Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Fane R. Sellers, et al., Petitioners v. Wyoming, et al.
Supreme Court briefSep 15, 2020
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FANE R. SELLERS and
STEVEN BABCOCK,
for and in behalf of all inmates,
Appellants
(Petitioners),
v.
Case No.
THE STATE OF WYOMING;
GOVERNOR MATTHEW MEAD;
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF WYOMING,
PETER K. MICHAEL; and
all entities acting for the State of Wyoming,
ystf0
Appellees
(Respondents).
FILED
SEP 1 5 2020
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
WYOMING SUPREME COURT CASE NO. S-20-0109
AND
STATE OF WYOMING FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
CASE NO. 188-643
COMES NOW, the Petitioners (Appellants), Fane R. Sellers, Steven Babcock, and all inmates in
the State of Wyoming, to petition the Court for writ of certiorari in the Wyoming Supreme Court
Case No. S-20-0109 and the State of Wyoming First Judicial District Court Case No. 188-643.
Respectfully Submitted this
,202£,
day of
Fane R. Sellers Pro Se
Steven Babcock Pro Se
Page 1 of 2
ib
Questions for the Court
I. When the inferior District Court failed and/or refused to initiate or commence the action by
issuing the summons as required by Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure #3 and #4 then using
other rule to eliminate the petitioners claim actions that effectively denies the Appellants’
rights to access to the courts, due process, equal protection of the law, and to have an unbiased
judge, did that Judge of the inferior Courts, hold his Offices during good Behaviour?
II. Prior to the commencement of an action does the court have jurisdiction to use a court rule,
only applicable to an open active action, such as a time bar, to dismiss the action that has not
yet commenced?
III. Does the right of the people to access to the courts and the right of the people to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances apply only to those who can pay the court fees up
front since the Wyoming Supreme Court has repealed Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure
10.07 “In Forma Pauperis [Repealed] Repealed April 6, 2015, effective July 1, 2015” and
requires all court fees be paid before cases can be docketed?
IV. Did the draftsmen of State and Federal Constitutions established an agreement or contract
with the people to govern the people, provided rights were guaranteed to the people protected
by dividing the powers of the government into three distinct departments to be a safeguard
against the government or any department of the government to be party to deny, impair, or
disparage rights due the people; and was such violations of that contract inconceivable, at
~~
creation of these Constitutions, that government officials or entities acting for a state would
allow or be party to any such violation?
V. What redress is available for the Appellants; when much like in George Floyd’s recent
murder, the Appellants had entities acting for the State of Wyoming showing a systemic
Page 1 of 2
willingness to break established law and violate the Appellants’ rights with no fear of
investigation, arrest, prosecution, or even to be held to accountable by a civil court. These
entities being allied with the County Prosecuting Attorney, the District Courts, and the
Wyoming Supreme Court were shielded even when this was in contradiction with government
officials’ oath or affirmation of office. Even Governors (Mead & Gordon) and their Attorney
Generals (Peter K. Michael & Bridget Hill) have refused to investigate reports of misconduct
and malfeasance in office and the commission of a crime of a deprival of rights by entities like
the sheriff, his deputies, and the district attorney as Wyoming code 1-35-103, 1-35-104, and
9-1-605 (c) decrees?
VI. Should every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs have been committed,
conspired to be committed, or, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid
in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be
committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages
caused by such wrongful act?
Page 2 of 2
Fane R. Sellers #25665 and Steven Babcock #27869
Wyoming Honor Conservation Camp
P.O. Box 160
Newcastle, WY 82701
IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
FANE R. SELLERS
STEVEN BABCOCK
FOR AND IN BEHALF OF
ALL INMATES
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appellants (Petitioners),
Vs.
)
)
CASE NO.
W.S.Ct. CASE # S-20-0109
& District Court CASE NO. 188-643
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
THE STATE OF WYOMING,
GOVERNOR MATT MEAD
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE
OF WYOMING, PETER K. MICHAEL, AND
ALL ENTITIES ACTING FOR THE
STATE OF WYOMING,
Appellees (Respondents).
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
WYOMING SUPREME COURT CASE NO. S-20-0109
AND
STATE OF WYOMING FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
CASE NO. 188-643
Appellants
COMES NOW; the Appellants: Fane R. Sellers, Steven Babcock, and all inmates within the
custody of the State of Wyoming in the United States or who have been in the custody of the State
of Wyoming in the United States, who aver and attest to the following and all herein regarding this
civil complaint having been victims of Breach of Contract or Breach of Agreement.
