Thursday, July 7, 2016

As we are all aware, the act at the origination of this issue was degenerate in that it, an unconstitutional act, has thus drawn all that follow into a degenerating destructive, downward spiral.

Michael E. Gans Clerk of Court
U. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
111 South 10th Street
Room 24.329
St. Louis, MO. 63102-1123
 Re: "De Facto Degenerate Precedent" 
"NOTICE OF APPEAL" Jeep vs. Government (corporation) of the United States of America, et al – 4:16-CV-810 CDP
Dear People:
As we are all aware, the act at the origination of this issue was degenerate in that it, an unconstitutional act, has thus drawn all that follow into a degenerating destructive, downward spiral. 
"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." - Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
The 7th Amendment's equity remedy to bind actors "under color of law, was to be the constitutional check on degenerative, unconstitutional acts. 
But alas 13 years and nothing. 
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
enclosure
a.     "Notice of Appeal"
cc:  My Blog - Thursday, July 07, 2016, 4:07:41 PM

Clerk of the Court,
United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
Saint Louis, MO 63102-1125
Re: "De Facto Degenerate Precedent"
"NOTICE OF APPEAL" Jeep vs. Government (corporation) of the United States of America, et al – 4:16-CV-810 CDP
 Dear People:
Thomas Sowell[iii] made a bold statement recently, in regard to affirmative action:
"Supreme Court decisions in affirmative action cases are the longest running fraud since the 1896 decision upholding racial segregation laws in the Jim Crow South, on grounds that "separate but equal" facilities were consistent with the Constitution.  Everybody knew that those facilities were separate but by no means equal.  Nevertheless, this charade lasted until 1954."[iv]
Sowell is woefully short of the longest case of fraud on the court by the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court has fraudulently been self-servingly asserting "immunity" since 1868 (Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523).  That makes "immunity" a 148 year case of fraud on the court that to date has empowered, Jim Crow, Jane Crow, and mass incarceration, to name just a few.
Lord Acton in 1871 asserted, the often quoted: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely[v]"
The FACTS of my case force me to rephrase Lord Acton, "absolute immunity"[vi] is a "De Facto Degenerating Precedent".  "Absolute immunity" is a malevolent degenerate conspiracy among the malicious, corrupt and incompetent proponents at the expense of We the People -- thus utterly incompatible with justice.
Immunity is "De Facto Degenerating Precedent" because it brings it proponents and its victims down to the lowest level of malice, corruption and incompetents to maintain it.  For example:
Mr. X (60/100) is a good man trying to do his best.  Mrs. Y (30/100) is a good woman trying to do her best but has a strain of incompetence.  To maintain the false premise of the appearance of infallibility Mr. X has to provide immunity to Mrs. Y to cover for her incompetents.  Mr. Z (10/100) comes along and he is openly malicious and corrupt.  Mrs. Y has to give Mr. Z immunity for his malice and corruption so as not fuel the self-sustaining 7th Amendment liability based constitutional check against malice, corruption and incompetence.  Mr. X has to give Mrs. Y immunity to cover not only her incompetents but also the immunity she gave Mr. Z.  Thus Mr. X stoops to Mr. Z's degenerate level to sustain the unsustainable the false premise of an appearance of infallibility overriding the constitutional 7th Amendment liability based check against malice, corruption and incompetence. 
The innocent "persons" as victims of Mrs. Y and Mr. Z have to bear the BURDEN of the pain, suffering and cost and are laid low to the degenerating LOWEST level of malice, corruption and incompetents while Mr. X willing degenerates to the lowest level of malice, corruption and incompetent's conspiracy to maintain the false and gratuitous premise of infallibility. 
In my case, I would be willing to bet, that there were good people that were degenerated to cover the absolute immunity required to keep the charade going.  You need wonder no more, how or why Jim Crow, Jane Crow and Mass Incarceration took root.  The Black Robed Royalist judicial posers always degenerate to the lowest level of malice, corruption and incompetents to maintain their self-serving un-enacted policy proclamation of immunity.
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

enclosure
a.     "Notice of Appeal"

cc:  My Blog - Thursday, July 07, 2016, 4:08:50 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.     NOTICE OF APPEAL:

______________________________________________________________________
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."[7]
Petitioner appeals the District Court's "Black Robed Royalist" un-republican, racketeering based conspiracy against rights actions in Jeep v Government of the United States et al, Case # 4:16-CV-810 CDP as completely outside of We the People's republican constitutional Article III jurisdiction.

