"The Earth and everything that's in it"

Thursday, September 23, 2004

Tuesday, September 23, 2025 - 11:38:16 AM

Pat, I am OK. You are OK.

Under the Constitution for the United States there is no Supreme Court, no judge-made-law.

Article I (The legislative Powers) and II (The executive Power) of the Constitution for the United States CLEARLY posits EXCLUSIVELY how laws are to be made.

Judge-made-law is and has always been a self-serving, self-aggrandizing fiction of the would-be Black Robed Royalist.

Article III (The judicial Power), Section 1 of the Constitution for the United States CLEARLY posits:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish (bolding underlining added)."

The Constitution for the United States posits one supreme Court among the inferior Courts NOT a Supreme Court outside the Article III Courts. NOT a Supreme Court ABOVE ALL to make judge-made-law with stare decisis[1].

The "judicial Power" in the Constitution for the United States is ABSOLUTELY constrained by:

"the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy, or wish for, that he cannot be affected either in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbours and equals^{^[2]}".

The Constitution for the United States posits:

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury^{^[3]}"

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law^{^[4]}"

as ORIGINALLY included and required since the Magna Carta from 1215.

The Supreme Court's assertion of judge-made-law i.e., binding precedent with stare decisis:

(It) "is not possible to lay down, with mathematical precision, any rule in regard to the authority of precedents. Every judge and every court must consider that their function is jus aïcere and not jus dare.^{^[5]}"

Judge-made-law is and has always been a self-serving, self-aggrandizing fiction of the would-be Black Robed Royalist. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S., Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) 369 (2024), Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523 (1868), Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) and all its prior judge-made-law precedents with any and all stare decisis are an ABOMINATION!!!!

I am not saying that precedent is not worthy of consideration. I am SAYING precedent does not create binding judge-made-law with un-impeachable stare decsis attached.

The Issue in the United States today is an unelected oligarchy…..

Justice Antonin Scalia made the case for the abolition of the Supreme Court, though he did not mean to.

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2026/04/mvm-is-bs.html

"Fake News Donny"

Tuesday, September 23, 2025 - 11:38:16 AM

Article I, II, and "School-Yard-Rock" clearly define how to make law. Show me where in the amended Constitution for the United States "judge-made-law" is called for or authorized?

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/06/sc.html

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FVfm-ushzCCTS5BtH1R7MeOvnDvh_kqv/view

The Issue with Trump, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP!

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-issue-with-trump.html

American Exceptionalism – NOT SO MUCH

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2023/10/american-exceptionalism-not-so-much.html

Equal Rights in a Free Market Economy

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/04/equal-rights-in-free-market-economy.html

A Balanced Budget for America

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012/07/balanced-budget-for-america.html

BE AWARE, but do not be afraid, Trump is, at best and at worst, pathetically incompetent and INEFFECTIVE manager / leader!

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/be-aware.html

Trump does not know the name of the country he was or is to be president of...

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/istgtdnk.html

The constitutional small "d" undemocratic corrupt "dark money" Senate and Electoral College

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/dark-money-senate.html

Trump is a convicted and diagnosed psychotic criminal, chronic degenerate, maniacal liar and a "fucking moron!"

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/be-aware.html

The constitutional small "d" unrepresentative corrupt "dark money" Senate and Electoral College

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/dark-money-senate.html

The Judicial sophistry of "absolute immunity" creates "absolute power" to the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of We the People's unalienable rights under color of law... the AUDACITY of the INSANITY, ignorance and stupidity in support of a "fantastic or delusional" scenario.

The Emperor Has No Clothes.

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/if-that-is-not-absolute-corruption-of.html

The FACTS of MY case are without question

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-facts-of-my-case-are-without.html

DGJeep v. Supreme Court of the United States (Petitions for Writ of Certiorari 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=David+Jeep&type=Supreme-Court=Dockets

Tuesday, September 23, 2025 - 11:38:16 AM

"Fake News Donny"

[1] the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.

