Tuesday, June 7, 2016

ANY ASSERTION OF “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY” IS “BEYOND DEBATE” ANTITHETICAL TO A “REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT” AND "TAKEN IN A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ALL JURISDICTIONS" TO DO SO.

UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
FEDERAL COURT - St. Louis DIVISION
_____________________________________________________________________
David G. Jeep and heir, PETITIONERS
v.
RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION
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, 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 15-8884)
·         8th District US Court of Appeals and The Government of the United States of America (Cases 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435, 13-2200, 15-1057 and 15-3404),
·         US District judge Henry Edward Autrey and The Government of the United States of America - Case #4:15CV1533HEA - David G. Jeep and heir, Plaintiff, vs. Government (corporation) of the United States of America, et al Defendants/Respondents
·         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 and 14-10088)
·         US Magistrate Judge David D. Noce, United States District Judge Jean C. Hamilton and The Government of the United States of America Case# 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), 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),
·         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 MissouriCamden County, and City of Osage Beach (4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M),
All Defendants/Respondents are included and asserted liable, as GOVERNMENT actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________________________

                                                                                             I.     Jurisdiction:

______________________________________________________________________
THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE is the natural inalienable spring and the preexisting raison d'être for any reasonable common law, constitutional law, statute law and all rights.  "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."[1]
Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for the protection of civil rights the court should endeavor to construe the plaintiff's pleading without regard for technicalities (especially where supporting evidence is provided as here[2]).
"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."
Federal question: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person"
"Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress" (CLEARLY the United States of America is a corporate entity that has been contracted "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" by "We the People.")
12+ years of "racketeering activity" means
(A) any act or threat involving murderkidnappinggamblingarsonrobberybriberyextortion,
(B) section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), sections 1581–1592 (relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons).,[1] section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), sections 2421–24 (relating to white slave traffic)
(a.)  "It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer."
(d.)  "It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section."
(c.)  "Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final."
ADDITIONALLY I again site the jurisdiction of the pursuit of Justice and the Constitution for the United States of America[3]  with a representative 7th Amendment JuryDEMAND.
_____________________________________________________________________

                                                                                                 II.     Plaintiff:

______________________________________________________________________
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO  63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
Phone 314-524-5228
_____________________________________________________________________

                                                                  III.     Defendants/Respondents:

______________________________________________________________________
As listed above best guess addresses would be City of Osage Beach, Camden County, DOJ State of Missouri, 26th Judicial Circuit Court State of Missouri, 21st Judicial Circuit Court State of Missouri, FBI St. Louis Office, USMS St. Louis Office, AUSA St. Louis Office, United States Eastern District of Missouri Federal Court - St. Louis Division, United States Western District of Missouri Federal Court – Kansas City Division, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, USDOJ Washington DC, Supreme Court of the United States or The White House
_____________________________________________________________________