FACTS OF THE CASE

"The father was relegated to sub-class parental status,"[8] too long ago at the beginning of the Jane Crow era.
"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 (14th), and 6th Amendment) and unusually (8th Amendment) listed a misdemeanor traffic violation as its only "probable cause"" (a trespass[9]).[10]  This criminal fraud then unconstitutionally empowered a gender biased divorce action (03FC-12243)." 
Article III precedent is without credible force in that it is and has been fraudulently twisted by "the spirit of mere legalism, the spirit of hair-splitting technicality," to obstruct justice.  To deny the present case across the board would be to say you support the malicious, corrupt and incompetent, YOU RESISTED ARREST, WE CAN AND WILL SHOOT YOU.  Given the unreasonable, YOU RESISTED ARREST, WE CAN AND WILL SHOOT YOU.  The state can, randomly without reasonable probable cause, authorize anything from harassment to murder.
As proof of the racketeering based conspiracy against rights, petitioner states that he has presented the above undisputed deprivation of rights completely outside the Article III delegated authority i.e., completely outside of the Article III jurisdiction, to the "Black Robed Royalist" un-republican and racketeering based conspiracy against rights seven times prior through to the Supreme Court of the United States of America (see Petition of Certioraris 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088 and 15-8884).
There can be no - non-exigent exception to the 14th Amendment's security - "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.[11]  Any and all non-exigent exception is without merit. 
"The judge has no more right than any other official to be set up over the people as an (unrepresentative,) irremovable and irresponsible despot. He has no more right than any other official to decide for the people what the people ought to think about questions of vital public policy…." [12]
"When the spirit of mere legalism, the spirit of hair-splitting technicality, interferes with justice, then it is our highest duty to war against this spirit, whether it shows itself in the courts or anywhere else." [13]

FRAUD

Fraud Upon the Court, as documented in the seven original petitions, was and is an all-corrupting force (fraus omnia corrumpit).  The Fraud Upon the Court forced upon the petitioner, was initiated and served November 3, 2003 with the "beyond debate" NOT "facially valid" ex parte court order "in the complete absence of all jurisdiction."  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 - homeless - left to the resulting and still evident overwhelming post-traumatic-stress.
The "beyond debate" NOT "facially valid" ex parte court order "in the complete absence of all jurisdiction," 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, 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.

BLACK ROBED ROYALISTS "RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION" CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

