Source: http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/10/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to.html
Timestamp: 2020-01-18 19:42:46
Document Index: 366614973

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 412', '§ 1254', '§ 2111', '§241', '§242', '§1983', '§1985', '§1983', '§241', '§242', '§1983', '§1985', '§1983', '§ 1983', '§241', '§242', '§1983', '§1985', '§ 2111', '§ 1983', '§1983', '§ 9', '§ 3', '§ 2111', '§ 3', '§ 2', '§ 241', '§1983', '§1985', '§ 1', '§241', '§242', '§ 3559', '§ 3331', '§ 241', '§ 1983', '§1983', '§ 9', '§ 241', '§1983', '§ 241', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 241', '§ 1983', '§ 241', '§ 1983', '§ 241', '§ 1983', '§ 241', '§ 1983', '§ 241', '§ 1983', '§ 241']

"The Earth and everything that's in it": Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 13-7030 Docketed 10-23-13
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 13-7030 Docketed 10-23-13
No. PWC 13-7030
Appeal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals: 13-2200
Eastern Missouri U.S. District Court Case No. 4:13-cv-0360-ERW
A humble pro se[2] EMERGENCY[3] PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 10.41 years[4] of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
· The Government of the United State of America
· Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and The Government of the United States of America (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193)
· The Supreme Court of the United States of America and The Government of the United States of America (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193, 11-8211 and 07-11115)
· 8th District US Court of Appeals and The Government of the United States of America (07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200),
· E. Richard Webber, US District Court Judge and The Government of the United States of America, 4:13-cv-0360-ERW
· President Barack Hussein Obama, His Justice Department and The Government of the United States of America
· Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and The Government of the United States of America (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211)
· Chief United States District Judge Eastern Missouri 8th Circuit Catherine D. Perry and The Government of the United States of America (8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, 11-2425 and 12-2435),
· Mike Christian (FBI), Lyonel Mrythill (FBI), Dan Bracco (FBI), Robert O'Connor (USMS), Chris Boyce (USMS) and Raymond Meyer (AUSA) and The Government of the United States of America (8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947),
· US Supreme Court, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts and The Government of the United States of America (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115)
· Carol E. Jackson, US District Court Judge and The Government of the United States of America, 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ Jeep v. Jones et al and Jeep v. Government of the United States of America 4:12-cv-703-CEJ (07-2614 and 12-2435),
· Charles A. Shaw, Senior US District Judge and The Government of the United States of America, Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM Jeep v. United States of America, et al & 4:11-cv-00931-CAS Jeep v. Obama(10-1947 & 11-2425),
· Scott O. Wright, Senior US District Judge and The Government of the United States of America, 4:07-cv-0506-SOW Jeep v. Bennett et al (08-1823),
· Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr., Sharon G. Jeep (ex-wife), Kristen M. Capps (ex-stepdaughter), Joseph A. Goeke, Robert S. Cohen, Michael T. Jamison, Emmett M. O'Brien, Steven H. Goldman, Barbara W. Wallace, James R. Hartenbach, John A. Ross, Michael D. Burton, Larry L. Kendrick, Richard C. Bresnahan, Melvyn W. Wiesman, Maura B. McShane, Colleen Dolan, Mark D. Seigel, Barbara Ann Crancer, Mary Bruntrager Schroeder, Brenda Stith Loftin, Dale W. Hood, Thea A. Sherry, Gloria Clark Reno, John R. Essner, Ellen Levy Siwak, Patrick Clifford, Bernhardt C. Drumm, Dennis N. Smith, Judy Preddy Draper, Sandra Farragut-Hemphill, Douglas R. Beach, John F. Kintz, Gary M. Gaertner, Phillip E. Jones, Carolyn C. Whittington, Tom W. DePriest, David Lee Vincent, St. Louis County and State of Missouri (4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 03FC-10670M / 03FC-12243),
· Jack A. Bennett, Associate Circuit Judge, Devin M. Ledom, Asst. Prosecuting Attorney, Alex Little, Officer Badge #920, Tim Taylor Officer Badge #913, W. Steven Rives, Prosecuting Attorney, W. James Icenogle, Prosecuting Attorney, Bruce Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge, Jay Nixon Attorney General, State of Missouri, Camden County, and City of Osage Beach (4:07-cv-0506-SOW/ CR203-1336M),
(07-2614, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals)
(08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200 8th U.S. Circuit Court Appeals)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED, I AM REQUESTING THE COURT TO RULE ON 3 QUESTIONS:
1. Is the Government of the United States of America instituted to protect the property[5] that lies in the various inalienable rights of individuals as asserted and secured by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of America?
2. Does the ongoing DEPRIVATION of "property in rights"[6] under color of law by the assertion of "absolute immunity" create a condition of involuntary servitude as it did before the civil war i.e., if "absolute immunity" from "redress of grievances"[7] is the law, We the People currently have the same type of freedom that slaves had on days when their masters chose not to beat them?[8]
3. When judicial interpretation conflicts with the "sense and reason"[9] of the constitution and the statute law, as history has taught us in the Civil Rights Cases 109 U.S. 26 (1883) and Connick v. Thompson,[10] is that not cause for the impeachment and / or abolition of the court as made precedent by Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607) and an Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber"[11] July 5, 1641?