1
The Appellants are residents of the United States and reside in various states and counties.
Respondents
The State Of Wyoming, Governors Matt Mead & Mark Gordon, the State Attorneys
General Peter K. Michael & Bridget Hill, and All Entities Acting for the State of Wyoming
involved in the Breach of Contract (the U.S. Constitution) and deprival of rights therein.
The Wyoming State Attorney General: Bridget Hill
State Capitol Building, Rm 23
200 West 24th St.
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Governor Mark Gordon
State Capitol Building, Rm 124
200 W. 24th St.
Cheyenne, WY 82002-0010
List of Proceedings
In the District Court for the First Judicial District, Laramie Wyoming (per Court Docket):
•
Cover Page
•
Title Page
•
Copy of the Docket Entries
•
Class Action Petition for Redress in the Act of Breach of Contract by the State of
Wyoming, The State of Wyoming, Governor Matt Meade, Attorney General and All
Entities Acting for the State of Wyoming; Filed 10/03/2017
•
Civil Cover Sheet; Filed 10/03/2017
•
Inmate Glover’s Affidavit for Redress in the Act of Breach of Contract by the State of
Wyoming and All Entities Acting for the State of Wyoming; Filed 10/03/2017
•
Tombroek’s Affidavit for Redress in the Act of Breach of Contract by the State of
2
Wyoming And All Entities Acting for the State of Wyoming; Filed 10/03/2017
•
Objection; Filed 01/02/2018
•
Motion for Ruling on In Forma Pauperis; Filed 03/01/2018
•
Letter from Fane R. Sellers and Steven Babcock; Filed 03/05/2018
•
Letter from Fane R. Sellers and Steven Babcock; Filed 03/13/2018
•
Motion of Default Respondents Failed to Serve Answer to Class Action Petition for
Redress In the Act of Breach of Contract Within the Sixty (60) Days; Filed 05/25/2018
•
Memorandum in Support of Motion of Default Respondents Failed to Serve Answer to
Class Action Petition for Redress in the Act of Breach of Contract Within the Sixty (60)
Days; Filed 05/25/2018
•
Copy of Certified Mail Receipts; Filed 06/11/2018
•
Demand for Payment and Fulfillment of Contract; Filed 06/20/2018
•
Certificate of Service; Filed 06/21/2018
•
Memorandum of Understanding and Answer to Office of the Attorney General Letter to.
the Court; Filed 06/21/2018
•
Letter to Honorable Thomas Campbell from Justin Daraie, Senior Assistant Attorney
General; Filed 06/25/2018
•
Statements of Financial Obligation; Filed 09/27/2018
•
Invoice Number 100002; Filed 09/27/2018
•
Invoice Number 110002; Filed 09/27/2018
•
Invoice Number 200002; Filed 09/27/2018
•
Statements of Financial Obligation; Filed 12/27/2018
3
•
Invoice Number 200003; Filed 12/27/2018
•
Invoice Number 100003; Filed 12/27/2018
•
Invoice Number 110003; Filed 12/27/2018
•
Order Dismissing Case; Filed 02/07/2019 (Note: just prior to this ruling the Petitioners
filed with Board of Judicial Review because the Judge had refused to rule on the case for
two full years and the Court had refused to issue summons required by Court rules, which
violates Constitutional Rights to a speedy trial.)
•
Motion for Hearing and to Refile Case No. 188-643 Due to Court Error in not Following
Court Rules and the Constitution of the State of Wyoming; in Conjunction with a Motion
for Hearing and a Motion for Immediate Issue of Summons; Filed 02/25/2019
•
Memorandum to the Motion for Hearing and to Refile of Case No. 188-643 Due to Court
Error in not Following Court Rules and the Constitution of the State of Wyoming; in
Conjunction with a Motion for Hearing on Immediate Issue of Summons; Filed 02/25/2019
•
Invoice Number 100004; Filed 03/25/2019
•
Invoice Number 110004; Filed 03/25/2019
•
Motion for the Mandamus for Specific Performance by State Officials; Filed 05/24/2019
•
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Mandamus Against Sate Officials for Specific
Performance; Filed 05/24/2019
•
Bill No. 200005; Filed 06/18/2019
• -Additional Evidence; Filed 07/22/2019
•
Order Denying Defendant’s May 2019 Motion; Filed 09/26/2019
•
Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Mandamus; Filed 09/26/2019
4
•
Notice of Appeal; FiledlO/11/2019
•
Letter to Fane R. Sellers #25665 form Diane Sanchez; Filed 10/18/2019
•
Letter to Fane R. Sellers from Patricia Bennett; Filed 02/19/2020
•
Letter to Fane R. Sellers from Patricia Bennett; Filed 03/17/2020
•
Letter to JoAnn Garcia from Office of the Attorney General; Filed 04/03/2020
•' Letter to JoAnn Garcia from Patricia Bennett; Filed 04/29/2020
In the Supreme Court, State of Wyoming:
•
Fane R. Sellers, Steven Babcock for and in behalf of all inmates v. State of Wyoming,
Governor Matt Mead, Attorney General for the State of Wyoming, Peter K. Michael, and
all entities acting for the State of Wyoming, case no. S-20-0109 (Order Dismissing Appeal
on June 2, 2020)
•
Fane R. Sellers, Steven Babcock for and in behalf of all inmates v. State of Wyoming,
Governor Matt Mead, Attorney General for the State of Wyoming, Peter K. Michael, and
all entities acting for the State of Wyoming, case no. S-20-0109 (Order Denying Petition to %
Reinstate Appeal on June 30, 2020)
Table of Contents
Appellants..................