"They are in front of me, behind me, and I am flanked on both sides by an enemy that outnumbers me 1000:1. They can't get away from me now!"[14] 
 "The father was relegated to sub-class parental status."[15] That relegation is an un-equal protection of the law as proscribed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.  This was accomplished, in the Jane Crow era, by the use of "De Facto Degenerate Precedent."
Lord Acton in 1871 asserted, the often quoted: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely[16]"
The FACTS of my case force me to rephrase Lord Acton, "absolute immunity"[17] is a "De Facto Degenerate Precedent".  "Absolute immunity" is a malevolent contract with the malicious, corrupt and incompetent proponents at the expense of We the People, thus utterly incompatible with justice.
If justice were the REAL goal of the Article III judiciary; as it should be, when the injustice of a deprivation of rights was exposed, the Article III judiciary would move immediately to remedy it.  But today the Black Robed Royalists "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization" is self-servingly upholding a conspiracy against rights[18] that supports De Facto Degenerate Precedent and prefers to look the other way, excuse the deprivation of rights rather than remedy them - De Facto Degenerate Precedent.
Even the good persons within the Black Robed Royalists' "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization" conspiracy against rights[19] are asked to OVERLOOK their brethren's malice, corruption, and incompetents for the self-serving good of the conspiracy.
To state it another way, the Black Robed Royalists "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization" is self-servingly upholding a conspiracy against rights,[20] with their "un-enacted "policy" of "absolute immunity" i.e.:
"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.""[21]
By doing this at the expense of We the People's intent to "establish Justice" the Black Robed Royalists "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization" self-serving conspiracy against rights[22] sinks to the lowest, DEGENERATE[23] level to cover up the malicious, corrupt and incompetent rather than doing their jobs promoting the establishment of JUSTICE with a remedy!
The Black Robed Royalist "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizational" conspiracy against. rights protects their own, and SELF-SERVINGLY will not allow their "absolute immunity" to be questioned at the expense of the We the People as their victims.  
For example, in my case, the Black Robed Royalists "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizational" conspiracy against. rights has for over THIRTEEN years and 7 trips to the Article III Supreme Court been fully aware of "the complete absence of all jurisdiction" in the sub judice's injustice, but has repeatedly refused a remedy.   They assert to allow a just remedy, for the undisputed deprivation rights, would over ride their "absolute immunity" and render them impotent. 
You have to ask yourself, how can the denial of Justice be integral to the Article III raison d'être the establishment of justice?
The Black Robed Royalist's "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizational" conspiracy against. rights today asserts they need to degenerate  to "absolute immunity" to "established Justice."  They assert, they cannot "establish justice" because to do so would be in breach of "absolute immunity" and render them without authority.  This assertion negates the their raison d'être to "establish Justice."
A Constitutional Article III judiciary has "delegated authority" to "establish Justice" dependent upon their "good behavior."  When and if they assert "absolute immunity" in the face of reasonable "probable cause" of their NOT "good behavior" they thus relinquish their "delegated authority" and all protection of the law.
"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."[24]
For over THIRTEEN years now, I have had and have been presenting undisputed evidence of a conspiracy against rights.  I have SEVEN times presented this evidence to the unconstitutional Black Robed Royalist, posing as our Article III Judiciary.  I have presented SEVEN docketed and denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Black Robed Royalist, would be Supreme Court of the United States.
Rather than acting as empowered by the Constitution to "establish Justice" and remedy the injustice, the Black Robed Royalists' "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization" has refused to act to "establish justice" and has instead been self-servingly covering the deprivation of rights by asserting "absolute immunity" as 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."[25]
Now with the evidence in hand of the THIRTEEN + year struggle I can state without hesitation, the Black Robed Royalists' "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization in a conspiracy against rights has degenerated its noble purpose, to "establish justice," into the degenerating self-serving "absolute immunity."
Where "absolute immunity" was proposed to enable the judicial independent freedom to establish Justice.  It has now degenerated its noble purpose into denial of justice to maintain the un-republican, self-serving and impossible human infallibility.
If the true resolve of "absolute immunity" had ever been utilized, the first judge to have been presented this undisputed issue would have acted in the interests of justice to remedy it and NOT have covered the Black Robed Royalist denial justice. 
I HAVE BEEN BROKEN, BLOODIED AND LEFT FOR DEAD ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, BUT I HAVE NEVER BEEN BEATEN!

