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
enclosure
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."
No comments:
Post a Comment