Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
Docketed as 18-5856 in the Supreme Court of the United States
of America September
4, 2018
Expected Delivery by – FRIDAY
- 24 AUGUST,
2018 – by 8:00pm
USPS 9505510232578234131004, Delivered
08/24/2018 11:00am WASHINGTON
DC 20543 Reply STOP to cancel
USPO Tracking 55 page 9505 5102 3257 8255 1324 55
No.
In The
v.
from
Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis (4: 17-cv-02690-AGF) and The Eighth
Circuit (17-3681)
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
1) Is the issuance, and support on appeal, of a court order without
a "reasonable probable
cause" a judicial
act?
2) Is there a non-exigent
exception to the XIV Amendment?
3) Is the 15 years struggle as described by the scandalous
and criminal acts in this petition probable
cause for the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO)?
Contents
II.
INTRODUCTION (Orders and Dates)
V.
REASONS FOR GRANTING
THE PETITION
II.
INTRODUCTION (Orders and Dates)
This petition started
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri - St. Louis (4: 17-cv-02690-AGF[2]) and The Eighth
Circuit (17-3681). The final order from Eastern
District of Missouri
- St. Louis was issued
Thursday, November 09, 2017. The final order from The Eighth Circuit
was issued Wednesday,
May 30, 2018, their mandate
was issued Wednesday,
July 25, 2018 (see appendix).
Petitioner has been through the Federal Courts
District, Circuit and Supreme Court with seven prior Petitions
for Writ of Certiorari 07-11115, 11-8211,
13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551,
14-10088 and 15-8884. All prior petitions,
via this reference,
are included herewith.
Federal question ý Diversity of citizenship ý
This is both a "Federal
question" as a violation of my constitutional rights
and NOW a "Diversity of citizenship" with the Article
III Federal Courts
in Washington DC in question.
The respondents are all listed
in the original
District Court Petition
(4: 17-cv-02690-AGF) to the best of the petitioner's memory.
I am asserting
the jurisdiction of:
· Rule 60(d)(3)
of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure - "set aside a judgment
for fraud on the court"
· 28 U.S. Code § 1331 - Federal Question: Federal
question: "The district
courts shall have original jurisdiction
of all civil actions arising
under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties
of the United
States."
· 28 U.S. Code § 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount
in controversy
· 28 U.S. Code § 1343(a)(3) - Civil rights
and elective franchise:
· 42 U.S. Code § 1983 and 1985- Civil action for deprivation of rights:
· 18 U.S. Code Chapter
96 - Racketeer
Influenced And Corrupt
Organizations
· 18 U.S. Code § 1961 – Definitions
· 18 U.S. Code § 1962 - Prohibited activities
· 18 U.S. Code § 1964 - Civil remedies
ADDITIONALLY, I again cite the jurisdiction of the pursuit
of Justice and the Constitution
for the United
States of America[3] with a representative 7th Amendment
Jury DEMAND.
The idea of issuing and/or
sustaining an ex parte order of protection
without reasonable probable
cause based exclusively
on an alleged - unrelated subject-matter - misdemeanor traffic
issue is beyond
the reach of all reasonable
jurisdiction.
The utter absurdity
of the facts in this case, from its very inception, have begged all credulity. IT
IS UNPRECEDENTED. All attempts at covering this up with sovereign, judicial
or other immunity
are constitutionally unsustainable! This
was the act of a vulgar, criminally
shameless conspiracy to, 15 years ago, take the petitioner's
son, home and all his life's possessions
to satiate the conspirator's thirst
for power and profit.
The issue is and has always been – a flagrantly, infamous,
and fraudulent non-exigent,
extra-judicial (coram non judice) gravamen:
· a fraud
(fraus omnia corrumpit[4]) on the court by an officer of the court (FRCP 60(d)(3))[5]
· again, a fraudulent NOT "facially valid court order"[6] (Stump
v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978)
PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) -
· that was reckonably[7] issued
"in the "clear absence
of all jurisdiction," (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" (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" (Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635,
640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011)).[8]
· THE GRAVITAS OF THE PERSONAL[9] ISSUE IS BEYOND
QUESTION, IT TOOK AWAY PETITIONER'S
SON, HOME, CAR AND EVERYTHING
HE ONCE HELD DEAR IN THE WORLD.
