Thursday, April 6, 2017

Case # 4:16-CV-810 CDP & 17-1246 David Gerard Jeep, and heir Appellant v. Government of the United States of America, et al Appellee – motion for sanctions[1] - FRAUD ON THE COURT[2]




Members of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
c/o Michael E. Gans Clerk of CourtU. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
111 South 10th Street
Room 24.329
St. Louis, MO. 63102-1123

Re:     Case No: Case # 4:16-CV-810 CDP & 17-1246 David Gerard Jeep, and heir Appellant v. Government of the United States of America, et al Appellee – motion for sanctions[1] - FRAUD ON THE COURT[2]

 Dear People:

I am writing this in pro se[3] letterform, to mitigate the potential for malicious misinterpretation by this technically consumed  want-a-be-legal[4] conspiracy against rights.[5]  There is no room in a credible democratic society of equal persons for IMMUNITY as a praesumptio iuris et de iure (irrebutable presumption).  We are all human and all thus fallible.  "We the People" incorporated ourselves with our Constitution to watch each other's back as stakeholders and jury members to avoid human venality - the easily established fraud behind any assertion of a "royalist,"[6] praesumptio iuris et de iure.

There is no way this ends, anyway but BADLY for the Court.  What you have to decide is, allegorically am I, Ida B. Wells,[7] Rosa Parks or just another Emmit Till[8] you grind into the dust of your deliberate indifference to the property in rights[9] and the ends of justice on appeal.

1.    If the court refuses to take responsibly, you grind me into the dust of your deliberate indifference to the property in rights[10] and the ends of justice on appeal.  I can assure you my case and my passing will not be without notice!  

2.    If the court TAKES responsibility, they lose the case on the proverbial scoreboard and have to come up with a damages settlement.

I think the second case, while a lost on the proverbial scoreboard, is a win for the We the People if not the want-a-be-legal courts.  As you well know there is no remedy for the deprivation of property in rights as envisioned by founders[11] and the congress.[12]  Acknowledging the All Writs Act of 1789[13] here, the second Mr. Justice Harlan in Supreme Court precedent once remarked, for  innocent people "…it is damages or nothing."[14]

Additionally people like Donald Trump need to be schooled in how to modestly admit an actual mistake if not just the possibility for the same in any human assertion.

Do not kid yourself into believing that there is an issue of judicial independents[15] that necessitates deliberate indifference to the ends of justice and DENIAL of property in rights on appeal.  The idea, judicial independents, demands you tolerate incompetence, malice and corruption on appeal without remedy[16] is beyond ALL conscionable reason.  That is like saying the pursuit of justice is self-defeating and nothing can defeat the inherent inescapability of incompetents, malice and corruption on appeal

I, like Supreme Court precedent, refuse to give into a praesumptio iuris et de iure (irrebutable presumption) of immunity e.g., a NOT "facially valid court order"[17] that was issued "in the clear absence of all jurisdiction,""[18] and  the facts[19] as asserted and confrimed were and are "beyond debate"[20] "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right"[21] and thus the ends of justice.  

"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."[22]  And while perfection may never be humanly achieved, We the People of the United States, in Order to form A MORE PERFECT UNION, establish Justice… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[23]

Catherine D. Perry criminally[24] asserts, a criminal conspiracy of deliberate indifference to rights, that the petition should be dismissed for "failure to prosecute," Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).  If there is a more criminally[25] graphic technically absurd example of FRAUD ON THE COURT,[26] I would like to see it. 

As she and others are fully aware, I have sacrificed not only every penny[27] I ever had; I have invested my heart and nerve and sinew for 13+ years in the ongoing prosecution of this issue.  And in the 13+ years there has never been an "adversary trial or decision of the issue in the case."[28] 



THEY "HATH CONSPIRED BEFORE OUT OF COURT, THIS IS EXTRAJUDICIAL."[29]  



That is and has been the ongoing FRAUD ON THE COURT[30] from day one - Monday November 3, 2003.  Additionally please note, "a decision produced by fraud upon the court creates an automatic disqualification of a Federal judge[31] and is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."[32] 

In the face of the criminal[33] and otherwise unwarranted denial of my petition for in forma pauperis, in anticipation of your fraudulent, unsaid, assertions of rei publicae, ut sit finis litium,[34] and/or nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadam causa.[35]  I state an exception to rei publicae, ut sit finis litium, and/or nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadam causa.

