Thursday, January 5, 2017

The Court is and has been directed by rule, by precedent, by statute and the Constitution to accept the initial assessment of the in forma pauperis plaintiff's factual allegations, they must be weighted in the plaintiff's favor with the benefit of a liberal construction while “weighing weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff.”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN 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
CA8 Case: 16-3221
CA8 Case: 16-4253




_____________________________________________________________________

 I.Response to MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dated 28, December, 2016

______________________________________________________________________
This sub judice issue originated on Tuesday, June 07, 2016 with a 33 page hand delivered document and a two page sworn MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT dated and delivered the same. 

The MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT was almost perfunctory, and had been accepted, never been contested, as submitted numerous times to this district and this circuit virtually clichéd.  Any rejection is not financial need related.  The poverty of the petitioner is unquestionable.

This issue has never been frivolous nor could it ever have been consider frivolous based on the uncontested facts submitted here in the sub judice issue originated on Tuesday, June 07, 2016 and upon several prior occasions to this court.

The petition asserts "12+ years[1] of "racketeering activity"[2] by the Black Robed Royalists and others in a criminal conspiracy against constitutional rights."

As uncontested facts in support of the original petition, pages 26 thru 31 of the original petition, gave recognized evidence of extrajudicial actions via court records from Division 65 of the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri dated the November 3, 2003 and December 5&18, 2003 

In that these specific-facts and documents as repeatedly referenced and provided several times, have never been SPECIFICALLY contested, petitioner holds them as uncontested facts of a prima facie case in support of his petition and asks to immediately move to a jury trial. 

The Court is and has been directed by rule,[3] by precedent,[4] by statute[5] and the Constitution[6] to accept the initial assessment of the in forma pauperis plaintiff's factual allegations, they must be weighted in the plaintiff's favor with the benefit of a liberal construction[7] while "weighing weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff."[8] 

Additionally, "An in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed, however, simply because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely.[9] Some improbable allegations might properly be disposed of on summary judgment, but to dismiss them as frivolous without any factual development is to disregard the age-old insight that many allegations might be "strange, but true; for truth is always strange, Stranger than fiction." Lord Byron, Don Juan, canto XIV, stanza 101 (T. Steffan, E. Steffan, & w. Pratt eds. 1977)." [10] "(T)the § 1915(d) frivolousness determination, frequently made sua sponte before the defendant has even been asked to file an answer, cannot serve as a fact finding process for the resolution of disputed facts.."[11] 

Jurisdiction is not some ill-defined nebulous concept requiring a higher powers confirmation.  Judicial jurisdiction is constitutionally and humanly limited by the 4th Amendment's reasonable-probable-cause-requirement, the 5th Amendment's due-process-requirement, the 7th Amendment's jury-trial-requirement, 8th Amendment's prohibition of unusual punishments and the 14th Amendment's requirement of the states "No state shall make or enforce any law..." to name just a few everyday knowable limitations.  When a Judge acts, with his delegated authority, unconstitutionally outside constitutional limitations, he is acting respondeat superior extrajudicially and subject to constitutional civil and criminal due process of law.  This is the acknowledged standard and intent of every founding father and voting citizens since the constitution's inception.

This has never been recognized or even attempted in sub judice issue originated on Tuesday, June 07, 2016 by the Black Robed Royalist as is their constitutional Article III obligation.[12]  This is and has been, for now 13+ years, Fraud Upon the Court.  Fraud Upon the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the "Court") does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court and acts respondeat superior extrajudicially.  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. 

·         Petitioner reasserts his MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016.

·         Petitioner askes one Catherine D. Perry to recuse herself per the MOTION FOR REMOVAL/RECUSAL dated Thursday, June 16, 2016,  NOTICE OF APPEAL (Wednesday, November 16, 2016), and MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (CA8 Case: 16-4253):

·         Petitioners ask the court to review de novo the sub judice petition originated on Tuesday, June 07, 2016 and all subsequent motions and petitions already on record, including the 19 pages herein and move on to hearing for a jury verdict on the 42 U.S. Code § 1983&1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights as a RICO[13] ACTION for damages. 

