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: "NOTICE OF APPEAL" of DISMISSAL Jeep vs. Government (corporation) of the United States of America, et al – MOED Case #: 4:16-CV-810 CDP, CA8 Case#: 16-3221 and CA8 Case#: 16-4253
Dear People:
The "Jane Crow" [1] era, started and is perpetuated by Joe Biden's good intentions with the Violence Against Woman Act of 1994 (VAWA). Joe Biden had good intentions, but he ignored judicial history that has repeatedly demonstrated that unbridled discretion, however benevolently motivated, is frequently a poor substitute for principle and procedure. The powers of the Star Chamber[2] were a trifle in comparison with those of our Jane Crow, Juvenile Crow or Jim Crow courts.[3] I quote C. S. Lewis prescient assertion:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
The now "omnipotent moral busybodies" say a woman's right to self-servingly assert victimhood and motherhood governs a man's right to "due process of law" and fatherhood. With good intentions,[4] the tyranny[5] of the Violence Against Woman Act of 1994 (VAWA), without any consideration of the REAL-LIFE results,[6] frustrates the constitutional and inalienable right to "due process of law" "to establish Justice"[7]
It has now come to pass as the 1st Mr. Justice Harlan prophesied dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883), 62 - the uninitiated white male, in the Jane Crow era, has come full circle and become victim, a "class of human beings in practical subjection to another class with power in the latter to dole out to the former just such privileges as they may choose to grant." In 1883 Mr. Justice Harlan prophesied:
"Today it is the colored race which is denied, by corporations and individuals wielding public authority, rights fundamental in their freedom and citizenship. At some future time, it may be that some other race (the uninitiated white male) will fall under the ban of race discrimination. If the constitutional amendments be enforced according to the intent with which, as I conceive, they were adopted, there cannot be, in this republic, any class of human beings in practical subjection to another class with power in the latter to dole out to the former just such privileges as they may choose to grant. The supreme law of the land has decreed that no authority shall be exercised in this country upon the basis of discrimination, in respect of civil rights, against freemen and citizens because of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude. To that decree -- for the due enforcement of which, by appropriate legislation, Congress has been invested with express power -- everyone must bow, whatever may have been, or whatever now are, his individual views as to the wisdom or policy either of the recent changes in the fundamental law or of the legislation which has been enacted to give them effect."
I HAVE BEEN BUTCHERED, 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 - Tuesday, January 24, 2017, 2:53:31 PM
[1] The society's UNCONSTITUTIONAL bias for a woman's rights over a man's rights with unequal protection of the Law, family/domestic relation law.
[3] paraphrased from In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), 18 - See also In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) and McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971)
[4] "Hell isn't merely paved with good intentions; it's walled and roofed with them. Yes, and furnished too." Aldous Huxley
[5] "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewi
[6] "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." ― Milton Friedman
[7] 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.
Pro Se Litigant
David G. Jeep
General Delivery
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
Phone# 314-514-5228
E-mail Dave@DGJeep.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
David G. Jeep , et al
Plaintiff/Petitioner,
vs.
Government of the United States of America, et al
Defendant/Respondent
|
MOED Case #: 4:16-CV-810 CDP
CA8 Case#: 16-3221 CA8
CA8 Case#: 16-4253
Notice of appeal
|
Notice of Appeal
A. Jurisdiction:
Petitioner asserts jurisdiction under ARTICLE VI, § 2 Constitution for the United States of America, Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV, Federal Statute Law 42 USC §1983&1985 Civil Action for the Deprivation of Rights and numerous noted ARTICLE III Precedents.
Court history has again demonstrated that "unbridled discretion, however benevolently motivated, is frequently a poor substitute for principle and procedure." The powers of the Star Chamber were a trifle in comparison with those of our Jane Crow, Juvenile Crow or Jim Crow (omnipotent moral busybodies) courts. Under our Constitution, the condition of being a man, boy or African American does not justify a kangaroo court. [1]
B. Plaintiff/Petitioner:
Pro Se Litigant
David G. Jeep
General Delivery
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
Phone# 314-514-5228
E-mail Dave@DGJeep.com
C. Defendant(s)/Respondent(s):
As listed on the original petition including now Catherine D. Perry specifically
D. Statement of Claim:
First, one Catherine D. Perry wants to assert that the petition should be dismissed for "failure to prosecute, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). If there is a more absurd assertion about this issue, I would like to see it. I have sacrificed not only every penny I ever had; I have invested my heart and nerve and sinew for 13+ years in the prosecution of this issue.
Secondly and more importantly, from the instant of day one Monday November 03, 2003 08:00 PM at the start of Monday Night Football - New England PATRIOTS v Denver BRONCOS,[2] this has been an extra-judicial action, by omnipotent moral busybodies, more specifically, an unconstitutional, as noted via Supreme Court precedent, deprivation of rights under color of law with - a:
Ø NOT "facially valid court order"[3]
Ø that was issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,""[4]
Ø that over comes "difficult problems of proof" and "stringent standard of fault"[5] with the ubiquitous UNCONSTITUTIONAL "Jane Crow" assertion of a Woman's "victimhood" at the expense of any Man's constitutional rights in legal disputes[6]
Ø that facts[7] were and are "beyond debate"[8] "sufficiently clear" THAT EVERY "reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,"[9] (i.e., the universal reckonable[10] understanding of the I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV Amendments).
If the reckonable[11] Supreme Law of the Land, Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV, statutes 42 USC §1983&1985 Civil Action for the Deprivation of Rights and numerous Article III precedents do not restrict a judicial act we are as rhetorically asserted by Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address,[12] Monday, March 4, 1861:
"(T)the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court (or any "absolutely immune" Judicial officer i.e., "omnipotent moral busybodies"), the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that (NOT SO) eminent tribunal."
Clearly, with the undisputed documentation[13] of fortiori presented with the original petition, there can be no assertion of frivolity or malice in that both frivolity and malice depend on the deficiency of a verifiable constitutional issue. And if the IV Amendment's "reasonable probable cause" alone is not a fortiori restriction on any and all asserted constitutional judicial jurisdiction, "We the People" "have ceased to be their own rulers" and "We the People" have resigned ourselves into the hands of "omnipotent moral busybodies,"[14] claiming delegated respondeat superior extrajudicial authority, acting against our liberty at any time, for any reason without recourse to the Supreme Law of the Land.
E. Relief:
I reiterate the request for injunctive relief from the fraud on the court, as the result of both the original State of Missouri issues (03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243 & CR203-1336M) and on appeal here I am asking both the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION and the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT to recuse themselves, with prejudice in favor of the petitioner, for further action as assigned to an otherwise unrelated visiting FEDERAL judicial officer.
F. Money Damages:
Yes as noted in the original petition.
G. Current Status:
All issues are currently criminally held against the petitioner and are causing additional pain and suffering.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
______________________________________________
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
[1] paraphrased from In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), 18 - See also In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) and McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971)
[2] I apologize for the excess of information, but I have been RELIVING the instant EVERYDAY
[3] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide REASONABLE 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).
[4] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[5] "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
[6] 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)
[7] See Original Petition dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016, pages 26-33
[8] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[9] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).
[12] Parenthetical text added for clarity here
[13] See Original Petition dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016, pages 26-33
[14] C. S. Lewis prescient assertion: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Thanks in advance,
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep,
(314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis , MO 63155-9999
No comments:
Post a Comment