Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - a question

Shipment Activity--------------------------- Location--------------------- Date & Time
Posted Tuesday, May 23, 2017 3:19:06 PM
-- ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------
Dispatched to Sort Facility--- SAINT LOUIS MO 63101-------------------
Acceptance----------------------- SAINT LOUIS MO 63101-- May 23, 2017, 12:59 pm
Business Closed -------------- WASHINGTON, DC 20543 May 28, 2017, 12:43 pm
Delivered------------------------- WASHINGTON, DC 20543- May 30, 2017, 6:14 am
---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------
Expected Delivery By:
Friday, May 26, 2017
Revised May 28, 2017
First-Class Mail®

Certified Mail

Clerk of the Supreme Court[1]
Supreme Court of the U.S.
1 First Street, N. E.
Washington, DC 20543

Re: Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - a question - UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT - Case No: 17-1246 - Mandate Filed: 05/22/2017 Entry ID: 4538537

Dear People:

I am writing this in pro se[2] letterform, to mitigate the potential for malicious misinterpretation by this technically consumed want-a-be-legal[3] criminal[4] conspiracy against rights.[5]

I cite Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803),
"it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded." [6]
I cite Clarence Earl Gideon’s, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), hand written appeal as regards the lack of a formally legal and clerically correct petition.  Additionally I make note that the issue has not changed since the origin of the judicial assertion of “unreasonable probable cause” as noted seven[7] times prior[8] in petition for writ of certiorari to supreme court of the United States.

I state, as regards my unique and somewhat unprecedented eighth in forma pauperis petition for writ of certiorari, I feel the court already has a clear representation of my poverty therefor there is no need to kill any more trees, with additional documentation.  Nothing has changed substantially form the inception as presented seven times prior.  This, my eighth unindemnified effort “to petition the government for a redress of grievances,”[9] makes me that much more impoverished.  I HAVE NO MONEY!  I am destitute and have been so, for the last 9+ years, as the result of this issue.

In that I have never even been afforded in forma pauperis discovery[10] for this uncontested infamously-scandalous, non-exigent, extra-judicial gravamen because of the iron boot [11]of criminally guided precedent, I am forced to ask: 

Is, any, immunity a praesumptio juris et de jure (irrebutable presumption) on appeal?

What good are rights if a judge/court can ignore them without remedy[12] or consequence on appeal?

To simply revisit the facts, 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[13] this has been FRAUD ON THE COURT[14] coram non judice, an infamously-scandalous, non-exigent, extra-judicial gravamen,[15] by omnipotent moral busybodies. [16]  More specifically, an unconstitutional, as noted via Supreme Court precedent, deprivation of the right to “reasonable probable cause” under color of law:

A.   an exparte non-exigent order of protection, listing only an alleged non-exigent misdemeanor traffic violation as unreasonable probable cause…

B.   a NOTfacially valid court order[17] (PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003) Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 1978) - an INFAMOUSLY-SCANDALOUS, NON-EXIGENT, EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN

C.   that was issued “in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"”[18] (PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003) Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam)) - an INFAMOUSLY-SCANDALOUS, NON-EXIGENT, EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN

D.   that over comes “difficult problems of proof” and “stringent standard of fault[19] with the ubiquitous UNCONSTITUTIONAL “Jane Crow” fraudulent assertion of a Woman’s “victimhood” at the expense of any Man’s constitutional rights in legal disputes[20] an - INFAMOUSLY-SCANDALOUS, NON-EXIGENT, EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN

E.   that the facts[21] were and are “beyond debate[22]sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,[23] - an INFAMOUSLY-SCANDALOUS, NON-EXIGENT, EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN (i.e., the universal reckonable[24] understanding of the I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV Amendments).

If the reckonable Supreme Law of the Land, Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII & XIV, statutes 42 USC §1983&1985 Civil Action for the Deprivation of Rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI)'s imposition upon The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 1974 – more recently Joe Biden's Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) in the Jane Crow era and numerous Article III precedents, as noted above, do not restrict a judicial act’s jurisdiction; the candid citizen must confess as rhetorically asserted by Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861), “We the People” “have ceased to be their own rulers” and “We the People” have resigned ourselves into the hands of an infamously-scandalous, non-exigent, extra-judicial group of “omnipotent moral busybodies,” claiming delegated respondeat superior infamously-scandalous, non-exigent, extra-judicial authority, acting against our liberty at any time, for any reason without recourse to the due process of the Supreme Law of the Land.

I seek both injunctive relief and monetary damages, as an escalating amount, noted in seven prior petitions for writ of certiorari.

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

cc:  My Blog - Tuesday, May 23, 2017, 3:26:34 PM





[1] I am sending this CERTIFIED US MAIL to the clerk, 5/23/17, and First Class US Mail to the individual justices’ chambers delayed until 6/1/17 for financial reasons.
[2] 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.”
[3] There is nothing LEGAL about immunity.  Absolute Immunity, as a "constructive power," has and will continue to QUASH the "raison d'ĂȘtre" for the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Constitution, Statute Law and inalienable rights/justice.
[5] “[A] pro se petitioner’s pleadings should be liberally construed to do substantial justice.” United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99, 108 (3d Cir. 1999).
[6] See also the I & VII Amendments and Title 42 42 U.S. Code § 1983 & 1985 Civil Action for the denial of rights.
[7] Petitions for writ of certiorari docketed as 15-8884, 14-10088, 14-5551, 13-7030, 13-5193, 11-8211 and 07-11115
[8] I note United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65 (1878) as applicable here "But there is an admitted exception to this general rule in cases where, by reason of something done by the successful party to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial or decision of the issue in the case.  Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court" (in this case this includes federal discovery).  This has been an ongoing FRAUD ON THE COURT from day one - Monday November 3, 2003
[9] Amendment I (submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and adopted on December 15, 1791) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[10] “As the Court unanimously held in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519 (1972), a pro se complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Id. at 404 U. S. 520-521, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 355 U. S. 45-46 (1957).” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 106 (1976)
[11] I refuse to believe that "Jim Crow" could have been kept alive without the Iron Boot of precedent, denying the asserted need for the independence of immunity
[12] For innocent people… "it is dmages or nothing" Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
[13] I apologize for the excess of information, but I have been RELIVING the instant EVERYDAY
[14] Fraud on the Court, in the sub judice, is where a Judge (who is NOT the "Court") has NOT supported or upheld the Judicial Machinery of the Court.
[15] 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, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge.   
[16] 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.”
[17]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, 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.”. 
As an additional controlling relevant issue, Judge Goeke never provided due process to the petitioner.  Goeke signed the order and then handed the issue off to Family Court Commissioner Jones.  As a Family Court Commissioner, of LIMITED jurisdiction, Jones had no jurisdiction over the misdemeanor criminal issue:
[I]f a probate judge, with jurisdiction over only wills and estates, should try a criminal case, he would be acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction and would not be immune from liability for his action; on the other hand, if a judge of a criminal court should convict a defendant of a nonexistent crime, he would merely be acting in excess of his jurisdiction and would be immune.
Id. at 357 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 1099.. PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[18] If reason does not limit probable cause, nothing can.
[19] “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
[20] 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) 
[21] See Original Petition dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016, pages 26-33
[22] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[23] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).