1
Respondents...............
2
List of Proceedings.....
2
Orders Entered in Case
6
Jurisdiction and Venue
7
Date of Judgment(s) to be Reviewed...
9
Date of Order(s) Respecting Rehearing
9
Statement of Notifications..................
10
5
CASE OVERVIEW
13
Circumstances.....................................................................
14
District Court...........................................................
14
Wyoming Supreme Court........................................
17
Need for a Prosecution, a Defense, and an unbiased Judge
20
Bias in the District Court's Closed to the Poor....................
21
Bias in the District Court's Actions to Delay Justice..............
22
Violation of Judicial Oath and Violation of the Constitutions
23
Constitutional Contract
24
Solemn Proclamation
28
Reasons for Writ of Certiorari
29
Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury......................................................
31
Appendix...................................................................................................
32
Wyoming Supreme Court Rulings............................................................
32
Order Dismissing Appeal
32
June 02, 2020...........................................
Order Denying Petition to Reinstate Appeal
June 30, 2020.............
32
Wyoming District Court Rulings...............................................................
33
Order Dismissing Case
33
February 07, 2019........................................
Order Denying Defendant's May 2019 Motion
Index of Entire Docket
September 26, 2019
33
May 13, 2020...............................................
33
Orders Entered in Case
In the District Court for the First Judicial District Court, Laramie, Wyoming:
•
Order Dismissing Case; Filed 02/07/2019 (Note: just prior to this ruling the Petitioners
filed with Board of Judicial Review because the Judge had refused to rule on the case for
two full years and the Court had refused to issue summons required by Court rules, which
violates Constitutional Rights to a speedy trial.)
•
Order Denying Defendant’s May 2019 Motion; Filed 09/26/2019
6
•
Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Mandamus; Filed 09/26/2019
In the Supreme Court, State of Wyoming:
•
Fane R. Sellers, Steven Babcock for and in behalf of all inmates v. State of Wyoming,
Governor Matt Mead, Attorney General for the State of Wyoming, Peter K. Michael, and
all entities acting for the State of Wyoming, case no. S-20-0109 (Order Dismissing Appeal
on June 2, 2020)
•
Fane R. Sellers, Steven Babcock for and in behalf of all inmates v. State of Wyoming,
Governor Matt Mead, Attorney General for the State of Wyoming, Peter K. Michael, and
all entities acting for the State of Wyoming, case no. S-20-0109 (Order Denying Petition to
Reinstate Appeal on June 30, 2020)
Jurisdiction and Venue
The United States Supreme Court has judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States. The United States Supreme
Court has original jurisdiction and revisory jurisdiction in this case because it involves public
Ministers, public Consuls, a state, and lesser courts.
Constitution of the United States Article III, Section 2., Clause 1.
Subjects of
jurisdiction
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all
Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States
shall be a Party;-to Controversies between t*wo or more States;-between a State and Citizens of
another State;-between Citizens of different States,-between Citizens of the same State
claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof,
and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
7
Constitution of the United States Article III, Section 2., Clause 2.
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction of
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a
State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. ”
Constitution of the United States Article III, Section 1.
courts—Judges and compensation.
Supreme Court and inferior
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such
inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both
of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall,
at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished
during their Continuance in Office.”
