Clerk of the Court
Saint
Louis, MO 63102-1125
Re: “MOTION FOR REMOVAL/RECUSAL” Jeep vs. Government (corporation) of the United States
of America, et al – 4:16-CV-810 CDP
Dear People,
First, I would like to thank the Clerk’s Office for catching the
issue of my erroneous address on my transmittal letter dated
Please process the enclosed “Motion for Recusal” and Damages
Spreadsheet Dated Monday June 06, 2016 12:00:00.01 AM
I HAVE BEEN BROKEN, BLOODIED AND LEFT FOR DEAD ON THE SIDE OF THE
ROAD, BUT I HAVE NEVER BEEN BEATEN!
If there is anything further, I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you
in advance.
“Time is of the essence”
David G. Jeep
a. “Motion
for Recusal”
b. Damages
Spreadsheet Dated Monday June 06 2016 12:00:00.01 AM
cc: My Blog - Sunday, June 19, 2016, 3:46:33 PM
UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
FEDERAL COURT - St. Louis DIVISION
David G. Jeep and heir,
PETITIONERS
v.
The Government of the
United States of
America, et al,
Defendants/Respondents
  |
Case
# 4:16-CV-810 CDP
|
I.MOTION FOR REMOVAL/RECUSAL:
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]
In the interests
of Justice, I am herewith requesting the court to recuse/remove one “CATHERINE D. PERRY - UNITED
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE” for Fraud
Upon the Court for refusal to
consider or even read the petition.
The MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 4) in
error states that “Plaintiff’s complaint arises from his 2003 divorce.” That is ERROR!
The petition arose from a trespass; a “beyond debate” NOT “facially valid” gender biased unconstitutional ex parte court order. I verbatim quote
from the petition here:
“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.”“
--- a trespass.[2]
“This
criminal fraud then unconstitutionally empowered a gender biased divorce action
(03FC-12243).”
The Divorce (03FC-12243), although its dates were never mentioned, was
empowered by the prior fraud in the “beyond
debate” NOT “facially valid”
gender biased unconstitutional ex parte
court order was initiated/served in
February of 2004, with a subsequent fraudulent gender biased decree in January of 2005.
I ask any member
of the “Black Robed Royalist” racketeering based conspiracy against
rights to consider how well they, as individuals, would fair in any dispute
after being unconstitutionally, arbitrarily and without “reasonable probable cause”
deprived of daily family relations with your son, everything in the world you
ever held dear and being thrown out on to the street, homeless? Much less into a system distorted by the
clichéd “Jane Crow” unequal protection of the law.
To any rational, non-self-serving “Black
Robed Royalist” racketeering based conspiracy against rights, person that
action as supported first by the petitioner’s assertion alone and then clearly
supported by the corroborating evidence provided in the original petition meets
the necessary probable cause for 7th Amendment,[3] 42 U.S. Code § 1983 and 1985- Civil action
for deprivation of rights and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e).[4] To NOT read the petition and assert evidence
of a “2003 divorce” never mentioned in any of the pleadings clearly reveals
malice, corruption and/or incompetence.
Beyond that CATHERINE D. PERRY is a verifiable
member of the “Black Robed Royalist” racketeering based conspiracy against
rights. CATHERINE D. PERRY was integral in the corrupt, malicious, incompetent
“trespass” and fraudulent imprisonment (411 days) of the petitioner. - The 411 days is an issue for damages in
the instant issue. - This trespass was demonstrably the result of the FRAUDULENT
charge the Federal Courts declined to prosecute Case No. #4:09-cr-659-CDP (CATHERINE D. PERRY), Habeas
Cases No. #4:09-CV-831CAS, 4:09-MJ-1052 TIA, CA8 Case #09-2848 David Jeep vs.
United States. For 411 days petitioner
was denied access to even a consideration of a credible writ of habeas corpus.
