United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
St. Louis DIVISION
David G. Jeep,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr., Sharon G. Jeep (ex), Joseph A. Goeke , Robert S. Cohen , Michael T. Jamison , Emmett M. O'Brien , Steven H. Goldman , Barbara W. Wallace , James R. 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 , and David Lee Vincent, Gary Krautmann, Legal Counsel to the Circuit Clerk, State of Missouri, St. Louis County
Defendants
Appeal 07-2614
Case No. 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ
I got to thinking; you might reasonably wonder what made the divorce so lopsided. That is the legal and constitutional question I have been asking for 4 + years. I have been screaming, what did I do???
A motion again to restate the issues
Beep, Beep, Squeak, Squeak.
1. The plaintiff states affirmatively Sharon G. Jeep has stated on the stand under oath that the Plaintiff never threatened to hit her, that the Plaintiff never hit her, that the Plaintiff never verbally abused her, that the Plaintiff never demanded sex from her, and that the Plaintiff never demanded deviant sex from her. Of course this was after she had had the plaintiff thrown out of his home, taken his paternity rights, forced him into a lopsided divorce settlement, saddle him with a crippling child support obligations, attempted to addict his son to drugs and all the while denying him his paternal 50% access to his son.
2. When you handicap a runner at the start of the race, it is unfair to ask him to compete against healthy unencumbered entrants. And if the other entrants have directly benefited from the losses sustained by the handicap victim, it is that much more unfair. Fraus omnia corrumpit, fraud unravels all, once a contract is affected by fraud, all bets are off.
3. You might reasonably wonder what made the divorce so lopsided, what issue took away his paternity, what stole his liberty, what forced him into a crippling child support obligation, what denied him 50% access to his son?
4. I have been asking that “legal” and “constitutional” question since the inception of the issue. We made that objection in a timely fashion during the very first hearing for the full order of protection in November 2003, and we have made that objection repeatedly, subsequently and relentlessly since then, for 4 plus years now.
5. I was never charged with anything.
6. The 14th Amendment states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.[1]” I never had due Process of Law I was forced to accept the whim of a definitively incompetent would be Judge, commissioner Jones, because those responsible for his actions his employers the "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc failed to do their job.
7. The ex-parte and full order of protection were both legally and constitutionally deficient on their face. Neither the ex-parte or the full order of protection list anything specific as regards the “nature and cause of the accusation.[2]”
8. You see the full order of protection was the only cause for the lopsidedness of the settlement.
9. An order of protection, knocks a man off his feet, cripples him if you will at the start of what could be the most important legal battle of his life, a disputed divorce. The 5th Amendment to the constitution was written to address this kind of infamous[3] emotionally charged, self-serving allegation. An ex parte order of protection, denies even the smallest concession to Due Process of Law. The subsequent hearing for the full order of protection thus needs to be scrupulously true to the respondent’s rights to full Due Process of Law.
10. I again state affirmatively that is the very legal and constitutional question I am asking the definitively incompetent would be judge, Commissioner Jones, and his "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employers Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc and the United States Court of Appeals, FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, St. Louis DIVISION to tell me? I was never charged with anything specifically as regards the “infamous crime.[4]” I was never presented “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation[5].” I was never served “a presentment or indictment[6].” I was never “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation[7].” In that I never had a presentment, I was then never confronted with the witnesses against[8]” me on the undefined issues.
11. Contrary to the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment to the Constitution, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,[9]” my paternity, my life, my liberty and my property were all taken from me without access to Due Process of Law by the definitively incompetent would be judge commissioner Jones with approval of his "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employers Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc.
12. There is no issue with States having control of “Civil/Divorce.” The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,[10]” my paternity, my life, my liberty and my property were all taken from me without access to Due Process of Law by the definitively incompetent would be judge commissioner Jones with approval of his "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employers Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc. I do not care what they call it Divorce, Civil, or the laws of pinochle, the 14th Amendment says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,[11]” This is not a state’s rights issue, this is a constitutional rights issue.
13. The original petition, the ex parte order of protection on the face of it was deficient as an adequate indictment prior to the ex parte order of protection nor was there a formal finding of facts to appeal or contend after the hearing and the subsequent full order of protection.
14. The abuse hearing and the divorce issue are statutorily separate. All though to separate them you would have to have a magic wand. When you knee cap one of the two contestants in a foot race at the starting line there is no way that is not going to have an effect who wins the race.
15. You let me take away your paternity, your property, your home, your liberty and your everything and award it by default to your adversary, let’s see how well you compete against the recipient of your paternity, your property, your home, your liberty and your everything in a subsequent 2 person legal foot race, a divorce.
16. The whole process of Divorce becomes mute when one party has already been awarded your paternity, your property, your home, your liberty and your everything and you are forced to fight for scraps.
17. Additionally I had no need to ask any of the questions in the divorce issue, because I was never charged with any of those issues?
18. The “Full order of Protection” took on an all-consuming life of its own. I could not object to it, I could not appeal it; I was unconstitutionally forced to accept it. The divorce was merely a codicil to the “Full Order of Protection.”
19. Within Missouri’s 21st District Court en banc incompetence breeds and approves of incompetence, there is no realistic administration as required from a "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employer with direct oversight and approval responsibility for their subordinate, family commissioner’s, actions.
20. The ex parte order of protection and the subsequent full order of protection were both the result of the denial of my 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment to the Constitutional Rights.
21. Since the divorce was the direct product of and subsequent to the unconstitutional denial of my rights as defined by the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment to the constitution, the divorce is also unconstitutionally the fruit of that denial.
22. I repeat and affirm my paternity, my everything, my liberty, my property, virtually my life was taken from me on an unconstitutional[12] whim outside the due Process of Law by the commissioner Jones with the approval of his "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employers Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc.
23. Because this denial so dramatically crippled the defendant at the inception of this issue, the plaintiff herewith seeks damages for pain and suffering from the inception of this issue through the present under color of law per the 1983 Civil Rights Act from Missouri’s 21st District Court en banc as his remedy.