I note United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65 (1878) as 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" (in this case this includes federal discovery).  This has been an ongoing FRAUD ON THE COURT from day one - Monday November 3, 2003.[36]

Judicial immunity, while repeatedly asserted in the sub judice, it is not a praesumptio iuris et de iure (irrebutable presumption).  Every Supreme Court precedent to date has provided a rebutable exception to an assertion, that gives example of the potential for CRIMINAL ACTION, [37] coram non judice (not before a judge), a lack jurisdiction and/or the manifest FRAUD ON THE COURT.[38]

"The inherent power of a federal court to investigate whether a judgment was obtained by fraud is beyond question."[39]

I have SEVERAL TIMES noted in numerous petitions, the controlling precedent for the sub judice gravamen is based on a "beyond debate"[40] NOT "facially valid court order"[41] that was issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction.""[42] This coram non judice gravamen was and is "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right."[43] 

Because the Federal Court respondents to date have repeatedly denied the MANY pro se[44] petitions without discovery; lack of a credible pro se required discovery makes all FEDERAL JUDICIAL action thus encumbered coram non judice assertions i.e., FRAUD ON THE COURT.[45] The 8th Circuit decisions asserted to date have no basis in law on the petition alone, i.e., Judicial immunity is not a praesumptio iuris et de iure.  Additionally without the REQUIRED discovery for judgment, any judgement is by definition a FRAUD ON THE COURT.

To date, 13+ years after its origination, this petitioner is still suffering under the unconstitutional issue of "fraud on the court" by all the officers of the respondent courts.  No constitutional court to date has legally asserted "reasonable probable cause" for the petitioner to oppose.

·         No constitutional federal or state[46]court to date has ever afford discovery to petitioner to dispute the lack of probable cause. 

·         No constitutional court to date has thus had an "adversary trial or decision of the issue in the case."[47]  This includes the court of origin, as noted in court pre-hearing - November 13, 2003, at hearing on November 20, 2003, in motions for a new hearing dated December 5&18, 2003 and all subsequent petitions made in Federal Court. [48]  

·         No court can dismiss this petition because there has been NO "due process of law" i.e., no discovery, "no adversary trial[49]… keeping him away from court" as defined by the Constitution of the United States of America - 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 14th amendments.  Given the uncontested fortiori of the many petitions[50]to say otherwise is to assert FRAUD ON THE COURT. 

·         The 14th Amendment does not permit any non-exigent[51] exceptions to Due Process of law. [52]

·         The statute, Missouri Revised Section 455.050.1, in question is dejure independent (Section 455.070.1) "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."[53]

What the original petitioner's unceasing efforts makes clear is there never was an "adversary trial or decision of the issue in the case."[54]  This is and has been since its inception on November 3, 2003 FRAUD ON THE COURT by officers of the court.  The many courts listed as respondents to date have never provided petitioner a clear statement of "reasonable probable cause" that he could confront, and thus never provided him the due process of law in an "adversary trial or decision of the issue in the case"[55] where he could make this a legal certainty. 

More importantly, from the instant of day one Monday November 03, 2003 08:00 PM at the start of Monday Night Football - New England PATRIOTS v Denver BRONCOS,[56] this has been FRAUD ON THE COURT, coram non judice, an extra-judicial action, by omnipotent moral busybodies, more specifically, an unconstitutional, as noted via Supreme Court precedent, deprivation of rights under color of law:

  • with a NOT "facially valid court order"[57]
  • that was issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,""[58] 
  • that over comes "difficult problems of proof" and "stringent standard of fault"[59] with the ubiquitous UNCONSTITUTIONAL "Jane Crow" assertion of a Woman's "victimhood" at the expense of any Man's constitutional rights in legal disputes[60]
  • that the facts[61] were and are "beyond debate"[62] "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,"[63] (i.e., the universal reckonable[64] understanding of the I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV Amendments).


