Monday, March 14, 2016

Petition for Writ of Certiorari - Jeep v. United States Government

Certified Mail USPO - Label Number: 7015 0640 0002 9809 0700
Expected Delivery Day:      Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Delivered 03/18/2016 11:07am WASHINGTON DC 20543

Down Load as 91 page PDF File




Petition No.  15-8884     
Eastern Missouri U.S. District Court Case No. 4:15-cv-01533-HEA
A humble pro se[1] EMERGENCY[2] PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 12.84 years[3] of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
·         Case/Court Information - pages 1-5                5 pages
·         Jurisdiction – page 5                            1 page
·         Questions Presented - page 6                     1 pages
·         The Statement Of Case - page 6-11                 5 pages
·         Reasons For Granting The Petition - page 11-18    6 pages
·         Conclusion - page 18-20                          2 pages
·         Current Status - page 20-21                      1 pages
·         Declaratory And Injunctive Relief – page 21-22    1 pages
·         Money Damages – page 22-23                       1 pages[1]
·         REFERENCES - Historical, Constitutional And Statutory Provisions Involved - page 23-51                                    28 pages
·         Appendix – page 51-65                           15 pages
·         Signature page 66                                0 page
·         Footnotes page 66-91                            25 pages
·         Loose - Motion For Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperis & Certificate Of Service
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
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, 13-2200 and 15-1057),
·         US Magistrate Judge David D. Noce and United States District Judge Jean C. Hamilton, David Gerard Jeep Appellant v. Government of the United States of America (4:14-cv-02009-DDN)
·         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)
·         Mike Christian (FBI), Lyonel Mrythill (FBI), Dan Bracco (FBI), Robert O'Connor (USMS),[4] 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), [5]
·         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), [6]
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 15-1057 and 15-3403 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 15-1057 and 15-3403 8th U.S. Circuit Court Appeals)[7]
________________________________________________________________

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 (4 pages)

                                                                
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 listed in the appendix and included here and are unpublished.
________________________________________________________________

JURISDICTION

                                                                
[X] For cases from federal courts:
The gravamen for this is and has since DAY ONE been an egregious ex parte denial of (1) "reasonable cause," (2) a denial of "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment," (3) an assertion of "cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" and (4) "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution."[8]
The 14th Amendment "beyond debate"[9] "reckonably"[10] 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" WITHOUT EXCEPTION, and under the Article. VI. § 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."
The Article III Courts thus have 14th Amendment constitutional jurisdiction for "ANY LAW" and "ANY PERSON"[11] that denies the said "rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States."
The appellate jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under THE RULE OF LAW and 29 USC § 412 - CIVIL ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS; JURISDICTION and 28 USC § 1254 - Courts of appeals; certiorari; certified questions (acknowledging pro-se 28 U.S.C. § 2111. Harmless error[12] that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties).

________________________________________________________________

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED:

                                                                
1. How can a court, ex parte, take jurisdiction of a person without reasonable probable cause for the stated charge?
2. How, reckonablely[13] speaking, can constitutional wording, intent and understanding of "No State shall make or enforce any law" and "any person" as utilized in the 14th Amendment, non-exigent, have ANY EXCEPTIONS?
3. How can a person's[14] "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[15] of the United States of America
and
immunity for the "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America" under color of JUDGE MADE[16] law BOTH BE CONSTITUTIONAL?[17]
________________________________________________________________
THE STATEMENT OF CASE (5 pages)
                                                                
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 Article III Federal court's years of repeated deprivation of rights with six prior trips through the Article III District, Circuit and Supreme Court 6 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, 14-5551 and 14-10088. 
In confirmation, the petitioner states the warrant/order, the gravamen of this issue, "was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdictions.""[18]  To any sane, "reckonable"[19] and "beyond debate"[20] interpretation of the Common Law,[21] Constitutional Law[22] and Statute Law[23] 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" [24] 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."[25]  The warrant was a "beyond debate"[26] frivolous ex parte order of protection, thus not a "facially valid court order."[27]
The effect was instantaneous… has been and is currently DEVASTATING.  The not "facially valid court order"[28] 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 12.37 years[29] later, still haunts him. 
He was then kept at a distance from his son, his possessions, EVERYTHING he cared about in the world[30] during a disputed divorce where his adversary, the criminal respondents Sharon G. Jeep and Kristen M. Capps (ex-stepdaughter)[31] 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 originated and limited the jurisdiction for the Judicial Act.  The petition signed and dated by the criminal respondent, Sharon G. Jeep listed a BONDED alleged 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" [32] the statute mandated i.e., "for good cause shown in the petition… An immediate and present danger of domestic violence."[33]  The warrant/Order that included the respondent's, Sharon G. Jeep's hand written petition was not a "facially valid court order."[34] 
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III clearly had no "subject matter" [35] jurisdiction for the statute's stated "subject matter,"[36] "An immediate and present danger of domestic violence."[37]
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III had no personal jurisdiction, in that the issue, the alleged misdemeanor traffic violation, was already under the bonded[38] personal jurisdiction of another judge, Associate Circuit Judge Jack A. Bennett of 26th District of Missouri.
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III had no geographic jurisdiction, in that Judge Joseph A. Goeke III was a part of the 21st District of Missouri in St. Louis County some 170 miles away from the site of the alleged BONDED misdemeanor traffic violation and Associate Circuit Judge Jack A. Bennett in the 26th District of Missouri, Osage Beach, Camden County Missouri.
Thus Judge Joseph A. Goeke III had no "subject matter" jurisdiction, he could not assert personal jurisdiction and he had no geographic jurisdiction for the bonded alleged misdemeanor traffic violation. 
Judge Joseph A. Goeke's III JUDICIAL ACTION WAS TAKEN IN "a complete absence of all jurisdictions."[39] 
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 "beyond debate"[40] "reckonable"[41] to anyone that read it who was not sincerely ignorant or conscientiously stupid.  It was, at a minimum, a violation of the 8th Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments" but more importantly and flagrantly a violation of the 4th Amendment's prohibition of "unreasonable searches and seizures," 5th Amendment's prohibition "No person shall be held to answer…(an)infamous crime… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… without just compensation." and the Now I fully admit the Supreme Court likes to obscure as much law as possible to make it un-reckonable[42] thus insuring its continued existence.
The police, the Family Commissioner[43] (Philip E. Jones, Sr.), the presiding judge of the 21st District Court (Barbara W. Wallace), the family commissioner's employers (21st District Court of Missouri, en banc) the State Appeals Court, The Federal District Court, the Federal Circuit court, the FBI, the USMS, and the United States Supreme Court are all professionals and thus should be able to determine facially valid "beyond debate"[44] "reckonable"[45] "subject matter jurisdiction,"[46] 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 "reckonably"[47] unwarrantable, unconstitutional and NOT "facially valid court order"[48] were taken in "a complete absence of all jurisdictions"[49] [50] that was and IS "beyond debate"[51] "sufficiently clear" that every "reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,"[52]
Additionally all findings on appeal in favor of the NOT "facially valid court order," [53] after being made aware of the constitutional issues, were, are and have been felonious,[54] if not treasonous, violations of their oath of office "to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic"[55] that ALL federal officers and Article III Judicial Officers are bound by.[56] [57]
There is no certified RECORD to consider, because everything to this point has been "before out of court."[58] 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 not 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 7th day of October, 2015 "OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER":
"The nature and tone of the allegations demonstrate that plaintiffs purpose is to harass the named defendants rather than vindicate a cognizable legal right. As a result, this action is dismissed with prejudice."
What the District court calls harassment is justice to the petitioner JUSTICE - with compensatory, admittedly treble, damages for an admittedly "thick skulled"[59] victim of 12.84 years[60] of COURT SANCTIONED DENIAL OF RIGHTS AND FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT
How are IV, V, VI and XIV Amendment rights to the most basic "beyond debate"[61] reckonable[62] elements of Due Process of Law,[63] - reasonable probable cause,[64] "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation"[65] with the "presentment" of the charge[66] and exculpable evidence[67] not Supreme Court sanctioned constitutional "cognizable legal right(s)"? 
I make no excuse for seeking to stubbornly, admitting my "thick skull,"[68] to ESTABLISH JUSTICE via a constitutional VII Amendment Due Process of Law for the fraud sustained by this 12.76-year-blind-eye[69] to malice, corruption, sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"[70] by the Article III courts unjust malice, corruption, sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. 
The District, Circuit and Supreme Court Judges have been inserting uninformed emotionally driven opinion of the petitioner's allegations without the constitutionally required benefit of Due Process.
Both the District and Circuit courts have repeatedly refused to acknowledge two "beyond debate"[71] "reckonable" [72] 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!!!!![73]
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!!!!! [74]
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.[75]  The Petitioner will never fully recover and suffers from the recurring memories, if not flashbacks, to this day. 
________________________________________________________________
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION (6 pages)
                                                                