24. The Plaintiff seeks damages from the defendant Sharon G. Jeep for the fraud, she perpetrated under color of law[13] and that Sharon G. Jeep has since recanted. In civil and contract law I state, fraus omnia corrumpit, fraud negates everything, fraud unravels it all. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.
Amendment 4 - 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.
Amendment 5 - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 6 - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment 14 - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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….
TITLE 42 CHAPTER 21 SUBCHAPTER I § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Monday, January 28, 2008
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
_____________________________________ David G. Jeep
[1] 14th Amendment to the Constitution
[2] 6th Amendment to the Constitution
[3] 5th Amendment to the Constitution
[4] 5th Amendment to the Constitution
[5] 4th Amendment to the Constitution
[6] 5th Amendment to the Constitution
[7] 6th Amendment to the Constitution
[8] 6th Amendment to the Constitution
[9] 14th Amendment to the Constitution
[10] 14th Amendment to the Constitution
[11] 14th Amendment to the Constitution
[12] 1983 Civil Rights Action
[13] 1983 Civil rights Action
Monday, January 28, 2008
A motion again to restate the issues Beep, Beep, Squeak, Squeak.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
St. Louis DIVISION
David G. Jeep,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Family Commissioner Philip Jones, Sr., Missouri's 21st Dictrict Court, et. al.
Defendants
Appeal 07-2614
Case No. 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ
A motion again to restate the issues Beep, Beep, Squeak, Squeak.
1) All men are sexually aggressive and abusive.
2) All men are drunkards.
3) All men are neglectful, maladroit fathers.
4) Those are the accepted axioms in today’s Missouri’s 21st District Court of St. Louis County family court.
5) Given those axioms, one, two and three, women need access to the ex parte order of protection.
6) There is no need to provide Due Process of Law for men in Missouri’s 21st District Court of St. Louis County family court because woman need only allege concurrence with one of the accepted axioms to prove their case.
7) These axioms are similar to the Jim Crow axioms of the old south.
a) All black males are sexually rapacious.
b) All black males are shiftless.
c) All black males are ignorant and incapable of education.
8) Both sets of axioms are blatantly FALSE and if they are enforced as a part of our Judicial System they should result in Civil Rights Violations.
9) But both sets of axioms are not considered Civil Rights Violations.
10) The Gender specific axioms:
a) All men are sexually aggressive and abusive.
b) All men are drunkards.
c) All men are neglectful, maladroit fathers.
are still very much a part of the enforcement of Family Law in Missouri’s 21st District Court of St. Louis County Courts.
11) The Plaintiff states that all men are held to the gender specific axioms but not all men are defined by those axioms.
12) Men have constitutionally guaranteed rights to the Due Process of law, and just because the State’s Rights activist under the 11th amendment claim divorce court as a State’s Rights domain, men are being denied their civil rights in Missouri’s 21st District Court in St. Louis County.
13) The violations of Men’s civil rights are every bit as corrupt and damaging as anything, short of lynching, that was perpetrated in the south during 100 years post civil war in the south, 1865-1965.
14) The plaintiff states affirmatively Sharon G. Jeep has stated on the stand under oath that the Plaintiff never threatened to hit her, that the Plaintiff never hit her, that the Plaintiff never verbally abused her, that the Plaintiff never demanded sex from her, and that the Plaintiff never demanded deviant sex from her. Of course this was after she had had the plaintiff thrown out of his home, taken his paternity rights, forced him into a lopsided divorce settlement, saddle him with a crippling child support obligations, attempted to addict his son to drugs and all the while denying him his paternal 50% access to his son.
15) When you handicap a runner at the start of the race, it is unfair to ask him to compete against healthy unencumbered entrants. And if the other entrants have directly benefited from the losses sustained by the handicap victim, it is that much more unfair. Fraus omnia corrumpit, fraud unravels all, once a contract is affected by fraud, all bets are off.
16) You might reasonably wonder what made the divorce so lopsided, what issue took away his paternity, what stole his liberty, what forced him into a crippling child support obligation, what denied him 50% access to his son?
17) I have been asking that “legal” and “constitutional” question since the inception of the issue. We made that objection in a timely fashion during the very first hearing for the full order of protection in November 2003, and we have made that objection repeatedly, subsequently and relentlessly since then, for 4 plus years now.
18) I was never charged with anything.
19) The 14th Amendment states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.[1]” I never had due Process of Law I was forced to accept the whim of a definitively incompetent would be Judge, commissioner Jones, because those responsible for his actions his employers the "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc failed to do their job.
20) The ex-parte and full order of protection were both legally and constitutionally deficient on their face. Neither the ex-parte or the full order of protection list anything specific as regards the “nature and cause of the accusation.[2]”
21) You see the full order of protection was the only cause for the lopsidedness of the settlement.
22) An order of protection, knocks a man off his feet, cripples him if you will at the start of what could be the most important legal battle of his life, a disputed divorce. The 5th Amendment to the constitution was written to address this kind of infamous[3] emotionally charged, self-serving allegation. An ex parte order of protection, denies even the smallest concession to Due Process of Law. The subsequent hearing for the full order of protection thus needs to be scrupulously true to the respondent’s rights to full Due Process of Law.
23) I again state affirmatively that is the very legal and constitutional question I am asking the definitively incompetent would be judge, Commissioner Jones, and his "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employers Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc and the United States Court of Appeals, FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, St. Louis DIVISION to tell me? I was never charged with anything specifically as regards the “infamous crime.[4]” I was never presented “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation[5].” I was never served “a presentment or indictment[6].” I was never “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation[7].” In that I never had a presentment, I was then never confronted with the witnesses against[8]” me on the undefined issues.
24) Contrary to the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment to the Constitution, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,[9]” my paternity, my life, my liberty and my property were all taken from me without access to Due Process of Law by the definitively incompetent would be judge commissioner Jones with approval of his "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employers Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc.