LIST OF PARTIES [X]
The opinion of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division and United States Eighth District Court of appeals are included, listed in the appendix with the petition, and are unpublished.
This court has reviewed the original file of the United States District Court. It is ordered by the court that the judgment of the district court is summarily affirmed. See Eighth Circuit Rule 47A(a). August 23, 2013
"In accordance with the judgment of 08/23/2013, and pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(a), the formal mandate is hereby issued in the above-styled matter. September 13, 2013
"this action will be dismissed as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915e(2)(B).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [EFC No. 2] is granted.
So Ordered this 15th day of April, 2013.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under THE RULE OF LAW and 29 USC § 412 - CIVIL ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS; JURISDICTION and 28 USC § 1254 - Courts of appeals; certiorari; certified questions (acknowledging pro-se 28 U.S.C. § 2111. Harmless error[12] that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties).
Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber" [13](July 5, 1641), the Constitution for the United States of America Article VI. Second paragraph, 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 13thand 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, treaties made "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (PART II, Article 2, Section 3), the constitutionally authorized ex industria[14] statute laws, now codified into the U.S. Code as 18 USC §241 - §242[15]Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law and 42 USC §1983 - §1985[16] Civil action for deprivation of rights and Blackstone's English Common Law (1765–1769) as quoted into Supreme Court precedent by Chief Justice John Marshal in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803):
"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. 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..." (emphasis, underlining and parenthetical text added Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))
"it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy[17] by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded…" (emphasis, underlining and parenthetical text added Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))
"I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the Courts of common law (7th Amendment). And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." [18] (emphasis, underlining and parenthetical text added Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 in (1803))[19]
THE STATEMENT OF CASE
The case in chief, is based on in 2003 (03FC-010670),[20] an ex parte NOT "facially valid court order"[21] of protection and 2004 (CR203-1336M),[22] an unconstitutional misdemeanor traffic conviction based on a violation of the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 "the knowing use of perjured testimony"[23] in the State Courts of Missouri. I was charged and held on TWO infamous crimes fraudulently,[24] unreasonably and unconstitutionally combined[25] into one while being denied the most basic elements of Due Process of Law,[26] probable cause[27] and Exculpable evidence.
The facts of these issues have never even been questioned; I thus see no need in presenting them AGAIN here. Since the origination of these two deprivations, fraudulently[28] and unconstitutionally combined[29] by the respondents into one issue,[30] I have been deprived of the property[31] in rights of my liberty, my paternity, my fiscal assets and then subsequently forced into a condition of unconstitutional involuntary servitude.
I have since the origination of the denial of "property in rights"[32] and involuntary servitude been seeking the protection of the law in the original courts,[33] the courts of appeals i.e., Missouri State Court of Appeals (SD26269 and ED84021), US Federal Court Eastern Missouri District (4:07-cv-00506-SOW, 4:07-CV-1116 CEJ, 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 4:11-cv-931-CAS, 4:12-cv-703-CEJ and 4:13-cv-00360-ERW), 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200), U.S. Supreme Court (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193, 07-11115 and 11-8211) and with additional efforts in written correspondence to the President of the United States, the Governor of Missouri, Police enforcement (local, state and federal {FBI and USMS})and the Attorneys General (State and Federal).
Most recently and presently with this Petition for Writ of Certiorari in 4:13-cv-00360-ERW / 13-2200 Jeep v Government of the United States of America, et al., citing Oravec v. Bearcrane, et al. (12-222) asking the FBI, AGAIN, to investigate the fraudulent[34] ex parte NOT "facially valid court order"[35] of protection and the combined[36] misdemeanor traffic conviction, a violation of the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 "the knowing use of perjured testimony."[37]
CLEARLY these two issues, FRAUDULENTLY[38] and UNREASONABLY COMBINED, [39] was and is a facially flagrant violation of my "property in rights"[40] to due process[41] of law. The FBI's mission statement as to "under color of law" violations is without the self-defeating antecedent of "absolute immunity." I quote the FBI's SELF PUBLISHED MISSION STATEMENT:
"U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation's democracy. That's why it's a federal crime for anyone acting under "color of law" willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. "Color of law" simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority."[42]
The Federal Court in essence confirms my case by asserting the antecedent saying "as theses officials are entitled to absolute immunity." Any assertion of "absolute immunity," in the post "divine right of the nobility," [43] REAL WORLD of human fallibility is inherently UNREASONABLE and confirms the party making the inherently UNREASONABLE assertions of infallibility to be "sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid"[44] and any resultant scenario to be "incredible,"[45] "fantastic or delusional."[46]
Clearly the 4th Amendment's requirement for "reasonable probable cause" [47] limits jurisdiction for a "facially valid court order"[48] (see the subject attached ex parte "facially invalid court order" of protection dated November 3, 2003) or it is without efficacy/authority. The issuing Judge (Goeke) did not have "reasonable probable cause" [49] for the stated charge[50] thus it was fraudulent[51] and not a "facially valid court order."[52] "Reasonable probable cause" [53] is a requirement for "facially valid" jurisdiction per reason and the 4th Amendment. Thus the original order of, the original service of, the original hearing for, and all the subsequent findings in favor of the unwarrantable, unconstitutional and NOT "facially valid court order"[54] were taken in "a complete absence of all jurisdictions."[55] Additionally all findings on appeal in favor of the NOT "facially valid court order,"[56] after being made aware of the constitutional issues, were, are and have been felonious,[57] if not treasonous, violations of their oath of office "to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic"[58] that ALL federal officers and Article III Judicial Officers are bound by.[59]
When this started over 10.41 years[60] ago my son was 8 years old, he will be 19 years old very shortly (12-22-2013). They stole his childhood from me.