A.  
Clearly the ORIGINAL intent of the framers (the Founding Fathers) and citizens that ratified (We the People), the constitution was to hold all persons equally accountable to the letter and intent of the constitution.[76] 
History had shown that abuses could arise from the executive,[77] the judiciary[78] and the legislature[79]  Government was to be held to the New Constitution's original articles and Bill of Rights as the supreme law of the land. (Items 1-28 in HISTORICAL, CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED (HCSPI))
B.  
     The Supreme Court instigated the Civil War with Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).  As Abraham Lincoln asserted in his first inaugural address:
"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."
The national upheaval of secession was a grim reality at Abraham Lincoln's inauguration. Jefferson Davis had been inaugurated as the President of the Confederacy two weeks earlier.
     Post Civil War with Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 539 (1868),[80] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871) and Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 34 (1883)[81] as the starting points the Article III Judiciary's criminal action denied Justice for self serving reasons, to support and maintain their unwarranted exalted "beyond debate"[82] criminal actions. (SEE ITEMS 29-36 IN HCSPI)
C.  
The era of Mass Incarceration was criminally instigated and sustained by the Article III Courts Judge Made Law, it created "Jim Crow" post Civil War.  Tell me how the JUDGE MADE LAW that protects an incompetent, malicious or corrupt judge at liberty to do INJUSTICE helps me and/or avoids mass incarceration as a result????
"This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences."" Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), and currently Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9, 112.
AGAIN, tell me how an incompetent, malicious or corrupt judge at liberty to do INJUSTICE helps me, HELPS ANYONE????
MORE JUDGE MADE LAW to explain….. "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding 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)
MORE JUDGE MADE LAW to explain….."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. But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor's immunity would disserve the broader public interest. It would prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor's duty that is essential to the proper functioning (Page 424 U. S. 428) of the criminal justice system."Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
We APPARENTLY need a constitutional amendment to END the judicial sanction of malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence.[83]  We tried to end it in 1868, 1871 and 1875 with the post war Civil Rights act, but the Article III judiciary corruptly, maliciously and self servingly awarded themselves absolute immunity. (SEE ITEMS 29-36 IN HCSPI)
D.  
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 three 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" without a non-exigent exception.
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."[84]
Thirdly Obergefell V. Hodges 2015 (Page 22) "These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment..."
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"[85] TO THEIRS AND THEIR PEERS INJUSTICES as required by the stare decisis obligation of "absolute immunity"
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 currently Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9, 112 the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to acknowledge two mandatory Republican Government[86] 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!!!!![87]
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!!!!! [88]
Asserting "absolute immunity" and refusing to admit the human fallibility of malice, corruption,[89] "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"[90] has DEPRIVED We the People of the protection of a Republican Form of Government[91] based on our constitution's explicit requirement for a republican bicameral justice system with both Judge and Jury in criminal[92] and civil[93] courts. (SEE ITEMS 37-42 IN HCSPI)
E.  
The District and Circuit Article III have consistently and repeatedly disparaged the gravitas of the petition by saying:
"The remainder of plaintiffs claims are frivolous and malicious. The nature and tone of the allegations demonstrate that plaintiffs purpose is to harass the named defendants rather than vindicate a cognizable legal right. As a result, this action is dismissed with prejudice."
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."[94]
It was and is too unconstitutionally easy for the for the self serving Article III Courts with the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 34 (1883)[95] 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 Article III 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." 
As Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 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."
"This argument (Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011) 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." [96] His frame of reference for the coveted status of victimhood was limited to college campus rape, a difficult infamous crime[97] as a starting point to say the least.  On College Campuses I would at least assert the Duke Lacrosse team's[98] 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."[99]
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."[100] 
Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv.L.Rev. 457, 469 (1897) and MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, dissenting, Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 411 (1971):
"(W)where federally protected rights have been invaded, it has been the rule from the beginning that courts will be alert to adjust their remedies so as to grant the necessary relief." (Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. at 327 U. S. 684 (footnote omitted); see Bemis Bros. Bag Co. v. United States,289 U. S. 28, 289 U. S. 36 (1933) (Cardozo, J.); The Western Maid,257 U. S. 419, 257 U. S. 433 (1922) (Holmes, J.). Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 392 (1971)). (SEE ITEMS 43-55 IN HCSPI)
________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION (3 pages)
________________________________________________________________
The Supreme Court has lost its way, un-"bound" by "a Republican form of Government" [101] or "the supreme Law of the Land" The Supreme Court currently denies We the People's constitutional protection for an individual's redress (remedy) for the deprivation of a Supreme Court established constitutional right. How did the strict scrutiny afforded inalienable constitutionally secured rights EVER RESULT IN ANYTHING LESS THAN STRICT LIABILITY? 
IF immunity was meant for anything, it was meant to expediently correct egregious deprivation of rights without regard to personal culpability, not carving deprivation of rights in stone and covering them up with stare decisis.  The current Supreme Court stare decisis requires that incompetents, malice and corruption take precedent over We the People's desire to "establish Justice" with "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."
The petition should be granted David G. Jeep to give creditability AGAIN to the "beyond debate"[102] reckonable[103] rule of the Laws and Constitution for the United States of America (Article VI § 2) i.e., "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The Founding Fathers and We the People as represented by BOTH houses of congress in 1866, 1871 and 1875[104] were not and are not delusional.  The Founding Fathers and We the People did NOT,
I repeat DID NOT for emphasis,
"intended sub silentio to exempt"[105] under color of law "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[106] especially those entrusted with judicial,[107] prosecutorial[108] and enforcement[109] power from the federal Constitution's paramount binding authority[110] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice![111]
Clearly the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 and § 2 Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified into the US Code, 18 USC §241 - §242[112] and as 42 USC §1983 - §1985,[113] indisputably fell under "such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make"[114]  And any precedent originating in 1607 in a subsequently REPEATEDLY[115] discredited court[116] proves but one thing "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.[117]
One last argument, I just read "MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, dissenting (Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 430 (1971)).  I quote him here:
"I, too, dissent. I… feel that the judicial legislation, which the Court by its opinion today concededly is effectuating, opens the door for another avalanche of new federal cases. Whenever a suspect imagines, or chooses to assert, that a Fourth Amendment right has been violated, he will now immediately sue the federal officer in federal court. This will tend to stultify proper law enforcement, and to make the day's labor for the honest and conscientious officer even more onerous and more critical. Why the Court moves in this direction at this time of our history, I do not know. The Fourth Amendment was adopted in 1791, and, in all the intervening years, neither the Congress nor the Court has seen fit to take this step. I had thought that, for the truly aggrieved person, other quite adequate remedies have always been available. If not, it is the Congress, and not this Court, that should act."
The "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" [118] 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[119] and civil[120] courts of the land for violation of the Constitution for the United States of America was the Constitution raison d'être from the start.  Without access to a jury everything "will be a Star-Chamber." [121]  Additionally the congress with the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871[122] 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,[123] 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.[124]  Only those to blind by their "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" [125] 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[126] "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 (1 pages)
________________________________________________________________ 
I still am haunted by the not only the memories but the subsequent denials of paternity and property rights. 
I have, in the Jane Crow era, been fighting this for 12.76 years[127] I spent 411 days in jail, I have been homeless for 8.28+ years, I have been through the Federal Article III Judicial System 7 times and I have presented 6 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, 14-5551 and 14-10088!!!!
The deprivation is ongoing in this 12.76+ 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 22 on December 22, 2016, I have lost his irretrievable childhood.
The Pain and suffering has not abated and NEVER WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOTE: the court orders have been sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid, from the inception.  Sharon Jeep and the co-defendants/respondents took my son and all my worldly possessions via the "beyond debate"[128] UNREASONABLE "probable cause" combination of two unrelated infamous allegations via her and the co-defendants/respondents fraudulent and corrupt petition and NOT "facially valid court order"[129] issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction""[130] that was "sufficiently clear" that every "reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,"[131] that clearly made it coram non judice, respectively.[132]  More specifically while petitioner holds Sharon Jeep culpable for her share of all damages resultant from her fraudulent criminal and instigating actions, she by no means acted alone.  In fact her actions alone, unsupported by the non-exigent and NOT "facially valid court order" [133]would have been without significant consequence to this "thick skulled"[134] petitioner.
________________________________________________________________
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (1 pages)
________________________________________________________________ 