Thus the issue could never be construed
as a vexatious[10] nor is the ongoing fight against flagrant
injustice "continual Calumniations"[11] nor could a 15 year struggle against
injustice be construed
as an inconsequential "short
ride."[12] While
the "Jane Crow"
proponents of the current domestic
relations court want to assert
that men have always been the ones to leave,
I object. I demand "due
process" and "equal
protection of the law" before
I relinquish my constitutional paternity,
property and liberty
rights.
· Petitioner was then forced
into the extra-judicial (coram non judice) domestic
relations court where the court's
fraud, fraus omnia corrumpit,[13] had deprived the petitioner of resources and the psychological
capacity (Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder). He had fewer rights
than an African
American in a "Jim Crow"
jail shot dead in the back for trying to resisting arrest
for merely looking
at a white woman
· On November
3, 2003 Judge Joseph A. Goeke III clearly had no "subject
matter" jurisdiction for the statute's
stated "subject matter,"
i.e., "An immediate
and present danger
of domestic violence."
· On November
3, 2003 Judge Joseph A. Goeke III ruled ex parte, by definition, without
personal jurisdiction of the petitioner.
And the referenced
alleged misdemeanor traffic
violation, was already
under the BONDED
personal jurisdiction of another judge,
Associate Circuit Judge Jack A. Bennett of 26th District
of Missouri. Petitioner
was ultimately found to be innocent in due course
at a jury trial of the then prior driving
while suspended.[14]
· On November
3, 2003 Judge Joseph A. Goeke III ruled ex parte, by definition, without
geographic jurisdiction of the petitioner.
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III was a part of the 21st District of Missouri in St. Louis County some 170 miles away from the site of the alleged BONDED
misdemeanor traffic violation
and Associate Circuit
Judge Jack A. Bennett in the 26th District of Missouri, Osage Beach, Camden
County Missouri. Petitioner
was ultimately found to be innocent in due course
at a jury trial of the then prior driving
while suspended.[15]
· Since the extra-judicial (coram non judice) hearing
on November 20, 2003, nearly
15 years total,
with 11 years homeless, 411 days in federal custody,
ago the petitioner
has been RELENTLESSLY
appealing the undisputed
and unsustainable extra-judicial (coram non judice) fraud on the court by an officer
of the court,
fraus omnia corrumpit,[16] with eight trips through the conspiring extra-judicial (coram non judice) Federal
(district and circuit)
Courts and seven docketed and denied petitions
for writ of certiorari to the co-conspiring
extra-judicial (coram non judice) Supreme
Court (07-11115, 11-8211,
13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551,
14-10088 and 15-8884
Now before you start crying
about my asserting
the Supreme Court as "extra-judicial (coram non judice)" and therefore trying
to render my entire petition
moot, whoa up.
If the Judiciary,
is only half, as honorable
as they assert?
They, from the Supreme Court to the lowliest family
commissioner, should have ALWAYS been able to honorably admit error and then WORK to remedy
their errors! These
issues of "due
process" and "equal
protection of the laws, have been before
every Judge that ever heard the case.
Starting with my attorney of record, Timothy
Schlesinger, at the hearing on November 20, 2003 and in his two timely
post-trial motions, noting
Missouri Court Rule 129.11[17] requirements.
I am suing for "fraud
on the court by an officer of the court"[18] and the resultant
damages from the unconstitutional extra-judicial (coram non judice) criminal[19] deprivation
of rights. This
is consistent with and sustaining
the Constitutional necessity
- the ex
industria[20] laws, originally passed
in 1871[21] - at present
codified into Federal
Statute laws as 42 U.S. Code § 1983&1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
- that were Federally legislated[22] post-civil
war to enforce
this prohibition for all time and without
non-exigent restriction.
The Petitioner's 15 year struggle,
with proof of the flagrant
deprivation of his Constitutional civil rights in-hand,
inculpates all those who have thus sustained
the ongoing extra-judicial (coram non judice) deprivation of his rights,
in his many appeals.
This is and has been, since day one November
3, 2003, a deliberate and unquestionable fraud on the court by an officer(s)
of the court.