                                                                               IV.     Facts of the case:

______________________________________________________________________
Petitioner is asserting 12+ years of "racketeering activity" by the Black Robed Royalists' in a criminal conspiracy against constitutional rights.  This "racketeering activity," kidnappingrobberybribery, and extortion, is in direct defiance of the common of law trespass, federal statute law, the Constitution of the United States and theBlack Robed Royalists' own precedent. 
The Black Robed Royalists' "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization," as an institution, tolerates malice, corruption, dishonesty, perjury and incompetents.[4]   The Black Robed Royalists' "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization" refuses to provide a constitutionally SECURED 7th Amendment remedy and advances "the spirit of mere legalism, the spirit of hair-splitting technicality"[5] and their unconstitutional assertion of "absolute immunitythat rejects justice.  "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]
In furtherance of this conspiracy, the Black Robed Royalists Article III Judiciary has deprived the petitioner's many attempts[7] to "establish Justice."  The Black Robed Royalists Article III Judiciary, for 12+ years, has been CRIMINALLY and unconstitutionally asserting "absolute immunity."  The Black Robed Royalists' conspiracy against rights with "absolute immunity" is an unrepresentative and "un-enacted "policy" proclamation by the Black Robed Royalist, who uniquely benefit from their self-legislation, which does and should suffer the presumption of reckless-illegitimacy."[8].
Petitioner states he was never given the slightest consideration for the flagrant violation of rights; supported by enclosed undisputed documentary evidence.[9] 
Petitioner herewith references the Black Robed Royalists' own precedent, not for controlling authority; but to exemplify the patent fraud, in the instant case, theBlack Robed Royalists' Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization:
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, (151 F2d. 240) Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In Picking, the plaintiffs civil rights was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept." Nevertheless, it was held: Where a plaintiff pleads pro-se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the court should endeavor to construe plaintiffs pleading without regard to technicalities (especially where supporting evidence is provided as here[10]). In Walter Process Equipment v. Food Machinery 382 U.S. 172 (1965) it was held that in a "motion to dismiss, the material allegations of the complaint are taken as admitied."  From this vantage point, courts should be reluctant to dismiss complaints unless it appears the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief (see Conlev vs. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41(1957). In Puckett v. Cox , it was held that a pro-se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer (456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA) said Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson . 355 U.S. 41 at 48(1957)
"The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." According to rule 8(f(e)) FRCP all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice."
The Court also cited Rule 8(e) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice. It could also be argued that to dismiss a civil rights action or other lawsuit in which a serious factual pattern or allegation of a cause of action has been made would itself be violative of procedural due process as it would deprive a pro-se litigant of equal protection of the law visa vis a party who is represented by counsel. In a fair system, victory should go to a party who has the better case, not the better representation.
Petitioner again states, "Any un-enacted "policy" proclamation by judicial officials who uniquely benefit from their self-legislation does and should suffer the presumption of reckless-illegitimacy,"[11] this exemplifies Black Robed Royalists as a self-serving Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization.
Now I realize that anyone who questions THE "un-enacted "policy" proclamation by" the Black Robed Royalists, is by the Black Robed Royalists' criminally self-serving assertion, alone, deemed frivolous and/or malicious.  The Black Robed Royalists' assertion is in undisputable criminal defiance of the Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI § 2 (and/or the 7th Amendment).  The Black Robed Royalists assert Judges were never to be "bound" by the Supreme Law of Land.  THAT IS SELF-SERVING CRIMINAL ERROR
On November 3, 2003 petitioner was served "under color of law" with an obviously "beyond debate" NOT "facially valid" gender biased Black Robed Royalists' ex parte court order of protection (03FC-10670M).  The clearly NOT "facially valid" ex parte court ordered of protection, unreasonably (4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment) and unusually (8th Amendment) listed a misdemeanor traffic violation as its only "probable cause."  This criminal fraud then unconstitutionally empowered a gender biased divorce action (03FC-12243). 
The linked misdemeanor traffic violation, in a separate, although inescapably linked, proceeding in the Black Robed Royalists' state court (CR203-1336M) was later adjudicated, unconstitutionally via the denial of requested exculpable evidence, "the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury" (asking for relief under FRCP 60(b) 2&3).
The Petitioner's son was taken, he was thrown out of his home, all of his worldly possessions were taken from him.  He was then forced into a disputed divorce were his adversaries the respondents, Sharon G. Jeep (ex-wife) and Kristen M. Capps (ex-stepdaughter) had been criminally empowered by all that had been fraudulently, UNCONSTITUTIONALLY and unreasonably taken from him. 
Since 2003, Petitioner has been relentlessly petitioned (1st Amendment) for a redress of grievances for the above undisputable criminal conspiracy (18 USC §241 §242) issues, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Marshal Service, The United States Attorney and through the Black Robed Royalists' Article III system i.e., United States Eastern District of Missouri Federal Court - St. Louis Division and United States Court Of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, seven times[12] to the Black Robed Royalists Supreme Court without the constitutionally required republican (Article IV, Section 4, § 1 and 7th Amendment), judge and jury, remedy for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities corporately secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States (14th Amendment, 42 USC §1983 - §1985).
Since 2003 petitioner has been restrained from enjoyment of his rights, privileges and immunities as SECURED by the constitution and laws of the United States by a criminal conspiracy of deliberate indifference to rights, by the conspiracy of the Black Robed Royalists' "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization."