[2] Blackstone, Sir William. Commentaries on the Laws of England: Book III: On Private Wrongs. Kindle Edition.

[3] Article III Section 2.3 of the Constitution for the United States

[4] Amendment VII of the Constitution for the United States

[5] Sir William Blackstone. Blackstone 1387-01 (Kindle Locations 23832-23834). Kindle Edition.

Thanks in advance...

"Agere sequitur esse" ('action follows being')

David G. Jeep, Federal Inmate #36072-044 (formerly)

www.DGJeep.com - Dave@DGJeep.com - David.G.Jeep@Gmail.com

Mobile (314) 514-5228 leave message

David G. Jeep

1531 Pine St Apt #512

St. Louis, MO 63103-2548

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

If it weren’t my son, a child, you were attempting to twilight, I would not object, but he is not self aware, he cannot speak for himself.

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

Aimee B. Goldstein, Ph.D.

1034 South Brentwood Blvd.

St. Louis, MO 63117

Fax 314-862-3425

Re: Patrick Jeep

Dear Dr. Goldstein,

I just wanted to one more time follow up on issues I have stressed from the onset of our association. I realize decorum and expediency are the dominant issues in today’s world, rights of the individual be dammed. If it weren’t my son, a child, you were attempting to twilight, I would not object, but he is not self aware, he cannot speak for himself. I as his father, I have the moral obligation to speak for him in this regard.

I want to stress to you that my son has rights. He has a right to grow up, to learn for himself, and learn to control himself by himself without the encumbrance of psychiatric drug therapy. If he was a head banger or socially violent it would be one thing, but he is just a little slow of his companions, in some areas, he will catch up. What you propose in his formative years to force him into a drug induced stupor. I feel this is akin to forcing a child to wear diapers and never letting him learn to use the toilet. At some point in his life if he is not given the opportunity to learn to control himself, he never will. He will be forced to wear the diapers, take the drugs all his life. It is now in his formative years when we should be helping him to learn, helping him to focus and not masking his problem with psychiatric drug therapy. The drugs do nothing more than cover up the issue. They do not cure it.

I grant you in older adults they may change their perspective, if not induce euphoria. And yes it may seem like a cure. But as I remember it in the 60’s psychedelic drugs were going to save the world, before my time, then they all sobered up with hangovers and realized the error of their ways. They had not felt more they had felt LESS.

I liken the drugs to taking an antihistamine for a viral infection of the airway. It may dry up the sniffles but it does not kill the virus. The idea of a drug induced lobotomy is to me repugnant. By your own assertion, he has a wealth of knowledge beyond his years. To impede his progress with a drug induced lobotomy to satisfy a segment of society’s desire for a STRICT DECORUM is cruel. To take a happy, non-violent, active kid and squash his creative learning energy with drugs is abusive. I swear in ten years this psychiatric drug therapy experimentation on our children will be as objectionable as the surgical lobotomies from the 50’s.

He is not self aware, he is not choosing to take the drug, if he has any issue at all it is to please someone with his action. He likes to please by taking the drug.

If you want to use the analogy of Diabetes, I think most doctors would agree that if Diabetes can be controlled by diet and or exercise, those are the preferred treatment over the taking of insulin. My son is not so severely disabled that he is antisocial or out of control, he is a little distracted. His issues can be handled with patients and tolerance. Look at the 10% of people that grew up before Ritalin. Were they all failures, NO. In fact, many of the most creative men and woman in history clearly could not stay focused. They had many of the classic learning disabilities ADHD, Dyslexia to name a few. They went out and found beauty, a better way, because they allowed themselves to be distracted. They followed a different drummer and did not care if they kept pace with their companions.

Yes, they have been using Ritalin and other stimulants for years with ADHD. And yes, there have been no prohibitive side effects noted in the documentation. But the documentation cannot address how many creative geniuses the drugs have stifled. How many discoveries or great works have been missed because we chemically turned off the distracting drummer in a child’s head that may have lead him or her to great works.