Given the gravitas[23] of the personal[24] issue to the petitioner - the kidnapping
of his son and theft of the petitioner's car, home and all his worldly possessions
– this is not vexatious[25] or calumnious[26] or a "short
ride."[27]. Petitioner
is merely asking
for his right to relief
from injustice, per Rule 60(d)(3)
of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure - "set aside a judgment
for fraud on the court"
and damages[28], fraus omnia corrumpit.[29] THERE
WAS A COMPLETE
ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION
for the stated
charge and that the court acted extra-judicial (coram non judice) without clear and reasonable
probable cause was and is an ongoing
"fraud on the court." The
ex parte order was issued
without probable cause for the stated charge
- it was a criminal
conspiracy against rights[30] that resulted in criminal kidnaping,
assault, trespass and theft.
The petitioner was and is
the victim of a criminal
conspiracy against rights[31] resulting
in criminal kidnapping,
assault, trespass and theft. The
ex parte order at the inception of the issue was, and has ALWAYS
been, a "fraud
on the court by an officer(s) of the court"
and there for not a judicial act, coram non judice. The ex parte
order was issued
without probable cause for the stated charge
- it was a criminal
conspiracy against rights[32] – criminal kidnapping,
assault, trespass and theft.
If the court is immune
and not limited
by reckonable[33] and reasonable probable
cause; JUSTICE CANNOT
BE SERVED. Officers
of the court could at will arrest
anyone to SMEAR for minor issues and THEN charge
AND CONVICT capital
crimes, on said misdemeanor issues
alone; it is too ABSURD
to even consider.
The XIV Amendment
clearly constitutionally federally
prohibits any state's
or judge-made-law non-exigent
exceptions to:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction
the equal protection
of the laws."
Did we not learn this with Jim Crow laws?
Jane Crow[34] should
never have had a foot-hold.
Who would ever have democratically authorized
a state sponsored
"star chamber"[35] to "at will"
take away due process protections
for paternal rights,
property rights and personal liberty
rights without exigency?
The District and Circuit have asserted a "domestic relations
exception" as judge-made-law. They
justify it with the "interests of the child." The Court's prior assertion to Juvenile courts
(Juvenile Crow)
with the "interests of the child"
seems pertinent HERE:
"Juvenile Court history
has again demonstrated
that unbridled discretion,
however benevolently motivated,
is frequently a poor substitute
for principle and procedure. In 1937, Dean Pound wrote:
"The powers of the Star Chamber were a trifle
in comparison with those of our juvenile
courts. . . ." The absence of substantive standards
has not necessarily
meant that children
receive careful, compassionate, individualized treatment.
The absence of procedural rules based upon constitutional principle
has not always
produced fair, efficient,
and effective procedures.
Departures from established
principles of due process have frequently resulted
not in enlightened
procedure, but in arbitrariness. The Chairman of the Pennsylvania
Council of Juvenile
Court Judges has recently observed:
"Unfortunately,
loose procedures, high-handed
methods and crowded
court calendars, either
singly or in combination, all too often,
have resulted in depriving some juveniles of fundamental rights
that have resulted
in a denial
of due process."
Failure to observe
the fundamental requirements
of due process
has resulted in instances, which might have been avoided,
of unfairness to individuals and inadequate or inaccurate findings
of fact and unfortunate prescriptions
of remedy. Due process of law is the primary
and indispensable foundation
of individual freedom.
It is the basic and essential term in the social compact
which defines the rights of the individual
and delimits the powers which the state may exercise.
As Mr. Justice
Frankfurter has said: "The history
of American freedom
is, in no small measure,
the history of procedure." But, in addition,
the procedural rules which have been fashioned
from the generality
of due process
are our best instruments for the distillation
and evaluation of essential facts from the conflicting welter
of data that life and our adversary
methods present. It is these instruments of due process
which enhance the possibility that truth will emerge from the confrontation
of opposing versions
and conflicting data. "Procedure is to law what scientific
method' is to science." (In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) internal
footnotes omitted)"
The petitioner is asking for R.I.C.O.[36] damages[37] for the 15 years of the criminal
deprivation of paternal,
personal and property
right in the pain and suffering still ongoing in the criminal[38] action.
I argued from day one this was a case involving "unreasonable probable
cause."[39] To any EDUCATED
legal professional, that should infer a constitutional problem
described as a "fraud on the court by an officer of the court."
Petitioner may not have had the legal shibboleth i.e., "fraud on the court by an officer of the court"
but the constitutional issue has always
been clear!
