"The Earth and everything that's in it"

Saturday, May 4, 2013

I am FULLY IRRETRIEVABLY COMMITTED.

E. Richard Webber

c/o Clerk of Court – J. G. Woodward

St. Louis - Eastern Division

Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse

111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300

St. Louis, MO 63102-1123

Re: "To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it."[1]

REPEATED Motion for reconsideration - David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs. Government of the United States of America, et al, 4:13-cv-00360-ERW

Dear Mr. Webber,

I realize that you may be so insulated that you do not even get these letters. That is your loss.

This has been 9 ½ years, I have suffered through 55,482 waking hours of the deprivation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights, 5 ½ years of homelessness, 411 days of illegal incarceration without bail and 2 psychological exams. I am not Johnny come lately to this issue. I am not some whiner… want-a-be, I have paid my DUES on this issue!!!! I am FULLY IRRETRIEVABLY COMMITTED.

I want to restate for the record, just who and what you are dealing with. On Monday November 03, 2003 08:00 PM I was served a warrant that lacked statutory and constitutional required probable cause for the charge on its face. I was illegally, unconstitutionally forced from my son, my home, my EVERYTHING. I hired an attorney to represent me. My attorney, as documented in the court record made pretrial constitutional objections to deficiencies of the warrant, it lacked probable cause. He was over ruled. There was a hearing Wednesday, November 19, 2003, my attorney of record again objected at the start of the hearing the warrant lacked statutory and constitutional required probable cause for the charge on its face. He was over ruled. The Judge denied me Due Process of Law found for the petitioner amending the petition on the fly. My attorney of record again objected to this now on the fly creation of as yet STILL unidentified probable cause. He was over ruled. My attorney of record immediately subsequent to the criminally fraudulent on the fly finding, a denial of Due Process, by the Judicial Officer filed two in righting multiple page motions politely and in Good Faith asking for the specifics of the undefined amended pleadings, to no avail.

I had borrowed money for the attorney to represent me through the hearing. I could not afford a professional appeal. I was penniless, homeless, being denied my son and without everything I had ever held dear in the world. I was a financial, physical and emotional ruin. I cried myself to sleep. I was being handed off between older and younger siblings who struggle to make a place for 48 year old unwanted full time house guest in their lives, to no avail.

I was forced into a contested divorce with the benefactor of all that had been illegally and unconstitutionally taken from me… my home, my son and who held hostage EVERYTHING I ever held dear in the world.

I petition the court asking for a hearing on the unconstitutional, illegal and JUST PLAIN wrong on the fly denial of Due Process, I was IGNORED. I had no money, pro se, I attempted to appeal the illegal, unconstitutional action in State Court. I was DENIED.

I struggled on emotionally and financially being forced to PAY support for my son, my home and my everything, that I no longer had. In 2006 after years of damage, having struggled through the CORRUPT CONTESTED divorce for over 2 years I saw the potential for the 14^th Amendment with the Missouri Eastern District Federal Court intervention on the CLEAR denial of Due Process. I was denied. I took it to the 8^th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals and was denied. I did this FIVE times, slightly different tacks[2] each time, through the Circuit Courts 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425 and 12-2435 asking for the details of the amended pleadings and then to be heard on the same to no avail. I went to the Supreme Court of the United States all five times, two petitioned were docketed, 07-11115 and 11-8211 all were ignored or DENIED by the DEADBEAT Supreme Court.

This has been 9 plus years, I have suffered through 9 ½ years of the deprivation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights, 5 ½ years of homelessness, 411 days of illegal incarceration without bail and 2 psychological exams. I am not Johnny come lately to this issue. I am not some whiner… want-a-be, I have paid my DUES on this issue!!!!

I got into a discussion online today and it got me to thinking. Your comment in your recent ruling, that I am appealing because "he disagrees with the outcome of proceedings initiated against him." And I agree 100%, if I had been awarded what I asked for in my divorce, my rights be dammed, I would not have an issue. I would have no reason to spend 9 ½ years fighting your corruption, malice and incompetents.

