Audrey G. Fleissig, District Judge
c/o Gregory J. Linhares - Clerk of Court
St. Louis - Eastern Division
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
St. Louis, MO 63102-1123
Re: Case No. 4:17-cv-02690-AGF - Jeep v Government of the United States of America eta!, NOTICE OF APPEAL
Dear People,
This has been a criminal conspiracy for the deprivation of rights[1] since the instant of its creation as "an infamously-scandalous, non-exigent, EXTRA-JUDICIAL gravamen, - a "beyond debate"[2] NOT "facially valid court order" [3] and an unconstitutional FRAUD[4] on the COURT by an officer of the Court.
In the, now 14 year, struggle it has become an all-consuming RICO[5] action to cover up the criminal conspiracy against rights.
Noting my pro se prior submission of a "Motion for reconsideration" dated Monday, November 20, 2017, the court's order dated s 9th day of November (Document Number: 6), 2017., and NOT being professionally aware of bureaucratic limits on appeal. In good faith, I advance an appeal, here and now, Wednesday, December 06, 2017, 10:05:29 AM.
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: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk's Office
My Blog - Wednesday, December 06, 2017, 10:05:29 AM
[2] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[3] (Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978) 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, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge.
[4] Fraus omnia corrumpit "Fraud corrupts all." A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision
UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
FEDERAL COURT - St. Louis DIVISION
JURY DEMAND
Jeep
v.
Government of the United States of America, et al
Case No. 4:17-cv-02690-AGF
I. NOTIFICATION of APPEAL
Please make note of my notice of appeal for all actions currently bearing upon the above referenced issue Case No. 4:17-cv-02690-AGF.
The Court's order dated 9th day of November (Document Number: 6) is ludicrous on its face. The citation listed District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983) is outside the 8th Circuit's jurisdiction and unrelated to specifics of the gravamen as reasoned and described – "an infamously-scandalous, non-exigent, extra-judicial gravamen, - a NOT "facially valid court order"[1] (Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) - that was reckonably[2] issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,""[3] (Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S. Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) - "beyond debate"[4] (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. _(2015)) "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right"[5] (Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011)).[6]"
II. CERTIFICATION AND CLOSING
Respectfully submitted, Wednesday, December 06, 2017
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
The plaintiff is homeless and without the will to go on because of this issue AND SEEKS EMERGENCY RELIEF!!!!
[1] 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.
[2] If reason (reckonabilty) does not limit jurisdiction with probable cause, nothing can."reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[3] Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[4] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[5] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).
[6] "To this day, I am haunted by the vivid memory of the confirming shrug from the Police Officer when I questioned it as served on November 3, 2003. I am further haunted by the memory of the same confirming shrug when Commissioner Jones first saw the absurdity of the court order on the bench November 20, 2003 as my attorney then highlighted as he repeated his prior objections." Lisa Nesbit c/o OFFICE OF THE CLERK Thursday, June 15, 2017, 10:23:36 AM
"Agere sequitur esse" ('action follows being')
David G. Jeep,
Federal Inmate #36072-044 (formerly)
www.DGJeep.com
Dave@DGJeep.com
www.DGJeep.com
Dave@DGJeep.com
Mobile (314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
Michael E. Gans Clerk
of Court
U. S. Court of
Appeals for the 8th Circuit
111 South 10th Street
Room 24.329
St. Louis, MO.
63102-1123
Re: Case No. 4:17-cv-02690-AGF - Jeep
v Government of the United States of America
eta!, NOTICE OF APPEAL
Dear People,
I realize that the appeal as noted above
and in the accompanying documentation has go through Eastern District of Missouri | United States District Court.
But because you are CRIMINALLY[1] implicated in this 14 year RICO[2] action as a conspiracy for the deprivation of rights, I out of
sequence provide you this copy for INFORMATION ONLY.
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.
FYI - “NOTICE OF APPEAL as mailed to MOED”
No comments:
Post a Comment