Petitioner includes the undisputed evidence,
the original ex parte order
(see appendix), dated November 3, 2003,[40] and by reference
the motion stating
the facts at issue, prepared
by Tim Schlesinger-
Respondent's attorney, dated December 5, 2003 - arbitrarily denied
extra-judicially (coram non judice) December
18, 2003, without
any findings required
by Missouri Court Rule 129.11.[41]
V.
REASONS FOR GRANTING
THE PETITION
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
"NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW" is in common
usage today in regard to our current
president. Petitioner asserts,
the larger problem
is in our Judiciary. If the Judiciary
is as honorable
as they assert?
They, from the Supreme Court to the lowliest family
commissioner, should be able to honorably admit human error and then WORK to fully remedy
their human errors!
This is how it was always supposed
to have worked.
Nobody ever assumed
that "perfection" would exist - the second
the Constitution was enacted and then last happily ever after for all time in the courts.
We have forgotten
that the founders
had many contemporary
grievances with the corruption of the judiciary
of their time.
The Star Chamber,[42] The Inquisition, the Bloody Assizes,
or the application
of General Warrants
("Wilkes and Liberty"), represent
only a few of the major historical
judicial corruptions of the 17th and 18th Century.
Judicial corruption and/or
mistakes, motivated by ignorance, avarice
or the lust for power;
were always seen to be an integrally
inescapable part of anything man made. Thus,
the VII Amendment's common
law jury trial GUARANTEE!
The assertion of absolute judicial
immunity is without
any constitutional basis.-
Yes, some judicial
persons are appointed
for life, but that does not mean they are immune to traffic tickets,
felonies, non-exigent deprivation
of civil rights,[43] the VII Amendment
or in the end impeachment. \
The idea that the founders
thought to trade their hard won liberty from the "King
that can do no wrong"[44] for the discretion of any judicial
officer of the court that "can do no wrong"
is just RIDICULOUS.
Beyond that the Jane Crow era, based on the Jim Crow and Juvenile
Crow era's that proceeded it, it is currently decimating
the roots of the American
Family structure.
MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY DOMESTIC RELATIONS
LAW IN THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA!
The "Jane Crow"
Era has been supported by media reports
in the news for DECADES.
"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 (PTSD). 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.
Additionally, the "Jane
Crow" era has NOW been sustained by socioeconomic statistical
research. "Jane Crow" discrimination is verifiably REAL!
Men are disfavored
by domestic relations
law in the United States
of America! With
the birth rate down by 48% since 1960 and teen pregnancy
down by 65% just since 1990 -- single motherhood
is UP by 700% since 1960 (40% of births
were to single
mothers in 2015 v. 1960's
5%).[45] Per the report's
authors,[46] these figures stand without regard
to race or income. The place of the FATHER
in the American
Family is at RISK!
First given that absolute immunity
has been the unconstitutional fomenting
force behind Jim Crow, Juvenile
Crow and Jane Crow law it is time to END it HERE!!
"I do not think that all judges,
under all circumstances, no matter how outrageous their conduct, are immune from suit under 17 Stat. 13, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court's ruling
is not justified
by the admitted
need for a vigorous and independent judiciary,
is not commanded
by the common
law doctrine of judicial immunity,
and does not follow inexorably
from our prior decisions" (MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS,
dissenting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 558 (1967)).
Absolute immunity is not and never was authorized by the Constitution
of the United
States of America.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
Secondly the petition
should be granted
to, re-establish the XIV Amendment's
"due process" and "equal protection" of the law for all persons and
. Thus denying
any and all "domestic relations
exceptions." And once again, give reckonablity[47] to establish the rule of law with the VII Amendment's jury trial, as proposed by the founders
with the Constitution
for the United
States of America.
Respectfully submitted,
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
· Rule 60(d)(3)
of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure - "set aside a judgment
for fraud on the court"
Statutes
- Abolition of
the Star Chamber
- JULY 5,
1641 An act
for the regulating of
the privy council,
and for taking
away the court
commonly called the
star-chamber.
- 28 U.S.
Code § 1331
- Federal Question
- 28 U.S.
Code § 1332
- Diversity of
citizenship; amount in
controversy
- 28 U.S.
Code § 1343(a)(3) -
Civil rights and
elective franchise:
- 18 U.S.
Code § 241
- Conspiracy against
rights
- 18 U.S.
Code Chapter 96
- Racketeer Influenced And
Corrupt Organizations
- 18 U.S.
Code § 1961
– Definitions
- 18 U.S.
