitution to excuses
the deprivation of rights.
With a reference on appeal to Ex
Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 347 (1879) :
“The
constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State, or
of the officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by
virtue of public position under a State government, deprives another of
property, life, or liberty, without due process of law, or denies or takes away
the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and
as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's
power, his act is that of the State. This must be so, or the constitutional
prohibition has no meaning. Then the State has clothed one of its agents with
power to annul or to evade it.
But
the constitutional amendment was ordained for a purpose. It was to secure equal
rights to all persons, and, to insure to all persons the enjoyment of such
rights, power was given to Congress to enforce its provisions by appropriate
legislation. Such legislation must act upon persons, not upon the abstract
thing denominated a State, but upon the persons who are the agents of the State
in the denial of the rights which were intended to be secured.”
Footnote
And in direct response to the
court’s footnote my original and current position is bolstered, not ignored, by
Obergefell’s[18] premise. To empower the Article III intervention
in Obergefell’s marital law, the
Supreme Court had to conclude the existence of and then assert jurisdiction of
marriage as a constitutional protected right (and thus the equally essential
dissolution of marriage[19] i.e., domestic relations law). Simply, “the right to marry is… under the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,”
PERIOD. Once the Supreme Court had concluded and then
asserted jurisdiction, under the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court then further
concluded “couples of the same-sex may
not be deprived of that right and that liberty.” But that ultimate conclusion, concerning couples of the same-sex, cannot and will
not limit the premise; the unqualified right to marry is… under the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Obergefell annihilates the “domestic relations exception” with
its concluded premise, as I cited it in my petition,[20] “These considerations lead to the
conclusion (i.e., premise used later) that the right to marry is a
fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due
Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,”
therefore the so called “domestic relations exception” no longer exists in the
court’s beloved but flawed “magic words” of stare decisis.
IV.
• The
legal arguments you wish to present.
We have come full circle Justice Harlan referenced with
white men in the Jane Crow epoch being denied “life liberty and property
without due process.
“At some future time, it may be that some other race (gender) will fall
under the ban of race (gender) discrimination. If the constitutional amendments
be enforced according to the intent with which, as I conceive, they were
adopted, there cannot be, in this republic, any class of human beings in
practical subjection to another class with power in the latter to dole out to
the former just such privileges as they may choose to grant. The supreme law of
the land has decreed that no authority shall be exercised in this country upon
the basis of discrimination, in respect of civil rights, against freemen and
citizens because of their race (gender), color, or previous condition of
servitude. To that decree -- for the due enforcement of which, by appropriate
legislation, Congress has been invested with express power -- everyone must
bow, whatever may have been, or whatever now are, his individual views as to
the wisdom or policy either of the recent changes in the fundamental law or of
the legislation which has been enacted to give them effect.”[21]
In spite of Justice John Marshall
Harlan’s dissent we have been put through at least five deprivations of right’ epochs
by the ruling Article III oligarchy.
Those are:
1.
“Absolute Immunity” epoch – ON GOING Randal (1868) / Bradley (1871)
2.
Jim Crow epoch – ON GOING[22]
3.
Patriarchy epoch- Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190
(1976)
4.
Lochner epoch - West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish
(1937)
5.
Jane Crow epoch (matriarchy/misandry) ON GOING
The following are all voided by the
irrefutable fraud[23] in the assertion of “absolute immunity” as
precedent from a Court Corporation, “The Star Chamber” that was ABOLISHED for
the abuse of said “absolutely immune” prerogative power.
1.
Pierson
v. Ray, 386
U. S. 57 (1967) - 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."
2.
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[24] actions of “all persons --
governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial
process”
4.
Imbler
v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) “the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor”, [26]
5.
Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)[27] the “knowingly false testimony by police officers"
6.
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)[28] the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and
conscientiously stupid[29] actions[30] of federal,
state, local, and regional
legislators
7. Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9, 112
8.
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.
9. Ashcroft
V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011)- Decided May 31, 2011
Not only were they ALL based on the
fraudulent[31] 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 raison d’être.
V.