I seek an EMERGENCY ORDER, escalating damages and injunctive relief for the deprivation of "property in rights,"[61] as detailed on the attached and referenced in the appendix.
As a person, a 57 year old NATURAL born citizen of the United States of America all I can do is HUMBLY beg, HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Under Connick v. Thompson[62]
We have NO RIGHTS OUR GOVERNMENT is
BOUND to RESPECT!
Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011, after conceding that Thompson's rights had been deprived by the denial of "exculpable evidence" with "18 years in prison, including 14 years on DEATH ROW" the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court FIVE asserted, I quote:
"difficult problems of proof," and we must adhere to a "stringent standard of fault," lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior."
I would ask WHEN responsibility for rights got below "respondeat superior" liability. I would have thought that inalienable rights commanded a level of "strict liability" on par with the "strict scrutiny"[63] they allegedly command for their deprivation. The self-serving SOPHISTRY[64] of the Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary criminally, unconstitutionally and treasonously attempts to make inalienable rights un-securable. We the People have an un-abridge-able[65] right to DEMAND the "redress of grievances"[66] in a 7th Amendment controversy for the deprivation of the inalienable "property in rights."[67]
That being said, "difficult problems of proof" [68] are not difficult, they are IMPOSSIBLE, if after the government CONCEDES GUILT, the government cannot be found culpable!
Per the Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary on the Supreme Court of the United States's constructed [69] law, We the People, for more than 406 years (Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber[70] 1607) [71] to 2013), have "been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit" for reckonable[72] inalienable rights "so far inferior that" We the People "had no rights which the" Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary, the delegated authority of the government of the people, by the people and for the people, "was bound to respect,[73] and that" We the People "might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery"[74] with the deprivation of the "property in our rights"[75] without a right of "redress of grievances"[76] in a 7th Amendment controversy." "As long as rulers are above the law, citizens have the same type of freedom that slaves had on days when their masters chose not to beat them."[77]
The Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary on the Supreme Court since just after the civil war in 1871[78] (and again in 1967[79] by reference) has cited Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber [80] 1607) [81] to conspire to construct[82] an "excess of power"[83] to quash the "sense and reason"[84] for the "raison d'être" [85] of We the People's enactment of the Constitution, the Amendments, and the constitutionally authorized ex industria[86] statute laws, now codified into the U.S. Code as 18 USC §241 - §242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law and 42 USC §1983 - §1985 Civil action for deprivation of rights. We the People have been suffering from the Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary's deprivation of the "property in rights"[87] under color of law EVER SINCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To make a too long story short, the Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary on the Supreme Court reaches back 406 years to a dissolved and discredited, for CAUSE,[88] corrupt court for a thus corrupted ruling, Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber[89] 1607),[90] to evade their legal designated under law responsibility for We the People's inalienable justifiable "property in rights."[91] How can We the People secure our liberties under a government who's judiciary asserts absolute immunity for any and all legal responsibility for our inalienable "property in rights?"[92]
If the Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary assertions were allowed to stand We the People in essence traded the "absolute immunity" of the nobility for the "absolute immunity" of the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[93] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [94] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers,"[95] the malicious, corrupt, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[96] actions[97]of federal, state, local, and regional legislators[98] and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[99] actions of "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [100] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[101]
How many heroes on the battle fields in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII or any of the lesser conflicts would have actually given up their lives for rights that require difficult problems of proof above an beyond even respondeat superior liability for §1983 as asserted by the Black robed Royalist Supreme Court five in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011. That means that liability for a workman's comp claim is easier to establish than liability for any or all of the inalienable rights We the People are BORN with i.e., Freedom of Speech, Due Process, [102] Equal Protection, Life, Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness. Per the Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary even an admission of culpability does NOT secure for the victim an apology, much less an equitable remedy.
We the People have fallen under the despotic,[103] malicious and corrupt spell of the concentrated construct[104] of an "excess of power"[105] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[106] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt"judges,[107] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [108] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers,"[109] the malicious, corrupt, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[110] actions[111] of federal,[112] state, local, and regional legislators[113] and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[114] actions of "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [115] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[116]
Clearly, to any sane person, the Black Robed Royalist Article III Judges that assert, "to question them is frivolous,"[117] is self-servingly sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid.[118] I have to quote Justice Thurgood Marshall "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials,[119]intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]."[120] I would assert it is has gone beyond incredible and has reached a "fantastic or delusional scenario"[121] in Connick v. Thompson [122]!!!!!
