Thursday, December 16, 2004

Findings of Fact And proposed settlement in regard to the dissolution of marriage in the above referenced case.

Pro Se

In re the Marriage of:
Sharon Gayle Jeep, (SSN#XXX-XX-XXX)
David Gerard Jeep, (SSN#XXX-XX-XXX)

Case No.: 03FC-12243

No. 65

Findings of Fact
And proposed settlement in regard to the dissolution of marriage in the above referenced case.
COMES NOW the Respondent, David G. Jeep, and moves this Court to consider these facts as basis for its decision in regard to the dissolution of marriage and settlement of custody and all financial issues.
Respondent states as follows:
  1. First and foremost among the facts for the respondent are the continuing and ongoing judicial malfeasants of Commissioner Phillip E. Jones as related to the respondent’s right to Due Process regarding this issue.  The Commissioner has consistently and without foundation denied the respondent his rights to due process, paternity, property and liberty. 
  2. The respondent and the petitioner are now and have both been residents of St. Louis County in the state of Missouri for the last 15 years.
  3. The respondent and the petitioner were married in St. Louis County on June 16, 1989.
  4. There was one child of this union Patrick Brandon Jeep born 12-22-94, (SS#XXX-XX-XXX)
  5. The differences between the parties are irreconcilable and the marriage is irretrievably broken and should be dissolved.
  6. Facts to be considered in the settlement of the custody of the minor child and financial issues are as follows:
  7. The petitioner’s continued unfounded assertion of abuse has cost the respondent 13 month of his life.
  8. The courts continued denial of the Respondent’s rights to due process has contributed to the respondents being denied his rights as a parent, being forced from his home of 10 years and allowing the petitioner to literally steal all that he once held precious.  There was no credible collaboration of the charges of abuse.  There was merely an emotional assertion and a judge unwilling to do his job and oversee a credible judicial system of DUE PROCESS.  The judge as is if asserting his adolescent manhood abusively forced the respondent into compliance again without access to standards of due process.
  9. The petitioner’s unfounded assertions of abuse were upheld by the Commissioner at the expense of the respondent’s rights to due process.
  10.  The specifics for the charges of abuse were changed on the morning in the midst of the accelerated 2 hour trial regarding the order of protection. 
  11. The Petitioner was represented by legal council.  Said council lead the petitioner via his cross examination to assert charges different form the original allegation.  He therefore had prior knowledge of the revised charges. 
  12. His legal tactics were in direct conflict with the canons of legal ethics and he should be sanctioned for his fraudulent misuse of the legal process.
  13. The respondent via his attorney made a timely objection.  Said objection was arbitrarily over ruled without foundation by the commissioner.
  14. The Commissioner then allowed testimony on the issue without giving the respondent adequate time to neither prepare a defense nor depose witnesses in regard to the new charge.
  15. Thus the commissioner’s ruling was thus flawed.  Any subsequent ruling having a basis in or related to said ruling is thus flawed.
  16. The respondent has since making known his objection at trial, has filed two motions for a retrial on the issue, which were summarily denied by the commissioner without foundation or comment.  The Respondent has also filed two motions requesting the commissioner to recuse himself because of this judicial misconduct and refusal to afford the petitioner his rights to due process and thus his rights to paternity, property, and liberty.
  17. The petitioner hereby asserts as a testimonial fact, that the petitioner lied in her surprise and unfounded allegations of abuse. Thus the petitioner should be held financially and criminally responsible for the consequences of her illegal act of perjury and suborning perjury with daughter.
  18. Foremost among these issues is as the mother of a 20 year old female child, one Kristen Capps; she did hereby engage her as a co-conspirator in her illegal act of fraud and perjury.
  19. This commission of an illegal act utilizing a progeny should be given extreme weight in the consideration of any custody order which affords the petitioner any custodial rights.
  20. Said co-conspirator Kristen Capps had 6 months prior to the abuse filing, flunked out of college four semesters in row and was living the life a party girl staying out to 4:00am several days a week living off of the petitioner and the respondent.  As result of her irresponsible lifestyle and actions she had for the 5 months prior to the order of abuse been asked to move out of the couple’s home.  The request had been made by mutual agreement of the Petitioner and the Respondent and was confirmed by Kristen’s Grandmother Reiko Page, her aunt Paula Shaw, her aunt Carolyn Cravens, her aunt Theresa Page, her uncle Michael Page and her uncle Dodson Cravens.  Just prior to the abuse order Kristen Capps had been fired from her job, her car had broken down beyond repair and the family she was living, one Dave Wangrow a St. Louis County police officer, had insisted she move out.  These are the facts and they are not disputed.
  21. She was thus without a job, without transportation, without a home and was about to be living on the street, thus she was ripe for the petitioner to use in her conspiracy to suborn perjury to defraud the respondent of his paternity, his property and his liberty.
  22. And again she was able to commit this fraud because the court would not allow the respondent his constitutional rights to due process.
  23. This act by a mother to engage her child in the commission of a crime is a moral issue that should be considered in any custody agreement.