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 Property and Custody Order (Case No.:03FC-12243) now mooted between David G. Jeep and Sharon G. Jeep in all aspects BUT financial as regards settlement of this issue i.e., the joint marital property as of November 3, 2003 and the symbolic custody of then minor child Patrick Brandon Jeep (DOB 12/22/94).
(1.) Please note: any settlement with Sharon G. Jeep and Kristen M. Capps (ex-stepdaughter), will require access to the assumption of joint martial property that was in effect at the origin of the fraud, to access retirement, house equity and in dispute child support from an 8.36 years homeless and destitute father.
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 (1 pages)
________________________________________________________________

A Jury[135] demand for escalating DAMAGES:
Ø  Actual Damages in the amount of:       
One hundred three million six hundred eighty-six thousand five hundred forty-four dollars and zero cents              $103,686,544 [136]
Ø  Punitive damages in the amount of:         
two hundred seven million three hundred seventy-one thousand  dollars and zero cents                                $207,371,000 [137]
Ø  Clerk's Damages:[138]                        
thirty-one million four hundred eighty-two thousand five hundred forty-four dollars and zero cents                     $31,482,544
Ø  Total:[139]
three hundred forty-two million five hundred forty thousand eighty-seven dollars and zero cents                   $342,540,087 [140]
"THE "EXCLUSIONARY RULE"[141] IS SIMPLY IRRELEVANT… IT IS DAMAGES OR NOTHING."[142].
________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES - HISTORICAL, CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED (28 pages):