A.   THESE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED

Petitioner is in accord with the view that it is inexpedient to determine grave constitutional questions upon a demurrer to a complaint, or upon an equivalent motion, if there is a reasonable likelihood that the production of evidence will make the answer to the questions clearer.  
Additionally, any conceived lack of probability that proof can be supplied in support of this allegation cannot serve as a basis for dismissal for the present motion for all "well pleaded" allegations must be treated as true.  Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for the protection of civil rights the court should endeavor to construe the plaintiff's pleading without regard for technicalities (especially where supporting evidence is provided as here[13]). 

B.   I AM HAPPY TO MOVE DIRECTLY TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

This issue from day one, 12+ years ago, has been the fraudulent and unconstitutionally linking of two infamous, and all too common, state deprivations of constitutional rights i.e., the ubiquitous clichéd use of a gender biased ex parte order of protection in a domestic disputes and misdemeanor state traffic - revenue source - courts abuse of procedure.
I originally asserted a RICO violation (18 U.S. Code § 1962 - Prohibited activities) in November 04, 2007 in the secondary issue 4:07-cv-0506-W-SOW (MOED), 08-1823 (CA8) David Jeep vs. Jack Bennett, et al, and thus as it was included, by reference in the Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 to the Supreme Court of the United States. That prior reference only ADDS to its credibility now some 7 trips through the system later (see Petition of Certioraris 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088 and 15-8884). 

C.   THE ABSENCE OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES- PRECEDING

The Petitioner states that exigent circumstances were never a consideration in the respondent's criminally fraudulent instigation of the ex parte petition in 2003.  The lack of probable cause in addition to no subject matter, geographic and/or personal jurisdiction, confirms that all Article III consideration of the not facially valid court order has been, without dispute, a conspiracy of deliberate indifference to a deprivation of constitutional and statute law, corporately secured rights, privileges, or immunities.

D.   THE CURRENT EXISTENCE OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES

The current exigent accumulation of 8+ years of homelessness, are the result of "unreasonable probable cause" for the undeniably ubiquitous and clichéd use of anunconstitutional gender biased ex parte order of protection.  This put me on the street taking my son, my home, everything in the world I once held dear.  Forcing me into an un-justice, unequal, and unconstitutional Black Robed Royalistssystem; where my unconstitutionalfraudulent[14] and criminal[15] adversaries / respondents had been empowered by possession of everything that had been taken from me, my son, my home, everything in the world I once held dear.
The additional denial of constitutional rights in the unconstitutionally linked misdemeanor state traffic (revenue source) courts abuse of procedure has aggravated the issue.
"Any un-enacted "policy" proclamation by judicial officials who uniquely benefit from their self-legislation does and should suffer the presumption of reckless-illegitimacy."[16]
Unrepresentative and thus "un-enacted "policy" proclamation by judicial officials who uniquely benefit from their self-legislation has, corruptly, maliciously and incompetently, been denying We the People of their constitutionally and corporately secured rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws since post-Civil War (1868, 1871 and 1875). 
_____________________________________________________________________