The in forma pauperis plaintiff's factual allegations, they must be weighted in the plaintiff's favor with the benefit of a liberal construction[14] while "weighing weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff."[15].  This includes his assertion of the originating extrajudicial actions of the Division 65 of Twenty-First Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri, as documented with evidence and the subsequent action of the Black Robed Royalists and others.

Now before the Catherine D. Perry starts asserting her unbridled authority I want to state that Judges are human and therefor suffer from human fallibility, any assertion of absolute authority, infallibility and or absolute immunity goes against all human knowledge acquired to this point not to mention the jurisdictional issue addressed ad infimum.  We the People never asserted or asked for nor wanted "absolutely immune judges," we want constitutional DUE-PROCESS-OF-LAW to right injustice and correct human error.  The founding fathers had immediate historical recollection of the "Star Chamber."

ADDITIONALLY, FOR THE ENLIGHTENMENT OF OTHERS

When, on May 4, 1884, Ida B. Wells refused to give up her seat in the first-class ladies car and move to the smoking car, the resultant extrajudicial action on appeal by Railroad to the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1887 said:

"We think it is evident that the purpose of the defendant in error was to harass with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain a comfortable seat for the short ride." 

The extrajudicial court action ordered "Judgment reversed, judgment here for the plaintiff in error."[16] 

Wells' reaction to the higher court's decision expressed her strong convictions on civil rights and religious faith, as she responded: "I felt so disappointed because I had hoped such great things from my suit for my people...O God, is there no...justice in this land for us?"[17]  There should have been access to, constitutionally, due-process-of-law to "establish Justice."  "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."[18]

This extrajudicial action denying justice is emblematic of the extrajudicial prior actions in the sub judice issue to dismiss - THE MOTIVATION OF THE PETITIONER IS NOT AT ISSUE.  The unconstitutional extrajudicial criminal actions of the Railroad/Tennessee Supreme Court in Ida B. Wells case and the unconstitutional extrajudicial criminal actions of the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri, the FBI, the AUSA, the USMS, the MOED, the CA8 and others in the sub judice issue were and ARE the ONLY gravamen before the court.  And as yet, 13 years in, the evidence presented is uncontested, January 5, 2017, in the sub judice issue!.

To add credibility to Ida B. Wells action I reference her pamphlet, in 1892 Wells published a pamphlet titled Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases.  Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases was overlooked by the extrajudicial discretion of others to the determent of generations of African American Citizens in the Jim Crow era.  And the actions of Rosa Parks and others (Browder v. Gayle) some 71 years later established the constitutional issue, reversing the prior extrajudicial actions of the Tennessee Supreme. 
______________________________________________________________________

                  II.MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (CA8 Case: 16-4253):

______________________________________________________________________

THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE is the natural inalienable spring and the preexisting raison d'être for all rights, any reasonable common law, constitutional law, statute law and judge made law.  "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."[19]

There is no denying this court's, 7th Amendment and 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights, constitutional responsibility to "establish justice."    Some improbable allegations might properly be disposed of on summary judgment, but to dismiss them as frivolous without any factual development is to disregard the age-old insight that many allegations might be "strange, but true; for truth is always strange, Stranger than fiction." Lord Byron, Don Juan, canto XIV, stanza 101 (T. Steffan, E. Steffan, & w. Pratt eds. 1977)." [20]  

I realize that someone claiming to have ensued 13+ years of damage - including 7 trips to the Supreme Court of the United States[21] - in a divorce action via false and unconstitutional unreasonable extrajudicial probable cause - with the use of an ex parte order of protection - as the result of a misdemeanor traffic violation - with a Brady violation - sounds too strange to be true.  BUT IT IS TRUE - "Strange, but true; for truth is always strange, Stranger than fiction." Lord Byron, Don Juan, canto XIV, stanza 101 (T. Steffan, E. Steffan, & w. Pratt eds. 1977)."   And, the one thing you do not have to worry about is setting an overly broad precedent with the facts, this will never happen again.  NO ONE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS HAS EVER EVEN ASKED FOR PROOF.  GIVE ME THE CHANCE TO PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The 14th amendment requires,[22] the Federal district, circuit and supreme courts to act in defense of the constitution and in the face of the state courts' laws and enforcement of the horrors of "Jane Crow" ex parte action[23] and "Traffic-Court-For-Profit."[24] Deprivations.  Although it is not without precedent - the courts refused to act for too many years on the horrors of southern lynching[25] also.