Please give your diagnosis serious consideration before you commit a minor child to drug induced lethargy when he could learn to fly with the eagles and soar beyond the reach of his companions instead of forcing him to march in a drug induced lock step with society’s desire for decorum and expediency.

Thank you in advance.

David G. Jeep

cc: James J. Robinson, Fax 636-530-6805

David A. Shaller, Fax 314-725-2807

Phillip E. Jones Sr., Fax 314-615-7868

Cynthia A. Kluzak, Fax 314-615-7264

Kent Killian, Fax 636-458-6510

file

My son has RIGHTS !!!!!!!!!! Aimee B. Goldstein, Ph.D.

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

Aimee B. Goldstein, Ph.D.

1034 South Brentwood Blvd.

St. Louis, MO 63117

Fax 314-862-3425

Re: Patrick Jeep

Dear Dr. Goldstein,

He is not self aware, he is not choosing to take the drug, if he has any issue at all it is to please someone with his action. He likes to please by taking the drug.

Thank you in advance.

Replay to: Dave@DGJeep.com

David G. Jeep

cc: James J. Robinson, Fax 636-530-6805

David A. Shaller, Fax 314-725-2807

Phillip E. Jones Sr., Fax 314-615-7868

Cynthia A. Kluzak, Fax 314-615-7264

Kent Killian, Fax 636-458-6510

file

Friday, July 23, 2004

Second Motion for Removal of Commissioner Jones

Friday, July 23, 2004

St. Louis County Circuit Court Division 34
Honorable Joseph A. Goeke, III
Associate Circuit Judge
Courts Building, 2nd Floor
7900 Carondelet
Clayton, MO 63105
http://www.co.st-louis.mo.us/circuitcourt/division34.html

Tele: 314-615-1534
Fax: 314-615-2689

Re: Case No.: 03FC-12243, Division No. 65
Petition for removal of Commissioner Jones
And a request for a stay of pending orders enclosed

Dear Judge Goeke,

I am begging judge, literally, and unabashedly on my knees begging judge. I am begging on behalf of my son and myself.

I am seeking relief from a broken system, ripe with abuse. The existing Adult Abuse Protection order puts in force what I believe to be criminal punishment for what, again, I believe to be a civil matter. There is a completely different level of proof required for a civil penalty vs. a criminal penalty. And the accumulation of and access to evidence is different. But yet adult abuse is handled by a family/civil court and it follows that family/civil court is not qualified to dole out criminal punishment.

An Ex Parte order of protection granted to a petitioner gives enormous power to the petitioner over the respondent’s once inalienable rights in a civil matter without ANY consideration of the respondent’s rights. And in severe cases it might be warranted. But severity is not what motivated the order in question it was, self serving motivations on the petitioner’s part and political correctness and expediency on the part of the court. Standards of due process have been ignored via the misuse of the Protection Order in this civil matter. There was nothing even vaguely related to abuse present in this Civil Matter until the court saw fit to step in with Criminal Penalties in again a CIVIL MATTER. The respondent has been and continues to be abused by criminal penalties and sanctions in this civil matter.

I am again asking for relief from the abusive prejudicial and I think vindictive treatment of Commissioner Jones furthermore I ask the Commisiioner Jones be removed from the case. Please review the enclosed orders. I am being asked to pay $12,000 to my opposing/wife’s attorney so that he can pursue the destruction of my reputation by making public private information outside his reasonable knowledge or normal reach. Not that I have access to $12,000 until such time as the court forces liquidation of marital assets. The only reason he has any access at all to this information is because of the unfounded Order of Protection. The unfounded criminal penalty attached to the order of protection gave the petitioner unfettered unreasonable access to what was then and I still believe to be personal information relating to a civil matter. I believe there is some sort of under the table agreement to somehow expedite Commissioner Jones’s docket and attempt to sweep me under the rug.

The petitioner’s only allegation of abuse arises form an alleged incident outside the scope of the Ex Parte petition, a single incident of squeezing or pulling the petitioner’s elbow too tightly. Hospitalization was not called for or was bruising proven.

