Friday, June 15, 2012

You naively believe your statutes have any binding affect on the judiciary.

Senator Claire McCaskill
5850 Delmar Blvd, Ste. A
St. Louis, Missouri  63112-2346

Phone 314-367-1364
Fax 314-361-8649

Re: As suggested in your e-mail of June 11, 2012, a judicial complaint based on
     Jeep v. The Government of the United States of America Judicial Complaint
     regarding: 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals cases
     07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425
 Dear Ms. McCaskill,


            You naively believe your statutes have any binding affect on the judiciary.  The Judiciary has not been bound by constitutional or statute law since at least Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), the origins of the corrupt, malicious, and incompetent[1] Judicial Immunity in the American Justice system.  Their absolute immunity and thus ABSOLUTE POWER has been building up into ABSOLUTE CORRUPTON[2] since at least the Civil War.  Both Randall and Bradley concern issues regarding lawyers who's names had been stricken from the bar by a Judge.  On the surface that is, minor issues, say "broccoli" in modern Supreme Court parlance.  Both Randall and Bradely are supposedly based on Common Law Immunity derived from Lord Coke in Floyd and Barker (1607)[3] without any reference to Lord Coke's noted EXCEPTIONS, "unlawful Conspiracy," "before out of Court" and "false and malicious Persecutions.".

Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 523 (1868) was an overt judicial stratagem to give the judiciary immunity from the recently enacted criminal liability, OVER President Johnson's Veto's[4] expressed concerns about "assailing the independence of the judiciary," that would result from The Civil Rights Act of 1866.[5]  Likewise Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) was an overt judicial stratagem to give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the constitutional congressionally enacted civil liability by the Civil Rights Act of 1871.[6] 
This is a MASSIVE all consuming conspiracy against RIGHTS!!!!  Contrary to your assertions, judicial complaints DO NOT WORK!!!!!  The Judiciary has been allowed to foist an incredible, fantastic and/or delusional scenario[7] on We the People, by allowing its "chief circuit judges to dismiss systematically 99.82% of the complaints filed against judges in the 12-year period, Tuesday October 01, 1996 thru Tuesday September 30, 2008. In that period, its judicial councils –the circuits all judge disciplinary bodies– denied up to 100% of the petitions to review those dismissals.   Up to 9 of every 10 appeals are disposed of ad-hoc through no-reason summary orders or opinions so "perfunctory" that they are neither published nor precedential, mere fiats of raw judicial power"[8] talk about an incredible, fantastic and/or delusional scenario[9] to support ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY the self-serving judiciary's seizure of ABSOLUTE POWER and ABSOLUTE CORRPTION!!!!!.
I say again, Why would We the People have enacted the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land[10] to replace the divine right of the King, if it was our intent to give absolute immunity sub silentio,[11] to exempt "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)), especially those tasked with judicial,[12] prosecutorial[13] and enforcement[14] power, all evidence to the contrary, from its binding authority and consequence? [15]
In essence that took absolute immunity away from one, the King, and gave it to MANY!!!!  It is an incredible, fantastic and/or delusional scenario![16]  We the People are paying the price, falling down the slippery slope head over heels into the largest malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[17] police state in the modern world, "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners."[18]
Contrary to some popular assertions it is not necessarily about Drug Laws; beyond the issue that Drug Laws are victimless crimes where, devoid of a victim, evidence is often necessarily fabricated to assert blameworthiness.  Every other modern developed country has the same controlled substances, the same victimless crimes and they do not even come close to our malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[19] incarceration rate - 5 times that of the rest of the world.  It is about a CORRUPT American Judiciary / Supreme Court that has enacted unconstitutional JUDGE MADE LAW by precedent; uncheck by the impeachment authority[20] of our dysfunctional legislature.[21]   
Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or corrupt" judges by saying, "This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly" (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.) Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[22] by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers."  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
Supreme Court precedent empowers all malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[23] persons by saying "absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process," Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983), acting under color of law in the furtherance of "false and malicious Persecutions"[24]
How is a victim of a Judge "acting maliciously and corruptly," or a prosecutor's "malicious or dishonest action," or the "false testimony by police officers," or the "false and malicious Persecutions"[25] of any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[26] actions of "persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" acting under the apparent color of law suppose to over come the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[27] from the restrictions of a conviction in most cases a prison cell without extraordinary financing?
The Supreme Court FRAUDULENTLY asserts in its precedent "Against the consequences of their erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort" (Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 354 (1871)).  As the Supreme Court is fully aware all of those remedies require upfront financing.  It is a FRAUD on the COURT, there are no remedies available for injustice within the restrictions of a conviction / prison cell without extra-ordinary financing or the viable potential for punitive damages.  I have been attempting that very same thing for NINE years, with the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, fraudulent and uncontested court record in hand to no avail.[28]  The Judiciary asserts absolute immunity "before out of Court"[29] an "unlawful Conspiracy"[30] to deny rights. [31]
Currently We the People of the United States of America are the largest malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[32] police state in the WORLD!!!!  "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners."[33]
In the Jane Crow,[34] plea bargain era, how does one fight the corrupt and malicious actions of a judge, the dishonesty and denial of exculpable evidence by prosecutors and the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" under color of law when the deal is controlled and slanted in favor of the largest malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[35] police state in the modern world without access to Due Process of Law.[36]  Plea out now before trial to X years or we go for the maximum X plus 10 years, if not life in prison.  That is not a negotiation; that is an offer you can't refuse.
We hold a "4-Year-Old Can Be Sued."[37]  We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion.  We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion.  We can spend trillions on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion.  But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence, malice and corruption of "our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants"[38] and compensate the victims?  This ABSOLUTE denial is contradictory to the 1st Amendment's assurance, "Congress shall make no law… abridgingthe right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Does someone have to make the ultimate sacrifice to expose this insanity, like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi?
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.             "Judicial Complaint dated Thursday, June 14, 2012"