Since apparently[26] you did not see it, I am also appealing,[27] I quote from my "MOTION FOR REMOVAL/RECUSAL" dated Thursday, June 16, 2016 and as attached here.

"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."

The dismissal was WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The case is therefore to some extent still open.  I cannot and she should not risk her involvement, in that "double jeopardy" does not apply to her prior involvement with my unconstitutional incarceration.  Please also note that the incarceration is an issue for damages in the present issue also.

Additionally for consideration petitioner states he has had an undisputed prima facie case for the denial of an inalienable constitutional rights via judicial actions that were "taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction"[28] since the inception of the issue in the federal courts in 2007 (MOED 4:07-cv-1116-CEJ).  "(T)the § 1915(d) frivolousness determination, frequently made sua sponte before the defendant has even been asked to file an answer, cannot serve as a fact finding process for the resolution of disputed facts."[29]

If the requirement for reasonable probable cause[30] is not a restriction on jurisdiction, I am not sure what is or whatever could be?  With or without the benefit of a liberal construction[31] while "weighing weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff."[32]  "An in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed, however, simply because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely. Some improbable allegations might properly be disposed of on summary judgment, but to dismiss them as frivolous without any factual development is to disregard the age-old insight that many allegations might be "strange, but true; for truth is always strange, Stranger than fiction." Lord Byron, Don Juan, canto XIV, stanza 101 (T. Steffan, E. Steffan, & w. Pratt eds. 1977)." [33] "(T)the § 1915(d) frivolousness determination, frequently made sua sponte before the defendant has even been asked to file an answer, cannot serve as a fact finding process for the resolution of disputed facts." 

The United States District Court Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division and the United States Court of Appeals for The Eighth Circuit have BOTH repeatedly denied this without even affording minimal due process required by precedent, the benefit of a liberal construction[34] while "weighing weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff."[35] 

Somehow when the constitution says "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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." (U.S. Constitution, Article VI ).  That somehow Judges are excluded from being "bound" by the "the supreme law of the land"  in spite of the  benefit of a liberal construction[36] given "weighing weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff"[37] is ABSURD!

Somehow, when issues with the law of the several states, literally revolves around everything in the world that their citizen cares about the 14th Amendment's assertion of "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."  becomes impotent giving the benefit of a liberal construction[38] while "weighing weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff."[39] means NOTHING

Petitioner therefore askes, both, the entire United States District Court Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division and the entire United States Court of Appeals for The Eighth Circuit recuse themselves with prejudice for their own incompetence as the ongoing issue of the denial of a constitutional right as repeatedly stated unambiguously by the petitioner.  
_____________________________________________________________________

                                      III.    NOTICE OF APPEAL (Wednesday, November 16, 2016):

______________________________________________________________________

THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE is the natural inalienable spring and the preexisting raison d'être for all rights, any reasonable common law, constitutional law, statute law and judge made law.  "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."[40]

The denial of the original petition and "plaintiffs motion for recusal" are both manifestly corrupt, unconstitutional, criminal and/or ignorant.  The denial of the original petition and "plaintiffs motion for recusal" are based on respondent's fraud, and as we all know fraus omnia corrumpit.

The ABSURDITY Doctrine[41] is crucial to any reasonable discussion of the original petition and the "plaintiffs motion for recusal."  The ABSURDITY DOCTRINE has its roots in the earliest and most essential origins of Justice, language, human relations, common law, constitutional law, statue law and Judge made law.

A.   ABSURDITY DOCTRINE


It is ABSURD to think that sovereign agency is immune and unfettered by We the People's constitution and equity.[42]  If that were the case, why waste the parchment? 

The Constitution would be ABSURD, not even a proverbial "parchment guarantee," without the Article. VI. declaration, "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."  Judges are thus bound by the constitution. 

It is ABSURD to think of impeachment as the only security for an individual's constitutional rights - "that form of accountability is too weak, as it posits an uberempathetic voting population so concerned for the rights of others that they will vote on the basis of policies that do not impact their own lives. This is just too fanciful (as Jim Crow, Juvenile Crow and now Jane Crow have proved). Virtual representation cannot be effective if it depends on heroic assumptions of empathy, just as our early countrymen recognized by placing the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV and writing McCulloch with virtual representation in mind."[43]  150+ years of Jim Crow under the Judge made law of Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) has un-arguably proved that!