  24. The petitioner’s motive for the perjury was two fold first was to illegally acquire a prescription for Psychiatric Drug Therapy for the minor child over the known objection of his natural and co-custodial parent the respondent.  The second motive was to force the respondent from his home and thus defraud him of his property and ultimately his liberty.
  25. Just prior to the order of abuse the Petitioner and the Respondent had consulted a pediatrician, Dr. Kent Killian, see the letter date 7/6/04 from Dr. Killian, he confirms and supported the diagnosis of Patrick’s condition “as suggestive but not conclusive of ADHD.”  At that time Dr. Killian acknowledged and supported the couples mutual agreement “NOT to TREAT him (Patrick) with medication,” see Dr. Killian’s letter dated 11/18/04.
  26. Because of the petitioner’s acute issues of self esteem, she can not and will not confront nor stand up to anyone or anything.  With the soul exception of the Petitioner whom as she knows is a confirmed pacifist and would never attack nor defend with violence.  The petitioner’s self esteem issues are the result of an abusive father and her mother’s refusal to protect her.  She can not be a parent to her daughter.  Her daughter badly needs parental direction, yet her mother’s parental guidance is to indulge, indulge and corrupt her with illegal activities, perjury and fraud.
  27. That being said the petitioner has an irrational fear of her son, not because he is violent, not because there are any reports of violence, but because he can be disagreeable and confrontational.  She can not handle him as he is; she needs him on Psychiatric Drug Therapy to keep him twilighted and under her control.
  28. Thus any custodial time afforded her should be under strict supervision of a court appointed officer at the petitioners expense.
  29. The second aspect of the petitioner’s motive revolves around the obvious, money.
  30. The petitioner all during the marriage had been supported by the Respondent. The respondent had paid all the house payments, all the utility payments, virtually all the major expenses.  The petitioner had been responsible for only the household goods, food stuffs, retirement and their savings.  The petitioner had been entrusted with the savings and the retirement interests.
  31. During the twenty month immediately prior to the order of protection, the Respondent had been out of work at home.  He had supported the family even then with an inheritance he had received from his family.
  32.  The Respondent and the Petitioner had always both worked.  They had always made close to the same amount every year.
  33. The Respondent’s money went to REAL household expenses, Mortgage, the light bill. The gas bill, the phone bill, the mobile phone bill.  The petitioner was trusted with food stuffs, household expenses, her cloths, savings and retirement. 
  34. Just prior to the order of protection without due process the respondent’s money had just run out. He was without cash on hand and without a job.  For the month of September and October of 2003 the Petitioner had assumed the mortgage payment.
  35. After the Order of protection the Petitioner went out and cleaned out the joint accounts.  In the Respondent’s joint account she withdrew his last $50.15.
  36. It is underdetermined how much she had in her joint account in that she had been working and making in excess of $60,000 a year for the most recent 24 months and she had been trusted to be saving what she could.  Her only REAL recurring expenses had been food on the table, of which the respondent had actually purchased a great deal of because he was home working and need to be fed.
  37. The respondent was thrown out on to the street with no money without access to due process.  The petitioner had complete control of all the couples savings, household property and real estate.
  38. The respondent had no job, no money, no vehicle and no access to due process to redress the lies being used against him..
  39. The respondent had been actively looking for work and actually landed a position with a company he had work with 10 years prior in November of 2003.
  40. The petitioner thus had soul access and control of the couple’s savings.  The petitioner has irresponsibly expended those liquid savings, some $10,000, on the support of her perjury and her attempt to defraud the respondent of his paternity, his property and his liberty.
  41. The petitioner having soul access to couples home for the last 13 months has stolen EVERYTHING from the RESPONDENT.  She has taken soul possession of the entire product of 48 years of the Respondent’s life, his memories, his collections, his private musing; his entire personal life has been stolen.  Imagine you are watching Monday Night Football and a policeman comes in and tells you have to leave, you have maybe thirty minutes to pack whatever you can carry, but you have 47 years of your life.  Memories of your father, memories of you family, little mementos of you childhood all stripped form you without credible access to due process.  The respondent is asking for $72,000 in compensation for the lies perpetrated by the petitioner in having stolen 13 months of the respondent’s life with her lies.
  42. The respondent has not had access to his private information on his personal computer.  This is private information as private as a man’s soul can be; no one has any right this information, no one but the respondent.  There was never any thing specifically proved or asserted other than the respondent would not relinquish this most private of possessions.
  43. The refusal of the court to allow the Respondent access to his computer encumbered him in the defense of his cause of action in a recent court case.  This refusal of the court to enforce a subpoena, a motion for the distribution of a marital asset, and again refusing the respondent access to his property.  The respondent will be seeking compensation for that irresponsible assertion of unfounded judicial authority with a separate action.