cc:  My Blog - Friday, June 15, 2012, 9:37:55 AM



[1] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!  "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department. 
As regards Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" ("Federal prosecutors series") USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy.  As regards federal prosecutors I assert the "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."  As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[2] "I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge (Judges) Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, KCVO, DL (10 January 1834 – 19 June 1902), known as Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Bt from 1837 to 1869 and usually referred to simply as Lord Acton, in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887"
[3] It should be noted that Lord Coke in Floyd and Barker (1607) made note of EXCEPTIONS to his rule i.e., "unlawful Conspiracy" "before out of Court" to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."
[4] It is malicious, corrupt and incompetent to assert ANY much less absolute immunity when both The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Civil Rights Act of 1871 were passed with the full knowledge of President Andrew Johnson's Veto of the Civil Rights Bill, Washington, D.C., March 27, 1866, To the Senate of the United States:

 "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary, as adequate judicial remedies could be adopted to secure the desired end without invading the immunities of legislators, always important to be preserved in the interest of public liberty; without assailing the independence of the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order. The remedy proposed by this section seems to be in this respect not only anomalous, but unconstitutional; for the Constitution guarantees nothing with certainty if it does not insure to the several States the right of making and executing laws in regard to all matters arising within their jurisdiction, subject only to the restriction that in cases of conflict with the Constitution and constitutional laws of the United States the latter should be held to be the supreme law of the land.…"
[5] Now codified into current statute law as TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS § 241 - § 249
[8] "My Articles Describing a Plan of Action," by Dr. Richard Cordero http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/2012_E/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf
[10] "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[11] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]"  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert an incredible, fantastic and/or delusional scenario!!!!!
[12] ""It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused" (Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Law Reports Exchequer 220) Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[13] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
[14] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[14] by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers."  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[15] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered.  The evil and  CORRUPT factions in the guild of judges know this VERY WELL!!! I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for FIVE YEARS!  Denied unfettered custody of my son for 9 years.  The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  The 7th Amendment secures the right to settle all suits: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law" assures justice as regards equity.
[17] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!  "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department. 
As regards Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" ("Federal prosecutors series") USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy.  As regards federal prosecutors I assert the "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves." 
[18] "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners."  ("Why We Must Fix Our Prisons", By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009, U.S. Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: February 29, 2008, Our Real Prison Problem. Why are we so worried about Gitmo? Newsweek by Dahlia Lithwick Published June 5, 2009)
[19] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!  "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department. 
As regards Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" ("Federal prosecutors series") USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy.  As regards federal prosecutors I assert the "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
[20] "And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments… upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations." Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 81, "The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 stated that impeachment was to be used as an integral check for "Judicial Authority"
[21] The dysfunction in our Legislature that has been sustained through earmarks, secret holds and the filibuster, our Legislature cannot even do its primary job, passing effective legislation; much less effectively assert their power of impeachment.  The delays caused by earmarks, secret holds and the filibuster has put us decades behind the rest of the world as relates to Judicial Administration, Civil Rights and Health Care.
[23] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!  "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[26] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!  "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[27] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!  "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[28] See US District Court 4:07-cv-0506-SOW, 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 4:10-CV-101-TCM/CAS, 4:11-cv-00931-FRB/CAS and 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, 8th Circuit court of Appeals Filings in 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States 07-11115 and 11-8211
[30] Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) "Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy."
[32] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!  "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department. 
As regards Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" ("Federal prosecutors series") USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy.  As regards federal prosecutors I assert the "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves." 