To this day 3,466 days after being served, I STILL HAVE never been provide PROBABLE CAUSE for the instigating unconstitutional warrant that denied me my son, my home, my everything. That INSTIGATION was a FRAUD, fraus omnia corrumpit.[3] That fraud but me at a DISADVANTAGE throughout my subsequent divorce. I was forced into a life or death struggle with the instigator of the FRAUD the recipient of my son, my home, my everything. Because of the denial, because of the fraud it was an EVIL unwarranted life or death struggle to say the least.

I would be willing to bet if Lucy Armstrong[4] was here you would say the same thing to her. Your family was murder before your eyes, but you are just complaining about the ruling in your case, that you the only eye witness to the MASS MURDER of your family is not allowed to testify. "The statute of Kentucky which was in existence when this indictment was found, and which denied the right of Lucy Armstrong, Richard Foster and Laura Foster to testify in the courts of the state enacted as follows:

"That a slave, negro, or Indian shall be a competent witness in the case of the commonwealth for or against a slave, negro, or Indian, or in a civil case to which only negroes or Indians are parties, but in no other case." "[5]

Justice has been quashed on the gallows trap door of absolute immunity. Your REFUSAL to see the criminal fraud and injustice in both the above referenced cases is an obscenity!!! A horrendous stain on American history!!!!

If the asserted need for judicial independence has any authority at all, and that is a very big IF, judicial independence should be able to overcome the "confirmation bias" of precedent that makes manifest evil look accepted benign and inevitable.

The quote from Martin Luther King says it all "To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it."

The massive on going manifest evil in the clearly criminal Federal Judiciary's conspiracy[6] against rights, is not only an accomplice to the EVIL but has BOTH mens rea[7] and actus reus[8] for their manifest evil actions! The assertion of the potential of "continual calumniations"[9] and "vexatious actions"[10] does not excuse the denial of rights,[11] the raison d'être[12] for their existence. Any asserted need for judicial independence was NEVER to include independence from Supreme Law of the Land:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America.

I seek the constitutionally[13] and statutorily secured civil[14] and criminal[15] redress for the justifiable grievances, the denial of rights.[16]

I realize a decision in favor of the petitioner would require exertion of necessary and proper authority from the federal Judiciary under color of law, but that is exactly what the 14^th Amendment requires by asserting that No State Shall.[17]

The assertion in Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (1903) that the Federal Judiciary does not have the resources or the responsibility is just FALSE. Not only does the Federal Judiciary have the delegated constitutional authority to enforce the 14^th Amendment on the states, that is "the sense and reason of the law,"[18] its "raison d'être."[19]

What does a pacifist do that has been denied his basic human rights? I have been to the CORRUPT DEADBEAT Supreme Court of the United States 5 times!!!! I am FULLY IRRETRIEVABLY COMMITTED. I am now looking for a public precipice from where I might sacrifice my body flambé to EXPOSE the manifest evil in the assertion of absolute civil and criminal immunity. Should I wait for you to arrest me and then force a feeding tube down my throat like a GITMO prisoner?

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

David G. Jeep

enclosure

a. "Copy handwritten ORIGINAL petition dated November 3, 2003"

cc: My Blog- Saturday, May 04, 2013, 8:48:18 AM

[1] Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), US civil rights leader

[2] I started with 18 U.S.C. § 242, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, I asked the FBI to investigate as per the stated responsibility for Civil Rights, I used BIVENS V. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U. S. 388, I used 1^st and the 7^th Amendment, I most recently used First Amendment, Bivens Action (No. 12–222. Oravec v. Cole) & Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

[3] fraus omnia corrumpit - fraud unravels all - Once a contract is affected by fraud, all bets are off.

