Motion for rehearing of denial Appeal: 10-1947 With ADDED INFO

UNITED STATES 8^th DISTRICT

COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

St. Louis DIVISION

David G. Jeep,          Plaintiff,             vs. United States of America, et al             Defendants	) ) ) ) ) ) ) )	Case No.    Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM _  Appeal:     10-1947    _

Motion for rehearing of denial

This is a pro se appeal.  I site Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932) Page 287 U. S. 397-398 :

“If this extreme position could be deemed to be well taken, it is manifest that the fiat of a state governor (a federal officer, a state judge, a state prosecutor, a police officer, a spouse) and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases, the futility of which the state may at any time disclose by the simple process of transferring powers of legislation to the Governor to be exercised by him, beyond control, upon his assertion of necessity. Under our system of government, such a conclusion is obviously untenable. There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution. When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state (a federal officer, a state judge, a state prosecutor, a police officer, a spouse) power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the federal judicial power extends (Article III, § 2), and, so extending, the Court has all the authority appropriate to its exercise.” (emphasis added)

There is evidence in the petition of a “substantial showing that the exertion of state (and /or a federal officer, a state judge, a state prosecutor, a police officer, a spouse) power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the federal judicial power extends (Article III, § 2), and, so extending, the Court has all the authority appropriate to its exercise.”

I assert Federal Jurisdiction under Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 85, Section § 1331. Federal question

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

I am asserting the protection of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments, Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights: 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signed this Thursday, July 01, 2010

Signature of Plaintiff(s)

Dave@DGJeep.com

_________________________________________

                            David G. Jeep

Friday, July 02, 2010

Michael E. Gans, Clerk of Court

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk's Office

Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse

111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329

St. Louis, MO 63102

PHONE: (314) 244-2400

Re:  Appeal: 10-1947   

        Case No. 4:10-CV-101-TCM[1]

       

Dear Mr. Gans,

I would ask that this letter and attachment be added to my motion for a rehearing. 

In reviewing the appeal denial I noticed the statement “The court has carefully reviewed the original file of the United States District Court”.  I find that unbelievable, I am sorry.  All of the referenced issues included and are based on the enclosed document, the original hand written fraudulent Adult Abuse Petition for Order of Protection, dated November 3, 2003.

This petition is fraudulent and malicious on its face.  It is fraudulent because nowhere on it does reference any abuse, probable cause.  The court NEVER HAD JURISDICTION.  Not that it makes any difference, she was queried about that at the hearing on November 19, 2003, she offered no additional information.

The only thing listed on the petition at all incriminating to myself is her “hear say” third party account of an incident in traffic court in Camden County, from 30 days prior and 150 miles away, SHE WAS NOT EVEN PRESENT during this alleged abuse.  That is not something that she has any right to claim abuse from.  AGAIN SHE WAS NOT EVEN IN THE COURT ROOM AT THE TIME, by her own declaration.  It is a fraudulent petition for protection order, because per the statute it must show “for good cause shown in the petition[2]”.  It lists NONE!  Per the United States Constitution Amendment IV, “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation.”  There is NO probable cause supported by Oath or Affirmation.  It lists NONE!

She knew what she was doing.  She can read.  She had HELP, both professional help via the Court Clerk’s Office[3] and a private attorney.  It therefore is fraudulent and VOID as a petition for an Order of Protection.  It is as if I wrote up a petition for a warrant for your arrest on a charge Murder because I heard some say you had been speeding.  It makes NO SENSE. 

What she was doing, was attempting to fraudulently and maliciously manipulate a Judge to have me thrown out of my house, take away my son, to make her position in the subsequent divorce more secure.  It happens all the time, because Judges like Goeke and Inferior Court Commissioner Jones hand out Orders of Protection like party favors to anyone that asks for them.  That is a violation of my constitutional rights, I say again Per the United States Constitution 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.”

Judge Goeke and Commissioner Jones issuing the Fraudulent, Malicious, and Corrupt Order was an act of delegated authority contrary to the tenor of their commission[4], i.e. to uphold the law, support and defend the constitution (Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 455, Abuse--Adults and Children--Shelters and Protective Orders section 455.035 and United States Constitution Amendment IV).  The Petition and Court Order were both fraudulent and corrupted before I was forced into court unconstitutionally.  I do not even need to attempted to prove the additional ongoing corruption and constitutional denials in 8^th Circuit Court of Appeal 08-1823 regarding the DWI conviction.

Additionally I assert pro se individuals right to the protection of Harmless Error for something minor that I might be missing.