                                                                
1) THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE[143] is the natural spring for all inalienable rights and the raison d'être for any reasonable constitution and all natural and man-made rights. Immunity is REPUGNANT to justice. 
A) THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE cannot be defeated or annulled by inertia (never been done this before), expediency (would slow down the system) or finality (would upset the settled "apple cart") 
(1)    "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."[144]
(2)    "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union (i.e., a corporation), ESTABLISH JUSTICE, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." (preamble)
(3)    1st Amendment (December 15, 1791) to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law … prohibiting… or abridging… the right of the people… to petition the government for a redress of grievances" i.e., Justice.
(4)    "It is as much a [prosecutor's or JUDGES] duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." (paraphrased from Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935))
2) The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, established the right of redress: 
A) "If we, our chief justice(judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon" i.e., Justice. 
3) 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 "extrajudicial," unreasonable and without precedent.  I quote the "Star Chamber"[145] precedent:
A) "but if he [a Justice sworn to do Justice] hath conspired before out of Court (Corporation),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[147] irresponsibly used it, Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 539 (1868),[148] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), and currently Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9, 112, the originating sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.  (i.e., "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit"). 
5) "Levelers" were so called because theirs was the first modern attempt to level society and government with equality before the law. The Levellers, led by John Lilburne (1614 – 29 August 1657), Richard Overton (fl. 1640–1663) and William Walwyn (bap. 1600–1681) were a political movement during the English Civil Wars that emphasised popular sovereignty, extended suffrage, equality before the law, and religious tolerance, all of which were expressed in the manifesto "Agreement of the People"[149] (see also "An Arrow Against All Tyrants and Tyranny"). They came to prominence at the end of the First English Civil War and were most influential before the start of the Second Civil War. Leveller views and support were found in the populace of the City of London and in some regiments in the New Model Army. (i.e., "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit"). 
A) The soldiers in the New Model Army elected "Agitators" from each regiment to represent them. These Agitators were recognized by the Army's commanders and had a seat on the General Council. However, by September 1647, at least five regiments of cavalry had elected new unofficial agitators and produced a pamphlet called "The Case of the Army truly stated". This was presented to the commander-in-chief, Sir Thomas Fairfax, on 18 October 1647. In this, they demanded a dissolution of Parliament within a year and substantial changes to the constitution of future Parliaments that were to be regulated by an unalterable "law paramount".1689 English Bill of Rights Jury REQUIREMENT's raison d'être was to restrain lawless and bloody judges like Lord Chancellor George Jeffreys, 1st Baron Jeffreys of Wem, PC [150] who had overseen the "Bloody Assizes."[151] 
B) And while the elimination of slavery, 1833, and full and universal male suffrage, 1918, did not come until United Kingdom, they more rapidly approached Justice (i.e., "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit").
6)  Whigs were a political group and then a political party in the parliaments of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Between the 1680s and 1850s, they contested power with their rivals, the Tories. The Whigs' origin lay in support of constitutional monarchism and opposition to absolute rule. The Whigs played a central role in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and were the standing enemies of the Stuart kings and pretenders, who were Roman Catholic. As led, PHILOSIOPHICALLY, by John Locke's Two Treatises of Government during and through the Glorious Revolution of 1688.  His arguments concerning liberty and the social contract later influenced the written works of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers of the United States. In fact, one passage from the Second Treatise is reproduced verbatim in the Declaration of Independence, the reference to a "long train of abuses."   (i.e., "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit").
7) 1689 English Bill of Rights had as its premise:
A) "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" (i.e., "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit").
8) 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.  (i.e., "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit").
A) Juries are and always have been ESSENTIAL check on the Judiciary for the preservation of We the People's Justice
9) "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.  
(1)    In the Colonies, "Wilkes and Liberty" became a slogan (bumper sticker) that patriot leaders exploited in service of the American cause. The First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment found their origin in the Wilkes Cases.
(2)    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."                         
(3)    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.(i.e., "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit").
(4)    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.
10)    "The Commentaries on the Laws of England," 1765–1769, the influential 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone (i.e., "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit") 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." (Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE - BOOK 3, CHAPTER 3 - Of Courts in General AND Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803))
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" (William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:120--41)
11)    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.
(1)    (18) For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"
(2)    "Absolute Immunity" "before out of court"[152] deprives "We the People" of their constitutional right to a Jury of their peers criminal[153] and civil[154] as was the case at the time of the "Declaration of Independence."
12)    FEDERALIST No. 51 – "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments "For the Independent Journal.  Wednesday, February 6, 1788. by James Madison
A) "If men wer"e angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." (FEDERALIST No. 51 – "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments "For the Independent Journal.  Wednesday, February 6, 1788. by James Madison).  Thus:
(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!!!!!
(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!!!!! 
B) "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."
13)    "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union (i.e., corporation), establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." (preamble)
A) More specifically "We the people INCORPORATED OURSELVES to establish Justice… and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
(1)    That our agents the judiciary, SELF-SERVINGLY for their benefit alone, have assumed that "We the people" intended sub silentio to exempt them and our constitutional governmental CORPORATION i.e., "union" from any and all liability for "any person's" "rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" from our representative bicameral, judge and jury, pursuit of justice approaches the incredible. .
(2)    In sum, I can discern no "tradition so well grounded in history and reason" that would warrant the conclusion that, in enacting § 1 of the Civil Rights Act, the 42d Congress sub silentio extended to all government corporations a qualified immunity based on the good faith of their officers." (paraphrased from Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980) Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. at 436 U. S. 685
B) Now I realize our malicious and corrupt judiciary would rather that they, for self-serving individual reasons would prefer to assert nebulous sovereign immunity that can neither be used against the Judicial Corporation or for the Individual's rights.  This is clearly abrogation of "We the people's" constitutional intent to form "a more perfect union" i.e., a corporation that can and will "establish Justice" and "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity."  .
14)    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[155] Principles" For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, January 16, 1788
(1)    "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) 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:
(1)    "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!!!!!!!!!!!!!  
15)    Article III., Section. 1. § 1. "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court Corporation,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).
B) Impeachment for not "good Behaviour"... "posits an uberempathetic voting population (and Congress) so concerned for the rights of others that they will vote on the basis of policies that do not impact their own lives. This is just too fanciful. Virtual representation cannot be effective if it depends on heroic assumptions of empathy" paraphrased from "Equality in the war on terror." (Stanford Law Review Date: March 1, 2007 by Katyal, Neal Kumar)
16)    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." 
(1)    This furthers the ORIGINAL intent for the ex industria[156] statue (18 USC §241 - §242[157] and 42 USC §1983 - §1985[158]) power to enforce legislation established under the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. 
17)    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."
(1)    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.
18)    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."
19)    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.e., Congress shall make no lawprohibitingor abridgingthe right of the peopleto petition the government for a redress of grievances.
(1)    "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."[159]
20)    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."
21)    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."
22)    6th Amendment (December 15, 1791) "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." 
23)    7th Amendment (December 15, 1791) to the United States Constitution:
A) "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
(1)    Elbridge Thomas Gerry, stated the objections which determined him to withhold his name from the Constitution. He could however he said get over all these, if the rights of the Citizens were not rendered insecure - to establish a tribunal without juries, which will be a Star-Chamber as to Civil cases.[160] The Star-Chamber as a prerogative court immune from the reach of jury was known and feared in the mind of the Constitutional founders. The VII Amendment was ULTIMATELY the result and they thought solution.
(2)    George Mason picked up the casual comment of another delegate that "no provision was yet made for juries in civil case"[161]
24)    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 at issue in the original order as the gravamen, the Order created an infliction of a "cruel and unusual punishments" for an ex parte order of protection[162] i.e., a misdemeanor traffic violation as probable cause for an ex parte order of protection is "cruel and unusual" to say the least.
25)     "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."
26)    "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))   
27)    "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"[163]
28)    "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 Corporation, 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
29)    13th Amendment (December 6, 1865) to the United States Constitution:
A) "Section 1. 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.
(1)    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.
B) "Section 2 Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
30)    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[164] 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"[165] and the "ex industria"[166] power to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment by appropriate legislation was expressly granted"[167]:
A) "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.
31)    Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 539 (1868) was a criminal, sophisticated[168] and timely[169] judicial subterfuge to assert CRIMINAL ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY based on the fraudulent[170] 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.
A) As regards judicial liability the above precedent asserts:  ""Whenever," said the learned chief justice, "we subject the established courts of the land to the degradation of private prosecution, we subdue their independence and destroy their authority. Instead of being venerable before the public, they become contemptible.""
(1)    Was the idea of sub silentio "absolute immunity" for criminal and civil liability ever reasonable leaving only the act of an uberempathetic Congress, with an impeachment for not "good Behaviour," as the only means of "binding the judiciary?"
(2)    Let us now ask how that venerability and lack of liability sustained the civil rights of oppressed minorities in:
