Don't let them throw Petition for Rehearing PWC 14-10088 out with the HOLIDAY
TRASH. MAKE SOME NOISE!!!!!!! Petition for
Rehearing Distributed for conference 11-24-15 - PWC 14-10088
Download/View as PDF File
Showing posts with label 4:14-cv-02009-DDN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 4:14-cv-02009-DDN. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Friday, May 1, 2015
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
SUA SPONTE CONSIDERATION IN APPELLATE REVIEW Appeal 15-1057
Michael E. Gans Clerk of Court
U. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329
St. Louis, MO. 63102-1123
Re: Appeal 15-1057 David G. Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America - Case #: 4:14-cv-2009 Motion for SUA SPONTE CONSIDERATION IN APPELLATE REVIEW
Dear People,
I appreciate you continued patience and consideration of this, not so humble, pro se petitioner. Please accept the above referenced motion for SUA SPONTE CONSIDERATION IN APPELLATE REVIEW.
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
enclosure
a. "Motion for SUA SPONTE CONSIDERATION IN APPELLATE REVIEW" Wednesday, January 28, 2015, 1:43:22 PM"
cc: My Blog - Wednesday, January 28, 2015, 1:42:06 PM
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Eighth Circuit
David G. Jeep, Petitioner,
vs.
Government of the United States of America, et al Respondents
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
Case #: 15-1057
Case #: 4:14-cv-2009
|
Motion for SUA SPONTE CONSIDERATION IN APPELLATE
REVIEW
SUA SPONTE[1] CONSIDERATION IN APPELLATE REVIEW
The warrant/order "was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction."[2] To any sane interpretation of the Common Law,[3] Constitutional Law[4] and Statute[5] Law jurisdiction requires, at a minimum three elements for probable cause:
1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
2. Personal Jurisdiction
3. Geographic Jurisdiction
Now granted if you take the literal assertion of the Supreme Court, "Jurisdiction is to be considered broadly," there is no limitation on jurisdiction, BROADLY is without limit. But that defeats the constitution's raison d'être, to establish a knowable law and eliminate the discretion of titles of nobility's (i.e., "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby") "absolutely immune" prerogative.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly REFUSED to see this clearly manifest deficiency. Having continuously and REPEATEDLY asserted "judicial absolute immunity" and "Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) ("The domestic relations exception . . . divests the federal courts of jurisdiction" over any action for which the subject is a divorce, allowance of alimony, or child custody")."
Now I ask the 8th Circuit to consider sua sponte the statutes[6] own expressed limitations to disavow the "The domestic relations exception" AND the District, Circuit and Supreme Court's own sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid repeated DISMISSAL based on "judicial absolute immunity."
We the People will then once again "establish Justice" in this country as the founders had intended without any "grant of titles of nobility" or immunity from what the founders clearly asserted to be the KNOWABLE "supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."
JUDGES COULD NOT ASSERT IMMUNITY FROM THE KNOWABLE[7] "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND."
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
______________________________________________
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
[1] "To say that appellate courts must decide between two constructions proffered by the parties . . . would be to render automatons of judges, forcing them merely to register their reactions to the arguments of counsel at the trial level." Rentways, Inc. v. O'Neill Milk & Cream Co., 308 N.Y. 342, 349, 126 N.E.2d 271, 274 (1955)
[2] 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)
[3] Magna Carta in 1215 to Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98
[4] "AMENDMENT IV "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (ratified December 15, 1791).
[5] "for good cause shown in the petition, the court may immediately issue an ex parte order of protection. An immediate and present danger of domestic violence to the petitioner" M.R.S., Protective Orders Section 455.035
[6] Proceedings independent of others.
455.070 All proceedings under sections 455.010 to (This includes Protective Orders Section 455.035) 455.085 are independent of any proceedings for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, separate maintenance and other actions between the parties and are in addition to any other available civil or criminal remedies, unless otherwise specifically provided herein. (L. 1980 S.B. 524 § 13)
[7] Knowable is limited only by a jury of my equal's decision based on facts in evidence.