25) There is no issue with States having control of “Civil/Divorce.” The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,[10]” my paternity, my life, my liberty and my property were all taken from me without access to Due Process of Law by the definitively incompetent would be judge commissioner Jones with approval of his "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employers Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc. I do not care what they call it Divorce, Civil, or the laws of pinochle, the 14th Amendment says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,[11]” This is not a state’s rights issue, this is a constitutional rights issue.
26) The original petition, the ex parte order of protection on the face of it was deficient as an adequate indictment prior to the ex parte order of protection nor was there a formal finding of facts to appeal or contend after the hearing and the subsequent full order of protection.
27) The abuse hearing and the divorce issue are statutorily separate. All though to separate them you would have to have a magic wand. When you knee cap one of the two contestants in a foot race at the starting line there is no way that is not going to have an effect who wins the race.
28) You let me take away your paternity, your property, your home, your liberty and your everything and award it by default to your adversary, let’s see how well you compete against the recipient of your paternity, your property, your home, your liberty and your everything in a subsequent 2 person legal foot race, a divorce.
29) The whole process of Divorce becomes mute when one party has already been awarded your paternity, your property, your home, your liberty and your everything and you are forced to fight for scraps.
30) Additionally I had no need to ask any of the questions in the divorce issue, because I was never charged with any of those issues?
31) The “Full order of Protection” took on an all-consuming life of its own. I could not object to it, I could not appeal it; I was unconstitutionally forced to accept it. The divorce was merely a codicil to the “Full Order of Protection.”
32) Within Missouri’s 21st District Court en banc incompetence breeds and approves of incompetence, there is no realistic administration as required from a "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employer with direct oversight and approval responsibility for their subordinate, family commissioner’s, actions.
33) The ex parte order of protection and the subsequent full order of protection were both the result of the denial of my 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment to the Constitutional Rights.
34) Since the divorce was the direct product of and subsequent to the unconstitutional denial of my rights as defined by the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment to the constitution, the divorce is also unconstitutionally the fruit of that denial.
35) I repeat and affirm my paternity, my everything, my liberty, my property, virtually my life was taken from me on an unconstitutional[12] whim outside the due Process of Law by the commissioner Jones with the approval of his "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employers Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc.
36) Because this denial so dramatically crippled the defendant at the inception of this issue, the plaintiff herewith seeks damages for pain and suffering from the inception of this issue through the present under color of law per the 1983 Civil Rights Act from Missouri’s 21st District Court en banc as his remedy.
37) The Plaintiff seeks damages from the defendant Sharon G. Jeep for the fraud, she perpetrated under color of law[13] and that Sharon G. Jeep has since recanted. In civil and contract law I state, fraus omnia corrumpit, fraud negates everything, fraud unravels it all. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.
Amendment 4 - 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.
Amendment 5 - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 6 - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment 14 - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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….
TITLE 42 CHAPTER 21 SUBCHAPTER I § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Monday, January 28, 2008
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
_____________________________________ David G. Jeep
[1] 14th Amendment to the Constitution
[2] 6th Amendment to the Constitution
[3] 5th Amendment to the Constitution
[4] 5th Amendment to the Constitution
[5] 4th Amendment to the Constitution
[6] 5th Amendment to the Constitution
[7] 6th Amendment to the Constitution
[8] 6th Amendment to the Constitution
[9] 14th Amendment to the Constitution
[10] 14th Amendment to the Constitution
[11] 14th Amendment to the Constitution
[12] 1983 Civil Rights Action
[13] 1983 Civil rights Action
Thanks in advance,
"Time is of the essence".
David G. Jeep
Dave@DGJeep.com
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
St. Louis DIVISION
David G. Jeep,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Family Commissioner Philip Jones, Sr., Missouri's 21st Dictrict Court, et. al.
Defendants
Appeal 07-2614
Case No. 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ
A motion again to restate the issues Beep, Beep, Squeak, Squeak.
1) All men are sexually aggressive and abusive.
2) All men are drunkards.
3) All men are neglectful, maladroit fathers.
4) Those are the accepted axioms in today’s Missouri’s 21st District Court of St. Louis County family court.
5) Given those axioms, one, two and three, women need access to the ex parte order of protection.
6) There is no need to provide Due Process of Law for men in Missouri’s 21st District Court of St. Louis County family court because woman need only allege concurrence with one of the accepted axioms to prove their case.
7) These axioms are similar to the Jim Crow axioms of the old south.
a) All black males are sexually rapacious.
b) All black males are shiftless.
c) All black males are ignorant and incapable of education.
8) Both sets of axioms are blatantly FALSE and if they are enforced as a part of our Judicial System they should result in Civil Rights Violations.
9) But both sets of axioms are not considered Civil Rights Violations.
10) The Gender specific axioms:
a) All men are sexually aggressive and abusive.
b) All men are drunkards.
c) All men are neglectful, maladroit fathers.
are still very much a part of the enforcement of Family Law in Missouri’s 21st District Court of St. Louis County Courts.
11) The Plaintiff states that all men are held to the gender specific axioms but not all men are defined by those axioms.
12) Men have constitutionally guaranteed rights to the Due Process of law, and just because the State’s Rights activist under the 11th amendment claim divorce court as a State’s Rights domain, men are being denied their civil rights in Missouri’s 21st District Court in St. Louis County.
13) The violations of Men’s civil rights are every bit as corrupt and damaging as anything, short of lynching, that was perpetrated in the south during 100 years post civil war in the south, 1865-1965.
14) The plaintiff states affirmatively Sharon G. Jeep has stated on the stand under oath that the Plaintiff never threatened to hit her, that the Plaintiff never hit her, that the Plaintiff never verbally abused her, that the Plaintiff never demanded sex from her, and that the Plaintiff never demanded deviant sex from her. Of course this was after she had had the plaintiff thrown out of his home, taken his paternity rights, forced him into a lopsided divorce settlement, saddle him with a crippling child support obligations, attempted to addict his son to drugs and all the while denying him his paternal 50% access to his son.
