The FACTS of MY Case Are Without Question!
The FACTS of MY case are without question - my liberty rights, my paternity rights, my property rights, were unconstitutionally deprived on November 3. 2003, 7:55pm CT. THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION on fraud or the deprivation of constitutional rights. I have been fighting to regain them relentlessly since.[1] The UNDISPUTED issue is and has always been – a flagrantly, infamous, fraudulent, non-exigent, extra-judicial (coram non judice) court order:
1. a
fraud (fraus omnia corrumpit[2]) on the court by an officer
of the court (FRCP 60(d)(3))[3]
2. a
NOT "facially valid court order"[4] (Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978)
PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) -
3. that
was reckonably[5] issued "in the "clear absence of
all jurisdiction," (Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116
L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
4. "beyond
debate" (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011),
Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. _(2015))
5. "sufficiently
clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing
violates that right" (Anderson v. Creighton, 483
U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011)[6]
Congress and the Supreme Court are very much historically aware of judicial culpability in the deprivation of rights, "The congressional purpose[7] seems to me to be clear- NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. A condition of lawlessness existed in certain of the States under which people were being denied their civil rights. Congress intended to provide a remedy for the wrongs being perpetrated. And its (US Congress 1871) members were not unaware that certain members of the judiciary were implicated in the state of affairs which the statute(s) (now codified as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &; 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985) was intended to rectify…. Mr. Rainey of South Carolina noted that "[T]he courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity. Congressman Beatty of Ohio claimed that it was the duty of Congress to listen to the appeals of those who, by reason of popular sentiment or secret organizations or prejudiced juries or bribed judges, [cannot] obtain the rights and privileges due an American citizen. . . ." MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967)
THE GRAVITAS OF THE PERSONAL[8] ISSUE IS BEYOND QUESTION, IT TOOK AWAY PETITIONER'S SON, HOME, CAR AND EVERYTHING HE ONCE HELD DEAR IN THE WORLD. Thus, the issue could never be construed as vexatious[9] nor is the ongoing fight against flagrant injustice "continual Calumniations"[10] nor could a near 20 year struggle against injustice be construed as an inconsequential "short ride."[11]
At issue – a flagrantly, infamous, fraudulent, non-exigent, extra-judicial (coram non judice) COURT ORDER - a fraud (fraus omnia corrumpit[12]) on the court by an officer of the court (FRCP 60(d)(3))[13] - a NOT "facially valid court order"[14] - that was reckonably[15] issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"[16] "beyond debate"[17] - "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates"[18] a right that right.[19] [20] [21] [22] [23]
Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!
“Jane Crow” discrimination is
REAL. In 1960 5% (one in twenty) children had no Father in the
home. In 2014 40% (eight in twenty) children have no father at
home. In my LIFETIME a 700% increase, that my Son and I HAD NO SAY IN. (
Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!
Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!
Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!
Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!
[2] fraus omnia corrumpit - "Fraud corrupts all." - A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision or arbitral award. THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION on fraud or the deprivation of constitutional rights.
[3] Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - "set aside a judgment for fraud on the court"
[4] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide REASONABLE probable cause for an ex parte order of protection. Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03, THERE WAS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION for the stated charge.
[5] If reason (reckonabilty) does not limit jurisdiction with probable cause, nothing can."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)
[6] "To this day, I am haunted by the vivid memory of the confirming shrug from the Police Officer when I questioned it as served on November 3, 2003. I am further haunted by the memory of the same confirming shrug when Commissioner Jones first saw the absurdity of the court order on the bench November 20, 2003 as my attorney then highlighted as he repeated his prior objections."
[7] Jim Crow and/or Jane Crow
[8] While the petitioner asserts this is not necessarily an isolated Jane Crow issue, it is a uniquely flagrant "first impression" and PERSONAL for the petitioner. Per McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914) " The essence of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected"
[9] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 348 and 349
[10] Floyd and Barker. (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I - In the Court of Star Chamber. - First Published in the Reports, volume 12, page 23.
[11] Ida B. Well v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad - Tennessee Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's ruling in 1887. It concluded, "We think it is evident that the purpose of the defendant in error was to harass with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain a comfortable seat for the short ride."[Southwestern Reporter, Volume 4, May 16–August 1, 1887.
[12] fraus omnia corrumpit - "Fraud corrupts all." - A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision or arbitral award.
[13] Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - "set aside a judgment for fraud on the court"
[14] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide REASONABLE probable cause for an ex parte order of protection. Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03, THERE WAS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION for the stated charge. (Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003))
[15] If reason (reckonabilty) does not limit jurisdiction with probable cause, nothing can."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)
[16] (Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[17] (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. _(2015))
[18] Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011) - "To this day, I am haunted by the vivid memory of the confirming shrug from the Police Officer when I questioned it as served on November 3, 2003. I am further haunted by the memory of the same confirming shrug when Commissioner Jones first saw the absurdity of the court order on the bench November 20, 2003 as my attorney then highlighted as he repeated his prior objections."
[19] While the petitioner asserts this is not necessarily an isolated Jane Crow issue, it is a uniquely flagrant "first impression" and PERSONAL for the petitioner. Per McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914) " The essence of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected"
[20] Ida B. Well v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad - Tennessee Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's ruling in 1887. It concluded, "We think it is evident that the purpose of the defendant in error was to harass with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain a comfortable seat for the short ride."[Southwestern Reporter, Volume 4, May 16–August 1, 1887.
[21] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 348 and 349
[22] Floyd and Barker. (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I - In the Court of Star Chamber. - First Published in the Reports, volume 12, page 23.
[23] "The congressional purpose (now codified as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &; 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985) seems to me to be clear- NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. A condition of lawlessness existed in certain of the States under which people were being denied their civil rights. Congress intended to provide a remedy for the wrongs being perpetrated. And its (US Congress 1871) members were not unaware that certain members of the judiciary were implicated in the state of affairs which the statute(s) (now codified as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &; 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985) was intended to rectify…. Mr. Rainey of South Carolina noted that "[T]he courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity. Congressman Beatty of Ohio claimed that it was the duty of Congress to listen to the appeals of those who, by reason of popular sentiment or secret organizations or prejudiced juries or bribed judges, [cannot] obtain the rights and privileges due an American citizen. . . ." MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967) THE GRAVITAS OF THE PERSONAL ISSUE IS BEYOND QUESTION, IT TOOK AWAY PETITIONER'S SON, HOME, CAR AND EVERYTHING HE ONCE HELD DEAR IN THE WORLD. Thus the issue could never be construed as vexatious nor is the ongoing fight against flagrant injustice "continual Calumniations" nor could a near 20 year struggle against injustice be construed as an inconsequential "short ride."
Thanks in advance...
"Agere sequitur esse" ('action follows being')
David G. Jeep, Federal Inmate #36072-044 (formerly)
www.DGJeep.com - Dave@DGJeep.com
Mobile (314) 514-5228 leave message
David G. Jeep
1531 Pine St Apt #403
St. Louis, MO 63103-2547
No comments:
Post a Comment