I am acting ProSe, I am a man of modest means, and to be blunt the Commissioner can not deal with me ProSe that for whatever reason. I am acting ProSe, because my original attorney did not address issues I had put in front of him and/or to act on my direction appropriately. I was thus forced to take matters into my own hands. And additionally I am being forced into acting ProSe because of my wife’s control of the family’s savings. She has already paid her attorney nearly $10,000 and thus depleted all of it on her pursuit of this unfound action without my consent or approval.

This whole issue originated from an exparte order of protection where the commissioner allowed testimony outside the scope of the original petition, over a timely objection. He made a ruling without a finding of fact or a definitive supporting opinion. He has since refused the respondent’s right to be heard on the issue and has consistently ruled against the respondent without reason or again definitive rational on all issues.

I am not an attorney I am just a man and I as read our constitution I should have inalienable rights. Yet my rights to my possessions, my family, my life, my pursuit of happiness have been withheld from me without access to constitutionally afforded due process. It is as if we no longer live with access to due process, we live in a police state and any judge can rule in support of an exparte order of protection. It is fashionable to defend the weak against the abusers, allege a person to be an abuser and he becomes one albeit an allegation of abuse without cause, without findings, outside the scope of the petition, outside the scope of the law and without foundation in fact. Then under current practice to potentially destroy a life at whim with either malice of forethought or as in this case I believe to be criminal negligence. And then if the would be judge/commissioner is too proud to admit he made a mistake and hides behind expediency as an excuse, he can ruin other lives, children and loved ones and again I think these actions by a sitting would be judge/commissioner to be criminally negligent.

I submit that in this case the Order of Protection has been abused and the rights of the respondent have been denied without reason and or Due Process. Due Process as guaranteed by our founding fathers in our constitution precludes this sort of behind closed doors, unassailable, unfounded COURT/ State Action.

All I am asking for is the right in open court to reasonably confront and defend myself against previously asserted openly unsupported accusations in front of a jury of my peers and or another judge. I was in the past literally blindsided by accusations made the morning of the hearing. By right of due process no one should be asked to defend themselves, in today’s emotional charged, politically corrected environment, against spur of the moment unfounded un-foretold politically and fashionably inflammatory accusations / charges.

Time is of the essences.
Respectfully

David G. Jeep

enclosure

cc: Supreme Court of Missouri, http://www.courts.mo.gov/sup/index.nsf
James Robinson, Attorney for the Petitioner
David Shaller, GAL
Philip E. Jones, Division 65
Cynthia Kluzak, St. Louis Family Court

Tuesday, July 6, 2004

Original Killian Letter

Monday, May 31, 2004

Philip Jones

Division 65,

St. Louis County Court

7900 Carondolet Blvd.

Clayton, MO 63105

Re: Jeep v Jeep 03FC-10670M & 03FC-12243

Dear jones

You have no right to be sitting in judgment, you have no right to claim title to that bench that society has currently honored you with. You have disgraced yourself and the office to which you claim title. You have consistently and without regard to the laws you were sworn to uphold, defiled and disgraced that trust. On November 19, 2003, you handed down a ruling corrupted and biased by the denial of my and my son’s right to due process. You had thus denied my and my sons right to a fair unbiased hearing. My and my son’s constitutional right to Due Process was denied by your incompetent and corrupted ruling. I made you aware of this in chambers and you acknowledge as much saying and I quote, “these two do no need an order of protection.” If you had been honorable and fair minded you should have at that point step aside and disavowed your prior corrupted rulings. You have no honor, you have no professional integrity. You are a criminal. You then started the cover up. Your cover up cronies assisted you in the criminal activity. You and they became criminals in a cover up of your corruption. There were several public and timely motions made, you and your cover up cronies denied them all.

You had first and foremost broken the trust and the responsibilities afforded your office. But then it became personal for me and criminal for you because I stood up to you. As I stand up to you then, as I stand up to now and as I will be standing up to tomorrow and the next day and on in to forever. I am unafraid as a free man innocent in a free society I have done nothing wrong. You are the criminal that has has stolen from me my right to paternity, my right to due process, my right to liberty and my right to due process.