15) When you handicap a runner at the start of the race, it is unfair to ask him to compete against healthy unencumbered entrants. And if the other entrants have directly benefited from the losses sustained by the handicap victim, it is that much more unfair. Fraus omnia corrumpit, fraud unravels all, once a contract is affected by fraud, all bets are off.
16) You might reasonably wonder what made the divorce so lopsided, what issue took away his paternity, what stole his liberty, what forced him into a crippling child support obligation, what denied him 50% access to his son?
17) I have been asking that “legal” and “constitutional” question since the inception of the issue. We made that objection in a timely fashion during the very first hearing for the full order of protection in November 2003, and we have made that objection repeatedly, subsequently and relentlessly since then, for 4 plus years now.
18) I was never charged with anything.
19) The 14th Amendment states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.[1]” I never had due Process of Law I was forced to accept the whim of a definitively incompetent would be Judge, commissioner Jones, because those responsible for his actions his employers the "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc failed to do their job.
20) The ex-parte and full order of protection were both legally and constitutionally deficient on their face. Neither the ex-parte or the full order of protection list anything specific as regards the “nature and cause of the accusation.[2]”
21) You see the full order of protection was the only cause for the lopsidedness of the settlement.
22) An order of protection, knocks a man off his feet, cripples him if you will at the start of what could be the most important legal battle of his life, a disputed divorce. The 5th Amendment to the constitution was written to address this kind of infamous[3] emotionally charged, self-serving allegation. An ex parte order of protection, denies even the smallest concession to Due Process of Law. The subsequent hearing for the full order of protection thus needs to be scrupulously true to the respondent’s rights to full Due Process of Law.
23) I again state affirmatively that is the very legal and constitutional question I am asking the definitively incompetent would be judge, Commissioner Jones, and his "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employers Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc and the United States Court of Appeals, FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, St. Louis DIVISION to tell me? I was never charged with anything specifically as regards the “infamous crime.[4]” I was never presented “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation[5].” I was never served “a presentment or indictment[6].” I was never “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation[7].” In that I never had a presentment, I was then never confronted with the witnesses against[8]” me on the undefined issues.
24) Contrary to the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment to the Constitution, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,[9]” my paternity, my life, my liberty and my property were all taken from me without access to Due Process of Law by the definitively incompetent would be judge commissioner Jones with approval of his "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employers Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc.
25) There is no issue with States having control of “Civil/Divorce.” The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,[10]” my paternity, my life, my liberty and my property were all taken from me without access to Due Process of Law by the definitively incompetent would be judge commissioner Jones with approval of his "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employers Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc. I do not care what they call it Divorce, Civil, or the laws of pinochle, the 14th Amendment says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,[11]” This is not a state’s rights issue, this is a constitutional rights issue.
26) The original petition, the ex parte order of protection on the face of it was deficient as an adequate indictment prior to the ex parte order of protection nor was there a formal finding of facts to appeal or contend after the hearing and the subsequent full order of protection.
27) The abuse hearing and the divorce issue are statutorily separate. All though to separate them you would have to have a magic wand. When you knee cap one of the two contestants in a foot race at the starting line there is no way that is not going to have an effect who wins the race.
28) You let me take away your paternity, your property, your home, your liberty and your everything and award it by default to your adversary, let’s see how well you compete against the recipient of your paternity, your property, your home, your liberty and your everything in a subsequent 2 person legal foot race, a divorce.
29) The whole process of Divorce becomes mute when one party has already been awarded your paternity, your property, your home, your liberty and your everything and you are forced to fight for scraps.
30) Additionally I had no need to ask any of the questions in the divorce issue, because I was never charged with any of those issues?
31) The “Full order of Protection” took on an all-consuming life of its own. I could not object to it, I could not appeal it; I was unconstitutionally forced to accept it. The divorce was merely a codicil to the “Full Order of Protection.”
32) Within Missouri’s 21st District Court en banc incompetence breeds and approves of incompetence, there is no realistic administration as required from a "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employer with direct oversight and approval responsibility for their subordinate, family commissioner’s, actions.
33) The ex parte order of protection and the subsequent full order of protection were both the result of the denial of my 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment to the Constitutional Rights.
34) Since the divorce was the direct product of and subsequent to the unconstitutional denial of my rights as defined by the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment to the constitution, the divorce is also unconstitutionally the fruit of that denial.
35) I repeat and affirm my paternity, my everything, my liberty, my property, virtually my life was taken from me on an unconstitutional[12] whim outside the due Process of Law by the commissioner Jones with the approval of his "respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") employers Missouri’s 21st District Court Judges en banc.
36) Because this denial so dramatically crippled the defendant at the inception of this issue, the plaintiff herewith seeks damages for pain and suffering from the inception of this issue through the present under color of law per the 1983 Civil Rights Act from Missouri’s 21st District Court en banc as his remedy.
37) The Plaintiff seeks damages from the defendant Sharon G. Jeep for the fraud, she perpetrated under color of law[13] and that Sharon G. Jeep has since recanted. In civil and contract law I state, fraus omnia corrumpit, fraud negates everything, fraud unravels it all. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.
Amendment 4 - 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.
Amendment 5 - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 6 - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment 14 - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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….
TITLE 42 CHAPTER 21 SUBCHAPTER I § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Monday, January 28, 2008
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
_____________________________________ David G. Jeep
[1] 14th Amendment to the Constitution
[2] 6th Amendment to the Constitution
[3] 5th Amendment to the Constitution
[4] 5th Amendment to the Constitution
[5] 4th Amendment to the Constitution
[6] 5th Amendment to the Constitution
[7] 6th Amendment to the Constitution
[8] 6th Amendment to the Constitution
[9] 14th Amendment to the Constitution
[10] 14th Amendment to the Constitution
[11] 14th Amendment to the Constitution
[12] 1983 Civil Rights Action
[13] 1983 Civil rights Action
Thanks in advance,
"Time is of the essence".
