Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Appellate BRIEF 15-3403 Documents Entry ID 4333758

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 NOTfacially 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
David G. Jeep and heir,      Plaintiff,
            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 NOTfacially 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 NOTfacially 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]
“He was then kept at a distance from his son, his possessions, EVERYTHING he cared about in the world[13] during a disputed divorce where his adversary, the criminal respondents Sharon G. Jeep and Kristen Capps[14] had been empowered by EVERYTHIG that had been taken from him.” [15]
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.”

I am not asking for anything biblical I am asking for injunctive relief from the fraud[16] asserted and damages for deprivations that have to date resulted from the NOTfacially valid court order [17]

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] premiseTo 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:
  1. 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] 
    1. 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.
  2. 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).
    1. Clearing the petitioners name of any reference to an exparte order of protection that could become an issue in the future
  3. 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.
    1. 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.
  1. 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
Saint Louis, MO  63155-9999
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: 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.
[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.