  44. The Psychiatric Drug Therapy of a minor child is a reasonable dispute among educated rational people.  The diagnosis is “suggestive but not conclusive regarding ADHD.” I want to repeat that the diagnosis is “suggestive but not conclusive regarding ADHD.”  I want to repeat that the diagnosis is “suggestive but not conclusive regarding ADHD.”  I want to repeat that the diagnosis is “suggestive but not conclusive regard ADHD.”  This is the only direct non emotionally influenced reference to Patrick’s diagnosis by Dr. Killian
  45. The petitioner per Dr. Killian after “multiple discussions” without the respondent’s knowledge or consent got the Doctor to give her the prescription.  She harassed him until he relented.
  46. If in fact he has ADHD, he probably does have a minor case; educated rational people are in dispute as to whether it is an asset or a deficiency.  I want to repeat that educated rational people are in dispute as to whether it is an asset or a deficiency.  I want to repeat that educated rational people are in dispute as to whether it is an asset or a deficiency.  Leonardo Da Vinci had an obvious case of ADHD.  He was never forced to take drugs.  Yet he was able to function and succeed in the world, to a reasonable extent.  Tomas Edison can be diagnosed as ADHD, he never was forced to take drugs, he did pretty well, and he discovered a few things and founded GE.  Many successful people in today’s world claim ADHD to be their muse.  I want to repeat that educated rational people are in dispute as to whether it is an asset or a deficiency.  The respondent has intimate hereditary knowledge of ADHD not being an issue but being an asset in everyday life, if nurtured and directed appropriately.  The respondent’s family has a minimum of 3 generations where ADHD has been successfully and fruitfully utilized to enhance life not detract from it.
  47. The ADHD is not life threatening.  Left untreated it can have consequences. Left untreated a runny nose can have consequences.  That is too ominous and open ended a statement to be given any weight.  Everyone I know with ADHD does just fine and I have intimate knowledge of several of my family members.  None have been treated with Psychiatric Drug Therapy.  Those that promote Psychiatric Drug Therapy for minor children try to compare it to insulin.  Before insulin, people died of diabetes.  Before Stratera/Ritalin, kids grew up and matured on their own just fine.   
  48. There are several treatments for ADHD that do not require Psychiatric Drug Therapy commitments.  There are several means of treating ADHD that are not Psychiatric Drug Therapy.
  49. Any credible parent would pursue any and all options before conceding to Psychiatric Drug Therapy for a minor child.  The petitioner is all to ready to take the quick fix that suits her while committing the minor child to a life of drug dependency.
  50. The drug companies are in this to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars a year.
  51. As regard custody of Patrick, I propose a 7 day rotation with each parent, and a Wednesday night with the parent not having custody that week.  Holidays to be per the schedule worked out with Cynthia Kluzak.  I submitted a proposal at trial inclusive of all items except the rotating Wednesday nights on non custodial weeks.
  52. The financial issues of the divorce are reasonably simple
  53. The one exception form the settlement I tendered at the trial is the added line item for 12 months of my life stolen by the lies of Petitioner 12 months @ $6,000 / month = $72,000 into Respondents column.
  54. See attached financial distribution.
  55. As regards child support, both parties make nearly the same amount, both parties are to have equal custody, therefore neither parent should pay child support.
  56. When awarded the house, I would allow my wife 6 months after the settlement of all monies to remove her items form the house.
  57. All legal fees are the result of the petitioner’s flagrant misuse of the adult abuse protection authority and are to be responsibility of the petitioner.  Her flagrant misuse of the adult abuse protection authority, although supported and condoned by the illegal denials of the respondent’s right to due process by the court are the direct result of her counseled attempts to defraud the respondent of his right to paternity, his right to property and his right to liberty.
  58. All tax liabilities are to be born by the parties receiving the funds.  Thus respondent receives the house and $172,000 he pays any tax liabilities on the $172,000.
  59. I will be going public with all the above referenced issues when the judgment is published.
  60. Furthermore I will be filing charges of abuse of judicial authority in regard to THE COURTS continued denial of the respondent’s RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.
  61. And I will be filing charges of suborning perjury against Mr. Robinson in regard to his coaching of the petitioner and courtroom shenanigans at the abuse trial.

  1. All the above references are hereby asserted to be factual and truthful and are thus offered as facts in the case by the respondent.
WHEREFORE, the Respondent prays that this Court will grant it settlement as described above.

                                                                                    David G. Jeep, Respondent
Dated this 16th day of December, 2004

Pro Se

Subscribed and sworn to before me, the undersigned Notary Public, on this _____ day of __________________, 20   .

My Commission Expires:


Sharon G. Jeep and David G. Jeep Settlement Proposal

The House 16325 Centerpointe

First Mortgage

Second Mortgage

Contents of the house

Wal-Mart Stock


Bank Of America Visa

PayPal Visa

Total Assets

The House 16325 Centerpointe

First Mortgage

Second Mortgage

Equity in the House

Dave Gets

Equity in the House

Contents of the house

Compensation for 1 Year out of my life

Les Sharon's Personal Items

Cash Settlement

Dave' Share

Balance to Sharon
Respondent’s legal fees by Petitioner