David G. Jeep
Dave@DGJeep.com
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Dyslexia and ADD HD are Assets Not Disabilities.
Do you know the difference between Euclidian and Non-Euclidian Geometry? In the past, we believed in the absolute truth of Euclidian Geometry. In Euclidian Geometry, you have straight lines that go on infinitely forever perfectly strait. Those that believe in Euclidian Geometry, have great power in the small confines of a room or a building. Carpenters and Engineers are proponents and experts in Euclidian Geometry. But Euclidian Geometry does not work in the real word of Particle Theory, Light, Gravitation Forces or Planetary Movement. Nothing in the real world is absolutely straight. And once we step outside of our small room, we realize we live in a non Euclidian World.
Although we live in a non-Euclidian world, we are still in the process of evolving out of our shadowy past a Euclidian World. We know and accept the world is not flat. In education, we use to believe that the only way to educate was to line up desks in straight lines and force-feed the rote memorization of facts. Those that could not sit up at attention, read up to speed, or regurgitate the facts were labeled disabled.
We are learning that not everybody learns best by sitting with their hands folded at attention in desks lined up in rows. Some people need to fidget, to rock back and forth, to pace, and to move. There is nothing wrong with that. Just because some people feel the need to move (ADD/HD) more than others do, this is not a disability, it is just a different characteristic, like skin color, hair color or eye color. I still find it very difficult to sit still. I have a need to get up to move, to fidget, and to pace. I do not do well in offices. I like to be outside, I have learned to focus my over abundance of energy now and I use it for my own purposes. I am not just bouncing off walls and rules as I did in my youth. My father helped me to focus.
I think Dyslexia is not so much a mysterious problem with words as it is a more generic problem of grasping the concept of an absolute. A less biased unemotional manifestation of the characteristic would be an inability to distinguish your right hand from your left. That is an enormous concept with an overwhelming influence on everyday life. My mom bought me a watch and put it on the left hand so I could tell the difference. But then I could never remember which hand I put it on. When you overlay that inability to “words”, it is hard to tell a “b” from a “d”. And reading becomes a struggle to remember rather than the near instinctual reaction of a speed reader.
Statisticians always like to relate dyslexia to criminals. Criminals have a much higher rate of Dyslexia than law-abiding citizens do. If you again overlay the concept of an absolute to being able to tell right from wrong it again becomes clear. Teaching right and wrong, there is no substitute for good parenting. I am just thankful everyday that I had a Father that would sit with me, a bottomless resource of patience. He taught with love and patience and I learned.
Now if you take the inability to grasp an absolute in another direction you come up with what I see as it’s intrinsic value, it becomes an asset. Leonardo DaVinci has been called dyslectic. Einstein has been called dyslectic. Mark Twain has been called dyslectic. Thomas Edison has been called dyslectic. Picasso has been called dyslectic. All of these individuals have stepped outside the confinement of the box, the absolute, if you will. Our society, our education system has a vested interest of self-preservation. Our society our educational system wants to keep us in the box. But to be creative you have to be able to reject the “absolute” of society’s, of the school’s accepted thinking to break new ground and discover new ideas that are not presently accepted. A larger than normal percentage of truly creative people are diagnosed as dyslectic.
For me my inability to grasp an absolute has forced me to be a more thorough thinker. I cannot, I repeat, I cannot, regurgitate facts. I have to be able to prove something to myself in my own mind before I can grasp it well enough to attempt to repeat it. To this day, I have to imagine myself throwing a baseball to be able to distinguish my left hand from my right hand. In my early years at school this was a real disability, it slowed me down. But I as matured, I found it to be an asset and it has help me to excel in the real non-Euclidian world. When we got to the point where we had to truly think to solve problems in school, I was good at it. My fellows students that not been forced to “think” all along had trouble with the more complex problems of our world. They just wanted the list of answers to memorize. In college, they gravitated to business and the soft sciences to keep it simple.
The written word is not an endangered species by any means. But we are exploring other tools for communication. We are using multi-media both within a school environment as an instructional tool and our kids are learning to use it as a tool for individual expression. My 6th grade son made a “Power Point” presentation last year. In the “New Information Age”, we are learning that we can electronically save, remember, and regurgitate facts much better with silica (computers) than we can with grey matter (brainpower).
What we have to do is to free our society and our schools of these old out of date absolutes. We have to abandon the Euclidian Geometry of our past. We have to allow for individuality and learning in individual ways. We have to value thinking outside the norm, the absolute. We have to teach our kids how to focus their over abundant mental and physical energy into positive avenues not stifle it with drugs. My father taught me with love and patience. We need to see Dyslexia and ADD/HD as the assets they true should be.
Time is of the essence.
David G. Jeep
314-277-5904/ fax 314-272-1223
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
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.")
Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!
EASTERN DIVISION
DAVID JEEP,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 4:07CV1116 CEJ
PHILIP JONES, SR., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the application of David Jeep for leave to
commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Upon consideration of the financial information provided with the application, the Court finds that plaintiff is financially unable to pay any portion of the filing fee. As a result, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Additionally, the Court has reviewed the complaint and will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauper is if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in Monday July 02, 2007
-2-
support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45- 46 (1957). In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the judges of the Twenty- First Judicial Circuit Court (County of St. Louis, Missouri), and against his ex-wife for alleged violations of his right to due process. Plaintiff alleges that, during the dissolution of marriage proceedings, his wife fraudulently obtained an ex parte order of protection and that the orders in that case were all created by Commissioner Jones and then “rubber stamped” by the circuit court judges. Plaintiff seeks a new hearing on his divorce, custody of his son, and monetary damages.
Upon review of the complaint, the Court initially finds that it lacks jurisdiction over
the subject matter of this case, i.e., marriage dissolution and child custody. 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."). Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates dismissal of an action whenever it appears that the court lacks subject matter
-3-
jurisdiction. The Court further concludes that dismissal of the claims asserted against the judges is warranted because they are “entitled to absolute immunity for all judicial actions that are not ‘taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction.’” Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991). Consequently, this action will be dismissed as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause
process to issue upon the complaint because the complaint is legally frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both.
process to issue upon the complaint because the complaint is legally frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or both.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED as frivolous and for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An appropriate order of dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Dated this 19th day of June, 2007.
