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 8
th 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 15
th Amendment’s Voting Rights protection with
the subterfuges
of poll taxes
, literacy tests
, and grandfather clauses,
United
States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) sophisticated
[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 14
th 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:
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.”
- 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.
- 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.
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
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.
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 455.035 –
“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.
”
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 26
th District of Missouri.
Judge Joseph A.
Goeke III had no geographic jurisdiction, in that Judge Joseph A. Goeke
III was a part of the 21
st District of Missouri in St. Louis County
some
170
miles away from the site of the alleged
BONDED misdemeanor traffic violation and Associate Circuit
Judge Jack A. Bennett in the 26
th District of Missouri, Osage Beach,
Camden County Missouri.
Thus Judge Joseph A. Goeke
III had no “subject matter” jurisdiction, he could not assert personal
jurisdiction and he had no geographic jurisdiction for the bonded alleged
misdemeanor traffic violation.
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 8
th
Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments” but more importantly
and flagrantly a violation of the 4
th Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable
searches and seizures,” 5
th Amendment’s prohibition “No person shall
be held to answer…(an)infamous crime… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law… without just compensation.” 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 21
st
District Court (Barbara W. Wallace), the
family commissioner’s employers (21
st District Court of Missouri, en
banc) the State Appeals Court, The Federal District Court, the Federal Circuit
court, the FBI, the USMS, 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
NOT “
facially valid court order”
[109]
were taken in “a complete absence of
all jurisdictions.”
[110] [111]
Additionally all findings on
appeal in favor of the
NOT “
facially 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]
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 a
nd 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]
“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]
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
NOT “
facially 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]
FOR ATTACHMENTS see PDF FILE here
________________________________________________________________
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)
[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.
[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).
[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.
·
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
[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)
[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
[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
[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).
[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)
[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,
[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.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child
Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08.
[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.)
[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