Code § 1962
- Prohibited activities
- 18 U.S.
Code § 1964
- Civil remedies
- 42 U.S.
Code § 1983
- Civil action
for deprivation of
rights
- 42 U.S.
Code § 1985-
Civil action for
conspiracy deprivation of
rights
Cases References
- Ashcroft v.
al-Kidd, 563 U.
S. 731, 741
(2011), Mullenix v.
Luna 577 U.
S. _(2015)
- Anderson v.
Creighton, 483 U.
S. 635, 640
(1987), Ashcroft v.
al-Kidd, 563 U.
S. 731, 741
(2011)
- Bradley v.
Fisher, 80 U.S.
335 (1871), Page 80
U. S. 348
and 349
- Floyd and
Barker. (1607) Easter
Term, 5 James
I - In
the Court of
Star Chamber. -
First Published in
the Reports, volume
12, page 23.
- Sir Edward
Coke, The Selected
Writings and Speeches
of Sir Edward
Coke, ed. Steve
Sheppard (Indianapolis: Liberty
Fund, 2003). Vol.
1. 8/18/2018
- In re
Gault, 387 U.S.
18 (1967)
- McCabe v.
Atchison, T. &
S.F. Ry. Co.,
235 U.S. 161
(1914)
- 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)
- Pierson v.
Ray, 386 U.S.
565 (1967)
- Stump v.
Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57
(1978) PENN v.
U.S. 335 F.3d
790 (2003)
- Tennessee Supreme
Court, Southwestern Reporter, Volume
4, May 16–August 1,
1887.
- United States
v. Agurs, 427
U.S. 103 (1976)
Other
- (1-4) ORIGINAL
EX PARTE ORDER
OF PROTECTION -
Case: 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ Doc.
#: 1-2 Filed:
06/07/07 Page: 1
of 4 Page
ID #: 8
- (1-3) DISMISSAL OF
DISTRICT COURT PETITION -
Case: 4:17-cv-02690-AGF Doc.
#: 5 Filed:
11/09/17 Page: 1
of 3 Page
ID #: 41
- (1) APPELLATE COURT'S
AFFIRMATION OF DISTRICT
COURT - Appellate Case:
17-3681 Page: 1
Date Filed: 05/30/2018 Entry
ID: 4667103
- (1) FORMAL
MANDATE - Appellate Case:
17-3681 Page: 1
Date Filed: 07/25/2018 Entry
ID: 4686306
- (1-4) COMPLETE
LIST OF THE
RESPONDENTS
- (1) MEME
E-1
RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION
The Government of the United
States of America,
et al, Defendants/Respondents
· The Government
of the United
State of America
· US Supreme
Court, Elena Kagan,
Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer, Clarence
Thomas, Samuel Alito,
Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts,
and The Government
of the United
States of America
(Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
15-8884)
· 8th District
US Court of Appeals and
The Government of the United
States of America
(Cases 07-2614, 08-1823,
10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435,
13-2200, 15-1057, 15-3404
and 17-1246),
· US District
judge Catherine D. Perry and
The Government of the United
States of America
- Case # 4:16-CV-810 CDP - David G. Jeep and heir, Plaintiff, vs. Government (corporation)
of the United
States of America,
et al Defendants/Respondents
· US District
judge Henry Edward
Autrey and The Government of the United
States of America
- Case #4:15CV1533HEA - David G. Jeep and heir, Plaintiff,
vs. Government (corporation)
of the United
States of America,
et al Defendants/Respondents
E-2
· US Supreme
Court, Elena Kagan,
Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer, Antonin
Scalia, Clarence Thomas,
Samuel Alito, Anthony
Kennedy, Chief Justice
John G. Roberts,
and The Government
of the United
States of America
(Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
13-5193,13-7030, 14-5551 and 14-10088)
· US Magistrate
Judge David D. Noce, United
States District Judge Jean C. Hamilton and
The Government of the United
States of America
Case# 4:14-cv-02009-DDN
· Rodney W. Sippel, US District Court Judge and
The Government of the United
States of America,
4:13-cv-2490-RWS
· E. Richard
Webber, US District
Court Judge and
The Government of the United
States of America,
4:13-cv-0360-ERW
· President Barack
Hussein Obama, His Justice Department
and The Government
of the United
States of America
· US Supreme
Court, Elena Kagan,
Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer, Antonin
Scalia, Clarence Thomas,
Samuel Alito, Anthony
Kennedy, Chief Justice
John G. Roberts,
and The Government
of the United
States of America
(Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
11-8211)
· Mike Christian
(FBI), Lyonel Mrythill
(FBI), Dan Bracco
(FBI), Robert O'Connor
(USMS), Chris Boyce (USMS) and Raymond Meyer (AUSA) and
The Government of the United
States of
E-3
America (8th District
Court of appeals
Appeal: 10-1947),