It is ABSURD to assert that "domestic relations" statute law and/or its judge made law progeny[44] are not bound by the 14th amendment's assertion "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 exigency, and there never was an expressed exigency in this issue, rights cannot be taken without methodical "equal protection" of due process of law.

The Constitution's bed-rock binding instrument is due process of lawDue process of law is not a tyrant's instrument.  Due process of law is the constitution's self-representative bicameral, judge and jury, check on both authority and liberty.  "Absolute immunity" as judge made law has, not since the Abolition of the Star Chamber July 5, 1641,[45] been reasonably tenable.  The Founders had direct knowledge of the Abolition of the Star Chamber July 5, 1641,[46] and direct knowledge of "the 1763 English case, Wilkes v. Wood, [47] whose plot[48] and cast of characters were familiar to every schoolboy[49] in America, and whose lessons the Fourth Amendment was undeniably designed to embody."

B.   FRAUD


The Fraud Upon the Court, as documented in the seven original petitions, was and is an all-corrupting force (fraus omnia corrumpit).  The current fraud of absolute immunity arises from the now knowingly erroneous statement in Bradley and Fisher 1871 (based on Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607)) and "Against the consequences of their erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort."[50]  As we all now know the "numerous remedies" alluded to never existed!  The assertion of "numerous remedies" is in and of itself a Fraud Upon the Court.  For innocent people, as the 2nd Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring in Bivens said "Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing."[51]

The originating Fraud Upon the Court forced upon the instant innocent petitioner, was initiated and served November 3, 2003 with the "beyond debate" NOT "facially valid" ABSURD ex parte court order "in the complete absence of all jurisdiction."  The "beyond debate" NOT "facially valid" ABSURD 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 poverty and post-traumatic-stress.

The "beyond debate" NOT "facially valid" ABSURD ex parte court order "in the complete absence of all jurisdiction," fraudulently and commensurately empowered the respondents gender biased subsequent divorce action.  Here I have to assert the 

thin skull" doctrine in that the not facially valid court order and the subsequent divorce are inextricably related.

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.

C.   Facts of the INSTANT CASE


Fathers as individuals have been ABSURDLY relegated to sub-class parental status,"[52] too long ago at the beginning of the Jane Crow era.[53] 

"On November 3, 2003 petitioner was served "under color of law" with an obviously (ABSURD) "beyond debate" NOT "facially valid" gender biased Black Robed Royalists' ex parte court order of protection (03FC-10670M).  The clearly NOT "facially valid" (ABSURD) ex parte court ordered of protection, unreasonably (4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment) and unusually (8th Amendment) listed a misdemeanor traffic violation as its only "probable cause"" (a trespass[54]).[55]  This criminal fraud then unconstitutionally empowered a gender biased divorce action (03FC-12243)." 

On appeal the petitioner states he has been restrained from custody of his son, his home and his possessions for 13 years by this ABSURD racketeering[56] assertion of absolutely immunity by the Black Robed Royalist criminally asserted power both inside and outside the state of Missouri.  This goes to satisfy racketeering "activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce."

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 We the People's constitutional attempt to establish justice

"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."[57]

As further proof of the racketeering[58] based conspiracy against rights, petitioner states that he has presented the above ABSURD and undisputed deprivation of rights, completely outside the Article III "Black Robed Royalist" delegated authority i.e., completely outside of the Article III jurisdiction, to the Article III "Black Robed Royalist" delegated 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.[59]  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…." [60]  There was never any exigent probable cause even alleged by any of the respondents.

"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." [61]

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



"The father was relegated to sub-class parental status."[63] 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[64]"

The FACTS of my case force me to rephrase Lord Acton, "absolute immunity"[65] 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 Black Robed Royalists; 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[66] 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[67] 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,[68] 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.""[69]

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[70] sinks to the lowest, DEGENERATE[71] 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 have for over THIRTEEN years and 7 trips to the Article III Supreme Court been fully aware of the fraud upon the court and "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 assert 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 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."[72]

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."[73]

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!

