Wednesday, June 15, 2016

“MOTION FOR REMOVAL/RECUSAL” Jeep vs. Government (corporation) of the United States of America, et al – 4:16-CV-810 CDP

Clerk of the Court
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
Saint Louis, MO 63102-1125

Re: MOTION FOR REMOVAL/RECUSALJeep 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

Tuesday, June 07, 2016. The address listed below and as utilized by the court on transmittal of “Document 4” is correct.  
Please process the enclosed “Motion for Recusal” and Damages Spreadsheet Dated Monday June 06, 2016 12:00:00.01 AM
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


David G. Jeep and heir, PETITIONERS
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-servingBlack 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, 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.


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”.


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 NOTfacially 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
Saint Louis, MO  63155-9999
E-Mail  and  (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.
Post a Comment