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An appropriate order of dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Dated this 19th day of June, 2007.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
US District Court, Eastern District of Missouri ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
______________DIVISION
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs.Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr., Sharon G. Jeep (ex), Joseph A. Goeke , Robert S. Cohen , Michael T. Jamison , Emmett M. O'Brien , Steven H. Goldman , Barbara W. Wallace , James R. 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 and Gary Krautmann, Legal Counsel to the Circuit Clerk, State of Missouri, St. Louis County Defendants )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Case No.___________________________(To be assigned by Clerkof District Court)
I. COMPLAINT
1. This issue is closely linked to another issue. It is not that I want the two related or that they should be related, but because of society’s bias and distaste for drinking and abuse, the two have been inextricably linked. The issues are a DWI and an unwarranted order of protection that has had a dramatic effect on my divorce, my life, my son and my resources. I beg your indulgence. We no longer discriminate on the basis of skin color, but accuse someone of drinking and abusing their wife and they have no rights. It is too easy to effect an allegation of drinking and abuse in to a conviction or a court order.
2. I am claiming damages based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the 1983 Civil Rights Act. I was thrown out of my house, my property was taken from me, and my rights to my paternity were taken from me all without access to due process of law.
II. Plaintiff,
1. David G. Jeep
16359D Lakefield Place Drive
Grover, MO 63040
Phone 314-277-5904 / 636-458-4289
III. Defendant,
1. Joseph A. Goeke , Robert S. Cohen , Michael T. Jamison , Emmett M. O'Brien , Steven H. Goldman , Barbara W. Wallace , James R. 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, State of Missouri and St. Louis County.
℅ Gary Krautmann,
Legal Counsel to the Circuit Clerk
St. Louis County Circuit Court, Clerk's Office
7900 Carondelet
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone Number: 314-615-8029
Fax Telephone Number: 314-615-8739
2. Sharon G. Jeep
16325 Centerpointe Drive
Grover, MO 63040
Represented by attorney
James J. Robinson
215 Chesterfield Business Parkway, Suite "A"
Chesterfield, MO 63005-1226
Phone (636) 530-9199,
Fax (636) 530-6805
IV. Statement of claim:
1. The right to Due Process is immediately vested; you do not have to beg for it. The courts are obligated to provided it per 14th Amendment “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.”
2. The issue has never been heard by a Judge. All rulings to date have been the work of a would be Judge, Commissioner Jones and rubber stamped by real judges. Commissioner Jones is not a Judge, he is not an elected official, he is a hired hand of the Elected Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court, and thus all of the Judges of the St. Louis County Court have responsibility for his actions.
3. The Federal Courts have a system of Magistrate Judges, but the system has integral to it and up front agreement of both parties to a Magistrate Judge, it is not forced on anyone.
4. The original complaint on the face of it had no credibility and should never have been signed as an exparte order or protection. There was no specific complaint of abuse.
5. During the trial over the timely objections of my attorney, the Commissioner allowed testimony outside the scope of the original the Ex Parte Order of Protection and thus allowed surprise denied “Due Process.”.
6. After the subsequent unfounded ruling, the we made two specific motions, both asking for the definition of the new charges and a hearing on the new charges before a judge. All motions were denied and we were denied “Due Process.”.
7. This action by a would be judge denies the respondent his basic right to have the issue heard by a Judge, it denies “Due Process.”
8. The action because the respondent was not afforded prior knowledge of the charges was not allowed any time to make a defense of said “surprise” charges, denies “Due Process.”
9. In that, the charges were never specifically in writing enumerated, just ruled on. There was nothing to credibly appeal or defend against in the Divorce. There were new charges totally unrelated to the prior charges vaguely referenced to in the divorce proceedings deny “Due Process.”.
10. All issues adjudicated to date have been based on fraud. Fraud unravels it all (fraus omnia corrumpit). 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.
V. Relief:
1. I want the charges specifically enumerated and I want a chance to confront my accuser in court on the charges.
2. I want a new hearing on the divorced based on the fraud my ex-wife has perpetrated on the court to date. I want a new divorce hearing based on the results of the corrected ex parte order of protection and the fraud perpetrated and enforced with complicity by the Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court Fraud unravels it all (fraus omnia corrumpit). 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.
3. After the new hearing and when I have disproved all charges. I want compensation for the fraud perpetrated by my ex-wife and enforced by the incompetents of the Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court, St. Louis County and the State of Missouri.
4. In that all issues to date have a basis in fraud, I want a ruling from the court in my favor. I want the house and settlement for damages.
5. I want the right to custody of my son as the primary custodial parent. Custody of my son Patrick B. Jeep is the major issue. I want the current holiday plan to remain in effect. I want my son to reside at his house with me on a weekly basis the up side of the standard Zigenthaller plan, my ex-wife his mother getting every other weekend and every Wednesday during the school years and rotating weeks and Wednesdays in the summer.
VI. MONEY DAMAGES:
A) Do you claim either actual or punitive monetary damages for the acts alleged in this complaint?
YES o NO o
B) If your answer to "A" is YES, state below the amount claimed and the reason or reasons you believe you are entitled to recover such money damages:
Denial of my Parental rights for 4 years @ $50,000/yr. $200,000.00
Fraudulent denial of my property 4 years @ $50,000/yr. $200,000.00
Defamation of character $200,000.00
Half our assets at our separation $250,000.00
For a total of $850,000.00
Less the cost of our house at the time of the divorce ($245,000.00)
Less the half the cost of furnishings ($60,000.00)
$545,000.00
After an inspection of the house to see that it has not been damaged, I want the house and $545,000.00 from my ex-wife.
I will be asking for punitive damages, I think without them, the unseen criminals in the management of the enumerated criminals will not learn from this lesson.