(1)         Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871) where a mass murder was obfuscated by judicial prerogative… "a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism."
(2)         United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) where program of a lawful minority was obfuscated by judicial prerogative… "a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism."
(3)         Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883) where "Jim Crow" originated with 90+ subsequent years of lynchings and the deprivation of  civil rights for an oppressed minority were… "sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.
1. "It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul."
2. Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted."
32)    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."
33)    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[171] Civil action for deprivation of rights indisputably fell under "such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make"[172]:
A) "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."
34)    Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871) ) was a criminal, sophisticated[173] and timely[174] judicial subterfuge to assert CIVIL ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY based on the fraudulent[175] 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.
A) "This provision of the law is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence, and without fear of consequences."
(1)    Was the idea of sub silentio "absolute immunity" for criminal and civil liability ever reasonable leaving only the act of an uberempathetic Congress, with an impeachment for not "good Behaviour," as the only means of "binding the judiciary?"
(2)    Let us now ask how the "exercise [of] their functions with independence, and without fear of consequences" sustained the civil rights of oppressed minorities in:
(1)         Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871) where a mass murder was obfuscated by judicial prerogative… "a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism."
(2)         United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) where program of a lawful minority was obfuscated by judicial prerogative… "a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism."
(3)         Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883) where "Jim Crow" originated with 90+ subsequent years of lynching and the deprivation of  civil rights for an oppressed minority were… "sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.
1. "It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul."
2. Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted."
(1)    "The constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State, or of the officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public position under a State government, deprives another of property, life, or liberty, without due process of law, or denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State. This must be so, or the constitutional prohibition has no meaning. Then the State has clothed one of its agents with power to annul or to evade it.
(2)    But the constitutional amendment was ordained for a purpose. It was to secure equal rights to all persons, and, to insure to all persons the enjoyment of such rights, power was given to Congress to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation. Such legislation must act upon persons, not upon the abstract thing denominated a State, but upon the persons who are the agents of the State in the denial of the rights which were intended to be secured."
36)    We have come full circle Justice Harlan referenced Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 62 (1883) with white men in the Jane Crow epoch being denied "life liberty and property without due process:
(1)    "At some future time, it may be that some other race (gender) will fall under the ban of race (gender) discrimination. If the constitutional amendments be enforced according to the intent with which, as I conceive, they were adopted, there cannot be, in this republic, any class of human beings in practical subjection to another class with power in the latter to dole out to the former just such privileges as they may choose to grant. The supreme law of the land has decreed that no authority shall be exercised in this country upon the basis of discrimination, in respect of civil rights, against freemen and citizens because of their race (gender), color, or previous condition of servitude. To that decree -- for the due enforcement of which, by appropriate legislation, Congress has been invested with express power -- everyone must bow, whatever may have been, or whatever now are, his individual views as to the wisdom or policy either of the recent changes in the fundamental law or of the legislation which has been enacted to give them effect."[176]
37)    McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914)  "This argument (Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011) 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."
38)    Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S. Ct. 629, 79 L. Ed. 1314 (1935). "It is as much [a prosecutor's (and I would say Judge's)] duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one."
39)    "In this country the judiciary (Article III) was made independent because it has, I believe, the primary responsibility and duty of giving force and effect to constitutional liberties and limitations upon the executive and legislative branches." The Bill of Rights" New York University Law Review, Vol. 35, April 1960 - Hugo L. Black
40)    Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (U.S. 1963) "The suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution."
41)    Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), and currently Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9, 112  "This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences."" (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.)
A) This assertion of a benefit from unrestrained judicial liberty CONFLICTS with the Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI § 2: "This Constitution… shall be the supreme Law of the Land… and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…"
B) And if three prominent federal Judges have any credibility; Judges have no liberty because:
(1)    The Great Writ, Habeas Corpus, is almost impotent,[177] without any authority,
(2)    The prosecution in America EVERYDAY uses infamous propaganda rather than credible, evidence to convict otherwise innocent people… "Although we pretend otherwise, much of what we do in the law is guesswork. For example, we like to boast that our criminal justice system is heavily tilted in favor of criminal defendants because we'd rather that ten guilty men go free than an innocent man be convicted….  any prosecutor worth his salt can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. It may be that a decent prosecutor could get a petit jury to convict a eunuch of rape."[178]
(3)    Because of ubiquitous and inescapable plea bargain innocent people are forced to plead guilty EVERYDAY.[179]
C) All because - "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."  William O. Douglas dissenting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 563 (1967)
42)    Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 411 (1971)"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."[180]  Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv.L.Rev. 457, 469 (1897) and MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, dissenting,.
43)    Start of the Jane Crow era - "The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law. It was passed as Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 HR 3355 and signed as Public Law 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994.
(1)         THIS IS AT MINIMUM UNEQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.  THERE IS NO PENALTY OR DETERRENT FOR A FALSE ACCUSATIONS!!!
(2)    "The "Jane Crow" Era, "It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte 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.""
(3)    "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."
44)    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."
45)    Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 362 (1983) JUSTICE Thurgood Marshall's dissenting opinion:
A) "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible."
46)     28 U.S.C. § 2111. Harmless error - In the age of Article III blind-eye affirmation of malice, corruption,[181] "sincere Ignorance and conscientious stupidity"[182] I ask for reconsideration based on the specific protection of the above referenced statute:
A) "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."
(1)    I include this reference, in the district Court Corporation,for the jury's reference in determining the Circuit and Supreme Court corporation's, culpability for 6 prior petitions on this issue, see Petition of Certioraris 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551 & 14-10088.
47)    Treaties made "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"[183] (PART II, Article 2, Section 3. (a):
A) Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(1)    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"
48)    The following are all voided by the irrefutable fraud[184] in the assertion of "absolute immunity" as precedent from a Court Corporation,"The Star Chamber" that was ABOLISHED for the abuse of said "absolutely immune" prerogative power.
A) Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) - William O. Douglas dissenting "It is one thing to say that the common law doctrine of judicial immunity is a defense to a common law cause of action. But it is quite another to say that the common law immunity rule is a defense to liability which Congress has imposed upon "any officer or other person" as in Ex parte Virginia, or upon "every person," as in these cases." 
B) Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983))Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 564 (1967), the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[185] actions of "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process"
D) Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) "the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor", [187]
E) Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)[188] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"
F) 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)[189] the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[190] actions[191] of federal, state, local, and regional legislators
G) Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9, 112
H) Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 where liability for individual rights was reduced from what should have been Strict Liability to somewhere less than respondeat superior liability.   
I) Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011)- Decided May 31, 2011
J) Not only were they based on the fraudulent[192] assertion of Floyd and Barker (1607) they were all sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid as regards the NULLIFICATION of inalienable constitutional rights, the constitution's raison d'être.  
A) "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."
A) "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)
B) The Statue itself disavows the "domestic relation exception" and invites other remedies. 
51)    Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011)- Decided May 31, 2011 In my case the issuance of the NOT "facially valid court order" [193] issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction""[194] was "sufficiently clear" that every "reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,"[195] i.e., the universal understanding of the IV Amendment. 
52)    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.""
A) That the omnipresent "Jane Crow"[196] potential, that a "Government official's conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, "[t]he contours of [a] right [are] sufficiently clear" that every "reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,"[197] has not been given more attention in the municipalities, i.e., corporations, of the Federal and State Courts, goes to satisfy your restriction in Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd and then Connick v. Thompson
B) "The decision (Oravec v Cole) puts federal and state law enforcement agents[198] on notice that they may be held personally liable if they discriminate… in investigating crimes" "Crow Indians' Lawsuit Against F.B.I. Agent to Proceed" By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, Published: February 1, 2013, No. 12–222. Matthew Oravec, Petitioner v. Earline Cole, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Steven Bearcrane, et al. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.[199]
53)    ""We do not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate." Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011). Put simply, qualified immunity protects "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 341 (1986)."Stanton v. Sims, 571 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (per curiam) (slip op., at 8) beyond debate." Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011). Justice Sotomayor, dissenting.  Mullenix v. Luna 577 U.S. ___ (2015)
54)    Obergefell V. Hodges 2015 (Page 22) "These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty."
A) In that the right to marriage is protected by "Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,"   the right to divorce must also be thus protected.  The "domestic relation exception" no longer has any authority
55)    Due Process of Law MUST exist upon a procedure that is not arbitrary, nor inventive, but which is formal, foreseeable and legally ordained.  