· US Supreme
Court, Justices John Paul Stevens,
David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer, Antonin
Scalia, Clarence Thomas,
Samuel Alito, Anthony
Kennedy, Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
and The Government
of the United
States of America
(Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
07-11115)
· Carol E. Jackson, US District Court Judge and
The Government of the United
States of America,
4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al and Jeep v. Government
of the United
States of America
4:12-cv-703-CEJ (07-2614 and 12-2435),
· Charles A. Shaw, Senior
US District Judge and The Government of the United
States of America,
Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM Jeep v. United
States of America,
et al & 4:11-cv-00931-CAS Jeep v. Obama(10-1947
& 11-2425),
· Scott O. Wright, Senior
US District Judge and The Government of the United
States of America,
4:07-cv-0506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al (08-1823),
· Commissioner Philip
E. Jones, Sr., Sharon G. Jeep (ex-wife),
Kristen M. Capps (ex-stepdaughter), Joseph
A. Goeke, Robert
S. Cohen, Michael
T. Jamison, Emmett
M. O'Brien, Steven
H. Goldman, Barbara
W. Wallace (Presiding
Judge in 2003),
James R.
E-4
Hartenbach, John A. Ross, Michael
D. Burton, Larry L. Kendrick,
Richard C. Bresnahan,
Melvyn W. Wiesman,
Maura B. McShane,
Colleen Dolan, Mark D. Seigel,
Barbara Ann Crancer,
Mary Bruntrager Schroeder,
Brenda Stith Loftin,
Dale W. Hood, Thea A. Sherry, Gloria
Clark Reno, John R. Essner,
Ellen Levy Siwak,
Patrick Clifford, Bernhardt
C. Drumm, Dennis
N. Smith, Judy Preddy Draper,
Sandra Farragut-Hemphill, Douglas
R. Beach, John F. Kintz,
Gary M. Gaertner,
Phillip E. Jones,
Carolyn C. Whittington,
Tom W. DePriest,
David Lee Vincent,
St. Louis County and State of Missouri (4:07-CV-1116
CEJ, 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243),
· Jack A. Bennett, Associate
Circuit Judge, Devin M. Ledom,
Asst. Prosecuting Attorney,
Alex Little, Officer
Badge #920, Tim Taylor Officer
Badge #913, W. Steven Rives,
Prosecuting Attorney, W. James Icenogle,
Prosecuting Attorney, Bruce Colyer, Associate
Circuit Judge, Jay Nixon Attorney
General, State of Missouri, Camden
County, and City
of Osage Beach
(4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M),
All Defendants/Respondents are included and asserted liable,
as Government actors
and as INDIVIDUAL actors
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS
F-1
Clerk of the Court, via CERTIFIED U.S. First Class Mail
Supreme Court of the United
States
One First Street
N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme
Court from the Eight Circuit
(17-3681)
Dear People,
As you will see from the enclosed
long trail of petitions - included by reference here, the fully executed application
"MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS" and the lower court grant of my in forma pauperis status
I am impoverished.
I am pro
se. I am alone in the world without finances,
in this 15 years struggle;
I have lived in a homeless shelter
for nearly 11 years. I do not have the capacity or the money to meet your stringent
professional requirements for printing or duplicating my petition. I humbly ask that you accept the enclosed as my humble
best effort possible.
I have published
a digital copy of this document on my blog but that is the best that I can do in my REDUCED
CIRCUMSTANCES.
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. "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS"
b. "Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme
Court"
cc: My Blog
(www.DGJeep.blogspot.com) - Wednesday, August
22, 2018, 10:20:48
AM
[1] The full list of respondent
is several pages and is a part of the original petition
in Eastern District
of Missouri - St. Louis (4: 17-cv-02690-AGF) see is an appendices E-pages
1-4
[2] MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER – dismissal - Case: 4:17-cv-02690-AGF Doc. #: 5 Filed: 11/09/17
[3] I herewith note: 7 prior petitions on this issue in "PURSUIT
OF JUSTICE," see Petition of Certioraris to the Supreme
Court of the United States
and associated District
and Circuit petitions…
07-11115, 11-8211,
13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551,
14-10088 and 15-8884.
