Monday, February 6, 2017

No: 17-1246 David Gerard Jeep, and heir Appellant v. Government of the United States of America, et al Appellee - with an abundance of caution

Michael E. Gans Clerk of Court
U. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
111 South 10th Street
Room 24.329
St. Louis, MO. 63102-1123

Re: No: 17-1246 David Gerard Jeep, and heir Appellant v. Government of the United States of America, et al Appellee - with an abundance of caution

Dear People:

I herewith include an completed United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit formal motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (5 pages).
While not conceding one iota of the 14th Amendment’s assertion of “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge…; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” I feel the need for an abundance of caution.
In an abundance of caution, I am amending my petition to again[1] note - the Missouri Revised Statutes (Section 455.070) concerning an ex parte order of protection. The gravamen of this issue is thus dejure, independent of the domestic relations exception in Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994).  That is to say:
Proceedings independent of others.

455.070. All proceedings under sections 455.010 to 455.085 are independent of any proceedings for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, separate maintenance and other actions between the parties and are in addition to any other available civil or criminal remedies, unless otherwise specifically provided herein.   (L. 1980 S.B. 524 § 13)
This action’s relationship to the divorce, custody[2] and property becomes a defacto equity “thin skull”[3] liability issue of a generic ex parte fraud with the original petitioner and ex parte - fraud on the court[4] with court-officers for the jury.
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

a.     motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (5 pages)”

cc:  My Blog - Monday, February 13, 2017, 11:22:53 AM

[1] See item 17, page 19, line 5 of the original petition dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016.
[2] Additionally mooted by time, Patrick B. Jeep was 22 on December 22, 2016 it becomes a strictly monetary defacto damages issue.  As additional notice of independence see also Section 455.060.1 Modification of orders, when--termination, when--appeal--custody of children, may not be changed, when. ….  6. The order of protection may not change the custody of children when an action for dissolution of marriage has been filed or the custody has previously been awarded by a court of competent jurisdiction.
[3] Thin skull rule is a principle of common law which states that particularly fragile victims of torts should be fully compensated for their losses, even where the damages arising out of their predisposing condition were not foreseeable to the defendant’s particular susceptibility.
[4] Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
Post a Comment