Petitioner again 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.

E.   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?"

_____________________________________________________________________

                                                                            IV.CURRENT STATUS:

______________________________________________________________________

The deprivation is ongoing and the damages, stated as an escalating amount on the enclosed spreadsheet[74] 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 22 on December 22, 2016, 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, January 05, 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] At this time it is 13.60 years. See attacked damages spreadsheet dated Tuesday January 03 2017 11:28:31.43 AM. 
[2] 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS, 18 U.S. Code § 1962 - (d) and § 1964 - Civil remedies.
[3] Rule 24. Proceeding in Forma Pauperis (a) (1)
[4] Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)
[5] 28 U.S. Code § 1915 - Proceedings in forma pauperis
[6] ARTICLE III. PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL CASES - Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally "In a civil case, unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption. But this rule does not shift the burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who had it originally."
[7] Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears Page 404 U. S. 521 "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 355 U. S. 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944). Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)
[8] Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)
[9] "I realize that someone claiming to have ensued 13+ years of damage - including 7 trips to the Supreme Court of the United States  - in a divorce action via false and unconstitutional unreasonable extrajudicial probable cause - with the use of an ex parte order of protection - as the result of a misdemeanor traffic violation - with a Brady violation - sounds too strange to be true."
[10] Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)
[11] Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)
[12] ARTICLE III. PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL CASES - Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally "In a civil case, unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption. But this rule does not shift the burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who had it originally."
[13] 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
[14] Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears Page 404 U. S. 521 "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 355 U. S. 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944). Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)
[15] Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)
[17] Ida B. Wells - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Wikipedia®
[18] FEDERALIST No. 50 "Periodical Appeals to the People Considered" From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 5, 1788. by James Madison
[19] FEDERALIST No. 50 "Periodical Appeals to the People Considered" From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 5, 1788. by James Madison
[20] Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)
[21] I have been struggling to expose this for 13.60 years  with 411 days in jail, 8 trips through the federal court system and this my 7th docketed Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, the prior six were denied, i.e., 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, 14-5551, 14-10088 and 15.8884.
[22] "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."
[23] "Orders for Protection: When the Shield Becomes a Sword" Minnesota's Domestic Abuse Act includes a powerful tool for courts to employ to protect victims of domestic abuse, but few safeguards exist to prevent one party in a family dispute from using it as a weapon to gain advantage over the other. - By Theresa A. Capistrant and Rebecca Wong
[24] 128 Harv. L. Rev. 1723, APR 10, 2015 "CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Policing and Profit Developments in the Law – "How municipalities in St. Louis County, Mo., profit from poverty" Washington Post By Radley Balko September 3, 2014 - "Traffic Tickets Are Big Business" October 12, 2007
[26] Case: 16-3221 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2016 Entry ID: 4482638
[27] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 7th day of November. 2016.
[28] Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)
[30] The probable cause requirement comes from the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be searched."
[31] Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears Page 404 U. S. 521 "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 355 U. S. 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944). Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)
[32] Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)
[33] Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)
[34] Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears Page 404 U. S. 521 "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 355 U. S. 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944). Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)
[35] Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)
[36] Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears Page 404 U. S. 521 "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 355 U. S. 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944). Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)
[37] Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)
[38] Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears Page 404 U. S. 521 "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 355 U. S. 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944). Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)
[39] Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)
[40] FEDERALIST No. 50 "Periodical Appeals to the People Considered" From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 5, 1788. by James Madison
