Friday, May 5, 2017


Members of the 8th Circuit Court 
c/o Michael E. Gans, Clerk of Court 
U. S. Court for the 8th Circuit 
111 South 10th Street Room 24.329 
St. Louis, MO. 63102-1123

Catherine D. Perry
c/o Clerk of the Court,
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
Saint Louis, MO 63102-1125

Re: No: 17-1246 and 4:16-cv-00810-CDP David Gerard Jeep, and heir Appellant v. Government of the United                States of America, et al Appellee – continued motion for sanctions[1] - FRAUD ON THE COURT[2]
       Receipt of ORDER[3] - Dated May 02, 2017 - Entry ID: 4531761 – FRCP Rule 27A(a)

Dear People:

I have to admit, I laughed when I received the above referenced order (Entry ID: 4531761).  You obviously want to delay making a corrupt decision.  WITH YOUR OBVIOUSLY CIVILLY AND CRIMINALLY INCRIMINATING LIABILITY, I UNDERSTAND WHY.  But as I have stated prior and have had confirmed by prior[4] GRANTED petitions in forma pauperis on numerous occasions;


I am destitute and have been so, for the last 9+ years,[5] as the result of this issue.

As further proof of my poverty I NOW include here a copy of my current Missouri Department of SOCIAL SERVICES Food Stamp approval for the month(s) 11/2016 thru 10/2018.  I have copies of 10/23/2015 and 09/26/2014, I can get copies of 10/12, 10/11 and 10/10; if they would be of any use?

I feel it only fair to admit, that even if I had the ability to pay the unwarranted fees, on an issue of conscientious, I would have to refuse contributing to your continued CRIMINAL Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organization.[6]

I appeal[7] the infamously-scandalous[8] extra-judicial gravamen noted in the original petition (4:16-cv-00810-CDP) and the refusal of the criminally corrupt UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION to now grant in forma pauperis in the sub judice, as confirmed by their prior[9] GRANTED petitions in forma pauperis on numerous occasions,.  

From day one, November 3, 2003, this has been a criminal deprivation of rights,[10] an infamously-scandalous extra-judicial gravamen, as proscribed by the Constitution, Federal Statute and numerous Supreme Court Precedent:
"A Government official's conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct,"[t]he contours of [a] right [are] sufficiently clear" that every "reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right." Anderson v. Creigh-ton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987). We do not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate. See ibid.; Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 341 (1986)." ASHCROFT v. AL-KIDD 563 U. S. ____ (2011)the noted infamously-scandalous extra-judicial gravamen is and has been a violation of a clearly established right.  Ashcroft went on to say:

"At the time of al-Kidd'…. We have repeatedly told courts—and the Ninth Circuit in particular, see Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U. S. 194, 198–199 (2004) (per curiam)— not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality." (ibid.)

and unlike in Ashcroft the common sense reckonablilty[11] of the reasonably limited issue and the above noted clarification:

"We do not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate." (ibid.)

clearly puts the current infamously-scandalous extra-judicial gravamen above a faithfully conscionable threshold.
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,[12] this has been FRAUD ON THE COURT, coram non judice, an infamously-scandalous extra-judicial gravamen, by omnipotent moral busybodies, more specifically, an unconstitutional, as noted via Supreme Court precedent, deprivation of rights under color of law:

Ø  with a NOT "facially valid court order"[13] (PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) an INFAMOUSLY-SCANDALOUS EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN

Ø  that was issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,""[14] (PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) an INFAMOUSLY-SCANDALOUS EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN

Ø  that over comes "difficult problems of proof" and "stringent standard of fault"[15] with the ubiquitous UNCONSTITUTIONAL "Jane Crow" assertion of a Woman's "victimhood" at the expense of any Man's constitutional rights in legal disputes[16] an INFAMOUSLY-SCANDALOUS EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN

Ø  that the facts[17] were and are "beyond debate"[18] "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,"[19] an INFAMOUSLY-SCANDALOUS EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN (i.e., the universal reckonable[20] understanding of the I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV Amendments).

If the reckonable[21] 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) imposes upon Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) 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,[22] Monday, 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 extra-judicial group of "omnipotent moral busybodies,"[23] claiming delegated respondeat superior infamously-scandalous 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.

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

a.    action(s) taken for eligibility unit number FS0063064802FSP0O - Missouri Department of SOCIAL SERVICES - dated 09/29/2016.
cc:  My Blog - Friday, May 05, 2017, 4:01:36 PM
       St. Louis Post Dispatch
       New York Times
       Catherine D. Perry, MOED

[1] Baker v. Myers Tractor Services, Inc., 765 So. 2d 149, (Fla. 1st DCA 2000):
[2] Fraud on the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the "Court") does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court.
[3] Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
[4] Rule 24. Proceeding in Forma Pauperis (a)(3)
[5] That is 264,156,376 seconds, as of Friday May 05, 2017 08:46:16.46 AM, but who is counting?
[6] See the original petition 4:16-cv-00810-CDP regarding 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations
[7] Rule 24. Proceeding in Forma Pauperis (a)(3)
[8] The infamously-scandalous nature of the extra-judicial assertion is a libelous smear, in that neither had any LEGAL CREDIBLY in the light of DUE-PROCESS OF LAW.
[9] Rule 24. Proceeding in Forma Pauperis (a)(3)
[10] 18 U.S. Code § 241-242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
[12] I apologize for the excess of information, but I have been RELIVING the instant EVERYDAY
"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 criminal issue of a DWI:
[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)
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. 
[15] "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
[16] 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) 
[17] See Original Petition dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016, pages 26-33
[18] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[19] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).
[22] Parenthetical text added for clarity here
[23] 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."

"Agere sequitur esse" ('action follows being')
David G. Jeep, 
Federal Inmate #36072-044 (formerly)

PREFERRED - E-mail address -

Mobile (314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep

Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
Post a Comment