[4] The murder (Lucy Armstrong) for which the defendants were convicted, and as they now sought to show illegally, had been one of peculiar atrocity. A number of witnesses testified that on a summer evening of 1868 (August 29), towards eleven o'clock, at the cabin of a colored man named Jack Foster there were found the dead bodies of the said Jack, of Sallie Foster his wife, and of Lucy Armstrong, for the murder of whom Blyew and Kennard stood convicted; this person, a blind woman, over ninety years old, and the mother of Mrs. Foster; all persons of color; their bodies yet warm. Lucy Armstrong was wounded in the head; her head cut open as with a broad-axe. Jack Foster and Sallie, his wife, were cut in several places, almost to pieces. Richard Foster a son of Jack, who was in his seventeenth year, was found about two hundred yards from the house of his father, at the house of a Mr. Nichols, whither he had crawled from the house of his father, mortally wounded by an instrument corresponding to one used in the killing of Lucy Armstrong, Jack and Sallie Foster. He died two days afterwards from the effects of his wounds aforesaid, having made a dying declaration tending to fix the crime on Blyew and Kennard. Two young children, girls, one aged ten years and the other thirteen (this last, the Laura Foster above mentioned), asleep in a trundle-bed, escaped, and the latter was a witness on the trial.

Evidence was produced on the part of the United States that a short time previous to the murder, Kennard was heard to declare, in presence of Blyew,

"that he [Kennard] thought there would soon be another war about the niggers; that when it did come, he intended to go to killing niggers, and he was not sure that he would not begin his work of killing them before the war should actually commence." Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 584 (1871)

[5] Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 592 (1871)

[6] See the listed respondents in the original petition on appeal 12-2435

[7] The Legal Latin for "guilty mind"

[8] The Legal Latin for "guilty act"

[9] Floyd and Barker. - Sir Edward Coke, Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, vol. I [1600]

[10] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)

[11] Justice William O. Douglas dissenting in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 565 (1967)confirmed this "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."

Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, L.R. 5 Q.B. 94, 110 (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting).

[12] "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. 656 (1980)

[13] The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 7th Amendment "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." Do not try to argue with John Marshal that the "sense and reason" of a petition is the same thing as a suit. "In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U. S. 163

[14] Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 and The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[15] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242

[16] § 2 of the 1866 Act, § 1 of the 1871 Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as 18 U.S.C. § 242, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 respectively):

[17] Amendment XIV, Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868., Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1. "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."

[18] Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

[19] "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. 656 (1980)

Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process

"agere sequitor esse"

"Time is of the essence"

David G. Jeep

http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/

E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com

(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

“a codicil” Motion for reconsideration - David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs. Government of the United States of America, et al, 4:13-cv-00360-ERW

E. Richard Webber

c/o Clerk of Court – J. G. Woodward

St. Louis - Eastern Division

Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse

111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300

St. Louis, MO 63102-1123

Re: "a codicil" Motion for reconsideration - David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs. Government of the United States of America, et al, 4:13-cv-00360-ERW

Dear Mr. Webber,

As regards your oh so beloved unconstitutional asserted judge made law of "absolute immunity, I have to quote, not sure where I got this from but it hits home for me:

"The "confirmation bias" of precedent can make manifest evil look accepted benign and inevitable."

I think the post Civil War era's Blyew and Cruikshank precedent pretty much CONFIRMS manifest evil disguised as benign and inevitable.

The massive on going manifest evil in the clearly criminal Federal Judiciary's conspiracy[1] against rights, has BOTH mens rea[2] and actus reus[3] for their ACTIONS! The assertion of the potential of "continual calumniations"[4] and "vexatious actions"[5] does not excuse the denial of rights,[6] the raison d'être[7] for their existence. I seek the constitutionally[8] and statutorily secured civil[9] and criminal[10] redress for the justifiable grievances, the denial of rights.[11]

The fraud exception to rei publicae, ut sit finis litium,[12] and nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadam causa[13] is self evident to me, but alas I believe in the "sense and reason"[14] of a Supreme Law of The Land. You assert judicial interpretation. Here we agree as noted in United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65 (1878) is applicable here "But there is an admitted exception to this general rule in cases where, by reason of something done by the successful party[15] to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial[16] or decision[17] of the issue in the case. Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court." Not only was the petitioner, the unsuccessful party, never given a chance to defend himself, he was never even given the specifics of the cause for the finding under which his son, his life and all his belongs were taken.

I quote from the court transcript:

"The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced. The Court does find the allegations of the amended petition to be true."