The Article III, Black Robed Royalist, Supreme Court FIVE, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, delegated authorities, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission have awarded themselves and others "absolute immunity"[123] from their constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[124] i.e., the deprivation of property in "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[125] by DENYING the sense and reason of the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[126]
Absolute Immunity, as a "constructive power," [127] has and will continue to QUASH Inalienable RIGHTS and Justice… the "raison d'être"[128] for the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Constitution and constitutionally authorized ex industria [129] statute laws, now codified into the U.S. Code as 18 USC §241-§242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law and 42 USC §1983-§1985 Civil action for deprivation of rights.
The CORRUPT, malicious, dishonest, "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"[130] of our Justice system will not even consider a 7th Amendment[131] respectfully submitted civil[132] petition questioning the criminal[133] assertion of the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant, conscientiously stupid[134] and ennobled[135] Black Robed Royalist Article III Guild of Judges.[136]
Blanket absolute immunity quashes the very essence of a Constitution, the Supreme Law of Law.
The petition should be granted to give creditability AGAIN to the reckonable[137] rule of the Supreme Law of the Land.
The Founding Fathers and We the People as represented by BOTH houses of congress in 1866 and 1871[138] were not and are not delusional. The Founding Fathers and We the People
"intended sub silentio to exempt"[139] under color of law "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[140] especially those entrusted with judicial,[141] prosecutorial[142] and enforcement[143] power from the federal Constitution's paramount binding authority[144] and its requisite procedural and substantive Justice![145] To assert otherwise, as Supreme Court precedent currently does, is an incredible,[146] fantastic or delusional scenario.[147] The Justice Department i.e., judicial,[148] prosecutorial[149] and enforcement,[150] obvious raison d'être[151] is "that justice shall be done under color of law."[152] Absolute immunity, among free and equal individual persons, is incompatible with the establishment of justice!!!!!!
The terror of a criminally malicious, corrupt "sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid"[153] Justice system is antithetical to the spring, the love of virtue,[154] requisite for a democratic republic.
The assertion that this will open up a massive issue that will overwhelm any attempt to address it, begs the question with the assumption the issue is too big and that all we can do is try to ignore it.[155] Neither of those two assumptions can be allowed to control the issue. Yes the issue is large, Yes the issue is growing as we speak, Yes the issue will be difficult to deal with, it is therefore of the supreme importance that we deal with the issue now and get it under control before it grows any larger.
Why would "We the People" even have written a constitution as the Supreme Law of the land if we "intended sub silentio to exempt"[156] "whoever"[157] and "every person"[158] acting under color of law. Absolute Immunity[159] by definition is irreconcilable with the authority of a reckonable[160] Constitution to establish justice as the Supreme Law of the land.
1. A pro se EMERGENCY PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 10.41 years[161] in the making, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (39 pages) dated, notarized.
2. A copy of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Doc#6) and ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Doc#7) both dated 04/15/13 as regards case 4:13-cv-0360-ERW.
3. A copy of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals JUDGMENT (Entry ID:4068333, 1 pages) dated August 23, 2013 and MANDATE Entry ID: 4075298) dated September 13, 2013
4. A copy of the original ex parte NOT "facially valid court order"[162] of protection dated November 3, 2003.
5. Statement of injunctive relief and escalating DATED spreadsheet breakout for the damages[163] dated Thursday October 10, 2013 09:13:21.82 AM, "the "exclusionary rule"[164] is simply irrelevant… it is damages or nothing."[165].
6. A "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" dated, notarized
7. I note and acknowledge all prior court records in the State of Missouri District Court, State of Missouri District Appeals Court, Eastern Missouri U.S. District Court, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States Supreme Court and as confirmed in my blog www.DGJeep.blogspot.com.
Respectfully submitted, Monday, October 14, 2013 10:59.59 AM
Statement of Damages and Injunctive Relief
Thursday October 10, 2013 09:13:21.82 AM
I seek damages and injunctive relief, noting that criminally[166] offending Judicial Officers were involved, as follows:
1. Injunctive relief to overturn and expunge the DWI Conviction (Case No.:CR203-1336M) and remove all reference of it from my Driving Record and the 33 year old 1978 DWI conviction.[167]
2. Injunctive relief to overturn all orders of protection between Sharon G. Jeep and David G. Jeep and remove all record of them (Case No.:03FC-10670M).
3. Injunctive relief to overturn the subsequent and coupled Property and Custody Order (Case No.:03FC-12243) currently in effect between David G. Jeep and Sharon G. Jeep as regards the joint marital property as of November 3, 2003 and the custody of the Minor Child Patrick Brandon Jeep (DOB 12/22/94) and remand it to a new judge for resettlement based on this ruling.