[33] "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners" and you have the moronic audacity to ask why???? "Why We Must Fix Our Prisons", By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009, U.S. Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: February 29, 2008, Our Real Prison Problem. Why are we so worried about Gitmo? Newsweek by Dahlia Lithwick Published June 5, 2009
[34]The "Jane Crow" Era, the courts preference for a mother's/ woman's rights over a father's/man's rights in Domestic Relation Law
The "Jane Crow" Era, "It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house."
A fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."  "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08
[35] As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series").  The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves." 
As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published: April 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[36] Due Process of Law is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to an individual person.  Due Process of Law balances the power of the government against the rights of the individual persons, and vice versa, to the ends of justice.   The Constitution and Due Process of Law are NOT ambiguous text, to be explained by sophistry into any meaning which may subserve personal malice." 
Due Process of Law equally protects individual persons and the government from being unjustly beset by the malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent government or individual person's actions.  Thus Due Process of Law equally protects We the People's government/society and the individual person's rights.  When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the ancient and refined Due Process of the Law, this constitutes a criminal violation of civil rights, which offends against the rule of law and the ends of justice.   In the United States of America it is and has been since enactment of the right of redress, the 1st and 7th Amendments, and the end of the Civil War a civilly actionable offense. 
[37] "Citing cases dating back as far as 1928, a New York State Supreme Court Justice has ruled that a young girl accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence."  Justice Paul Wooten of the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, New York Times, New York edition, Published: October 28, 2010, A version of this article appeared in print on October 29, 2010, on page A24 By Alan Feuer
[38] Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61)

--

Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process

"agere sequitor esse"

"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Talk about embarrassing the Future?




Clerk’s Office, St. Louis - Eastern Division
Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
St. Louis, MO 63102-1125

Phone: (314)244-7900
Fax: (314)244-7909

Re:      Judicial Improvements Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-273) 
Judicial Complaint regarding: 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals cases 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425

Dear People,

The fact that I even have to assert this complaint embarrasses the future and the past.[1]  There is NO way “absolute immunity” and its inevitable progeny, absolute power and then absolute corruption should have ever been promulgated in a government of, for and by free and equal people.
This Judicial Complaint is based on the malicious, corrupt and incompetent, incredible,[2] fantastic or delusional [3] rulings in the cases: 4:12-cv-703-CEJ, and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals cases 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425.  The petitioner in the referenced cases, David G. Jeep was held to answer an infamous charge by a warrant that listed no probable cause related to the charge, abuse.  The Petitioner was then forced into a hearing, over the pre-trial and at-trial pleadings that the warrant listed no probable cause for the charge listed.  At the hearing the judicial officer surprised everyone by amending the pleadings at the hearing, “The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced.”  The petitioner’s attorney of record immediately object in court at-trial to no avail and then filed post-trial for a copy of the alluded to, but never defined, amended pleadings and to be heard on said pleadings and was denied!  These actions by the original judicial officers in this issue was a flagrant denial of the now petitioners constitutional rights to probable cause on any warrant and Due Process of Law to defend himself against said corruption.  These facts are uncontested. 
I am filing a complaint against the following Federal judges under Judicial Improvements Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-273) 28 USC § 351 – Complaints: Judge Defined in the ORIGINAL District Court for failure to uphold petitioner’s constitutional rights to probable cause and due process of law:
Chief United States District Judge Eastern Missouri, Catherine D. Perry, Carol E. Jackson, US District Court Judge (former Chief United States District Judge Eastern Missouri), Scott O. Wright, Senior US District Judge Western Missouri, and Charles Shaw, Senior US District Judge Eastern Missouri.
The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals Judges as relates to cases 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947 and 11-2425.
Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, The Supreme Court of the United States of America
This complaint revolves around the frivolous if not malicious[4] denial of broad judicial general jurisdiction[5] encompassing the refutation of the obviously incredible,[6] fantastic or delusional scenario[7] i.e., to assert that We the People enacted the Constitution for the United States of America as the Supreme Law of the Land[8] to replace the divine right of the Sovereign/King/Queen[9] with the intent to give absolute immunity sub silentio, to exempt[10]all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)), especially those tasked with judicial,[11] prosecutorial[12] and enforcement[13] power, all evidence to the contrary, from its binding authority and consequence[14] that has the conclusively and undeniable “good faith”[15] of the victim David G. Jeep.
Impeach[16] and or discipline the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[17] and the corrupt malicious and incompetent[18] royalist guild of judges for condoning the denial of a constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to procedural and substantive justice[19] and "fraud upon the court." Before they have a chance to screw-up Healthcare for 100 years!!!!!!
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.     “The Definition of an incredible, “fantastic or delusional scenario””