[41] Words are unless there meaning has reasonable consistent not-ABSURD meaning.
"In 1765, Blackstone made several references to absurdity as justifying either a deviation from literal meaning or the voiding of an act of Parliament with regard to absurd consequences. He noted: "As to the effects and consequence [of statutes], the rule is, that where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received sense of them." 1 WILuAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND *61 (1st ed. 1765) [hereinafter BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES]. Later in the same volume, when describing the principal "rules to be observed with regard to the construction of statutes," id. at *87, Blackstone noted: "[I]f there arise out of [acts of parliament] . . . any absurd consequences, manifestly contradictory to common reason, they are, with regard to those collateral consequences, void," id. at *91" ABSURDITY AND THE LIMITS OF LITERALISM: DEFINING THE ABSURD RESULT PRINCIPLE IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION* Veronica M. Dougherty 1994
"if in any case the plain meaning of a provision, not contradicted by any other provision in the same instrument, is to be disregarded, because we believe the framers of that instrument could not intend what they say, it must be one in which the absurdity and injustice of applying the provision to the case would be so monstrous that all mankind would without hesitation unite in rejecting the application." Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. 122 (1819), 203.
"The common sense of man approves the judgment mentioned by Puffendorf, that the Bolognian law which enacted, "that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity," did not extend to the surgeon who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street in a fit. The same common sense accepts the ruling, cited by Plowden, that the statute of ist Edward II, which enacts that a prisoner who breaks prison shall be guilty of felony, does not extend to a prisoner who breaks out when the prison is on fire - "for he is not to be hanged because he would not stay to be burnt." And we think that a like common sense will sanction the ruling we make, that the act of Congress which punishes the obstruction or retarding of the passage of the mail, or of its carrier, does not apply to a case of temporary detention of the mail caused by the arrest of the carrier upon an indictment for murder."
"[I] t is a venerable principle that a law will not be interpreted to produce absurd results. "The common sense of man approves the judgment mentioned by Puffendorf, that the Bolognian law which enacted 'that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity,' did not extend to the surgeon who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street in a fit. The same common sense accepts the ruling, cited by Plowden, that the statute of 1st Edward II, which enacts that a prisoner who breaks prison shall be guilty of felony, does not extend to a prisoner who breaks out when the prison is on fire-'for he is not to be hanged because he would not stay to be burnt."'" (KMart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281,325 (1988) (Scalia,J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting United States v. Kirby, 74 U.S. 482, 487 (1868)).)
[42] From this method of interpreting laws, by the reason of them, arises what we call equity; which is thus defined by Grotius, ``the correction of that, wherein the law (by reason of its universality) is deficient''. For since in laws all cases can not be foreseen or expressed, it is necessary, that when the general decrees of the law come to be applied to particular cases, there should be somewhere a power vested of defining those circumstances, which (had they been foreseen) the legislator himself would have expressed. And these are the cases, which according to Grotius, ``lex non exacte definit, sed arbitrio boni viri permittit'' (the law does not define exactly, but leaves something to the discretion of a just and wise judge).
Equity thus depending, essentially, upon the particular circumstances of each individual case, there can be no established rules and fixed precepts of equity laid down, without destroying it's very essence, and reducing it to a positive law. And, on the other hand, the liberty of considering all cases in an equitable light must not be indulged too far, lest thereby we destroy all law, and leave the decision of every question entirely in the breast of the judge. And law, without equity, though hard and disagreeable, is much more desirable for the public good, than equity without law: which would make every judge a legislator, and introduce most infinite confusion; as there would then be almost as many different rules of action laid down in our courts, as there are differences of capacity and sentiment in the human mind. (Commentaries on the Laws of England: In Four Books; Volume 1 - By Sir William Blackstone)
[43] "EQUALITY IN THE WAR ON TERROR" 2007 Stanford Law Review Volume 59, Issue 5  – by Neal Katyal Page 1387
[44] Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) ("The domestic relations exception . . . divests the federal courts of jurisdiction over any action for which the subject is a divorce, allowance of alimony, or child custody.").
[45] The Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber"[45] July 5, 1641, that "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void" for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for "absolute immunity" in Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607).  Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607) was NOT available to reasonably be used as precedent for Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523 (1868), Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) and Stump v. Sparkman 435 U.S. 349 (1978).