You and your cover up cronies then furthered your criminal activity by enforcing what you knew to be a corrupt ruling and by covering up and attempting to ignore your illegal denial of my rights to a fair and impartial hearing. Your incompetence and your corruption will be brought to light and it will be the legally enforce the end to you and your kind.

As stated before I will then reopen the custody and property settlement, simultaneously suing my ex-wife for fraud. I will prove an equitable settlement based on 2003 fair market value

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

Thank you in advance.

David G. Jeep

David G. Jeep

Enclosure

cc: a list of select favorites

file

Sunday, May 9, 2004

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District ED No. 84021

Pro Se
In the Missouri Court of Appeals
Eastern District

Sharon Gayle Jeep, (SSN#)Petitioner,

And

David Gerard Jeep, (SSN#)Respondent

E. D. No. 84021

Cause No. 03FC-010670

Respondent's Brief
For the appeal

COMES NOW Respondent, David G. Jeep, and moves this Court to reverse the above referenced cause and or require a rehearing of the action.
Respondent states as follows:

1. The original petition should have been dismissed on the face of it. It did not reference anything that could have been construed as prior abuse nor expected abuse.

2. The petitioner did not check any boxes referencing physical abuse in her original petition for an order of protection.

3. There were no specific allocations of abuse asserted in the original petition for an order of protection.

4. The Petitioner in direct cross-examination confirmed that she had not marked anything on the original petition regarding any actual abuse.

5. The petitioner in direct contradiction to her original sworn assertion in her petition for an order of protections attempted to change her allegations and describe abuse outside the scope of her original petition.

6. The court over ruled the respondent’s timely objection during this testimony.

7. The petitioner was represented by counsel well in advance of the hearing, if it was indeed the petitioner’s feeling that she had been physically abused her counsel should have amended her petition in advance of the hearing.

8. The petitioner was obviously coached to testify on certain points again that were obliviously outside the scope of her original petition.

9. The respondent request that the court reverse the lower courts order in that the original petition for an order of protection did not reference anything that would have called for any order of protection for abuse.

10. If the court would like to here further on this issue and allow the respondent his right to face his accuser with full knowledge of their assertions, the respondent is not only willing but also very much eager for the chance.

WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that this Court reversing the lower courts decision based on the actual scope of the original petition and or order a new hearing to give the respondent fair warning to defend against the NEW allegations fairly.

______________________________________
David G. Jeep, Respondent
16325 Centerpointe Drive
Grover, Mo 63040-1602
Phone 314/277-5904, E-mail Dave@DGJeep.com

Dated this 9th day of May 2004

Pro Se

The Respondent David G. Jeep hereby confirms that a true and accurate copy of the enclosed Court Record Court File has been delivered to the Petitioner.

______________________________________
David G. Jeep, Respondent
16325 Centerpointe Drive
Grover, Mo 63040-1602
Phone 314/277-5904, E-mail Dave@DGJeep.com

Dated this 9th day of May 2004

Pro Se

Saturday, April 3, 2004

Missouri Attorney General April 3, 2004 Report of CRIME

Missouri Attorney General's Office

Saturday, April 03, 2004

Missouri Attorney General's Office
Supreme Court Building
207 W. High St.
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102

Phone: 573-751-3321
Fax: 573-751-0774

Re: Perjury and Prosecutorial Suborning of Perjury
Case # CR203-1336M, Camden County, MO
Dear Sirs,

I was arrested last year on May 17, 2003 for DWI. Now before you get all excited and afraid this is not a DWI case that involved any loss of life or property. I was pulled over for failure to use my blinker. From the beginning they had no case, just a case of zeal that has lead them to Perjury and Suborning Perjury. The state of Missouri has no defined instructions for giving the breathalyzer test. After I failed the first attempt, I blew, per the police report for a steady 15 seconds, the machine responded with an invalid result. I never refused to do anything.