QUESTION PRESENTED

How can the unreasonable, corrupt, malicious and incompetent trespass of stripping any person of their child, everything in the world they ever held dear and being thrown out on to the street homeless without "probable cause," not be a condemnation of justice?  Much less a violation 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments and then being forced into a broadly similarly corrupt, malicious and incompetent Article III system distorted by the cliché "Jane Crow" - NOT "equal protection of the law?"
_____________________________________________________________________

                                                         II.     CURRENT STATUS:

______________________________________________________________________
The deprivation is ongoing and the damages, stated as an escalating amount on the enclosed spreadsheet[26] 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" "in the complete absence of all jurisdiction") 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 Thursday, July 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




[i] Paraphrased, a quote from United States Marine Corps Lieutenant General "Chesty" Puller (June 26, 1898 – October 11, 1971) who fought guerrillas in Haiti and Nicaragua, and fought in World War II and the Korean War.
[ii] Paraphrased, a quote from United States Marine Corps Lieutenant General "Chesty" Puller (June 26, 1898 – October 11, 1971) who fought guerrillas in Haiti and Nicaragua, and fought in World War II and the Korean War.
[iii] Thomas Sowell (born June 30, 1930) is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author.  He is currently Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
[iv] Syndicated article - "Sowell: Court's affirmative action ruling a fraud called diversity" By Thomas Sowell, Published: June 28, 2016, 6:01 AM
[v] Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887 published in Historical Essays and Studies, edited by J. N. Figgis and R. V. Laurence (London: Macmillan, 1907)
[vi] PER CURIAM - Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9 - "A long line of this Court's precedents acknowledges that, generally, a judge is immune from a suit for money damages. See, e.g., Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988); Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985); Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980); Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719 (1980); Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Pierson [502 U.S. 9, 10]   v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). [ Footnote 1 ] Although unfairness and injustice to a litigant may result on occasion, it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 347 (1872)." - [ Footnote 1 ] The Court, however, has recognized that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability, Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 348 -349 (1880), or from a suit for prospective injunctive relief, Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 536 -543 (1983), or from a suit for attorney's fees authorized by statute, id., at 543-544.
[7] FEDERALIST No. 50 "Periodical Appeals to the People Considered" From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 5, 1788. by James Madison
[9] "Forcing me into an un-justice, unequal, and unconstitutional Black Robed Royalists' system; where my unconstitutional, fraudulent and criminal 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." Original Petition dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016 IV. Facts of the case:, D. THE CURRENT EXISTENCE OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES page 10 of 33
[10] See the last seven pages of the original petition dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016.
[11] The Domestic Relation is disavowed by the statute in question:
"All proceedings under sections 455.010 to 455.085 (This includes Protective Orders Section 455.035) 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)
The Statue, Protective Orders Section 455.035, itself disavows the "domestic relation exception" and invites other remedies. 
[12] "Majority Rule And The Judiciary, An Examination Of Current Proposals For Constitutional Change Affecting The Relation Of Courts To Legislation" an introduction by Theodore Roosevelt, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons 1912 -Page 4-5
[13] "Majority Rule And The Judiciary, An Examination Of Current Proposals For Constitutional Change Affecting The Relation Of Courts To Legislation" an introduction by Theodore Roosevelt, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons 1912 -Page 4-5
[14] Paraphrased, a quote from United States Marine Corps Lieutenant General "Chesty" Puller (June 26, 1898 – October 11, 1971) was a who fought guerrillas in Haiti and Nicaragua, and fought in World War II and the Korean War.
[16] Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887 published in Historical Essays and Studies, edited by J. N. Figgis and R. V. Laurence (London: Macmillan, 1907)
[17] PER CURIAM - Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9 - "A long line of this Court's precedents acknowledges that, generally, a judge is immune from a suit for money damages. See, e.g., Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988); Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985); Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980); Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719 (1980); Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Pierson [502 U.S. 9, 10]   v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). [ Footnote 1 ] Although unfairness and injustice to a litigant may result on occasion, it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 347 (1872)." - [ Footnote 1 ] The Court, however, has recognized that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability, Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 348 -349 (1880), or from a suit for prospective injunctive relief, Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 536 -543 (1983), or from a suit for attorney's fees authorized by statute, id., at 543-544.
[23] to fall below a normal or desirable level in physical, mental, or moral qualities; deteriorate: The morale of the soldiers degenerated, and they were unable to fight.
[26] Dated 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)
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
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)