Do you maintain that the wrongs alleged in the complaint are continuing to occur at the present time?
YES o NO o
I want primary custodial care of my son.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this 5th day of June, 2007
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
_________________________________________ David G. Jeep
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
______________DIVISION
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs.Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr., Sharon G. Jeep (ex), Joseph A. Goeke , Robert S. Cohen , Michael T. Jamison , Emmett M. O'Brien , Steven H. Goldman , Barbara W. Wallace , James R. 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 and Gary Krautmann, Legal Counsel to the Circuit Clerk, State of Missouri, St. Louis County Defendants )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Case No.___________________________(To be assigned by Clerkof District Court)
I. COMPLAINT
1. This issue is closely linked to another issue. It is not that I want the two related or that they should be related, but because of society’s bias and distaste for drinking and abuse, the two have been inextricably linked. The issues are a DWI and an unwarranted order of protection that has had a dramatic effect on my divorce, my life, my son and my resources. I beg your indulgence. We no longer discriminate on the basis of skin color, but accuse someone of drinking and abusing their wife and they have no rights. It is too easy to effect an allegation of drinking and abuse in to a conviction or a court order.
2. I am claiming damages based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the 1983 Civil Rights Act. I was thrown out of my house, my property was taken from me, and my rights to my paternity were taken from me all without access to due process of law.
II. Plaintiff,
1. David G. Jeep
16359D Lakefield Place Drive
Grover, MO 63040
Phone 314-277-5904 / 636-458-4289
III. Defendant,
1. Joseph A. Goeke , Robert S. Cohen , Michael T. Jamison , Emmett M. O'Brien , Steven H. Goldman , Barbara W. Wallace , James R. 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, State of Missouri and St. Louis County.
℅ Gary Krautmann,
Legal Counsel to the Circuit Clerk
St. Louis County Circuit Court, Clerk's Office
7900 Carondelet
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone Number: 314-615-8029
Fax Telephone Number: 314-615-8739
2. Sharon G. Jeep
16325 Centerpointe Drive
Grover, MO 63040
Represented by attorney
James J. Robinson
215 Chesterfield Business Parkway, Suite "A"
Chesterfield, MO 63005-1226
Phone (636) 530-9199,
Fax (636) 530-6805
IV. Statement of claim:
1. The right to Due Process is immediately vested; you do not have to beg for it. The courts are obligated to provided it per 14th Amendment “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.”
2. The issue has never been heard by a Judge. All rulings to date have been the work of a would be Judge, Commissioner Jones and rubber stamped by real judges. Commissioner Jones is not a Judge, he is not an elected official, he is a hired hand of the Elected Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court, and thus all of the Judges of the St. Louis County Court have responsibility for his actions.
3. The Federal Courts have a system of Magistrate Judges, but the system has integral to it and up front agreement of both parties to a Magistrate Judge, it is not forced on anyone.
4. The original complaint on the face of it had no credibility and should never have been signed as an exparte order or protection. There was no specific complaint of abuse.
5. During the trial over the timely objections of my attorney, the Commissioner allowed testimony outside the scope of the original the Ex Parte Order of Protection and thus allowed surprise denied “Due Process.”.
6. After the subsequent unfounded ruling, the we made two specific motions, both asking for the definition of the new charges and a hearing on the new charges before a judge. All motions were denied and we were denied “Due Process.”.
7. This action by a would be judge denies the respondent his basic right to have the issue heard by a Judge, it denies “Due Process.”
8. The action because the respondent was not afforded prior knowledge of the charges was not allowed any time to make a defense of said “surprise” charges, denies “Due Process.”
9. In that, the charges were never specifically in writing enumerated, just ruled on. There was nothing to credibly appeal or defend against in the Divorce. There were new charges totally unrelated to the prior charges vaguely referenced to in the divorce proceedings deny “Due Process.”.
10. All issues adjudicated to date have been based on fraud. Fraud unravels it all (fraus omnia corrumpit). 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.
V. Relief:
1. I want the charges specifically enumerated and I want a chance to confront my accuser in court on the charges.
2. I want a new hearing on the divorced based on the fraud my ex-wife has perpetrated on the court to date. I want a new divorce hearing based on the results of the corrected ex parte order of protection and the fraud perpetrated and enforced with complicity by the Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court Fraud unravels it all (fraus omnia corrumpit). 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.
3. After the new hearing and when I have disproved all charges. I want compensation for the fraud perpetrated by my ex-wife and enforced by the incompetents of the Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court, St. Louis County and the State of Missouri.
4. In that all issues to date have a basis in fraud, I want a ruling from the court in my favor. I want the house and settlement for damages.
5. I want the right to custody of my son as the primary custodial parent. Custody of my son Patrick B. Jeep is the major issue. I want the current holiday plan to remain in effect. I want my son to reside at his house with me on a weekly basis the up side of the standard Zigenthaller plan, my ex-wife his mother getting every other weekend and every Wednesday during the school years and rotating weeks and Wednesdays in the summer.
VI. MONEY DAMAGES:
A) Do you claim either actual or punitive monetary damages for the acts alleged in this complaint?
YES o NO o
B) If your answer to "A" is YES, state below the amount claimed and the reason or reasons you believe you are entitled to recover such money damages:
Denial of my Parental rights for 4 years @ $50,000/yr. $200,000.00
Fraudulent denial of my property 4 years @ $50,000/yr. $200,000.00
Defamation of character $200,000.00
Half our assets at our separation $250,000.00
For a total of $850,000.00
Less the cost of our house at the time of the divorce ($245,000.00)
Less the half the cost of furnishings ($60,000.00)
$545,000.00
After an inspection of the house to see that it has not been damaged, I want the house and $545,000.00 from my ex-wife.
I will be asking for punitive damages, I think without them, the unseen criminals in the management of the enumerated criminals will not learn from this lesson.
Do you maintain that the wrongs alleged in the complaint are continuing to occur at the present time?