Just so you do not think I am some kind of after the fact complainer. My attorney of record, made note of the issue beforE the hearing, was over ruled, made note of the issue DURING the hearing was over ruled and filed TWO post trial motions both asking for details of the amended pleadings and then to be heard on same to no avail. Because of this denial of rights, the petitioner was quite literally thrown out in the street with little more than the clothes on his back as an infamous scoundrel, drunken abuser. I was then forced to fight the recipient of my home, my son and all my worldly property in court, from a greatly diminished position, monetarily, physically and most importantly EMOTIONALLY suffering from undiagnosed post traumatic stress!!!! I cried myself to sleep for WEEKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Thank you in advance.

"Time is of the essence"

David G. Jeep

enclosure

a. "Copy handwritten ORIGINAL petition dated November 3, 2003"

cc: My Blog- Wednesday, April 24, 2013, 10:51:08 AM

[1] See the listed respondents in the original petition on appeal 12-2435

[2] The Legal Latin for "guilty mind"

[3] The Legal Latin for "guilty act"

[4] Floyd and Barker. - Sir Edward Coke, Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, vol. I [1600]

[5] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)

[6] Justice William O. Douglas dissenting in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 565 (1967)confirmed this "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."

Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, L.R. 5 Q.B. 94, 110 (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting).

[7] "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. 656 (1980)

[8] The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 7th Amendment "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." Do not try to argue with John Marshal that the "sense and reason" of a petition is the same thing as a suit. "In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U. S. 163

[9] Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 and The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[10] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242

[11] § 2 of the 1866 Act, § 1 of the 1871 Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as 18 U.S.C. § 242, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 respectively):

[12] It is for the public good that there be an end of litigation.

[13] No-one shall be tried or punished twice in regards to the same event, "double jeopardy."

[14] Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

[15] The combination of the TWO issues into one created the DEVASTATION in my life. The successful parties to the suit include the Judge Goeke, Commissioner Jones, Sharon G. Jeep and Kristen Capps in 03FC-010670 and Judge Bennett's conspiracy, Judge Colyer, The Prosecutors (denial of exculpable evidence) and Police Officers (false testimony) in CR203-1336M.

[16] Probable cause is the most element of all evidence. How can you have a trial when there is no viable probable cause provided (Eighth Circuit court of appeals case 07-2614 (4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243))?

[17] Eighth Circuit court of appeals case 08-1823 (4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M) where the prosecutors denied pretrial motions for exculpable evidence (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 87 (1963), "We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.")

[18] Amendment XIV, Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868., Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

[19] Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883)

[20] "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. 656 (1980)

--
Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

Saturday, April 20, 2013

The Federal Judiciary is, for self serving criminal[1] REASONS, ignorant of the “sense and reason”[2] of a reckonable[3] Rule of Law and the Constitution of the United States.

E. Richard Webber

c/o Clerk of Court – J. G. Woodward

St. Louis - Eastern Division

Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse

111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300

St. Louis, MO 63102-1123

Re: Motion for reconsideration - David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs. Government of the United States of America, et al, 4:13-cv-00360-ERW

Dear Mr. Webber,

I apologize for my prior motion dated April 19, 2013. Please disregard it. I was too hasty in my submission. Emotions had driven me to forget that the Federal Judiciary is, for self serving criminal[1] REASONS, ignorant of the "sense and reason"[2] of a reckonable[3] Rule of Law and the Constitution of the United States. [4] This malicious ignorance is in spite of their professional responsibility and sworn oath, "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for title of nobility[5] i.e., absolute immunity, the "sense and reason"[6] of the prohibition. Yet somehow? Your ilk illogically and criminally asserts ABSOLUTE POWER using ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt"[7] judges, the "malicious or dishonest"[8] prosecutor, the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[9] and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[10] actions by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[11] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[12] Your ilk clearly criminally disregards the idea of professional and constitutional obligations

When I became homeless, 5 years ago, I wrote out my first Will and Testament. At that time, even as about to become homeless, I thought that I had assets worthy of note. Now as I approach the end of this 9 year criminal JUDICIAL[13] action, I have nothing of note except this action that I now bequeath to my soul heir, Patrick Brandon Jeep. I will not be the first to have been pilloried and lynched by this criminal[14] conspiracy on their gallows trap door of absolute immunity. Suffering inconsequential persons have been at the discretion of the absolutely immune for 10,000 years. Now "We the People" have been sold your corrupt, malicious, and incompetent bill of goods. And it may take another generation to see that absolute immunity quashes the idea of reckonable inalienable rights and a constitutionally limited Government… a reckonable Supreme Law of the Land.