4. The impeachment or RESIGNATION of the Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, for violation of their constitutional commission and CONDUCT UNBECOMING an Article III Judge.
5. A Jury[168] demand for DAMAGES:
Actual Damages in the amount of:-----------------------------------------------------------
Seventy-Four Million Six Hundred Twenty-Nine Thousand dollars and zero cents------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $74,629,000.00[169]
Punitive damages in the amount of:---------------------------------------------------------
One Hundred Forty-Nine Million Two Hundred Sixty Thousand dollars and zero cents----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $149,260,000.00[170]
Total -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Hundred Twenty-Three Million Eight Hundred Eighty-Nine Thousand dollars and zero cents---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $223,889,000.00[171]
6. I am homeless, destitute and unable to pay any filing fee for this JURY DEMAND.
7. Do I have to light myself on fire in the street to get the rights granted by my creator to all men, like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi?
8. I would also request that the case Eastern District Court of Missouri Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP be expunged from my record also, WITH PREJUDICE.
[2] Because I am a humble non-legal professional and I have been impoverished by this criminal issue I cite the potential for Harmless error - 28 USC § 2111, "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." The inherent unconstitutional denial of justice based on the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, "sincere ignorance," "conscientious stupidity" and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 335 (1983), "the common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process," makes a professionally prepared petition and or appeal untenable to the average victim. Most are not only impoverished by the injustice, but also in jail behind bars. With 5% of the world's population our POLICE STATE now incarcerates 25% of the world's prisoners.
If I may have not been humble enough or ignorantly or inadvertently not utilized the correct humble enough method and/or legal Latin jargon in making my prior petitions (see 8th Circuit court of Appeals prior Filings in 13-2200, 12-2435, 11-2425, 10-1947, 08-1823 and 07-2614) e.g., a writ of habeas corpus, a writ of audita querela, a writ of coram nobis, a writ of error, a writ of praemunire, a writ of supersedeas, a writ of recurso de amparo or etc., it is as result of my impoverishment via the unconstitutional denial of rights.
[3] After 6 years homeless with winter coming, government shut-downs and sequestration cuts, I have little prospects for survival!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[4] 10.41 years, 3,799 days, hours 91,184, minutes 5,471,053 or seconds 328,263,202 based on Thursday October 10 2013 09:13:21.82 AM
[5] "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own." "Property" 27 March 1792, James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792
Rights, without a property component, have NO VALUE and become too easily deprived. James Madison and We the People knew this when We the People enacted the constitution, 1st and 7th amendments and the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985). The Supreme Court has criminally since 1871 (Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)) constructed a power to deprive We the People this value i.e., criminal and civil "absolute immunity."
[6] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792
[7] Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[8] "As long as rulers are above the law, citizens have the same type of freedom that slaves had on days when their masters chose not to beat them." James Bovard (born 1956) "Attention Deficit Democracy" (Palgrave, 2006)
[9] Civil Rights Cases 109 U.S. 26 (1883)
[10] Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011, after conceding that Thompson's rights had been deprived by the denial of "exculpable evidence" with "18 years in prison, including 14 years on DEATH ROW" "difficult problems of proof," and we must adhere to a"stringent standard of fault," lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior." Difficult problems of proof are not difficult they are IMPOSSIBLE if after the government CONCEDES GUILT the government cannot be found culpable for the guilt!!!!!!!!!
[11]Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber"[11] July 5, 1641, statute law in the realm of England, or dominion of Wales, that "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void" for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for "absolute immunity" in (Star Chamber 1607,)Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871).
· Article I "An act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber." "WHEREAS by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land:…
· § 9 of "but the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments than by any law is warranted"
· Article III "Be it ordained and enacted by the authority of this present parliament, That the said court commonly called the star-chamber, and all jurisdiction, power and authority belonging unto, or exercised in the same court, or by any the judges, officers, or ministers thereof, be from the first day of August in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred forty and one, clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away and determined"
§ 3 "every article, clause and sentence in them, and every of them, by which any jurisdiction, power or authority is given, limited or appointed unto the said court commonly called the star-chamber, or unto all or any the judges, officers or ministers thereof, or for any proceedings to be had or made in the said court, or for any matter or thing to be drawn into question, examined or determined there, shall for so much as concerneth the said court of star-chamber, and the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void."
The Act explicitly disbands the court for cause, "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void" all prior precedent of the said court and judges.
[12] 28 USC § 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.
[13] Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber"[13] July 5, 1641, statute law in the realm of England, or dominion of Wales, that "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void" for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for "absolute immunity" in (Star Chamber 1607,)Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871).
· § 3 "every article, clause and sentence in them, and every of them, by which any jurisdiction, power or authority is given, limited or appointed unto the said court commonly called the star-chamber, or unto all or any the judges, officers or ministers thereof, or for any proceedings to be had or made in the said court, or for any matter or thing to be drawn into question, examined or determined there, shall for so much as concerneth the said court of star-chamber, and the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void."