Time is of the essence.  If there is anything further, I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

Dave@DGJeep.com

David G. Jeep

enclosure

            Adult Abuse Petition for Order of Protection, dated November 3, 2003

cc: file

---

[1] Writ of Certiorari 07-11115, Appeal 07-2614, Federal Court ED of Missouri 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, State of Missouri Appeal E. D. No. 84021, Original Cause No. 03FC-010670

[2] Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 455, Abuse--Adults and Children--Shelters and Protective Orders section 455.035, August 28, 2009

[3] 455.025. Except as provided under section 455.030 (holidays), clerks under the supervision of a circuit clerk shall explain to litigants not represented by counsel the procedures for filing all forms and pleadings necessary for the presentation of their petition to the court. Notice of the fact that clerks will provide such assistance shall be conspicuously posted in the clerks' offices. The location of the office where a petition can be filed shall be conspicuously posted in the court building.

[4] Paraphrasing of a quote from Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #78

Thanks in advance,
"We live in a Lawless Society...
Time is of the essence".
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
Dave@DGJeep.com
DGJeep@DGJeep.com

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT -- DENIAL No: 10-1947

United States Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329 St. Louis, Missouri 63102

Michael E. Gans Clerk of Court

VOICE (314) 244-2400FAX (314) 244-2780 www.ca8.uscourts.gov

June 30, 2010

Mr. David Gerard Jeep

THE BRIDGE 36072-044

1610 Olive Street St. Louis,

MO 63103-2316

RE: 10-1947 David Jeep v. Jack Bennett, et al Dear Mr. Jeep:

Enclosed is a copy of the dispositive order in the referenced appeal. Please note that FRAP 40 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires any petition for rehearing to be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. Counsel-filed petitions must be filed electronically in CM/ECF. Paper copies are not required. This court strictly enforces the 14 day period. No grace period for mailing is granted for pro-se-filed petitions. A petition for rehearing or a motion for an extension of time must be filed with the Clerk's office within the 14 day period.

Michael E. Gans Clerk of Court

MER

Enclosure(s) cc: Mr. James G. Woodward

District Court/Agency Case Number(s): 4:10-cv-00101-TCM Case: 10-1947 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2010 Entry ID: 3679423

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________________ No: 10-1947 ___________________

David Gerard Jeep Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Jack Bennett, Associate Circuit Judge, Camden County; Devin M. Ledom, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Camden County; Alex Little, Police Officer, #920, City of Osage Beach; Tim Taylor, Police Officer, #913, City of Osage Beach; W. Steven Rives, Prosecuting Attorney; W. James Icenogle, Prosecuting Attorney; Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge; Jay Nixon, Attorney General, State of Missouri; Camden County; City of Osage Beach Defendants - Appellees

___________________________________________________________________________

Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

(4:10-cv-00101-TCM)

___________________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

The court has carefully reviewed the original file of the United States District Court and orders that this appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.

June 30, 2010

Order Entered at the Direction of the Court: Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. ____________________________________ /s/ Michael E. Gans

Case: 10-1947 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2010 Entry ID: 3679423

When did we authorize our Judges to become tyrants?

Tue, June 8, 2010 12:45:22 PM

When did we authorize our Judges to become tyrants?

...

From:	David G. Jeep ...
To:	Ratmond M. Meyer ; Barack Obama ; Barack Obama ; Claire Mccaskill ; David Plouffe ... more

---

Monday, June 07, 2010

Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Supreme Court of the United States

One First Street N.E.

Washington, DC 20543

Re: When did we authorize our Judges to become tyrants?                   

       A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

Dear Justice Sotomayor,

Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #84 defined “the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny” as “The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments”

He was at the time defending “The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY…” as he proposed, precluding the need for a Bill of Rights in the newly drafted though not ratified Constitution for the United States of America. 

Our Judiciary became tyrants when they repealed the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY with the establishment of the Judge Made Law of Absolute Judicial Immunity.  I quote from Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) “This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it “is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of (the people being robbed and disenfranchised) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty (to act without regard to the law or the rights of “We the People”) to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.” ((Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.) & (Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)Page 386 U. S. 554).  Bradley authorized the Judiciary as follows, I again quote “a judge of a criminal court, invested with general criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed within a certain district, should hold a particular act to be a public offense, which is not by the law made an offense[1], and proceed to the arrest and trial of a party charged with such act, or should sentence a party convicted to a greater punishment than that authorized by the law[2] upon its proper construction, no personal liability[3] to civil action for such acts would attach to the judge” Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 335 (1871) Page 80 U. S. 352

Judges admit, with their hubris unrestrained, some of them are going to be “malicious or corrupt,” we have to endure them for the greater good.  The greater good is the denial of the Protection of the Laws, The Essence of Civil Liberty[4].  Judges, by their own self aggrandizing assertion, need to be able to act without regard to very laws “We the People” have established to limit their actions.  Judges assert they need to be able to act “with independence and without fear of consequences,” to be able to break the law, deny our RIGHTS at will and that “We the People” can or should do nothing to oppose them.  That is INSANITY!!!