If the reckonable[65] Supreme Law of the Land, Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV, statutes 42 USC §1983&1985 Civil Action for the Deprivation of Rights, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) imposes upon Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and numerous Article III precedents, as noted above, do not restrict a judicial act the candid citizen must confess as rhetorically asserted by Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address,[66] Monday, March 4, 1861:

"(T)the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court (or any "absolutely immune" Judicial officer i.e., "omnipotent moral busybodies"), the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that (NOT SO) eminent tribunal."

Clearly, with the undisputed documentation[67] of fortiori presented with the original petition, there can be no assertion of frivolity or malice in that both frivolity and malice depend on the deficiency of a verifiable constitutional issue.  And if the IV Amendment's "reasonable probable cause" alone is not a fortiori restriction on any and all asserted constitutional judicial jurisdiction, "We the People" "have ceased to be their own rulers" and "We the People" have resigned ourselves into the hands of "omnipotent moral busybodies,"[68] claiming delegated respondeat superior extrajudicial authority, acting against our liberty at any time, for any reason without recourse to the Supreme Law of the Land.

At this point of your CRIMINAL shell game assertion of failure to prosecute, I assert that assertion is to distract from your ongoing CRIMINAL fraud on the court. 

Given this fortiori the petitioner now asks for sanctions:

1.    a new Federal District Judge, from an unrelated district and circuit to hear the case  de novo, with the evidentiary acknowledgement of this court's and other's culpability in the denial of justice. .

2.    Immediate support to the LONGTIME life-threatening destitution of the petitioner in the form of a onetime $50,000 sanction payment and ongoing prorated $10,000/monthly, on the 1st of the month, independent of and until the final settlement is achieved in all aspects. 

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:  My Blog - Wednesday, April 05, 2017, 4:41:55 PM
        St. Louis Post Dispatch
        New York Times
        Catherine D. Perry, MOED



[1] Baker v. Myers Tractor Services, Inc., 765 So. 2d 149, (Fla. 1st DCA 2000):