Thanks in advance,
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com orDGJeep01@yahoo.com
(314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com orDGJeep01@yahoo.com
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis , MO 63155-9999
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Appeal 15-1057 David G. Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America - Case #: 4:14-cv-2009 CERTIFICATION OF DOCKET to the Circuit Court (CA8)
Michael E. Gans
Clerk of Court
U. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329
Re: Appeal 15-1057 David G. Jeep vs. Government of the United
States of America - Case #: 4:14-cv-2009 CERTIFICATION OF DOCKET to the Circuit
Court (CA8)
Dear People,
Please accept this certified, by the
petitioner, listing of the docketed items in the above referenced action.
If there is anything further
I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Signed this Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Thank you in advance.
“Time is of the essence”
David G. Jeep
enclosure
a.
“DGJeep Docket
Created and Certified Tuesday, January 27, 2015, 10:48:22 AM”
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Saturday, December 27, 2014
NOTICE OF APPEAL
UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
FEDERAL COURT - EASTERN DIVISION
David G. Jeep, Petitioner,
vs.
Government of the United States of America, et al Respondents
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
Case #: 4:14-cv-2009
|
NOTICE OF APPEAL
I. ADDITIONALLY NOW ON APPEAL
Additionally NOW on appeal in DIRECT response to one Jean C. Hamilton, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE and other's REPEATED sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid DISMISSAL, with "prejudice," based on the assertion of "Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) ("The domestic relations exception . . . divests the federal courts of jurisdiction" over any action for which the subject is a divorce, allowance of alimony, or child custody")" - I assert per the statutes under Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, and Proceedings independent of others 455.070 that forms the origin of this issue, "All proceedings under sections 455.010 to 455.085[1] are independent of any proceedings for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, separate maintenance and other actions between the parties" thus Kahn v. Kahn's divestiture has no controlling authority and the statute (455.070) then invites "any other available civil or criminal remedies," i.e., a federal civil rights, 42 U.S. Code § 1983/1985 and 18 U.S. Code § 242/241, remedy for the petitioner from those acting or conspiring to act under color of law and/or a common law remedy, civil and criminal, for the conspiracy to defraud the petitioner from those acting in their personal interest alone. I quote:
Proceedings independent of others. [2]
455.070 All proceedings under sections 455.010 to 455.085[3] are independent of any proceedings for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, separate maintenance and other actions between the parties and are in addition to any other available civil or criminal remedies, unless otherwise specifically provided herein. (L. 1980 S.B. 524 § 13)
To restate again, repeatedly, the Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, and more specifically Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, under section 455.070 definition states - sections "455.010 to 455.085 are independent of any proceedings for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, separate maintenance and other actions between the parties" and then invites "any other available civil or criminal remedies" i.e., a federal civil rights, 42 U.S. Code § 1983/1985 and 18 U.S. Code § 242/241, remedy for the petitioner from those acting or conspiring to act under color of law and/or a common law remedy, civil and criminal, for the conspiracy to defraud the petitioner from those acting in their personal interest alone.
II. Abbreviated Statement of FACTS of the Case:
The warrant, an ex parte order of protection, included the sworn petition [4] that reasonably, per the 4th Amendment,[5] and the statute[6] limited the jurisdiction for the Judicial Act. The fraudulent petition, fraus omnia corrumpit,[7] signed and dated by the criminal respondent, Sharon G. Jeep in a conspiracy with her daughter, my former stepdaughter Kristen M. Capps, listed a BONDED misdemeanor traffic violation as the asserted "probable cause" for the NOT "facially valid"[8] ex parte order of protection.