                          V.     PURSUIT OF JUSTICEConstitutional and Statutory

Protections Involved:
____________________________________________________________________
The pursuit of Justice is an unalienable right and the spring for all of civilization.  "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."[17] Congress shall make no law (nor can the Black Robed Royalists)prohibiting… or abridging… the right of the people… to petition the government for a redress of grievances"
Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for the protection of civil rights the court should endeavor to construe the plaintiff's pleading without regard for technicalities (especially where supporting evidence is provided as here[18]).
"Any (unrepresentative and thus) un-enacted "policy" proclamation by judicial officials who uniquely benefit from their self-legislation does and should suffer the presumption of reckless-illegitimacy."[19]  Therefore any and all Article III precedent is illegitimate i.e., without authority, having been established without benefit of the constitutional guarantee of a "Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4, § 1).  I am herewith demanding the constitutionally guaranteed Article III representative justice with a Judge and Jury, again in representative equal measure. 
1)    republic / republican government
a)    a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. / a republican government is one where the supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
b)    In a republican government there is no absolute power, power is limited by the transitory nature of representative determination. 
2)    Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America adopted on September 17, 1787, ratified June 21, 1788
a)    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, 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" (underlining and bolding added).
3)    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" (underlining and bolding added).
4)    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" (underlining and bolding added).
5)    1st Amendment (December 15, 1791) to the United States Constitution:
a)    "Congress (and/or the Black Robed Royalists) 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 law… prohibiting… or abridging… the right of the people… to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (underlining and bolding added).
6)    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" (underlining and bolding added).
7)    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 lawnor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (capitalization, underlining and bolding added).
8)    6th Amendment (December 15, 1791)
a)    "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" (underlining and bolding added).
9)    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" (underlining and bolding added).
10) 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" (underlining and bolding added).
11) 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 Statesnor 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" (underlining and bolding added).
12) Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) enacted into ex industria law over presidential veto April 9, 1866 now codified as Criminal Deprivation of Rights 18 USC §241 -§242
a)    §241 "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or                                                                                                     
            If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—                                                                        
            They 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, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
b)    §242 "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.
13)  18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Chapter 47 - Fraud and False Statements - Statements or entries generally.  (The fact that it is also a violation of state law does not make it any the less a federal offense punishable as such. Nor does its punishment by federal authority encroach on state authority or relieve the state from its responsibility for punishing state offenses.)
14) The Civil Rights Act of 1871 signed into ex industria law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871 now codified as 42 USC §1983 - §1985 Civil action for deprivation of rights indisputably fell under "such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make":
a)    §1983 "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."
b)    §1985 "If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;"
15) 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations– RICO Statute
"racketeering activity" means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnappinggamblingarsonrobberybriberyextortion,
(b.)  "It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer."
19  "It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section."
(d.)  "Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final."
16) 28 U.S.C. § 2111. Harmless error - In the age of Article III blind-eye affirmation of malice, corruption, "sincere Ignorance and conscientious stupidity"[20] I ask for consideration 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."
i)     I include this reference, in the district court corporation petition, for the jury's reference in determining the Circuit and Supreme Court corporation's, culpability for 7 prior petitions on this issue, see Petition of Certioraris 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088 and 15-8884.
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(underlining and bolding added).
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)
i)     The Statue, Protective Orders Section 455.035, itself disavows the "domestic relation exception" and invites other remedies. 
a)    "1. Any gift made by a person, whether dying testate or intestate, in fraud of the marital rights of his surviving spouse to share in his estate, shall, at the election of the surviving spouse, be treated as a testamentary disposition and may be recovered from the donee and persons taking from him without adequate consideration and applied to the payment of the spouse's share, as in case of his election to take against the will.
i)     The fact that it is also a violation of state law does not make it any the less a federal offense punishable as such. Nor does its punishment by federal authority encroach on state authority or relieve the state from its responsibility for punishing state offenses.