[4] fraus omnia corrumpit
- "Fraud corrupts
all." - A principle according
to which the discovery of fraud invalidates
all aspects of a judicial
decision or arbitral
award.
[5] Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure - "set aside a judgment
for fraud on the court"
[6] 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.
[7] 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)
[8] "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
[9] While the petitioner
asserts this is not necessarily
an isolated Jane Crow
issue, it is a uniquely
flagrant "first impression" and PERSONAL for the petitioner. Per McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914)
" The essence
of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal
one, and does not depend
upon the number
of persons affected,
and any individual
who is denied
by a common
carrier, under authority
of the state,
a facility or convenience which is furnished
to another under substantially the same circumstances
may properly complain
that his constitutional privilege
has been invaded.
Congressman Beatty of Ohio claimed
that it was the duty of Congress
to listen to the appeals
of those who,
"by reason of popular sentiment
or secret organizations
or prejudiced juries
or bribed judges,
[cannot] obtain the rights and privileges due an American
citizen. . . .""
[10] Bradley
v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 348 and 349
[11] Floyd and Barker.
(1607) Easter Term, 5 James I - In the Court of Star Chamber.
- First Published
in the Reports,
volume 12, page 23.
[12] Ida B. Well v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad
- Tennessee Supreme
Court, which reversed
the lower court's
ruling in 1887. It concluded,
"We think it is evident
that the purpose
of the defendant
in error was to harass
with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain
a comfortable seat for the short ride."[Southwestern Reporter,
Volume 4, May 16–August 1, 1887.
[13] fraus omnia corrumpit
- "Fraud corrupts
all." - A principle according
to which the discovery of fraud invalidates
all aspects of a judicial
decision or arbitral
award.
[14] It should be noted, that the petitioner
was found guilty
of DWI. Although the petitioner contests
this conviction too, with this petition. The conviction was a violation
of petitioner's' constitutional rights
i.e., "The rule of Brady v. Maryland,
373 U. S. 83, arguably
applies in three quite different
situations. Each involves
the discovery, after trial, of information, which had been known to the prosecution
but unknown to the defense." - United States
v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 103 (1976). This can be documented, with the trial transcript and outside confirmation
of standards, requested
but never provided
pretrial.
[15] It should be noted, that the petitioner
was found guilty
of DWI. Although the petitioner contests
this conviction too, with this petition. The conviction was a violation
of petitioner's' constitutional rights
i.e., "The rule of Brady v. Maryland,
373 U. S. 83, arguably
applies in three quite different
situations. Each involves
the discovery, after trial, of information, which had been known to the prosecution
but unknown to the defense." - United States
v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 103 (1976). This can be documented, with the trial transcript and outside confirmation
of standards, requested
but never provided
pretrial.
[16] fraus omnia corrumpit
- "Fraud corrupts
all." - A principle according
to which the discovery of fraud invalidates
all aspects of a judicial
decision or arbitral
award.
[17] Note: Rule 129.11
requiring rehearing and findings was repealed and replaced by the Supreme
Court of Missouri
May 20, 2009
[18] Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure - "set aside a judgment
for fraud on the court"
[19] 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy
against rights
[20] See XIV Amendment
Section 5. "The
Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation,
the provisions of this article."
[21] The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13), also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Force Act of 1871, Ku Klux Klan Act, the act was passed
by the 42nd United States
Congress and signed
into law by President Ulysses
S. Grant on April 20, 1871. The act was the last of three Enforcement Acts passed by the United
States Congress from 1870 to 1871 during
the Reconstruction Era to combat
attacks upon the suffrage rights
of African Americans.
The statute has been subject
to only minor changes since then.
[22] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967)
"The congressional purpose
seems to me to be clear. A condition of lawlessness existed
in certain of the States
under which people
were being denied
their civil rights.
Congress intended to provide a remedy for the wrongs
being perpetrated. And its members
were not unaware
that certain members
of the judiciary
were implicated in the state of affairs
which the statute
was intended to rectify. It was often noted that "[i]mmunity is given to crime, and the records
of the public
tribunals are searched
in vain for any evidence
of effective redress." Cong.Globe,
42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374. Mr. Rainey
of South Carolina
noted that "[T]he
courts are in many instances
under the control
of those who are wholly
inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." Id. at 394."
