Friday, April 22, 2016

Apr 21 2016 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed. - Petition for Writ of Certiorari 15-8884


The Gravamen

The asserted uncontested, undeniable, NOW-exigent[1] and “reckonable”[2] gravamen was and is an ex parte court order of protection[3] without “REASONABLE PROBABLE CAUSE” from 12.94 years ago.[4]  This has been a FLAGRANT VIOLATION from day one.  The Police Officer that originally served laughed at it.  The first judge to hear it looked to the sky in amazement and/or discussed.  REGARDLESS, they and EVERYONE since have upheld it.  They risked nothing when they took my son, my home and all my most valued worldly possession, threw me out on the street and then forced me into a disputed divorce where my criminal adversaries[5] had been empowered by all that had been fraudulently[6] and criminally[7] taken from me. 

I have, since, been struggling to expose this for 12.94 years[8] with 411 days in jail, 7 trips through the federal court system and this, 15-8884, my 7th docketed Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, the prior six were denied (07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, 14-5551 and 14-10088).

By definition individual rights are the spring for and preceded We the People’s Constitutional incorporation of them into the supreme law of the land.  Therefore, there can be no statute of limitations on the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws at the instigation of an action under color of law.[9]

In attuned reconciled LEGALESE, the “reckonable”[10] gravamen is and has always been the result of a deprivation of rights under color of law.  And now attuned to requirements of current precedent, it was and is an unconstitutional deprivation[11] of rights under color of law with a:

    • NOTfacially valid court order[12]
    • The 14th Amendment “beyond debate”[13] “reckonably”[14] 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 lawswithout NON-EXIGENT 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.”  Thus there can be no Judge made exception[15] i.e., the Domestic Relations exception.[16]
    • that was issued “in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"”[17]
    • that over comes “difficult problems of proof” and “stringent standard of fault[18] with the ubiquitous UNCONSTITUTIONAL “Jane Crow” assertion of a Woman’s “victimhood” at the expense of any Man’s constitutional rights in legal disputes[19]
    • that facts[20] were and are “beyond debate[21]sufficiently clearTHAT EVERYreasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,[22] (i.e., the universal reckonable[23] understanding of the IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV Amendments).


    [1] See ESCALATING DAMAGES included in original petition http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2016/04/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-15-8884.html
    [2] "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)
    [4] As of Tuesday April 19, 2016 03:43.47 PM
    [6] 18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally
    [7] 18 USC §241 - §242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law
    [8] As of Tuesday April 19, 2016 03:43.47 PM
    [9] 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.
    [11] Deprivation of the IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV Amendment rights
    [12] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for an ex parte order of protection.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided IN THE PETITION, 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). 
    [13] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
    [14] "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)
       [15] The very statute in questions INVITES other remedies, a federal civil rights action, for it.  Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Proceedings independent of others - Section 455.070
    [16] But even that is overridden by their own precedent now… 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.”
    [17] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
    [18] “difficult problems of proof,” and we must adhere to a “stringent standard of fault,” lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.12 Bryan County, 520 U. S., at 406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392 - Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson,  Certiorari to the Supreme Court, No. 09–571. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 29, 2011
       [19] ADDITIONALLY - the petitioner holds “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) 
    [20] See the enclosed documentation IN THE PETITION, the originating petition and the motion dated December 12, 2003. “A copy of the original ex parte NOT “facially valid court order” of protection dated November 3, 2003. (2 pages 53&54)– “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 55-60)
    [21] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
    [22] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).

    Post a Comment