(1) "racketeering activity" means
(A) any act or threat involving murderkidnappinggamblingarsonrobberybriberyextortion,
(B) section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), sections 1581–1592 (relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons).,[1] section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), sections 2421–24 (relating to white slave traffic)
(c.)  "It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer."
20  "It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section."
(e.)  "Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final."
            ________________________________________________________________

                                                           VI.     Reasons for Granting Petition:

____________________________________________________________________
Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for the protection of civil rights the court should endeavor to construe the plaintiff's pleading without regard for technicalities (especially where supporting evidence is provided as here[21]).
In attempting to create "absolute immunity" - "absolute immunityhas never CONSTITUTIONALLY existed - the Black Robed Royalists Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations' criminal conspiracy against constitutional rights has attempted to act in the "complete absence of all (Article III) jurisdictions."  It is completely outside a judge's jurisdiction to act without unambiguous "beyond debate" constitutional or statute authority.  For Constitutional Article III Judges to act within their jurisdiction must explicitly and "beyond debate" find that jurisdictional authority in the "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."
"Absolute immunity," is an unrepresentative and "un-enacted "policy" proclamation by the Black Robed Royalist Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization, who uniquely benefit from their self-legislation, which does and should suffer the presumption of reckless-illegitimacy."[22]
ANY ASSERTION OF "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY" IS "BEYOND DEBATE" ANTITHETICAL TO A "REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT" AND "TAKEN IN A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ALL JURISDICTIONS" TO DO SO.
IN A REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE POWER, POWER IS LIMITED BY THE TRANSITORY NATURE OF REPRESENTATIVE DETERMINATION.
The Constitution of the United States, Statute Law and the Treaties of the United States not only do not provide for "absolute immunity;" "absolute immunity" is explicitly prohibited.  The Constitution Article VI § 2 "beyond debate" explicitly binds judges.  The statute laws 18 USC § 241&242 – Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law  and42 USC §1983&1985 Civil Action for the Deprivation of Rights "beyond debate" binds, in the broadest terms, "Every person" and "Whoever, under color of any law."  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" treaty PART II, Article 2, Section 3.(a ,b & c)) "beyond debate" ensures "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."   And AGAIN, The Constitution of the United States, Statute Law and the Treaties of the United States "BEYOND DEBATE" explicitly prohibit "absolute immunity."
The Black Robed Royalists Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations' criminal conspiracy against constitutional rights, with "absolute immunity," is an unrepresentative and "un-enacted "policy" proclamation by the Black Robed Royalist Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization, who uniquely benefit from their self-legislation, which does and should suffer the presumption of reckless-illegitimacy."[23] 
The 39th (1866) and 42nd (1871) Congress possessed the statute power.  Petitioner asserts that the conclusion is irresistible that Congress by enacting the Civil Rights Act 1866 (18 USC § 242&241) and 1871 (42 USC §1983&1985) sub judice intended to abrogate the immunity privilege to the extent indicated by that act and in fact did so. Section 1 of the third Civil Rights Act 1871 (42 USC §1983) explicitly applied to "any person."  Petitioner can imagine no broader definition. The statute must be deemed to include members of the federal, state and municipal judiciary acting in official capacity. The result is of fateful portent to the judiciary everywhere within in the jurisdiction of the Constitution for United States of America.
When a federal statute condemns an act as unlawful the extent and nature of the legal consequences of the condemnation are federal questions, the answers to which are to be derived from the statute and the federal policy which it has adopted. To the federal statute and policy, conflicting state law and policy must yield," citing the Constitution, Article VI, clause 2.
Petitioner states it is inexpedient to determine grave constitutional questions upon a demurrer to a complaint, or upon an equivalent motion, if there is a reasonable likelihood that the production of evidence will make the answer to the questions clearer: especially so as in this case where undisputed evidence is provided.[24]  The court should apply the rule, that where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for the protection of civil rights the court should endeavor to construe the plaintiff's pleading without regard for technicalities (especially where supporting evidence is provided as here[25]).
Lack of probability that proof can be supplied in support of this allegation cannot serve as a basis for dismissal for on the present motion for all "well pleaded" allegations must be treated as true (especially where supporting evidence is provided as here[26]).
The court in deciding what is state action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment held that it was immaterial that the state officer exceeded the limits of his authority. as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's corporate 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.'
Therefore the "racketeering activity" involving kidnappingrobbery, and extortion actions of the conspiracy of deliberate indifference to the civil rights of the petitioner was a corporate act of the federal, state and the municipal "Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt" government CORPORATIONS under color of law" and thus all involvedgovernment corporate entities have liability for their actors under color of law.
_____________________________________________________________________