• A
statement of what you want this Court to do and why.
“Justice is the end of government. It is
the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be
obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”
The
effect was instantaneous… has been and is currently DEVASTATING. The not
“facially valid court order”[32] 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, 12 years
later, still haunts him. He was then
kept at a distance from his son, his possessions, EVERYTHING he cared about in
the world[33] during a disputed divorce where his adversary, empowered by their criminal fraud, [34] respondents Sharon G. Jeep and Kristen Capps[35] had been empowered by EVERYTHING that had been
taken from him.
I seek declaratory
and injunctive relief, noting that criminally offending Judicial Officers were
involved, as follows:
- 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 37 year old
1978 DWI conviction.[36]
- I need this
because it should have naturally been expunged 27 years ago, but
definitely needs to be done NOW!!!
As the arresting officer said he did not realize the conviction
was 25 years old in 2003, but it caught his eye.
- 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).
- Clearing the
petitioners name of any reference to an exparte order of protection that
could become an issue in the future
- 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.
- Petitioner
admits the issues of Divorce and Custody are mooted by the time that has
elapsed. The current issue is
threefold
a. Access to equity
in the home and retirement funds of the respondent that would have been
available in divorce
b. The grant of
custody now a remedial symbolic gesture.
1.
But also concerning past and future child support
for our 20 year old college student.
- Injunctive/declaratory
relief to expunge from my record, WITH PREJUDICE, Eastern District Court
of Missouri Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP.
And money damages
as noted in my original petition.
VI.
• Your
signature.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Tuesday, November 03, 2015
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
______________________________________________
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
E-Mail
Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
[1] 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)
[2] Fraus omnia corrumpit “Fraud corrupts all.” A
principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[3] 18 USC § 242 – CRIMINAL Deprivation
of rights under color of law
[4] 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).
[5] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[6] Fraus omnia corrumpit “Fraud corrupts all.” A
principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[7] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic
violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte order of
protection. 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).
[8] “unequal protection” of the Laws based on
gender discrimination via “fraud on the court” e.g., blatantly false accusation
of abuse for tactical reasons in divorce and child custody proceedings.
[9] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic
violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte order of
protection. 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).
[10] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[11] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_
(2011)), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).
[12] My original petition dated Monday, October 05,
2015 pages 6-7 lines 14-15 and 1-6
[13] A condition that REALLY has not changed in 11
years!!!!!!!!!!!!
[14] 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.
[15] My original petition dated Monday, October 05,
2015 pages 9 lines 12-15
[16] Fraus omnia corrumpit “Fraud corrupts all.” A
principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[17] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic
violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte order of
protection. 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).
[18] Obergefell V. Hodges 2015 (Page 22)
[19] The idea of marriage without divorce would be
inconceivable, same sex, may marry but not divorce. That is absurd.
[20] My original petition
dated Monday, October 05, 2015, page 4 line 13, page 5 line 28 and page 38 line
19 item 51
[22] On going at least until the “Ayn Rand”
motivations in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 62 (1883)
are put aside once and for all!!!!!!!!!!!!
[23] Fraus omnia corrumpit “Fraud corrupts all.” A
principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[24] 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 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.
[25] 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.
[26] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[27] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[28] 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
[29] “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than
sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King “Strength to
Love” 1963
[30] 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).
[31] Fraus omnia corrumpit “Fraud corrupts all.” A
principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[32] 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).
[33] A condition that REALLY has not changed in 11
years!!!!!!!!!!!!
[34] Fraus omnia corrumpit “Fraud corrupts all.” A
principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[35] 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.
After a period of not less than ten years, an
individual who has pleaded guilty or has been convicted for a first
alcohol-related driving offense which is a misdemeanor or a county or city
ordinance violation and which is not a conviction for driving a commercial
motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and who since such date has
not been convicted of any other alcohol-related driving offense may apply to
the court in which he or she pled guilty or was sentenced for an order to
expunge from all official records all recordations of his or her arrest, plea,
trial or conviction.
No comments:
Post a Comment