cc:       Senator Claire McCaskill
5850 Delmar Blvd, Ste. A
St. Louis, Missouri  63112-2346

            My Blog - Sunday, June 17, 2012, 11:11:40 AM

The Definition of an
“incredible,”[20] “fantastic or delusional”[21] scenario
It embarrasses the Future and the PAST!!!
I sometimes feel like the waif in “The Emperor’s New Cloths”
AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
Why would We the People have enacted the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land[22] to replace the divine right of the King, if it was ever to be our intent sub silentio to exempt[23] Every person[24] or Whoever[25] i.e., give absolute immunity[26]to “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)), especially those tasked with judicial,[27] prosecutorial[28] and enforcement[29] power, all evidence to the contrary, from the federal Constitution’s paramount binding authority[30] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice.[31]  It is an incredible, [32] fantastic or delusional scenario[33]?
This embarrasses the future and the past!!!! [34]
To assume that the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution for the United States of America as the supreme Law of the Land,[35]intended sub silentio to exempt[36] all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)), especially those entrusted with judicial,[37] prosecutorial[38] and enforcement[39] power, all evidence to the contrary, from the federal Constitution’s paramount binding authority[40] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice[41] is an incredible,[42] fantastic or delusional scenario.[43]  
“The Judiciary has been allowed to foist an incredible,[44] fantastic or delusional scenario[45] on We the People i.e., the Judiciary has forced We the People to exchange the immunity of the divine right of Kings for “absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[46]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process.”[47] 
This in effect is an exchange for absolute immunity for ONE, the King, to many all malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[48] persons.  The Judiciary has done this by allowing its chief circuit judges to dismiss systematically 99.82% of the complaints filed against judges in the 12-year period, Tuesday October 01, 1996 thru Tuesday September 30, 2008. In that period, its judicial councils –the circuits all judge disciplinary bodies– denied up to 100% of the petitions to review those dismissals.   Up to 9 of every 10 appeals are disposed of ad-hoc through no-reason summary orders or opinions so “perfunctory” that they are neither published nor precedential, mere fiats of raw judicial power”[49] talk about a “fantastic or delusional scenarioto support ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY the self-serving seizure of ABSOLUTE POWER. 
It should be further noted that malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[50] Royalist Guild of Judges i.e., The Supreme Court has somehow for 147 years been able to further foist the “incredible,”[51] “fantastic or delusional” [52] scenario” on We the People over our Post Civil War constitutionally provided for statutorily criminalized assertions that Judges should be held criminally and civilly liable:
“To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. Sheriffs and marshals, while performing a quintessentially judicial function such as serving process, were clearly liable under the 1866 Act, notwithstanding President Johnson's objections. Because, as Representative Shellabarger stated, § 1 of the 1871 Act provided a civil remedy "in identically the same case" or "on the same state of facts" as § 2 of the 1866 Act, it obviously overrode whatever immunity may have existed at common law for these participants in the judicial process in 1871.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 362 (1983)
Randall v. Brigham, Page 74 U. S. 536 (1868) was the judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary immunity from the recently enacted, over President Johnson’s Veto[53] expressed concerns about “assailing the independence of the judiciary” that would result from The Civil Rights Act of 1866.[54]  Likewise Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) was a subterfuge to give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the constitutional congressionally enacted CIVIL LIABILITY by the Civil Rights Act of 1871.[55]  
There is no coincidence in the relative dates The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Randall 1869, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and Bradley 1871.  Judicial Immunity for civil rights enforcement went somehow unquestioned for nearly 100 years.  This hundred years it should be noted included the very worst of, post civil war, racial atrocities and civil rights abuses.  To think that somehow some one never thought to question a judge’s immunity from civil rights abuses seems almost nonsensical. 