Your reference, for my heir's sake, to a fixed dollar amount of damages is in error, it is an escalating amount e.g., as of Friday April 19, 2013 - 12:12 PM the amount is $208,114,000.00.[15] As to your assertion that the admittedly large list of respondents is delusional, I would ask, if you deny this motion, please add your name as an additional CRIMINAL respondent. Everyone on the complaint as listed respondents has, at one time or another had the issue's criminally unashamed "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" presented to them and per statute as government actors tasked with Justice and or enforcement of rights under color of law they "shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."

People have been, since at least 1871, and continue to be pilloried and lynched by the CRIMINAL[16] judicial assertion of absolute immunity. "Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." I say it NOW, Sunday, April 21, 2013!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.[17] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[18].

I take exception to your attempt to discredit my complaint by saying that I am "a frequent litigant before this court." I would describe myself as an unfortunate frequent repeated VICTIM before this corrupt, malicious, dishonest, incompetent and CRIMINAL[19] court as I clearly and UNASHAMEDLY assert in the listed respondents to this complaint. From the very beginning, I have had the uncontested PROOF of the criminal[20] judicial officer's criminal denial of rights, this court and others have REPEATEDLY conspired to refuse to see it. Now additionally I list all the Local, State and Federal Governments as liable also. We the People, as individual person incorporated with each other to establish Justice and secure the Blessings of liberty. My government as a corporate entity has clearly had a hand in this deprivation facilitated at the hands of the individual persons listed as government actors and respondents.

I RESTATE for the RECORD:

Neither Judge Goeke, nor Commissioner Jones had Jurisdiction. The essential requirement for any Government action is reasonable "probable cause." On its face the original petition,[21] from the now respondent, did not have REASONABLE constitutional probable cause for the asserted violation of the Missouri Revised Statutes Protective Orders Section 455.035[22] thus the two Judicial Officers had a "complete absence of jurisdiction" and Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8^th Cir. 2003) does not preclude this complaint. Constitutionally and statutorily Jurisdiction requires reasonable probable cause; see 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States and Missouri Revised Statutes Protective Orders Section 455.035.[23] I was held to answer a warrant that lacked reasonable probable cause shown on its face in the petition. Not only was the original petition, a violation statutorily and constitutionally, it defies logic to ask someone to answer a charge without specific reasonable probable cause. How do you logically answer a charge without probable cause? I did not do what I am not accused of? This is, WAS and has been a violation of my constitutional right and the protection of the Law, see 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States and Missouri Revised Statutes Protective Orders Section 455.035.[24] This ongoing violation creates ever escalating damages.

The only listed probable cause on the original handwritten petition for an ex parte order of protection was a misdemeanor traffic violation from a different geographic jurisdiction and a different subject matter jurisdiction, at that time prior, under the asserted UNRELATED judicial officer's jurisdiction (it should be noted that the Judicial officer in question on misdemeanor recused himself for his bad act) . That two geographic and subject matter jurisdictionally unrelated issues are linked together as one goes further to establish the over all UNREASONABLENESS and thus its jurisdictional criminal constitutional violation.

Now if you could somehow get past the constitutional requirement for REASONABLE probable cause, which you can not. The 8^th Amendment's requirement that "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" for an alleged, later disproven, misdemeanor traffic violation precludes the imposed punishment, the deprivation of my home, my son, my paternity and my liberty.

The Rule of Law, as described by Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, the seminal Supreme Court case said, "The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."[25] The Founding Fathers, the Authors of the constitution, had lived for too long at the discretion of the Nobility's absolute immunity with "no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right" and sought to establish a reckonable[26] Rule of Law to replace the Rule of the Nobility's absolute immune prerogative. The Rule of Law is meaningless if the ubiquitous absolute immunity[27] that empowered the Rule of the Nobility in pre-revolutionary times, is allowed to circumvent the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is therefore, by definition, irreconcilably opposed to absolute immunity. There can be no Rule of Law if the law can be circumvented by absolute immunity.