The issuing sincerely ignorant and/or conscientiously stupid Judicial officer, one Judge Joseph A. Goeke III, obliviously did not read Sharon G. Jeep's hand written criminally fraudulent petition,[9] in 2003, or did not care what "subject matter" [10] the statute[11] mandated for a reasonable[12] ex parte order of protection i.e., "for good cause shown in the petition… An immediate and present danger of domestic violence."[13] The warrant/order that included and was limited by the respondent's, Sharon G. Jeep's hand written fraudulent petition, [14] as its jurisdiction, was THUS not a "facially valid court order."[15]
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III clearly had no "subject matter" [16] reasonable[17] jurisdiction for the statute's stated "subject matter,"[18] "An immediate and present danger of domestic violence,"[19] based on the respondent's, Sharon G. Jeep's, submitted fraudulent petition dated November 3, 2003.
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III had no "personal jurisdiction," in that the issue, the alleged misdemeanor traffic violation, was already under the bonded[20] personal jurisdiction of another judge, Associate Circuit Judge Jack A. Bennett of 26th District of Missouri; based on the respondent's, Sharon G. Jeep's, submitted fraudulent petition dated November 3, 2003.
Judge Joseph A. Goeke III had no "geographic jurisdiction," in that 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; based on the respondent's, Sharon G. Jeep's, submitted fraudulent petition dated November 3, 2003.
Thus…
• the original order of,
• the original service of,
• the original hearing for,
• and all the subsequent findings in favor of
the unwarrantable, unconstitutional and NOT "facially valid court order"[21] were taken in "a complete absence of all jurisdictions."[22],[23]
For me the supreme Law of the Land has always been self-evident and should have always been self-evident to any, not sincerely ignorant or conscientious stupid, person. Therefore I have always AND I STILL DO stress the 7th Amendment, resultant common law remedy, for damages, link between the NOT "facially valid"[24] criminally fraudulent[25] ex parte order of protection and "the custody and property settlement." I have always asserted it AND I STILL DO that it is self-evident that the Constitution for the United States of America Article VI. Second paragraph,[26] 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America, Civil Rights Act of 1866,[27] Civil Rights Act of 1871[28] and Civil Rights Act of 1875/1964[29] take precedent over Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) as the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, AND I STILL DO.
III. Judicial Prerogative ALONE does not make law:
From its inception liberty of the individual person was secured by the Constitution for the United States of America and the treaties and laws made under its authority ALONE, via a BICAMERAL, judge and jury's, Due Process, NOT ON ANYONE'S PREROGATIVE.
IV. Defendants/Respondents:
All the respondents, as individuals and government actors under color of law, have used the unconstitutional prerogative of their sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity to deprive the PRIMARY governmental authority of the preamble's security to "establish Justice."
V. Statement of Claim:
With their sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity unencumbered by competence, reason or justice the respondents have REPEATEDLY using their prerogative alone acted to the deprivation of the petitioner's rights, privileges, or immunities secured by knowledge, reason, justice and the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.
VI. Relief:
I seek relief from the criminal fraud and the "under color of law" unconstitutional deprivation of the petitioner's rights, privileges, or immunities secured by reason, justice and the Constitution and laws of the United States of America starting on Saturday May 17, 2003 with the incompetent unconstitutional allegation of a misdemeanor traffic violation and engorged on Monday November 03, 2003 08:00 PM with the facially invalid fraudulent ex parte order of protection issued in a complete absence of all jurisdiction and now still ongoing.
VII. Current Status:
The deprivation is ongoing. Damages are ongoing and escalating. It has been ongoing for nearly 4,239 days[30] since this originated with the unconstitutional, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid alleged traffic violation on Saturday May 17, 2003 and then enlarged on Monday November 03, 2003 08:00 PM with the at issue corrupt, malicious, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid warrant/order taken with "a complete absence of all jurisdictions."[31]
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Saturday, December 27, 2014
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
______________________________________________
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
Gregory J. Linhares, Clerk of the Court
US Federal District Court - Eastern District of Missouri
111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
St. Louis, MO 63102-1125
Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL David G. Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America - Case #: 4:14-cv-2009
Dear People,
Please accept the enclosed NOTICE of APPEAL based on the corrupt, malicious, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions of this court and others.