The arresting officer did not know how to administer the One Leg Stand nor the Walk and Turn test, and if you can believe his testimony, he still does not know some 11 months later. You see in the prescribed National Highway and Safety Administration Standard prior to both test the suspect should be given the opportunity to remove his shoes if he has more than a 2” heel, cowboy boots have a 2 ½” heel.

Those are the facts and they are not disputed. My issue arises from the testimony given by the arresting officers and thus the testimony supported by the prosecution. At trial the arresting officer testified that it was a 4” heel not a 2” heel that required the prior notice. At trial the officer who had administered the breathalyzer test testified that I had not blown for a solid 15 seconds as he had represented in his prior statement.

You could almost believe that these two officers were idiots without the mental ability to remember the facts, but you need to be aware of an additional fact. Prior to the trial I made pretrial motions. The three key pretrial motions were:

Motion for discovery of the Standardized procedure for performing the Standardized Field Sobriety test.

Motion to exclude all reference to the Field sobriety test because I was wearing Cowboy boots with 2 ½ heel. And the high heel condition is in conflict with the state procedure for the test.

Motion to exclude the non existent refusal, having blown 15-16 seconds.

All three motions were denied. For whatever reason the prosecution had the arresting officers in court during these pretrial motions, they were therefore coach and made aware of the issues prior to trail. Therefore the prosecution at minimum by providing them the information gave them information prior to their at trial testimony. The prosecution told them what my issues were and what I would be asking them to testify to at trial. And because of that I feel the prosecution suborned perjury in that they coached them, and then they allowed them to lie at trial, on the stand.

Time is of the essence, if there is anything you need from me in this regard, please let me know.
Regards

David G. Jeep

enclosure

Monday, March 29, 2004

Respondent's Motion for Removal of Commissioner Jones in regard to this issue

Pro Se

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS

STATE OF MISSOURI

Sharon Gayle Jeep,

Petitioner,

and

David Gerard Jeep,

Respondent

)

Case No.: 03FC-10670M & 03FC-12243

Presiding Judge of Division 65

Respondent's Motion for Removal of Commissioner Jones in regard to this issue

COMES NOW Respondent, David G. Jeep, and moves this Court to remove Commissioner Jones in the above referenced issues.

Respondent states as follows:

The original action in this issue was an ex parte order of protection
As a result of the Ex Parte the Commissioner heard the issue in St. Louis County Circuit Court as #03FC-10670M, Sharon Jeep v David G. Jeep. The commissioner put in force a full order of protection for a 12 month period on or about 11/19/03.
In the original Ex Parte petition filed by the petitioner there was never actually listed anything that could even be construed as abuse.
At the hearing the petitioner again refused to offer up anything in terms of any assertion of abuse.
Thus there has been no accusation or assertion of abuse.
The commissioner ruled referencing some pattern which he did not and has not shared to date.
The commissioner never provided and actual finding in regard to the abuse.
Since there was no actual finding and since there was no actual allegation, the respondent’s civil right to due process and the inalienable right to life liberty (my home and family) and the pursuit of happiness have been denied without grounds.
The respondent’s civil rights have been continually been ignored.
The respondent has been forced into the street, virtually.
Because of the unfounded order of protection I have been forced from my home, from my family.
One child was born of the marriage, namely: Patrick Brandon Jeep Born December 22, 1994, SSN XXX-XX-XXX
Because of the groundless order the respondent has been kept from his minor child. And forced into a visitation schedule that does not even come close to his legal right of equal time.
For the last four months the respondent has been granted only limited access to his son. The Respondent feels that the commissioner, because he has refused to rehear the issue and because he has never offered an actual finding in the case has failed in or ignored his judicial duties.
Therefore I ask that you remove him from the case and order and immediate reversal and or rehearing of the full order of protection.
In that this groundless order has been used to unlawfully force the Respondent from his family and home, he asks the court for an immediate removal of Commissioner Jones, a reversal of the order and or a reconsideration of the full order of protection.

______________________________________

David G. Jeep, Respondent

Dated this 29^th day of March 2004


	Pro Se