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]
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 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
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
[12] 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Criminal Conspiracy against rights and 42 USC §1983 & 1985 Civil Action for the Deprivation of
Rights
[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).
[22] FEDERALIST No. 50 "Periodical Appeals to
the People Considered" From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 5,
1788. by James Madison
[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.
[32] William
H. Kenner and Eleanor v. Kenner, Petitioners, v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, Respondent, 387 F.2d 689 (7th Cir. 1968)
[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.
[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).
[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.
[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
[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).
[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)
[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
No comments:
Post a Comment