Conclusion "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America" make "absolute immunity" for the "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America" UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Martin Luther King, Jr. said it first and best… "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX (15 pages)
________________________________________________________________
1. A humble pro se[200] EMERGENCY[201] PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 12.84 years[202] of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (18 pages)[203] dated Monday, March 14, 2016, notarized.
2. A copy of the original ex parte NOT "facially valid court order" [204] of protection dated November 3, 2003.
3. A copy of by Tim Schlesinger (PAULE, CAMAZINE & BLUMENTHAL, A Professional Corporation), MBE #33494 petition/order filed (12/05/03) served (12/05/03) and denied (12/12/03) dated December 5, 2003 (6 pages)
4. A copy of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dated 7th day of October, 2015 as regards case No.4:15CV1533HEA   A copy of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dated 21st day of October, 2015 as regards rehearing case No.4:15CV1533HEA
5. A copy of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals JUDGMENT (Entry ID: 4361841) dated February 01, 2016.
6. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. The petition for rehearing by the panel is also denied. (Entry ID: 4376189) dated March 10, 2016
7. A "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" dated Monday, March 14, 2016, notarized. (loose)
8. 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[205] (loose)
9. I note and acknowledge all prior court records in the State of Missouri District Court, State of Missouri District Appeals Court, Eastern Missouri U.S. District Court, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States Supreme Court and in my blog www.DGJeep.blogspot.com.