[14] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 34 (1883)
[15] § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27. (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866. An excerpt from his remarks attached to his veto "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without invading the immunities of… the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order." "It is, therefore, assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment, for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose." See also BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460 U. S. 359 (1983)
[16] Originally enacted as The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 USC §1983 - §1985). The author of § 1 clearly stated the relationship between the two Acts in introducing the 1871 measure:
[17] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971) In a civil issue such as Bivens "the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant…, it is damages or nothing."
[18] Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[19] The oath office requires that if sued in the respectful form of a petition (1st Amendment right to petition), never fail to comply with the judgment of a 7th Amendment civil court.
[20] An UNWARRANTED, UNREASONABLE assertion of an ex-parte order of protection.
[22] An unwarrantable charge of DWI, supported only by deprivation of exculpable evidence and Provably falsified police testimony and police reports.
[23] "the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury." United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 103 (1976)
[24] 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 to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial or decision 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." This describes ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY'S effect PERFECTLY.
[25] Combining the TWO, punishing with one law, while holding me on the other charge violates the 8th amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments."
[26] 5th and 14th Amendments
[27] $th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
[28] An assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not meet the standard of "reasonable probable cause" for the stated charge.
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."
[29] Combining the TWO, punishing with one law, while holding me on the other charge violates the 8th amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments."
[30] See end of this petition as referenced in the APPENDIX: Original Exparte Order of Protection where one issue CR203-1336M (DWI) is used as unrelated probable cause for the second issue 03FC-010670 (Exparte order of protection, Abuse)
[31] 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
[32] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792
[33] See the NUMEROUS TIMELY objections and motions, pre-trial, at-trial, and post-trial for all issues as a part of the undisputed court's record.
[34] 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 to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial or decision 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." This describes ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY'S effect PERFECTLY.
[35] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[36] Combining the TWO, punishing with one law, while holding me on the other charge violates the 8th amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments."
[37] "the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury." United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 103 (1976)
[38] 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 to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial or decision 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." This describes ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY'S effect PERFECTLY.
[39] Combining the TWO, punishing with one law, while holding me on the other charge violates the 8th amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments."
[40] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792
[41] 5th and 14th Amendments
[42] Civil Rights • Color of Law "Color of Law Abuses" http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law
[43] 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:
[44] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.
[45] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)
[46] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[47] 4th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
[48] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[49] $th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
[50] An assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not meet the standard of "reasonable probable cause" for the stated charge.
[51] 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 to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial or decision 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." This describes ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY'S effect PERFECTLY.
[52] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[53] $th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
[54] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[55] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[56] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[57] 18 USC §241 - §242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law is clearly a felony under 18 USC § 3559(a)(5)- Sentencing classification of offenses,
[58] 5 USC § 3331 - Oath of office
[59] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 The absence of exigent circumstances should be noted.
[60] 10.41 years, 3,799 days, hours 91,184, minutes 5,471,053 or seconds 328,263,202 based on Thursday October 10 2013 09:13:21.82 AM
[61] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792
[62] Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011, after conceding that Thompson's rights had been deprived by the denial of "exculpable evidence" with "18 years in prison, including 14 years on DEATH ROW" "difficult problems of proof," and we must adhere to a"stringent standard of fault," lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior." Difficult problems of proof are not difficult they are IMPOSSIBLE if after the government CONCEDES GUILT the government cannot be found culpable for the guilt!!!!!!!!!
[63] U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin. See United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), Korematsu v. United States (1944), Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), cf. Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927), Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) and Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal remarked in 2011 that, in the pre-war era of ethnic segregation in public accommodations, which on the West Coast included wide refusal of equal treatment of "Japs," the Chief's office was easily prejudiced to disavow the Ringle Report in its 1942 letter. He noted that Fahy's subordinates had actually alerted Fahy in writing that failing to investigate that report, or at least to disclose its existence in the briefs or argument in the Supreme Court, "might approximate the suppression of evidence." Thus, Katyal concluded that Mr. Fahy "did not inform the Court that a key set of allegations used to justify the internment" had been doubted, if not fully discredited, within the government's own agencies.
Katyal therefore announced his office's filing of a formal "admission of error" negating the precedent value of the state's decision the government had thereby won. He reaffirmed the extraordinary duty of the Solicitor General to address the Court with "absolute candor," due to the "special credence" the Court explicitly grants to his court submissions
[65] Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[66] Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[67] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792
[68] Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011
[70]Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber"[70] July 5, 1641, statute law in the realm of England, or dominion of Wales, that "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void" for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for "absolute immunity" in (Star Chamber 1607,)Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871).
[71] "Floyd and Barker, reported by Coke, in 1608" Bradley v. Fisher - 80 U.S. 347 (1871), Pierson v. Ray - 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
[72] "Predictability, or as Llewellyn put it, "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)
[74] paraphrased from Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 407 (1857)
[75] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792
[76] Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[77] James Bovard (born 1956) "Attention Deficit Democracy" (Palgrave, 2006)
[78] Bradley v. Fisher - 80 U.S. 347 (1871)
[79] Pierson v. Ray - 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
[80]Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber"[80] July 5, 1641, statute law in the realm of England, or dominion of Wales, that "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void" for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for "absolute immunity" in (Star Chamber 1607,)Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871).