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. NOTICE OF APPEAL David G. Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America - Case #: 4:14-cv-2009 - Saturday, December 27, 2014 addressed to MOED
cc: Michael E. Gans Clerk of Court U. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
My Blog - Friday, December 26, 2014, 3:33:14 AM
Michael E. Gans Clerk of Court
U. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
111 South 10th Street
Room 24.329
St. Louis, MO. 63102-1123
Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL David G. Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America - Case #: 4:14-cv-2009
Dear People,
Please accept the enclosed courtesy copy of the above referenced issue. I understand that when you receive confirming NOTICE OF APPEAL from the circuit court you will then be contacting me for confirmation of MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.
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
b. NOTICE OF APPEAL David G. Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America - Case #: 4:14-cv-2009
cc: My Blog - Friday, December 26, 2014, 3:32:56 AM
[4] See SCANNED copy of the hand written petition dated 11-03-03, as attached to the original petition dated 12-03-14 that formed the EXCLUSIVE basis for the ex parte order of protection and certifies the complete lack of jurisdiction with its very existence as served on 11-03-30 at the end of this petition.
[5] AMENDMENT IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[7] fraus omnia corrumpit Fraud unravels it all i.e., the divorce and custody order. There is a strong legal principle adopted internationally that a party who obtained an award through fraud should not be entitled to keep that award. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.
[8] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte restraining order. Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided here, 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).
[9] See originally petition provided SCANNED copy of the hand written petition that asserts ONLY the complete lack of jurisdiction with its very existence as served on 11-03-30.
[10] Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 356 NOTED exception Footnote 6 - "A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter. Where there is clearly no jurisdiction over the subject matter, any authority exercised is a usurped authority, and, for the exercise of such authority when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible." Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 351 (1871)"The Court of Appeals correctly recognized that the necessary inquiry in determining whether a defendant judge is immune from suit is whether, at the time he took the challenged action, he had jurisdiction over the subject matter before him."
[12] AMENDMENT IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[13] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035 – "Upon the filing of a verified petition pursuant to sections 455.010 to 455.085 and for good cause shown in the petition, the court may immediately issue an ex parte order of protection. An immediate and present danger of domestic violence to the petitioner or the child on whose behalf the petition is filed shall constitute good cause for purposes of this section. An ex parte order of protection entered by the court shall take effect when entered and shall remain in effect until there is valid service of process and a hearing is held on the motion."
[14] See originally petition provided SCANNED copy of the hand written petition that asserts ONLY the complete lack of jurisdiction with its very existence as served on 11-03-30.
[15] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte restraining order. Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, 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).
[16] "A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter. Where there is clearly no jurisdiction over the subject matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority, and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible." Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 351 (1871) AND Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 356 NOTED exception Footnote 6 - ibid.
[17] AMENDMENT IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[18] Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 356 NOTED exception Footnote 6 - ibid.
[20] It should be noted that the respondent Sharon G. Jeep actively assisted bonding the petitioner on the alleged misdemeanor traffic violation
[21] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte restraining order. Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, 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).
[22] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[23] 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution…"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Beyond the "complete lack of jurisdiction" STRESSED in the original order at the center of this issue, the Order created an infliction of a "cruel and unusual punishments" for an ex parte order of protection[23] i.e., a misdemeanor traffic violation as probable cause for an ex parte order of protection is "cruel and unusual" to say the least.
[24] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte restraining order. Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, 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).
[25] fraus omnia corrumpit Fraud unravels it all i.e., the divorce and custody order. There is a strong legal principle adopted internationally that a party who obtained an award through fraud should not be entitled to keep that award. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.
[26] "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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (6.1.2)
[27] Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) now codified in the USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
[28] Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the USC as Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[29] The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women.
[30] As of Wednesday December 24 2014 12:20:25.10 PM
[31] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
Thanks in advance,
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com orDGJeep01@yahoo.com
(314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com orDGJeep01@yahoo.com
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis , MO 63155-9999
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)