________________________________________________________________
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, Monday, March 14, 2016
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!!!!
Footnotes (14 pages)



[1] The 18 Pages inside this block ONLY subject to page limit (V. Page Limitation - The petition for a writ of certiorari may not exceed 40 pages...



[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 8.28 years homeless, I have little prospects for survival!!!!!!!!!!
[3] Start Saturday May 17, 2003 01:00 AM as of Monday March 14 2016 07:21:05.00 AM  
[4] "The decision (Oravec v Cole) puts federal and state law enforcement agents  on notice that they may be held personally liable if they discriminate… in investigating crimes"
[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…  http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/search/label/08-1823   
[7] The link to this Brady constitutional issue is un-severable.  Proof of its sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity is available for the askinghttp://dgjeep.blogspot.com/search/label/08-1823   
[8] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 87 (1963)
[9] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[10] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."  Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules,  56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[11] "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." AMENDMENT XIV, Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. Section 1.
[12] 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.
[13] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."  Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules,  56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[14] "This argument (Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011) 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)
[15] § 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) & The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 USC §1983 - §1985)
[16] a) Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) - William O. Douglas dissenting "It is one thing to say that the common law doctrine of judicial immunity is a defense to a common law cause of action. But it is quite another to say that the common law immunity rule is a defense to liability which Congress has imposed upon "any officer or other person" as in Ex parte Virginia, or upon "every person," as in these cases." 
b)   Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983))Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 564 (1967), the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid  actions of "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process"
c)   Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)), 
d)   Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) "the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor",  
e)   Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)  the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"
f)   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)  the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid  actions  of federal, state, local, and regional legislators
g)   Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9, 112
h)   Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 where liability for individual rights was reduced from what should have been Strict Liability to somewhere less than respondeat superior liability.  
i)   Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011)- Decided May 31, 2011
[17] Martin Luther King, Jr. knew when he said… "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
[18] 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)
[19] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."  Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules,  56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[20] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[21] Magna Carta in 1215 to Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98
[22] "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).
[23] "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
[24] Attorney Joe Miller REPEATED ASSERTION (Denzel Washington in "Philadelphia"): Now, explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old.
[25] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[26] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[27] 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). 
[28] 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). 
[29] Start Monday November 03, 2003 08:00 PM through Monday March 14, 2016 07:21.00 AM
[30] A condition that REALLY has not changed in 11 years!!!!!!!!!!!!
[31] 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.
[32] 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."
[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] 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). 
[35] "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.
[36] Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 356 NOTED exception Footnote 6 - ibid.
[38] It should be noted that the respondent Sharon G. Jeep actively assisted bonding the petitioner on the alleged misdemeanor traffic violation
[39] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[40] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[41] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."  Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules,  56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[43] 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. 
[44] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[46] "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.
[48] 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). 
[49] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[50] 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
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[50] i.e., a misdemeanor traffic violation as probable cause for an ex parte order of protection is "cruel and unusual" to say the least.
[51] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[52] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011)), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).
[53] 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). 
[54] 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,
[56] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985  the absence of exigent circumstances should be noted.
[57] 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
In that petitioner was without reason or warrant, petitioner was FORCED into "involuntary servitude" to sustain his parental rights to see his son.
"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.
 "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
[58] "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.
[59] 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 or thick skulled.
[60] Start Saturday May 17, 2003 01:00 AM through Monday March 14, 2016 07:21.00 AM
[61] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[62] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."  Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[63] 5th and 14th Amendments
[64] 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."
[65] 6th Amendment "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." 
[66] AMENDMENT V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment
[67] 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."
[68] 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 or thick skulled.
[69] Start Saturday May 17, 2003 01:00 AM as of Monday February 15, 2016 08:11.00 AM 
[70] MLKing  "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ■Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
[71] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[72] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."  Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[75] 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.
[76] "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." Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI § 2
[77] The Magna Carta in 1215
[79] Whigs played a central role in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and were the standing enemies of the Stuart kings and pretenders, who were Roman Catholic. As led, PHILOSIOPHICALLY, by John Locke's Two Treatises of Government during and through the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
[80] 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.  
[81] 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!!!!!!!
[82] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[84] 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)
[85] Floyd and Barker (1607), (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber.
[86] Constitution for the United States of America, Article. IV., Section. 4. § 1
[89] "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. 547 (1967), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), and currently Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9, 112
[90] MLKing  "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ■Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
[91] Constitution for the United States of America, Article. IV., Section. 4. § 1
[92] Civil Rights Act of 1866 (18 USC §241-§242)
[93] Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC §1983-§1985)
[94] Ida B. Wells v Chesapeake, Ohio and Southwestern Railroad - Southwestern Reporter, Volume 4, May 16-August 1, 1887
[95] 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!!!!!!!
[96] "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
[97] The 5th Amendment farsightedly addresses "infamous crimes" and tries to abate their misuse in persecuting innocents.
[98] 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.
[99]  "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.comThe Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08. 
[100] 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)
[101] Constitution for the United States of America, Article. IV., Section. 4.§1
[102] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[103] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."  Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[104] 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 (now Now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Whoever" criminally liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law) and The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, enacted April 20, 1871 (now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Every person" civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law).
[105] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]"  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[106] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[107] "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)
[108] 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)
[109] 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)
[110]"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
[111] 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.
[112] § 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)
[113] 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)