The Rule of Law stands above the Judicial Power.  I quote from the Constitution for the United States of America Article III Section 2 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties.”  To remove that limitation with absolute immunity and put the Judicial Power above the Rule of the Constitution is unconscionable.  To put anyone above the constitution is unconscionable. 

I again quote from Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #78[5] “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.”  I quote from the Constitution for the United States of America Article III Section 2 “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” It is axiomatic “good Behavior” has to be submissive to “the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised.” 

In Bradley the court offered “If in the exercise of the powers with which they are clothed as ministers of justice they act with partiality, or maliciously, or corruptly, or arbitrarily, or oppressively, they may be called to an account by impeachment and suspended or removed from office.[6]”  That is all well and good if the act with “partiality, or maliciously, or corruptly, or arbitrarily, or oppressively” is at odds with the Majority or in the case of Senatorial Impeachment a cloture, Super Majority, to put down a filibuster. 

But how does the minority victim of an act with “partiality, or maliciously, or corruptly, or arbitrarily, or oppressively” get relief?  I quote from Bivens, “But it must also be recognized that the Bill of Rights is particularly intended to vindicate the interests of the individual in the face of the popular will as expressed in legislative majorities; at the very least.[7]”  It is minorities that need “The Protection of the Law[8]”, a majority has the strength of overwhelming numbers.  Again I agree with and quote from Bivens, “For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing.[9]”

Civilization has evolved from the law of the jungle, “survival of the fittest” to “an eye for an eye” to today “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.”  We no longer compete to the death, although litigation can at times seem like slow death.  We no longer ask for opposing parties to submit to mutilation.  What we do in VIRTUALLY all civilized countries is establish a dollar amount to compensate the victim for redress of grievances[10].    

The courts have long held that this will open the door to Judges being mulcted in damages.  I have to counter, not if the courts do their jobs.  I stress that on two levels, first that they not deny the rights, privileges or immunities secured by our Constitution and Laws and second that they not allow ANYONE to be mulcted by spurious suits.  For a clearer confirmation, I would quote Justice William O. Douglas’s dissent in Pierson v. Ray:

“The argument that the actions of public officials must not be subjected to judicial scrutiny because to do so would have an inhibiting effect[11] on their work is but a more sophisticated manner of saying "The King can do no wrong." Chief Justice Cockburn long ago disposed of the argument that liability would deter judges:

"I cannot believe that judges . . . would fail to discharge their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths and consciences . . . from any fear of exposing themselves to actions at law. I am persuaded that the number of such actions would be infinitely small, and would be easily disposed of. (Page 386 U. S. 566) While, on the other hand, I can easily conceive cases in which judicial opportunity might be so perverted and abused for the purpose of injustice as that, on sound principles, the authors of such wrong ought to be responsible to the parties wronged. Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, L.R. 5 Q.B. 94, 110 (1869) (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting) [12]".

As you are probably rapidly becoming aware I am asking for a redress of grievances on an ongoing issue in federal court.  I am asking you to step in to assist in the issue and bring it to a wider audience, the United States Supreme Court, for consideration. 

I ask you to accept this Petition for a Writ of Certiorari per the United States Code of Law directive in Title 28 § 2111 Harmless error, “On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”  Please consider this and by reference I include US Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 8^th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947. 

I seek damages and the Protection of the Laws, criminal law.  The issue is currently before the as US Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 8^th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947.  There is a thirty page brief on file with the court that explains the issue further.  I seek Redress of Grievances per the First Amendment.  I see that as damages. 

I will be honest; I did over a year (411 days) in Federal Custody on a trumpet up charge[13] that violated my Freedom of Speech.  I think there are parties to this action that need to do jail time.  If there are no criminal consequences to actions there are no crimes.  The Judges who made it all possible by conscientious indifference to the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process of Law, step outside of procedural and substantive Due Process[14] and “coram non judice”[15] ought to do time and our have a very large BLACK mark put on their records.  The incompetent police officers, that perjured[16] themselves and instigated the second issue, ought to do time.  The Prosecuting attorney that denied me exculpable material and suborned the perjury of the officers[17] ought to do time.  My ex-spouse as the originator of the Fraud[18], fraus omnia corrumpit, ought to do time. 

My existence is day to day.  I have been homeless since the fall of 2007.  These issues have taken everything from me.  “Except the Will which says: “Hold on![19]”  I have been living under the enormous strain of the denial of my basic human rights as a Father, a Person and a Citizen of the United States of America for too long.  I am in need of immediate relief of this burden. 