[23] They took my son, everything
I ever owned and threw me on the street
to fend for myself!
[24] While the petitioner
asserts this is not necessarily
an isolated Jane Crow
issue, it is a uniquely
flagrant "first impression" and personal for the petitioner. Per McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914)
" The essence
of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal
one, and does not depend
upon the number
of persons affected,
and any individual
who is denied
by a common
carrier, under authority
of the state,
a facility or convenience which is furnished
to another under substantially the same circumstances
may properly complain
that his constitutional privilege
has been invaded."
[25] Bradley
v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 348 and 349
[26] Floyd and Barker.
(1607) Easter Term, 5 James I - In the Court of Star Chamber.
- First Published
in the Reports,
volume 12, page 23.
[27] Tennessee
Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's
ruling in 1887. It concluded,
"We think it is evident
that the purpose
of the defendant
in error was to harass
with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain
a comfortable seat for the short ride."Southwestern Reporter,
Volume 4, May 16–August 1, 1887.
[28] A deprivation of rights 42 U.S. Code § 1983 and 1985- Civil action for deprivation of rights as perpetuated by a RICO action 18 U.S. Code § 1964 - Civil remedies
[29] fraus omnia corrumpit
- "Fraud corrupts
all." - A principle according
to which the discovery of fraud invalidates
all aspects of a judicial
decision or arbitral
award.
[30] 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy
against rights
[31] 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy
against rights
[32] 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy
against rights
[33] "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)
[34] The "Jane Crow"
era has NOW been sustained
by socioeconomic statistical
RESEARCH. "Jane Crow" discrimination is REAL! Men are disfavored
by domestic relations
law in the United States
of America! With
the birth rate down by 48% since 1960 and teen pregnancy
down by 65% just since 1990 -- single motherhood
is UP by 700% since 1960 (40% of births
were to single
mothers in 2015 v. 1960's
5%). Per the report's authors,[34]these figures
stand without regard
to race or income.
[35] Abolition of the Star Chamber July 5, 1641
An act for the regulating
of the privy council, and for taking
away the court commonly called
the star-chamber.
[36] 18 U.S. Code Chapter
96 - Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations
[37] 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action
for deprivation of rights
[38] 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy
against rights
[39] My attorney of record filed two timely
motions in December
of 2003 addressing
the constitutional issues
in legal speak.
[40] Note the case header from Case 4-07-cv-01116-CEJ Doc.
1-2 Filed 06-07-07
[41] Note: Rule 129.11
requiring rehearing and findings was repealed and replaced by the Supreme
Court of Missouri
May 20, 2009
[42] Abolition of the Star Chamber - JULY 5, 1641 An act for the regulating
of the privy council, and for taking
away the court commonly called
the star-chamber.
[43] MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS,
dissenting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 558 (1967):
"I do not think that all judges,
under all circumstances, no matter how outrageous their conduct, are immune from suit under 17 Stat. 13, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court's ruling
is not justified
by the admitted
need for a vigorous and independent judiciary,
is not commanded
by the common
law doctrine of judicial immunity,
and does not follow inexorably
from our prior decisions."
[44] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 565 (1967)
[45] "Male
Earnings, Marriageable Men, and Nonmarital
Fertility: Evidence from the Fracking
Boom" by Melissa
S. Kearney, Riley Wilson - NBER Working
Paper No. 23408 - Issued
in May 2017 - NBER Program(s): CH
EEE LS PE
- Per a new paper
by Andrew Cherlin,
professor of sociology
at Johns Hopkins
University and Melissa Kearney,
professor of economics
at University of Maryland this 700% increase
is across economic
and racial lines.
See also - "Women just aren't that into the 'marriageable male' anymore, economists
say" Washington Post - By Danielle Paquette
- May 16, 2016 - "The Fracking
Boom, a Baby Boom, and the Retreat
From Marriage" Freakonomics
– NPR - July 5, 2017
[46] Andrew Cherlin,
professor of sociology
at Johns Hopkins
University and Melissa Kearney,
professor of economics
at University of Maryland
[47] 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)
David G. Jeep,
GENERAL DELIVERY
David G. Jeep,
GENERAL DELIVERY
No comments:
Post a Comment