[114] Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, § 2
[115] It was not only Discredited by the it repeal in 1641 but redundantly 1689 English Bill of Rights.
[117] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[118] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[119] Civil Rights Act of 1866 (18 USC §241-§242)
[120] Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC §1983-§1985)
[121] Origins of the Bill of Rights,  By Leonard W. Levy, page 228
[125] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[126] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163
[127] Start Saturday May 17, 2003 01:00 AM as of Monday February 15, 2016 08:11.00 AM 
[128] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[129] The assertion of a misdemeanor an alleged traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte order of protection.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge.  "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003). 
[130] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[131] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011)), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).
[132] See court order "Plaintiff alleges that his rights were violated by a state family court judge in 2003, when the judge issued an order of protection barring him from contact with his ex-wife."
[133] The assertion of a misdemeanor an alleged traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte order of protection.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge.  "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003). 
[134] If a man is negligently or criminally  run over or otherwise negligently or criminally injured in his body, it is no answer to the sufferer's claim for damage that he would have suffered less injury, or no injury at all, if he had not had an unusually thick or thin skull or an unusually weak heart.
[135] 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."
[136] Start Saturday May 17, 2003 01:00 AM as of Monday March 14 2016 07:21:05.00 AM  
[137] Start Saturday May 17, 2003 01:00 AM as of Monday March 14 2016 07:21:05.00 AM  
[138] Clerk's, Monday, May 18, 2015, repugnant, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid, action
[139] This AMOUNT IS ESCALATING based on the 8th Circuit Court of appeals Tuesday June 14, 2011 12:00.00AM see attached dated, Monday March 14 2016 07:21:05.00 AM, spreadsheet.
[140] Start Saturday May 17, 2003 01:00 AM as of Monday March 14 2016 07:21:05.00 AM  
[141] In criminal case the "exclusionary rule" is an obfuscation of the Government's Article III vicarious liability for 7th Amendment due Process rights.
[142] 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."
[143] I herewith note: 6 prior petitions on this issue in "PURSUIT OF JUSTICE," see Petition of Certioraris 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551 & 14-10088.
[144] FEDERALIST No. 50 "Periodical Appeals to the People Considered" From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 5, 1788. by James Madison
[145] The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against the English upper class, (i.e., nobles) those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes.
[146] Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber"[146] July 5, 1641, statute law in the realm of England, or dominion of Wales, that "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void" for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for "absolute immunity" in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871) supra Star Chamber Floyd and Barker 1607.
Article I "An act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber." "WHEREAS by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land:…
§ 9 of "but the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments than by any law is warranted"
Article III "Be it ordained and enacted by the authority of this present parliament, That the said court commonly called the star-chamber, and all jurisdiction, power and authority belonging unto, or exercised in the same court, or by any the judges, officers, or ministers thereof, be from the first day of August in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred forty and one, clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away and determined"
§ 3 "every article, clause and sentence in them, and every of them, by which any jurisdiction, power or authority is given, limited or appointed unto the said court commonly called the star-chamber, or unto all or any the judges, officers or ministers thereof, or for any proceedings to be had or made in the said court, or for any matter or thing to be drawn into question, examined or determined there, shall for so much as concerneth the said court of star-chamber, and the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void."
The Act explicitly disbands the court for cause, "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void" all prior precedent of the said court and judges. 
[147] "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)
[148] 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.  
[149] An Agreement of the People was a series of manifestos, published between 1647 and 1649, for constitutional changes to the English state. Several versions of the Agreement were published, each adapted to address not only broad concerns but also specific issues during the fast changing revolutionary political environment of those years. The Agreements of the People have been most associated as the manifestos of the Levellers but were also published by the Agitators and the General Council of the New Model Army.
Major published versions of the Agreement include:
"An Agreement of the People for a firme and present Peace, upon grounds of common right and freedome ...", presented to the Army Council in October 1647.
"An Agreement of the People of England, and the places therewith incorporated, for a secure and present peace, upon grounds of common right, freedom and safety", presented to the Rump Parliament in January 1649.[2]
"AN AGREEMENT OF THE Free People of England. Tendered as a Peace-Offering to this distressed Nation", extended version from the Leveller leaders, "Lieutenant Colonel John Lilburne, Master William Walwyn, Master Thomas Prince, and Master Richard Overton, Prisoners in the Tower of London, May the 1. 1649."
[150] 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.
[151] 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.
[152] "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.
[153] "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.
[154] "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
[155] Constitution for the United States of America, Article. IV., Section. 4. § 1
[157] § 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)
[158] 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] Origins of the Bill of Rights,  By Leonard W. Levy, page 228
[161] "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)
[162] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455 Abuse--Adults and Children--Shelters and Protective Orders  Section 455.050
[163] As quoted into the Congressional Record Senate Vol. 152, Pt. 1 page 80-81, Mr. Santorum and Bergh, 15:331. 1821
[164] § 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)
[165] Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, § 2
[168] "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)
[169] The, then, recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866 made it a crime for a judicial officer to deny constitutional rights. 
[170] Fraus omnia corrumpit "Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[171] 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)
[172] Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, § 2
[173] "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)
[174] 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. 
[175] Fraus omnia corrumpit "Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[177] "THE DEMISE OF HABEAS CORPUS AND THE RISE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: THE COURT'S EVER INCREASING LIMITATIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND SOME PARTICULARLY UNFORTUNATE CONSEQUENCES"  Michigan Law Review Volume 113 | Issue 7 (2015) By Stephen R. Reinhardt Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 
[178] 44 GEO. L.J. ANN. REV. CRIM. PROC (2015) by Hon. Alex Kozinski, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit See at
[179] "Why Innocent People Plead Guilty" The New York Review of Books by Jed S. Rakoff United States District Judge for the ­Southern District of New York  http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/
[180] 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)
[181] "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. 547 (1967), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), and currently Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9, 112
[182] MLKing  "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ■Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
[183] 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).
[184] Fraus omnia corrumpit "Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[185] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption.  Martin Luther King said it better, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963). 
As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series").  The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[186] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[187] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[189] 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
[190] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King "Strength to Love" 1963
[191] 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). 
[192] Fraus omnia corrumpit "Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
[193] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte order of protection.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge.  "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003). 
[194] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[195] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011)), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).
[196] "unequal protection" of the Laws based on gender discrimination via "fraud on the court" e.g., blatantly false accusation of abuse for tactical reasons in divorce and child custody proceedings.
[197] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011)).
[198] USMS and FBI Federal Agents
[200] 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.
[201] After 8.28 years homeless, I have little prospects for survival!!!!!!!!!!
[202] Start Saturday May 17, 2003 01:00 AM as of Monday February 15, 2016 08:11.00 AM 
[203] 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).
[204] 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). 
[205] Rule 29 - proof of service may be in the form of a declaration pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1746



Thanks in advance,
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep, Federal Inmate #36072-044
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com orDGJeep01@yahoo.com

(314) 514-5228

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