We review a trial court's imposition of sanctions under an abuse of discretion standard of review. See Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983); Tramel v. Bass, 672 So. 2d 78, 82–83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). As the Mercer court explained: "it would have to be shown on appeal that the trial court clearly erred in its interpretation of the facts and the use of its judgment and not merely that the court, or another fact-finder, might have made a different factual determination."
[2] Fraud on the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the "Court") does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court.
[3] "The Court is and has been directed by rule, by precedent, by statute and the Constitution to accept the initial assessment of the in forma pauperis plaintiff's factual allegations, they must be weighted in the plaintiff's favor with the benefit of a liberal construction while "weighing weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff."
[4] There is nothing LEGAL about immunity.  Absolute Immunity, as a "constructive power," has and will continue to QUASH the "raison d'être" for the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Constitution, Statute Law and thus Inalienable RIGHTS/Justice.
[5] "[A] pro se petitioner's pleadings should be liberally construed to do substantial justice." United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99, 108 (3d Cir. 1999).
[6] TODAY, "We the People" are ruled by the unwritten absolutely immune self-serving MARTIAL LAW of JUDICIAL RULE in the "Jane Crow Era," - the malicious and corrupt prerogative of the MALICIOUS AND CORRUPT GUILD OF "BLACK ROBED" ROYALIST "ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE" ARTICLE III JUDICIARY that NEGATES all our supposedly inalienable constitutional rights.
[7] Wells refused to give up her seat. The conductor and two men dragged Wells out of the car. When she returned to Memphis, she hired an African-American attorney to sue the railroad. Wells gained publicity in Memphis when she wrote a newspaper article for The Living Way, a black church weekly, about her treatment on the train. When her lawyer was paid off by the railroad, she hired a white attorney. She won her case on December 24, 1884, when the local circuit court granted her a $500 award.
[8] Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager who was lynched in Mississippi at the age of 14 after being falsely accused of flirting with a white woman. The brutality of his murder and the fact that his killers were acquitted drew attention to the long history of violent persecution of African Americans in the United States. Till posthumously became an icon of the Civil Rights Movement.
[9] "In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights…
"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" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette, 27 March 1792
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Criminal Conspiracy against rights and 42 USC §1983 & 1985 Civil Action for the Deprivation of Rights
[13] All Writs Act - The act in its original form was part of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
[15] This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences." (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.) Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
[16] The All Writs Act is a United States federal statute, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which authorizes the United States federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."
The act in its original form was part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The current form of the act was first passed in 1911 and the act has been amended several times since then, but it has not changed significantly in substance since 1789.
[17] 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 as provided IN THE PETITION, THERE WAS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION for the stated charge.  "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003). 
[18] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[19] See Original Petition dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016, pages 26-33
[20] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[21] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635,  640 (1987).
[22] FEDERALIST No. 50 "Periodical Appeals to the People Considered" From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 5, 1788. by James Madison
[23] Excerpted from the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America.
[24] a criminal conspiracy of deliberate indifference to rights 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Criminal Conspiracy against rights
[26] Fraud Upon the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the "Court") does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court.
[27] See the many PRIOR examples from the this court and others that "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis  is GRANTED."
[30] Fraud Upon the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the "Court") does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court.
[31] Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994)
[34] "The public interest of a matter so that a litigation should end."
[35] "No-one shall be tried or punished twice in regards to the same event."
[36] Please note  the numerous references -  in court while represented by counsel on 11/20/03, 12/05/03 motion by counsel, and 12/18/03 motions by counsel, that are readily available and have been attached to the numerous petitions
[38] Fraud on the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the "Court") does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court.
[40] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[41] 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 as provided IN THE PETITION, THERE WAS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION for the stated charge.  "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003). 
[42] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[43] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635,  640 (1987).
[44] "As the Court unanimously held in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519 (1972), a pro se complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Id. at 404 U. S. 520-521, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 355 U. S. 45-46 (1957)." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 106 (1976)
[45] Fraud Upon the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the "Court") does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court.
[46] See motions dated 12-5-03 and 12-18-03 filed by an officer of the court, a paid attorney
[48] Missouri Eastern District cases 4:15-cv-01533-HEA, 4:14-cv-2009-DDN, 4:13-cv-2490-RWS, 4:12-cv-0703-CEJ, 4:11-cv-0931-CAS, and 4:07-cv-1116-CEJ (including by reference 4:07-cv-0506-SOW (WD)
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit cases 15-3403,  15-1057,  14-1470,  13-2200,  12-2435,  11-2425 and  07-2614 (including by reference 08-1823)
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States15-8884, 14-5551, 13-7030, 13-5193, 11-8211 and 07-11115
[49] i.e., no discovery
[50] ibid.
[51] There has NEVER been any exigency asserted in the sub judice gravamen. 
[52] This thus negates any application of a "domestic relations exception."
[53] This thus negates any application of a "domestic relations exception."
[56] I apologize for the excess of information, but I have been RELIVING the instant EVERYDAY
[57] 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 as provided IN THE PETITION, THERE WAS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION for the stated charge.  "Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id." PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003). 
[58] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[59] "difficult problems of proof," and we must adhere to a "stringent standard of fault," lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.12 Bryan County, 520 U. S., at 406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392 - Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson,  Certiorari to the Supreme Court, No. 09–571. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 29, 2011
[60] ADDITIONALLY - the petitioner holds "This argument (Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011) with respect to volume of traffic seems to us to be without merit. It makes the constitutional right depend upon the number of persons who may be discriminated against, whereas the essence of the constitutional right is that it is a personal one." McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914) 
[61] See Original Petition dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016, pages 26-33
[62] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[63] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635,  640 (1987).
[66] Parenthetical text added for clarity here
[67] See Original Petition dated Tuesday, June 07, 2016, pages 26-33
[68] C. S. Lewis prescient assertion: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

"Agere sequitur esse" ('action follows being')
David G. Jeep, 
Federal Inmate #36072-044 (formerly)

PREFERRED - E-mail address - Dave@DGJeep.com
Mobile (314) 514-5228


David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY

Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999