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

David G. Jeep

enclosure

      E-mail of Letter dated Monday May 17, 2010 to President Barack Obama

cc: President Barack Obama

      file

---

[1] “The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact” A Judge made law the repeal of the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws, US Constitution Section 9 - No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

[2] “the practice of arbitrary imprisonments” A Judge made law the repeal of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, US Constitution Section 9 - The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

[3] “no personal liability” A Judge made law the repeal of the Constitutional prohibition for a Title of Nobility.  Immunity is in fact a Title of Nobility in the terminology of Colonial Times and the Constitution of the United States of America

[4] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803) Page 5 U. S. 163

[5] I listed 84 originally.  The correction is Federalist Paper #78 Published 6/14/1788 11 Paragraph 1^st Sentence

[6] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 335 (1871) Page 80 U. S. 350

[7] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (Page 403 U. S. 407) "(Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co. v. May, 194 U. S. 267, 194 U. S. 270 (1904)).

[8] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803) Page 5 U. S. 163

[9] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (Page 403 U. S. 410)

[10] Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law… prohibiting… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[11] "Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980) Page 445 U. S. 657

[12] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), Page 386 U. S. 565-566

[13] See 4:09cr0659-CDP it was dismissed

[14] Dues Process of Law as prescribed by Amendments IV, V, VI and XIV of US Constitution

[15] Coram non judice, Latin for "not in the presence of a judge," is a legal term typically used to indicate a legal proceeding without a judge, with improper venue, or without jurisdiction.

[16] TITLE 18 § 1621. Perjury generally and § 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court not to mention Title 18 § 242 A criminal deprivation of Rights

[17] TITLE 18 § 1621. Perjury generally, § 1622. Subornation of perjury and § 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court not to mention Title 18 § 242 A criminal deprivation of Rights 

[18] As a matter of law, the defendant, Sharon G. Jeep, was acting “ex parte” under color of law as afforded a presumed victim of abuse, when she filed the fraudulent petition with the intent of having the plaintiff evicted from their home for self-serving reasons in her planned divorce action.  Thus, she denied the plaintiff his constitutional rights to Due Process of Law via fraud. TITLE 18 § 1621. Perjury generally and § 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court not to mention Title 18 § 242 A criminal deprivation of Rights

[19] Apologizes to Kipling for paraphrasing of his Poem “If”

We live in a Lawless Society via Eastern District Court of Missouri Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP Document #78, Attachments #(1) Exhibit, time stamped 3/25/2010, 5:30 PM CDT

We live in a Lawless Society

This started on November 3, 2003 with an illegal unconstitutional warrant / court order that took away my home, MY SON, and ultimately my livelihood. I was denied Due Process, not to mention Probable Cause.

I sought to bring this civil rights issue to the attention of the Federal Courts and was denied a remedy. Not because of the law, the constitution or the inalienable civil rights of man, but because of Judicial Immunity. I was denied my liberty and Free Speech.

Since my arrest on March 11, 2009 and over my objections starting on April 27, 2009 and continuing on to this day, I have been denied my right to a Speedy Trial!!!!!! Over a year now !!!!!![1]

We live in a lawless society where anyone from your spouse, to a traffic cop, to a would be judge, to a court house of state judges, to a federal magistrate judge, to an Article III federal Judge to the Supreme Court can take your inalienable[2] rights and you can not even talk about it, much less bring the issue to a public hearing!!!!!!! They all have immunity!!!!!!

Judges today are lawbreakers and criminals by their own acknowledgment and assertion. I quote from the Supreme Court opinion “This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of (the people being robbed and disenfranchised) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty (to act without regard to the law or the Rights of “We the People”) to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences."
-->((Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350) Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Page 386 U. S. 554)”
They admit and acknowledge some of them are going to be “malicious or corrupt,” we have to endure them for our own good. But even those that are not “malicious or corrupt” need the “independence” to act without regard to the very laws “We the People” have established. They assert they need to be able to act “without fear of consequences.” They assert they need to be able to break the law deny our rights at will and that “we the People” can or should do nothing to oppose them.



Reprinted from Handwritten March 16, 2010 Original

Eastern District Court of Missouri

Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP

Document #78, Attachments #(1) Exhibit, time stamped 3/25/2010, 5:30 PM CDT


That is INSANITY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Documents #79 & 80, dated 4/26/2010 A Dismissal based on Speedy Trial Violations

I was released prior to my public hearing in the dark of night, penniless on to the streets of St. Charles, MO, 411 days after and 25 miles from where I was arrested.

Are they trying to cover up their CRIMINALITY, hoping I will just FADE AWAY?? That AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is JUDICIAL TERRORISM. We live in a lawless society. We do not have the protection of the laws, we do not have the protection of the bill of rights we have nothing!!!!! We are at the discretion of the judiciary empowered by their self proclaimed discretion, broad jurisdiction and absolute sovereign immunity.

[1] I was released on April 26, 2010 on a rainy night in the dark, penniless, without any warning for “possible violations of the speedy trial act”

[2]not transferable or assignable: inalienable rights.