[81] "Floyd and Barker, reported by Coke, in 1608" Bradley v. Fisher - 80 U.S. 347 (1871), Pierson v. Ray - 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
[83] James Madison (1751–1836), the 4th President of the United States (1809 – 1817), often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," in his essay "Property" for the National Gazette March 27, 1792
[84] "It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul." MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883) and ""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 decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." [Footnote 41] Note, Developments in the Law: Section 1983 and Federalism, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 1133, 1224 (1977). See also Johnson v. State, 69 Cal.2d 782, 792-793, 447 P.2d 352, 359-360 (1968): "As a threshold matter, we consider it unlikely that the possibility of government liability will be a serious deterrent to the fearless exercise of judgment by the employee. In any event, however, to the extent that such deterrent effect takes hold, it may be wholesome. An employee in a private enterprise naturally gives some consideration to the potential liability of his employer, and this attention unquestionably promotes careful work; the potential liability of a governmental entity, to the extent that it affects primary conduct at all, will similarly influence public employees." Owen v. City of Independence - 445 U.S. 656 (1980)
[85] MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. "To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decisionmakers 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)
[86] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 34 (1883)
[87] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792
[88] The cause as confirmed in the Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber"[88]July 5, 1641, was abuse of discretion, Article I, § 9 "but the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments than by any law is warranted"
[89]Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber"[89] July 5, 1641, statute law in the realm of England, or dominion of Wales, that "repealed and absolutely revoked and made void" for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for "absolute immunity" in (Star Chamber 1607,)Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871).
[90] "Floyd and Barker, reported by Coke, in 1608" Bradley v. Fisher - 80 U.S. 347 (1871), Pierson v. Ray - 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
[91] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792
[92] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792
[97] The denial of the "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, "the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare," shall not be questioned."
[102] 5th and 14th Amendments
[103] Montesquieu in his "De l'Espirit des Lois" (1748) (The Spirit of the Law) defines three main kinds of political systems: republican, monarchical, and despotic. Driving each classification of political system, according to Montesquieu, must be what he calls a "principle". This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior on the part of the citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make it function smoothly. For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics), this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. For monarchies, the spring is the love of honor -- the desire to attain greater rank and privilege. Finally, for despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler. We the People have currently despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
[104] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[105] James Madison (1751–1836), the 4th President of the United States (1809 – 1817), often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," in his essay "Property" for the National Gazette March 27, 1792
[107] 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.
[108] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[109] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[110] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. Martin Luther King said it better, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
[111] The denial of the "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, "the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare," shall not be questioned."
[112] The Deanil of the "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, "the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare," shall not be questioned."
[113] Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138
[114] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. Martin Luther King said it better, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
[115] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[116] "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.
[117] See Item 2 in the appendix "2. A copy of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Doc#6) and ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Doc#7) both dated 04/15/13 as regards case 4:13-cv-0360-ERW."
[118] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. Martin Luther King said it better, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
[119] The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26
[120] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983)
[121] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[122] The Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts in Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011, after conceding that Thompson's rights had been deprived by the denial of "exculpable evidence" with "18 years in prison, including 14 years on DEATH ROW" asserted "difficult problems of proof," and we must adhere to a "stringent standard of fault," lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior." Difficult problems of proof are not difficult they are IMPOSSIBLE if AFTER YOU CONCEDE them you cannot be found guilty of them e.g., I deprived you of your Due Process Rights, but you cannot hold me responsible, because after you spent "18 years in prison, including 14 years on DEATH ROW," I conceded my culpability? That does not make SENSE!!!! Conceding culpability after 18 years does not excuse an 18 year mistake.
[123] "absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[124] Alexander Hamilton June of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, The Federalist Papers No. 78, "The Judiciary Department"
[125] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 The absence of exigent circumstances should be noted.
[126] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for 6 years!!!! The 1stAmendment 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 secures the right to settle all suits: "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" assures justice as regards equity.
[127] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84
[128] MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. "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)
[129] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 34 (1883)
[130] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.
[131] 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."
[132] Title 42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[133] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[136] 8th Circuit Court of Appeals cases Jeep v Obama #12-2435, Jeep v Obama #11-2425, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947," Jeep v Bennett 08-1823, "Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and the most humble Petitions for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211."
[137] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[138] 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 (now Now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Whoever" criminally liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law) and The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, enacted April 20, 1871 (now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Every person" civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law).
[139] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[140] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[141] "It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)
[143] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truth finding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[144]"There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).
[145] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for 6 YEARS!
[146] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [(The Civil Rights Act of 1866 now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242) Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [(The Civil Rights Act of 1871 now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[147] Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez - 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
[148] "It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
[149] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)
[150] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" by saying, "There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[151] MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. "To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decisionmakers 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)
[152] The correct unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court was "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 88 (1935)
[153] "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.
