The President's Representative is not interested in DEFENDING the Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Gravamen
The asserted uncontested,
undeniable, NOW-exigent[1]
and “reckonable”[2]
gravamen was and is an ex parte court
order of protection[3]
without “REASONABLE PROBABLE CAUSE” from 12.94 years ago.[4]
This has been a FLAGRANT VIOLATION from day one. The Police Officer
that originally served laughed at it.
The first judge to hear it looked to the sky in amazement and/or
discussed. REGARDLESS, they and EVERYONE
since have upheld it. They risked
nothing when they took my son, my home and all my most valued worldly
possession, threw me out on the street and then forced me into a disputed
divorce where my criminal adversaries[5]
had been empowered by all that had been fraudulently[6]
and criminally[7]
taken from me.
I have, since, been struggling to
expose this for 12.94 years[8]
with 411 days in jail, 7 trips through the federal court system and this, 15-8884, my 7th
docketed Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United
States, the prior six were denied (07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193,
13-7030, 14-5551 and 14-10088).
By definition individual rights are
the spring for and preceded We the People’s
Constitutional incorporation of them into the supreme law of the land. Therefore, there can be no statute of
limitations on the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
the Constitution and laws at the instigation of an action under color of law.[9]
-
- The 14th
Amendment “beyond debate”[13]
“reckonably”[14]
states: “NO STATE shall make
or enforce ANY LAW which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any state deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to ANY PERSON within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” without NON-EXIGENT exception, and under the Article.
VI. § 2 “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State
shall be bound thereby, any Thing
in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Thus there can be no Judge made exception[15]
i.e., the Domestic Relations exception.[16]
- that was
issued “in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"”[17]
- that over
comes “difficult problems of proof” and “stringent
standard of fault”[18]
with the ubiquitous UNCONSTITUTIONAL “Jane Crow” assertion of a Woman’s
“victimhood” at the expense of any Man’s constitutional rights in legal
disputes[19]
- that facts[20]
were and are “beyond debate”[21]
“sufficiently clear” THAT
EVERY “reasonable
official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,”[22] (i.e., the universal reckonable[23] understanding of the IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV Amendments).
[1] See ESCALATING DAMAGES included in original
petition http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2016/04/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-15-8884.html
The Gravamen
The asserted uncontested,
undeniable, NOW-exigent[1]
and “reckonable”[2]
gravamen was and is an ex parte court
order of protection[3]
without “REASONABLE PROBABLE CAUSE” from 12.94 years ago.[4]
This has been a FLAGRANT VIOLATION from day one. The Police Officer
that originally served laughed at it.
The first judge to hear it looked to the sky in amazement and/or
discussed. REGARDLESS, they and EVERYONE
since have upheld it. They risked
nothing when they took my son, my home and all my most valued worldly
possession, threw me out on the street and then forced me into a disputed
divorce where my criminal adversaries[5]
had been empowered by all that had been fraudulently[6]
and criminally[7]
taken from me.
I have, since, been struggling to
expose this for 12.94 years[8]
with 411 days in jail, 7 trips through the federal court system and this, 15-8884, my 7th
docketed Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United
States, the prior six were denied (07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193,
13-7030, 14-5551 and 14-10088).
By definition individual rights are
the spring for and preceded We the People’s
Constitutional incorporation of them into the supreme law of the land. Therefore, there can be no statute of
limitations on the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
the Constitution and laws at the instigation of an action under color of law.[9]
- The 14th Amendment “beyond debate”[13] “reckonably”[14] states: “NO STATE shall make or enforce ANY LAW which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” without NON-EXIGENT exception, and under the Article. VI. § 2 “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Thus there can be no Judge made exception[15] i.e., the Domestic Relations exception.[16]
- that was issued “in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"”[17]
- that over comes “difficult problems of proof” and “stringent standard of fault”[18] with the ubiquitous UNCONSTITUTIONAL “Jane Crow” assertion of a Woman’s “victimhood” at the expense of any Man’s constitutional rights in legal disputes[19]
- that facts[20] were and are “beyond debate”[21] “sufficiently clear” THAT EVERY “reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,”[22] (i.e., the universal reckonable[23] understanding of the IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV Amendments).
[1] See ESCALATING DAMAGES included in original
petition http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2016/04/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-15-8884.html
[2] "reckonability" is a
needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of
Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81
(1989)
[3] See Original Petition pages 53-60 http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2016/04/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-15-8884.html
[4] As of Tuesday April 19, 2016
03:43.47 PM
[5] Sharon G. Jeep (spouse) and
Kristen M. Capps (stepdaughter) Missouri Revised Statutes
Section 570.030.2 Robbery Stealing and Related Offenses, MRS –474.150.1 Gifts in fraud
of marital rights--presumptions on conveyances.
[6] 18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements
or entries generally
[7] 18 USC §241
- §242 Criminal
Deprivation of rights under color of law
[8] As of Tuesday April 19, 2016
03:43.47 PM
[9] 1st Amendment (December 15, 1791)
to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting… or
abridging… the right of the people… to petition the government for a redress of
grievances” i.e., Justice.
[11] Deprivation of the IV, V, VI,
VII, VIII and XIV Amendment rights
[12] The assertion of a misdemeanor
traffic violation does not provide probable cause for an ex parte order of
protection. Clearly based on the
original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided IN THE PETITION, there
was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated
charge. “Consequently, it (the judge’s
order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence
of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct.
1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted).” Id.” PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790
(2003).
[13] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S.
731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[14] "reckonability" is a
needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of
Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81
(1989)
[15]
The very statute in questions INVITES other remedies, a federal civil rights
action, for it. Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455,
Proceedings independent of others - Section 455.070
[16] But even that is overridden
by their own precedent now… Obergefell V. Hodges 2015 (Page 22) “These
considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental
right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and
Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex
may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.”
[17] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[18] “difficult problems of proof,”
and we must adhere to a “stringent standard of fault,” lest municipal liability
under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.12 Bryan County, 520 U. S., at
406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392 - Connick, District Attorney, et
al. v. Thompson, Certiorari to the
Supreme Court, No. 09–571. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 29, 2011
[19]
ADDITIONALLY - the petitioner holds “This
argument (Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson
No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011) with respect to volume of traffic seems to us to be without merit. It
makes the constitutional right depend upon the number of persons who may be
discriminated against, whereas the essence of the constitutional right is that
it is a personal one.” McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235
U.S. 151 (1914)
[20] See the enclosed documentation IN THE PETITION, the originating
petition and the motion dated December 12, 2003. “A copy of the original ex
parte NOT “facially valid court order” of protection dated November 3, 2003. (2
pages 53&54)– “A copy of by Tim Schlesinger (PAULE, CAMAZINE &
BLUMENTHAL, A Professional Corporation), MBE #33494 petition/order filed
(12/05/03) served (12/05/03) and denied (12/12/03) dated December 5, 2003 (6
pages 55-60)
[21] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S.
731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577
U. S. ____ (2015)
[22] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S.
_(9)_ (2011), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).
