Robert Patrick
St. Louis Post Dispatch
900 North Tucker Blvd.
Saint Louis, MO 63101-1069
Re: The criminal,[1] one Henry Edward Autrey, - Case #4:15CV1533HEA - David G.
Jeep and heir, Plaintiff, vs. Government (corporation) of the United States of America,
et al Defendants/Respondents Appeal 15-3403
Dear Mr. Patrick,
“To bereave a man of life,
[says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial,
would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the
alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation”[2]
But alas today some 246 years
after Blackstone first said it, 227 years after Hamilton repeated it, with 620,000
deaths in the Civil war, countless deaths in subsequent Jim Crow Southern Victory
in the courts we have come to the Jane Crow Era[3] where any man can be “bereaved of life, [says
he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial,”
without any notice in the popular press.
I have, in the “Jane Crow”
era, been fighting this for 12+ years, I spent 411 days in jail,[4] I have been homeless for 8+ years, I have been through the
Article III Judicial System 7 times and I have presented 6 DOCKETED AND DENIED Petitions
for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States i.e., 07-11115,
11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, 14-5551 and 14-10088[5]!!!!
A woman who FALSELY claims
abuse should be imprisoned as the WORST ABUSER WOULD BE and have no say in the custody
or raising of her children. Because she is not a mother but a CHILD ABUSER, DEBAUCHER
and a THIEF!!!!
Fathers are of the utmost
importance, if not essential, even in the Jane Crow era!!!!
I have uncontested PROOF
of judicial, prosecutorial and police corruption regarding a flagrant “beyond doubt”
“facially invalid court order,” prosecution’s denial of exculpable evidence and
perjured/false testimony only made possible by said denial!!!!
The FRAUDULENT,[6] unwarranted, unreasonable, criminal[7]
& UNCONSTITUTIONAL[8] combination of
two UNRELATED infamous issues, one as probable cause for the other, the “gravamen,”
into a, “‘beyond debate,’”[9] not “facially valid court
order” [10] i.e.,:
1. Exparte Order of Protection
(03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243)
2. An ALLEGED
Misdemeanor Traffic Issue (CR203-1336M)
issued or adjudicated, respectively,
that is coram non judice[11] because of “a
complete absence of all jurisdictions.”[12]
We APPARENTLY need a constitutional
amendment to END the judicial sanction of malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere
ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence.
I write to you because you
recently wrote an article “Prosecutor pleads guilty in cover-up of beating.”[13] In that article
you glorified a criminal,[14] one Henry Edward Autrey, United
States District Judge[15]at the expense of wet behind the
ears young prosecutors. Mr. Autrey had recently
confirmed his and his brethren's criminal[16] conspiracy against
rights by dismissing my case. It all comes
down to what is reasonable probable cause.
Mr. Autrey would assert a police officer never has reasonable probable
cause to beat a hand-cuffed prisoner.
I would assert that a Judge never has reasonable probable cause to,
exparte, issue an order of protection citing
an ALLEGED Misdemeanor Traffic Issue (CR203-1336M).
My ex-spouse like many woman of her generation in
the Jane Crow Era fraudulently[16] used the court to establish
custody of my son, possession of my private and joint property, OUR HOUSE.
Any help you could offer
to publicize my case, HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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
cc: My
Blog - Monday, December 07, 2015, 3:26:38 PM
[1] Originally enacted as The Civil Rights Act
of 1866 and 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C.
§ 241 & 242 and Civil 42 USC §1983 - §1985). The author of
§ 1 clearly stated the relationship between the two Acts in introducing the 1871
measure:
"My first inquiry is
as to the warrant which we have for enacting such a section as this [§ 1 of the
1871 Act]. The model for it will be found in the second section of the act of April
9, 1866, known as the 'civil rights act.' That section provides a criminal proceeding
in identically the same case as this one provides a civil remedy for, except that
the deprivation under color of State law must, under the civil rights act, have
been on account of race, color, or former slavery. This section of the bill, on
the same state of facts, not only provides a civil remedy for persons whose former
condition may have been that of slaves, but also to all people where, under color
of State law, they or any of them may be deprived of rights to which they are entitled
under the Constitution by reason and virtue of their national citizenship."
BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460
U. S. 357 (1983)
[2] FEDERALIST No. 84 “Certain
General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered”
From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton
- As quoted form Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 4, p. 438.
[3] 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.”
[4] St. Louis Post Dispatch
Arrest - March 12, 2009 “I was Arrested in violation of my First Amendment Right
to Free Speech... for asking for my rights” http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-was-arrested-in-violation-of-my-first.html
[6] fraus omnia corrumpit
“Fraud corrupts all.” A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates
all aspects of a judicial decision - 18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 - Fraud And False
Statements and Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &
242 Deprivation of Rights
[7] 18 USC § 242 – CRIMINAL
Deprivation of rights under color of law
[8] 4th and 14th
Amendment deprivation of “reasonable probable cause”
[9] Stanton v. Sims, 571 U.
S. ___, ___ (2013) (per curiam) (slip op., at 8) beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,
563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011).
[10] The assertion of an alleged
misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for an ex parte order
of protection. Clearly based on the original
SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided here (or with my District/Circuit/Supreme
Court petition), THERE WAS A COMPLETE
ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION for the stated charge. “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.” PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003).
[11] Any indictment or sentence
passed by a court which has no authority to try an accused of that offence, is clearly
in violation of the law and would be coram non judice and a nullity.
[12] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786
(2003)
[13] by Robert Patrick St. Louis
Post-Dispatch Tuesday October 27, 2009
[14] Originally enacted as The Civil Rights Act
of 1866 and 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C.
§ 241 & 242 and Civil 42 USC §1983 - §1985). The author of
§ 1 clearly stated the relationship between the two Acts in introducing the 1871
measure:
"My first inquiry is
as to the warrant which we have for enacting such a section as this [§ 1 of the
1871 Act]. The model for it will be found in the second section of the act of April
9, 1866, known as the 'civil rights act.' That section provides a criminal proceeding
in identically the same case as this one provides a civil remedy for, except that
the deprivation under color of State law must, under the civil rights act, have
been on account of race, color, or former slavery. This section of the bill, on
the same state of facts, not only provides a civil remedy for persons whose former
condition may have been that of slaves, but also to all people where, under color
of State law, they or any of them may be deprived of rights to which they are entitled
under the Constitution by reason and virtue of their national citizenship."
BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460
U. S. 357 (1983)
[15] See also my blog “I would
much prefer that you sell tickets to the prosecutors to watch the infliction of
my hand cuffed beating ending with a gun shoved down my throat by a violent police
officer” http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2015/10/i-would-much-prefer-that-you-sell.html
[16] fraus omnia corrumpit
“Fraud corrupts all.” A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates
all aspects of a judicial decision - 18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 - Fraud And False
Statements and Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &
242 Deprivation of Rights
No comments:
Post a Comment