[2] “To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert it an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[4] 28 USC § 1915 - Proceedings in forma pauperis, (e) (2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that— (i) is frivolous or malicious;
[5] Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.  Jurisdiction can not be limited per Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 363 (1978):
“The fact that the issue before the judge is a controversial one is all the more reason that he should be able to act without fear of suit. As the Court pointed out in Bradley:
“"Controversies involving not merely great pecuniary interests, but the liberty and character of the parties, and consequently exciting the deepest feelings, are being constantly determined in those courts, in which there is great conflict in the evidence and great doubt as to the law which should govern their decision. It is this class of cases which impose upon the judge the severest labor, and often create in his mind a painful sense of responsibility."
The Indiana law vested in Judge Stump the power to entertain and act upon the petition for sterilization. He is, therefore, under the controlling cases, immune from damages liability even if his approval of the petition was in error. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[6] “To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert it an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[8]This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby” Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[9] The King/Queen./Sovereign had absolute Immunity for “he/she/it could do no wrong”
[10] “To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert an incredible, fantastic and/or delusional scenario!!!!!
[11] “"It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused” (Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Law Reports Exchequer 220) Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[12] Supreme Court precedent empowers the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor by saying, “To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
[13] Supreme Court precedent empowers the “knowingly false testimony by police officers"[13] by saying, “There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers.”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[14] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered.  The evil and  CORRUPT factions in the guild of judges know this VERY WELL!!! I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for FIVE YEARS!  Denied unfettered custody of my son for 9 years.  The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  The 7th Amendment secures the right to settle all suits: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law” assures justice as regards equity.
[15] 28 USC § 1915a(3)(a)(3) An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.
[16]And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments… upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations.” Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 81, “The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority” From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 stated that impeachment was to be used as an integral check for “Judicial Authority”
[18] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[19] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[20] “To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert it an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[22]This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby” Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[23]To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert an incredible, INSANE, fantastic and/or delusional scenario!!!!!
[26]Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”  The Right to establish Justice is secured by the preamble to the Constitution. 
Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered.  I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for FOUR YEARS!  The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  The 7th Amendment secures the right to settle all suits: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law” assures justice as regards equity.
[27] Supreme Court precedent “"It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges (Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound tby those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused” (Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Law Reports Exchequer 220) Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[28] Supreme Court precedent empowers the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor by saying, “To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
[29] Supreme Court precedent empowers the “knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, “There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers.”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[30]This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby” Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[31] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered.  I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for FOUR YEARS!  The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  The 7th Amendment secures the right to settle all suits: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law” assures justice as regards equity.
[32] “To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[35]This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby” Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[36] “To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[37] “"It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges (Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound tby those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
-- and the leave was refused” (Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Law Reports Exchequer 220) Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[38] Supreme Court precedent empowers the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor by saying, “To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
[39] Supreme Court precedent empowers the “knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, “There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers.”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[40]This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby” Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America
[41] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered.  I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for FOUR YEARS!  The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  The 7th Amendment secures the right to settle all suits: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law” assures justice as regards equity.
[42] “To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[44] “To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[46] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[47] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335 (non-italic parenthetical text, emphasis and underlining added for clarity)
[48] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[49] "My Articles Describing a Plan of Action," by Dr. Richard Cordero http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/2012_E/DrRCordero_jud_unaccountability_reporting.pdf
[50] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[51] “To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]”  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)  I would assert it an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[53] It is malicious, corrupt and incompetent to assert ANY much less absolute immunity when both The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Civil Rights Act of 1871 were passed with the full knowledge of President Andrew Johnson's Veto of the Civil Rights Bill, Washington, D.C., March 27, 1866, To the Senate of the United States:

“This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary, as adequate judicial remedies could be adopted to secure the desired end without invading the immunities of legislators, always important to be preserved in the interest of public liberty; without assailing the independence of the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order. The remedy proposed by this section seems to be in this respect not only anomalous, but unconstitutional; for the Constitution guarantees nothing with certainty if it does not insure to the several States the right of making and executing laws in regard to all matters arising within their jurisdiction, subject only to the restriction that in cases of conflict with the Constitution and constitutional laws of the United States the latter should be held to be the supreme law of the land.… “


--
Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316