II.NON-CONTROLLING argumentum a fortiori:
In an effort to
expedite future consideration, I provide an
argumentum a fortiori to issues
expressed in MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 4). The court’s MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 4) arguments are not controlling in that the source (CATHERINE D. PERRY) is suspect. Not that MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Document 4) is or was binding upon this instant case or any future Constitutional
Article III Judicial Officers that are to consider this issue.
“Black Robed Royalists”
I may
not have been clear in limiting my definition of the term. A “Black Robed Royalists,” is herewith defined
as the respondents and any person who asserts or conspires with others to assert
self-serving “absolute immunity” in direct defiance of the common of law
trespass, a republican form of government, federal statute law, the
Constitution of the United States (Article III) and/or the Black Robed
Royalists’ own precedent.
FRAUD
Fraud, as documented in the petition, was
an all-corrupting
force (fraus omnia corrumpit). The fraud forced upon the instant petitioner
was initiated and served with the beyond debate NOT “facially valid” ex parte
court order. The beyond debate NOT “facially valid” ex parte court order stripped petitioner
of his son, his home and everything he once held dear. He was thrown out on the street and left to
the resulting and still evident overwhelming post-traumatic-stress.
The beyond debate not facially valid ex parte court order fraudulently and
commensurately empowered the respondents gender biased subsequent divorce
action.
Fraud Upon the Court is where the Judge
(who is NOT the "Court") does NOT support or uphold the Judicial
Machinery of the Court. The Court is an unbiased, but methodical
"creature" which is governed by the Rule of Law... that is, the Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Evidence,
all which is overseen by Constitutional and statute law. The Court can ONLY be effective, fair and
"just" if it is allowed to function as the laws proscribe. The sad fact is that in MOST Courts across the
country, from Federal Courts down to local District courts, have judges who are
violating their oath of office and are NOT properly following these rules, (as
most attorney's do NOT as well, and are usually grossly ignorant of the rules
and both judges and attorneys are playing a revised legal game with their own
created rules) and THIS is a Fraud upon the Court, immediately removing
jurisdiction from that Court, and vitiates (makes ineffective - invalidates)
every decision from that point on. ANY
JUDGE WHO DOES SUCH A THING IS UNDER MANDATORY, NON-DISCRETIONARY DUTY TO
RECUSE HIMSELF OR HERSELF FROM THE CASE, and this rarely happens
unless someone can force them to do so with the evidence of violations of
procedure and threat of losing half their pensions for life which is what can
take place. In any case, it is illegal,
and EVERY CASE WHICH HAS HAD FRAUD
INVOLVED CAN BE RE-OPENED AT ANY TIME, BECAUSE THERE IS NO STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS ON FRAUD.
THE JANE CROW ISSUES
That these issues are cliché in today’s state
court system is beyond any need to demonstrate.
Men are subject to gender discrimination, “unequal protection of the law,”
everywhere, every day!!!!
The Federal Court’s 1st, 7th
and 14th Amendment obligations are similarly disregarded as regards
any “state law” and “any
person within its jurisdiction”.
MISDEMEANOR STATE TRAFFIC - REVENUE SOURCE - COURTS ABUSE OF
PROCEDURE
That “due process” Civil Rights are DENIED
in today’s “Misdemeanor State Traffic - Revenue Source - Courts Abuse of
Procedure” needs little verification.
For too many people it cost entirely too much to get credible
representation to remedy the injustice when there is no 7th
Amendment commensurate compensating equity remedy available.
The Federal Court’s 1st, 7th
and 14th Amendment obligations are similarly disregarded as regards
any “state law” and “any
person within its jurisdiction”.
III.Current
Status:
The deprivation is ongoing and the damages, stated as an escalating
amount on the enclosed spreadsheet 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 declare under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Sunday, June 19, 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] “Forcing me into an
un-justice, unequal, and unconstitutional Black Robed Royalists’ system; where
my unconstitutional, fraudulent and crimina 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.” IV. Facts
of the case:, D. THE CURRENT EXISTENCE OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES page 10
[3] $25 inflated to $500
from 1789 to 2016
[4] 8(e) CONSTRUING PLEADINGS. Pleadings must be construed so as to
do justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment