UNITED STATES 8th DISTRICT
COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
St. Louis DIVISION
vs. United States of America, et al Defendants | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) | Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM _ Appeal: 10-1947 _ |
Motion for rehearing of denial
This is a pro se appeal. I site Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932) Page 287 U. S. 397-398 :
“If this extreme position could be deemed to be well taken, it is manifest that the fiat of a state governor (a federal officer, a state judge, a state prosecutor, a police officer, a spouse) and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases, the futility of which the state may at any time disclose by the simple process of transferring powers of legislation to the Governor to be exercised by him, beyond control, upon his assertion of necessity. Under our system of government, such a conclusion is obviously untenable. There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution. When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state (a federal officer, a state judge, a state prosecutor, a police officer, a spouse) power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the federal judicial power extends (Article III, § 2), and, so extending, the Court has all the authority appropriate to its exercise.” (emphasis added)
There is evidence in the petition of a “substantial showing that the exertion of state (and /or a federal officer, a state judge, a state prosecutor, a police officer, a spouse) power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the federal judicial power extends (Article III, § 2), and, so extending, the Court has all the authority appropriate to its exercise.”
I assert Federal Jurisdiction under Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 85, Section § 1331. Federal question
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
I am asserting the protection of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments, Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights:
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Thursday, July 01, 2010
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
Dave@DGJeep.com
_________________________________________
David G. Jeep
Thanks in advance,
"We live in a Lawless Society...
Time is of the essence".
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
Dave@DGJeep.com
DGJeep@DGJeep.com
Friday, July 02, 2010
Michael E. Gans, Clerk of Court
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk's Office
Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse
111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329
St. Louis, MO 63102
PHONE: (314) 244-2400
Re: Appeal: 10-1947
Case No. 4:10-CV-101-TCM[1]
Dear Mr. Gans,
I would ask that this letter and attachment be added to my motion for a rehearing.
In reviewing the appeal denial I noticed the statement “The court has carefully reviewed the original file of the United States District Court”. I find that unbelievable, I am sorry. All of the referenced issues included and are based on the enclosed document, the original hand written fraudulent Adult Abuse Petition for Order of Protection, dated November 3, 2003.
This petition is fraudulent and malicious on its face. It is fraudulent because nowhere on it does reference any abuse, probable cause. The court NEVER HAD JURISDICTION. Not that it makes any difference, she was queried about that at the hearing on November 19, 2003, she offered no additional information.
The only thing listed on the petition at all incriminating to myself is her “hear say” third party account of an incident in traffic court in Camden County, from 30 days prior and 150 miles away, SHE WAS NOT EVEN PRESENT during this alleged abuse. That is not something that she has any right to claim abuse from. AGAIN SHE WAS NOT EVEN IN THE COURT ROOM AT THE TIME, by her own declaration. It is a fraudulent petition for protection order, because per the statute it must show “for good cause shown in the petition[2]”. It lists NONE! Per the United States Constitution Amendment IV, “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation.” There is NO probable cause supported by Oath or Affirmation. It lists NONE!
She knew what she was doing. She can read. She had HELP, both professional help via the Court Clerk’s Office[3] and a private attorney. It therefore is fraudulent and VOID as a petition for an Order of Protection. It is as if I wrote up a petition for a warrant for your arrest on a charge Murder because I heard some say you had been speeding. It makes NO SENSE.
What she was doing, was attempting to fraudulently and maliciously manipulate a Judge to have me thrown out of my house, take away my son, to make her position in the subsequent divorce more secure. It happens all the time, because Judges like Goeke and Inferior Court Commissioner Jones hand out Orders of Protection like party favors to anyone that asks for them. That is a violation of my constitutional rights, I say again Per the United States Constitution Amendment IV “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
Judge Goeke and Commissioner Jones issuing the Fraudulent, Malicious, and Corrupt Order was an act of delegated authority contrary to the tenor of their commission[4], i.e. to uphold the law, support and defend the constitution (Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 455, Abuse--Adults and Children--Shelters and Protective Orders section 455.035 and United States Constitution Amendment IV). The Petition and Court Order were both fraudulent and corrupted before I was forced into court unconstitutionally. I do not even need to attempted to prove the additional ongoing corruption and constitutional denials in 8th Circuit Court of Appeal 08-1823 regarding the DWI conviction.
Additionally I assert pro se individuals right to the protection of Harmless Error for something minor that I might be missing.
Time is of the essence. If there is anything further, I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
Dave@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep
enclosure
Adult Abuse Petition for Order of Protection, dated November 3, 2003
cc: file
[1] Writ of Certiorari 07-11115, Appeal 07-2614, Federal Court ED of Missouri 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, State of Missouri Appeal E. D. No. 84021, Original Cause No. 03FC-010670
[3] 455.025. Except as provided under section 455.030 (holidays), clerks under the supervision of a circuit clerk shall explain to litigants not represented by counsel the procedures for filing all forms and pleadings necessary for the presentation of their petition to the court. Notice of the fact that clerks will provide such assistance shall be conspicuously posted in the clerks' offices. The location of the office where a petition can be filed shall be conspicuously posted in the court building.
"We live in a Lawless Society...
Time is of the essence".
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
Dave@DGJeep.com
DGJeep@DGJeep.com
No comments:
Post a Comment