[46] The Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber"[46] July 5, 1641, that "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void" for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for "absolute immunity" in Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607).  Floyd and Barker (Star Chamber 1607) was NOT available to reasonably be used as precedent for Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523 (1868), Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) and Stump v. Sparkman 435 U.S. 349 (1978).
[47] I9 Howell's State Trials 1153 (C.P. 1763), 98 Eng. Rep. 489.
[48] "Perhaps the Justices have been slow to see the light because they do not understand that juries, not judges, are the heroes of the Founders' Fourth Amendment story. Indeed, at times, the Founders viewed judges and certain judicial proceedings with suspicion; this unflattering truth may not immediately suggest itself to modern-day judges.  The Amendment's Warrant Clause does not require, presuppose, or even encourage warrants - it limits them. Unless warrants meet certain strict standards, they are per se unreasonable. The Framers did not exalt warrants, for a warrant was issued ex parte by a government official on the imperial payroll and had the purpose and effect of precluding any common law trespass suit the aggrieved target might try to bring before a local jury after the search or seizure occurred. The logic driving the warrant requirement is doubly flawed: it sees warrants as judicial, when they often lack judicial attributes, and it ignores the after-the-fact judicial review that the common law furnished against warrantless intrusions, in which the jury loomed large.
Begin with the doubly flawed logic driving the warrant requirement. Consider the person who issues the warrant. In England, certain Crown executive officials regularly exercised this warrant power.  We need only recall the facts of the 1763 English case, Wilkes v. Wood, whose plot and cast of characters were familiar to every schoolboy  in America, and whose lessons the Fourth Amendment was undeniably designed to embody. Wilkes - and not the 1761 Boston writs of assistance controversy, which went almost unnoticed in debates over the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights - was the paradigm search and seizure case for Americans. Indeed, it was probably the most famous case in late eighteenth-century America, period.  In Wilkes, a sweeping warrant had been issued by a Crown officer, Secretary of State Lord Halifax. In colonial America, Crown executive officials, including royal Governors, also claimed authority to issue warrants. Well into the twentieth century, states vested warrant-issuing authority in justices of the peace - even when such justices also served as prosecutors - and today, states confer warrant authority on clerks and "magistrates" who are neither lawyers nor judges and who at times look rather like police chiefs." Volume 107 February 1994 Number 4 - Harvard Law Review Article - "Fourth Amendment First Principles" by Akhil Reed Amar
[49] John Wilkes, a flamboyant member of Parliament, published an anonymous attack on the majesty and ministry of King George IH in a 1763 pamphlet, The North Briton Number 45. The pamphlet enraged the ministry, which issued a general search and arrest warrant against the pamphlet's publishers and printers. No names were listed in the warrants; it authorized henchmen to round up the usual suspects and gave the henchmen discretion to decide who those suspects were. Wilkes's house was broken into; his private papers were rifled, read, and seized; and he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. After winning release on habeas corpus, Wilkes and some of the other fifty or so search targets brought hugely successful civil damage suits against the offending agents. The Wilkes case was a cause c~l~bre in the colonies, where "Wilkes and Liberty" became a rallying cry for all those who hated government oppression. Americans across the continent named cities, counties, and even children in honor of Wilkes and the libertarian judge, Lord Camden. Witness, for example, Camden, New Jersey; Camden, South Carolina; Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania; Wilkes County, Georgia; Wilkes County, North Carolina; and of course, John Wilkes Booth. For more on Wilkes, see PAULINE MAIER, FROM RESISTANCE To REVOLUTION 162-69 (1972); RAYMOND IV. POSTGATE, THAT DEVIL WILKES (1929); GEORGE RUDE, WILKES AND LIBERTY (1962); and Pauline Maier, John Wilkes and American Disillusionment with Britain, 20 WM. & MARY Q. 373 (1963).
[53]Juvenile Crow, Jane Crow and Jim Crow "Court history has again demonstrated that unbridled discretion, however benevolently motivated, is frequently a poor substitute for principle and procedure. In 1937, Dean Pound wrote: "The powers of the Star Chamber were a trifle in comparison with those of our juvenile courts...." http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2016/08/juvenile-crow-jane-crow-and-jim-crow.html   http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/search/label/Jane%20Crow
[54] "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
[55] See the last seven pages of the original petition dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016.
[56] 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS, 18 U.S. Code § 1962 - (d) and § 1964 - Civil remedies.
[57] FEDERALIST No. 50 "Periodical Appeals to the People Considered" From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 5, 1788. by James Madison
[58] 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS, 18 U.S. Code § 1962 - (d) and § 1964 - Civil remedies.
[59] 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. 
[60] "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
[61] "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
[62] 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.
[64] 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)
[65] 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.
[71] 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.
[74] Dated Tuesday January 03 2017 11:28:31.43 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)
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/  or www.DGJeep.com
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com or Dave@DGJeep.com 

(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis , MO 63155-9999