Friday, September 14, 2012

Re: FRAP 41(d2A) Notice of Writ of Certiorari, Appeal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals: 12-2345, Eastern Missouri U.S. District Court Case No. 4:12-cv-703-CEJ

 Michael E. Gans, Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit
III South 10th Street, Room 24.329
St. Louis, Missouri 63102-1125

Re: FRAP 41(d2A) Notice of Writ of Certiorari
       Appeal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals:  12-2345
       Eastern Missouri U.S. District Court Case No.  4:12-cv-703-CEJ

Dear Mr. Gans,
     Not sure if this is necessary or not.  I am in a GOOD FAITH effort attempting to comply with the incomprehensible minutia of the judicial bureaucratic requirements for notification as referenced above.  This may or may not be required or implied regarding FRAP 41(d2A) and a stay of the mandate for a writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court.  As I state this is fraud on the court as relates to my civil rights.
      The maxims of the law, rei publicae, ut sit finis litium and nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadam causa do not hold.  I quote United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65 (1878):
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
     I was clearly denied access to the courts via the fraud on the court in this case(s).  The denial of exculpable evidence<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]--> makes due process of law and thus access to the court impossible.  The most fundamental exculpable evidence is probable cause. Without probable cause there is no warrant, no jurisdiction, and thus no possible defense… much less access to the court.

      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

cc:  Senator Claire McCaskill
       My Blog - Friday, September 14, 2012, 12:51:39 PM

[1] 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."
Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
E-mail is preferred,
(314) 514-5228

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