I again humbly ask you to reconsider your error, We the People incorporated ourselves into a government to "establish Justice" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" in "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority."

Post Civil War we backed that up with the more explicit Federal Statute Law that deliberately nullified any prior common law assertions with first Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 and then Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985. To assert absolute immunity for the "malicious or corrupt"[28] judges, the "malicious or dishonest"[29] prosecutor, the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[30] and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[31] actions by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[32] acting under color of law is completely without reason.

As regards your assertion Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8^th Cir. 1994) I have to ask who in their RIGHT mind would give up their Constitutional Civil Rights in any case, but much more importantly when the dispute revolves around not only your own life, liberty or property but that of your heir's life, liberty or property. Kahn v. Kahn is an open example of your disregard for the intrinsic requirement of your oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Clearly to any reckonable[33] reading of the 14^th Amendment requirement "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," Kahn v. Kahn can not hold when there is a deprivation of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and "equal protection of the laws."

As to your assertion that I am only complaining because I did not like the outcome, I agree 100%. If you had violated my rights and I had been awarded all that I seek, I would NOT be here right now. That is a little too obvious for serious consideration as an argument against my complaint.

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

Thank you in advance.

"Time is of the essence"

David G. Jeep

enclosure

a. "Spreadsheet of escalating damages dated Friday April 19, 2013 - 12:12 PM the amount is $208,114,000.00"

b. "Copy handwritten ORIGINAL petition dated November 3, 2003"

cc: My Blog- Sunday, April 21, 2013, 2:50:50 PM

[1] To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. Sheriffs and marshals, while performing a quintessentially judicial function such as serving process, were clearly liable under the 1866 Act, notwithstanding President Johnson's objections. Because, as Representative Shellabarger stated, § 1 of the 1871 Act provided a civil remedy "in identically the same case" or "on the same state of facts" as § 2 of the 1866 Act, it obviously overrode whatever immunity may have existed at common law for these participants in the judicial process in 1871." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 362 (1983)

[2] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 27 (1883)

[3] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)

[4] "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Article. VI. 2nd Paragraph

[5] There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity," Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility." Additionally I cite Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 as further timely clarification of the supreme law of the land:

"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility (i.e., absolute immunity). This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people."

You somehow want to argue that "the grant of Nobility" was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility? That would undermine Free-Enterprise.

Anyone that wants to assert "the prohibition of titles of nobility' was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.

There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law? Did Nat "King" Cole violate the constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[6] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 27 (1883)

[7] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.

[8] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[9] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[10] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!

[11] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"

[12] "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.

[13]To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials… ibid.

[14] To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials… ibid.

[15] See the enclosed spreadsheet.

[16] To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials… ibid.

[17] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967)

[18] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394

[19] To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials… ibid.

[20] To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials… ibid.

[21] See the ATTACHED copy of the handwritten petition dated November 3, 2003

[22] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455, Abuse—Adults and Children—Shelters and Protective Orders Section 455.035, where he is tasked by statute to "for good cause shown in the petition", issued a warrant without any probable cause. A Judges' power is necessarily limited by the Constitution and statute. A Judge can not issue a warrant without probable cause. Not only did the petition for an Ex-Parte Order of protection not list any abuse, what it did list was third party description of an incident in traffic court that was being handled by another geographical JURISDICTION, 150 miles away and different subject matter jurisdiction by a judicial officer that subsequently recused himself for his bad act.

For Judge Goeke to even list it as a probable cause violated the respondents right to the elementary principles of procedural due process.

[23] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455… ibid..

[24] Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 455… ibid.

[25] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803)

[26] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia, ibid.

[27] After NINE years of Good Faith appeals, the issues of undeclared exigent circumstances and or Good Faith immunity are no longer available.

[28] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.

[29] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[30] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[31] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!

[32] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"

[33] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia, ibid.