                                                                             VII.     Money Damages:

______________________________________________________________________
A Jury demand for escalating DAMAGES:
Actual Damages:
One hundred six million six hundred twenty-seven thousand two hundred ninety dollars and zero cents  $106,627,290.00
Punitive Damages:
Two hundred thirteen million two hundred fifty-two thousand dollars and zero cents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $213,252,000.00
Clerk's Damages
Forty million three hundred four thousand two hundred ninety dollars and zero cents                  
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $40,304,290.00
seven hundred twenty million three hundred sixty-seven thousand one hundred sixty dollars and zero cents $720,367,160.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total:
One billion eighty million five hundred fifty thousand seven hundred forty dollars and zero cent            $1,080,550,740.00[27]
_____________________________________________________________________

                                                                               VIII.     Current Status:

______________________________________________________________________
The deprivation is ongoing and the damages, stated as an escalating amount reflect this.  Yes my son who was 8 years old when this started on November 3, 2003 (Judge Goeke's NOT "facially valid court order") and turned 21 on December 22, 2015, I have lost his irretrievable childhood.  The Pain and suffering has not abated and NEVER WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_____________________________________________________________________
I include and make a part of this petition a "MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT" signed and dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Tuesday, June 07, 2016
Signature of Plaintiff(s)

______________________________________________
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO  63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com  and David.G.Jeep@gmail.com  (preferred)
(314) 514-5228







[1] FEDERALIST No. 50 "Periodical Appeals to the People Considered" From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 5, 1788. by James Madison
[2] See the last seven pages of this petition.
[3] I herewith note: 7 prior petitions on this issue in "PURSUIT OF JUSTICE," see Petition of Certioraris to the Supreme Court of the United States and associated District and Circuit petitions… 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-555114-10088 and 15-8884.
[4] I am not providing this for controlling authority: it is just further examples of the Black Robed Royalists' "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization,"" malicious or corrupt" judges (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) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)),  the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)), the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)),  corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid  actions of federal, state, local, and regional legislators (Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138)  and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid  actions of "all persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983))  
[5] "Majority Rule And The Judiciary, An Examination Of Current Proposals For Constitutional Change Affecting The Relation Of Courts To Legislation" – By William L. Ransom Of The New York Bar, with an introduction by Theodore Roosevelt, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons 1912 -Page 4-5
[6] FEDERALIST No. 50 "Periodical Appeals to the People Considered" From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 5, 1788. by James Madison
[7] I herewith note: 7 prior petitions on this issue in "PURSUIT OF JUSTICE," see Petition of Certioraris to the Supreme Court of the United States and associated District and Circuit petitions… 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-555114-10088 and 15-8884.
[9] See the last seven pages of this petition.
[10] See the last seven pages of this petition.
[12] See Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, 14-5551,  14-10088 and 15-8884
[13] See the last seven pages of this petition.
[14] Sharon G. Jeep (spouse) and Kristen M. Capps (stepdaughter) Missouri Revised Statutes Section MRS –474.150.1 Gifts in fraud of marital rights--presumptions on conveyances and 570.030.2 Robbery Stealing and Related Offenses, AND 18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally
[15] 18 USC §241 §242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law
[17] FEDERALIST No. 50 "Periodical Appeals to the People Considered" From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 5, 1788. by James Madison
[18] See the last seven pages of this petition.
[20] MLKing  "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ■Ch. 4 : Love in action, Sct. 3
[21] See the last seven pages of this petition.
[24] See the last seven pages of this petition.
[25] See the last seven pages of this petition.
[26] See the last seven pages of this petition.
[27] These are escalating "7th Amendment" damages based on Monday June 06 2016 12:00:00.01 AM

















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 (formerly)
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com or DGJeep01@yahoo.com

(314) 514-5228

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