YES o NO o
I want primary custodial care of my son.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this 5th day of June, 2007
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
_________________________________________ David G. Jeep
Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJState Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M ED84021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
______________DIVISION
Plaintiff, vs. Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr., Sharon G. Jeep (ex), Joseph A. Goeke , Robert S. Cohen , Michael T. Jamison , Emmett M. O'Brien , Steven H. Goldman , Barbara W. Wallace , James R. 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 and Gary Krautmann, Legal Counsel to the Circuit Clerk, State of Missouri, St. Louis County Defendants | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) | Case No.___________________________ (To be assigned by Clerk of District Court) |
I. COMPLAINT
1. This issue is closely linked to another issue. It is not that I want the two related or that they should be related, but because of society’s bias and distaste for drinking and abuse, the two have been inextricably linked. The issues are a DWI and an unwarranted order of protection that has had a dramatic effect on my divorce, my life, my son and my resources. I beg your indulgence. We no longer discriminate on the basis of skin color, but accuse someone of drinking and abusing their wife and they have no rights. It is too easy to effect an allegation of drinking and abuse in to a conviction or a court order.
2. I am claiming damages based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the 1983 Civil Rights Act. I was thrown out of my house, my property was taken from me, and my rights to my paternity were taken from me all without access to due process of law.
II. Plaintiff,
1. David G. Jeep
16359D Lakefield Place Drive
Grover, MO 63040
Phone 314-277-5904 / 636-458-4289
III. Defendant,
1. Joseph A. Goeke , Robert S. Cohen , Michael T. Jamison , Emmett M. O'Brien , Steven H. Goldman , Barbara W. Wallace , James R. 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, State of Missouri and St. Louis County.
℅ Gary Krautmann,
Legal Counsel to the Circuit Clerk
St. Louis County Circuit Court, Clerk's Office
7900 Carondelet
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone Number: 314-615-8029
Fax Telephone Number: 314-615-8739
2. Sharon G. Jeep
16325 Centerpointe Drive
Grover, MO 63040
Represented by attorney
James J. Robinson
215 Chesterfield Business Parkway, Suite "A"
Chesterfield, MO 63005-1226
Phone (636) 530-9199,
Fax (636) 530-6805
IV. Statement of claim:
1. The right to Due Process is immediately vested; you do not have to beg for it. The courts are obligated to provided it per 14th Amendment “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.”
2. The issue has never been heard by a Judge. All rulings to date have been the work of a would be Judge, Commissioner Jones and rubber stamped by real judges. Commissioner Jones is not a Judge, he is not an elected official, he is a hired hand of the Elected Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court, and thus all of the Judges of the St. Louis County Court have responsibility for his actions.
3. The Federal Courts have a system of Magistrate Judges, but the system has integral to it and up front agreement of both parties to a Magistrate Judge, it is not forced on anyone.
4. The original complaint on the face of it had no credibility and should never have been signed as an exparte order or protection. There was no specific complaint of abuse.
5. During the trial over the timely objections of my attorney, the Commissioner allowed testimony outside the scope of the original the Ex Parte Order of Protection and thus allowed surprise denied “Due Process.”.
6. After the subsequent unfounded ruling, the we made two specific motions, both asking for the definition of the new charges and a hearing on the new charges before a judge. All motions were denied and we were denied “Due Process.”.
7. This action by a would be judge denies the respondent his basic right to have the issue heard by a Judge, it denies “Due Process.”
8. The action because the respondent was not afforded prior knowledge of the charges was not allowed any time to make a defense of said “surprise” charges, denies “Due Process.”
9. In that, the charges were never specifically in writing enumerated, just ruled on. There was nothing to credibly appeal or defend against in the Divorce. There were new charges totally unrelated to the prior charges vaguely referenced to in the divorce proceedings deny “Due Process.”.
10. All issues adjudicated to date have been based on fraud. Fraud unravels it all (fraus omnia corrumpit). 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.
V. Relief:
1. I want the charges specifically enumerated and I want a chance to confront my accuser in court on the charges.
2. I want a new hearing on the divorced based on the fraud my ex-wife has perpetrated on the court to date. I want a new divorce hearing based on the results of the corrected ex parte order of protection and the fraud perpetrated and enforced with complicity by the Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court Fraud unravels it all (fraus omnia corrumpit). 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.
3. After the new hearing and when I have disproved all charges. I want compensation for the fraud perpetrated by my ex-wife and enforced by the incompetents of the Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court, St. Louis County and the State of Missouri.
4. In that all issues to date have a basis in fraud, I want a ruling from the court in my favor. I want the house and settlement for damages.
5. I want the right to custody of my son as the primary custodial parent. Custody of my son Patrick B. Jeep is the major issue. I want the current holiday plan to remain in effect. I want my son to reside at his house with me on a weekly basis the up side of the standard Zigenthaller plan, my ex-wife his mother getting every other weekend and every Wednesday during the school years and rotating weeks and Wednesdays in the summer.
VI. MONEY DAMAGES:
A) Do you claim either actual or punitive monetary damages for the acts alleged in this complaint?
YES o NO o
B) If your answer to "A" is YES, state below the amount claimed and the reason or reasons you believe you are entitled to recover such money damages:
Denial of my Parental rights for 4 years @ $50,000/yr. $200,000.00
Fraudulent denial of my property 4 years @ $50,000/yr. $200,000.00
Defamation of character $200,000.00
Half our assets at our separation $250,000.00
For a total of $850,000.00
Less the cost of our house at the time of the divorce ($245,000.00)
Less the half the cost of furnishings ($60,000.00)
$545,000.00
After an inspection of the house to see that it has not been damaged, I want the house and $545,000.00 from my ex-wife.
I will be asking for punitive damages, I think without them, the unseen criminals in the management of the enumerated criminals will not learn from this lesson.
Do you maintain that the wrongs alleged in the complaint are continuing to occur at the present time?
YES o NO o
I want primary custodial care of my son.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this 5th day of June, 2007
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
_________________________________________ David G. Jeep
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)