[154] Any political system, according to Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws (French: De l'esprit des lois) 1748, must have what he calls a "principle". This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior on the part of the citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make it function smoothly. For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics), this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. For monarchies, the spring is the love of honor -- the desire to attain greater rank and privilege. Finally, for despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler. A political system cannot last long if its appropriate principle is lacking. Montesquieu claims, for example, that the English failed to establish a republic after the Civil War (1642–1651) because the society lacked the requisite love of virtue.
[155] The assertion in Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (1903)that the issue is too big for the Federal Judiciary to enforce is not valid. The 14th Amendment says no state shall deny Due Process, thus the enforcement of Due Process fo ALL CITIZENS is a function of the Federal Judiciary no matter how large is the problem of their negligence and deliberate indifference has created.
[156] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
[157] Now codified as Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Whoever" criminally liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.
[158] Now codified as Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 into the United States Code of Law to hold "Every person" civilly liable for the deprivation of rights under color of law.
[159] "There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 398 (1932).
[160] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia (ibid.)
[161] 10.41 years, 3,799 days, hours 91,184, minutes 5,471,053 or seconds 328,263,202 based on Thursday October 10 2013 09:13:21.82 AM
[162] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[163] We hold a "4-Year-Old Can Be Sued." We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion. We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion. We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion. But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence, malice and corruption of "our chief justice (judges), our officials (prosecutors), or any of our servants (law enforcement)" and compensate the victims?
Whistle-Blower Awarded $104 Million by I.R.S., New York Times, September 11, 2012, By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI, Sometimes, crime does pay. If crime pays that well, I would think that my struggle for broad based Civil Rights for all should pay at least if not better than CRIME!!!!
[164] In criminal case the "exclusionary rule" is an obfuscation of the Government's Article III vicarious liability for due Process rights.
[165] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971) In a civil issue "the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant…, it is damages or nothing."
[166] Fraud is still a crime, fraus omnia corrumpit!!!! Not to mention the denial of rights, Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 - These statute(s) makes it unlawful for (one or) two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
[167] Alcohol-related driving offenses, expunged from records, when--procedures, effect—limitations 577.054. :
After a period of not less than ten years, an individual who has pleaded guilty or has been convicted for a first alcohol-related driving offense which is a misdemeanor or a county or city ordinance violation and which is not a conviction for driving a commercial motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and who since such date has not been convicted of any other alcohol-related driving offense may apply to the court in which he or she pled guilty or was sentenced for an order to expunge from all official records all recordations of his or her arrest, plea, trial or conviction.
[168] 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."
Not to mention "And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun." 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[169] This amount is escalating based on Thursday October 10 2013 09:13.21.82 AM see attached dated spreadsheet.
[170] This amount is escalating based on Thursday October 10 2013 09:13.21.82 AM see attached dated spreadsheet.
[171] This amount is escalating based on Thursday October 10 2013 09:13.21.82 AM see attached dated spreadsheet.
Label Number: 7007 0710 0003 4890 9210
Posted Wednesday October 16, 2013 O11:14:54.54
Shipment Activity-------------------------- Location--------------------- Date & Time
Delivered--------------- WASHINGTON, DC 20543-----------
-------------------------------------------- -------------- Oct.21, 2013 7:47 am
Available for Pickup---------- WASHINGTON, DC 20543- Oct.20, 2013 12:01 pm
Arrival at Unit-------------------- WASHINGTON, DC 20018- Oct.20, 2013 11:44 am
Processed at USPS Origin Sort Facility--
----------------------------------- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155--- Oct.16, 2013 1:06 am
Depart USPS Sort Facility--- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155--------- Oct.15, 2013
Processed at USPS Origin Sort Facility SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155---
----------------------------------------------------- --------------------- Oct.15, 2013 9:38 pm
Dispatched to Sort Facility--- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101--- Oct.15, 2013 5:44 pm
Acceptance----------------------- SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101--- Oct.15, 2013 2:43 pm
Expected Delivery By: October 18, 2013
Re: A repeated constitutionally and lawfully un-abridge-able petition for Writ of Certiorari regarding a facially IN-valid court order[1] - Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals cases 07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200
I stress two things with this transmittal.
First and for most is the title:
David G. Jeep and heir, Petitioners
The Government of the United States of America, et al, Respondents
Secondly, I stress "Time is of the essence." I have been homeless for 5 years in this effort. I am not sure I can make it to the first frost much less past it. With government sequesters and government shut downs my very existence is at risk.
Absolute immunity QUASHES legal rights!!!
a. "A humble pro se EMERGENCY PETITION for a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 10.41 years of deprivation, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES"
b. In forma pauperis petition in the Supreme Court
cc: My Blog - Monday, October 14, 2013, 12:09:19 PM
Posted by DGJeep at 2:40:00 PM
Labels: Bovard, CA8 13-2200, Certiorari, J. Roberts, Oravec, PFWC, PWC, PWC 13-7030, PWC 15-8884, Supreme Court, Supreme Court FIVE, Verrilli
Judicial “absolute immunity, makes inalienable rig...
The Attorney General should be relentlessly prosec...