The Constitution is the Jurisdiction of this Court. The Constitution is a synallagmatic
Contract "mutual agreement” and "Civil law”. A contract in which the parties obligate
themselves reciprocally, so that obligations of the other. La. Civ. Code arts. 1908, 1911. A
synallagmatic contract is characterized by correlative performances. The term synallagmatic
Contract is essential, the civil-law equivalent of the common law’s bilateral contract. CF.
commutative contract. Black’s Law Dictionary abridged ninth edition, (law) In United States
civil procedure, the contact required between a party and a state in order for the courts of that
state to constitutionally assert personal jurisdiction over that party. Wiktionary
Title 28 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Part IV Jurisdiction and Venue, Chapter 85
District Courts; Jurisdiction, §1331. Federal question
This is a civil action authorized by Title 28 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Part IV'
Jurisdiction and Venue, Chapter 85 District Courts; Jurisdiction, §1331. Federal question
and Constitution of the United States, Article VI. Miscellaneous Provisions, Clause 3. Oath
of office as well due process and equal protection of laws such as Wyoming code subsection
1-3-105 Civil actions brought within the specified periods for any contract, agreement or promise
in writing after the cause of action accrues: as defined by Wyoming code section 1-35-103,(b) A
contract with the state of Wyoming includes any contract, lease or instrument in writing entered
into by any board, officer or commission of the state of Wyoming for the benefit of the state
whether the contract is made in the name of the state of Wyoming or in the name of the officer,
board or commission.
Constitution of the United States, Article VI. Miscellaneous Provisions, Clause 3.
of office
8
Oath
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State
Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the
several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the
United States.
Constitution of the United States Article I Section 10
Clause 1. Powers denied states—Treaties—Money—Ex post facto laws—Obligation of
contracts.
No State shall ...; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the
Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
N>
Date of Judgment(s) to be Reviewed
In the District Court for the First Judicial District, Laramie Wyoming (per Court Docket):
•
Order Dismissing Case; Filed 02/07/2019
•
Order Denying Defendant’s May 2019 Motion; Filed 09/26/2019
•
Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Mandamus; Filed 09/26/2019
In the Supreme Court, State of Wyoming:
•
Order Dismissing Appeal on June 2, 2020
•
Order Denying Petition to Reinstate Appeal on June 30, 2020
Date of Order(s) Respecting Rehearing
In the District Court for the First Judicial District, Laramie Wyoming (per Court Docket):
•
Order Dismissing Case; Filed 02/07/2019
•
Order Denying Defendant’s May 2019 Motion; Filed 09/26/2019
•
Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Mandamus; Filed 09/26/2019
In the Supreme Court, State of Wyoming:
•
Order Dismissing Appeal on June 2, 2020
•
Order Denying Petition to Reinstate Appeal on June 30, 2020
9
Constitutional Provisions
(CSW) Declaration of Rights, 37............................................................................................................................
19
Constitution of the State of Wyoming (CSW), Declaration of Rights, 8. Courts open to all; suits against state..... 19
Constitution of the United States Article I Section 10 Clause 1. Powers denied states--Treaties~Money--Ex post
facto laws-Obligation of contracts..................................................................................................................
9
Constitution of the United States Article III, Section 1. Supreme Court and inferior courts-Judges and
compensation....................................................................................................................................................
8
Constitution of the United States Article III, Section 2., Clause 1. Subjects of jurisdiction............................
7
Constitution of the United States Article III, Section 2., Clause 2. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court................
8
Constitution of the United States, Article VI. Miscellaneous Provisions, Clause 3. Oath of office................
8
8
Constitution of the United States, Article VI. Miscellaneous Provisions, Clause 3. Oath of office....................
Constitution of the United States: Amendment 1, Amendment 5, and Amendment 14 Due Process of Law and
Equal Protection................................................................................................................................................
17
CSW 1 #37..............................................................................................................................................................
22
CSW A1 §8. courts open to all; suits against state..................................................................................................
24
CSW, Declaration of Rights, 8.................................................................................................................................
22
CSW, Declaration of Rights, 8. Courts open to all; suits against state............................................................... 22, 24
U.S. Constitution Amendment 14.......................................................................................................................... 19, 22
27
United States Article III, Section 1...........................................................................................................................
21
United States Constitution Article 4, Clause 2. Supreme law..............................................................................
26
USCA Const. Amend. 6...........................................................................................................................................
WCA 6. Suffrage and Elections 21. Oath of office; how administered...................................................................
23
23
Wyoming Constitution Article (hereafter WCA) 6. Suffrage and Elections 20. Oath of office..............................
21
Wyoming Constitution Article 1, §37. Constitution of United States supreme law of land................................
25
Wyoming Constitution Article 2. Distribution of Powers.....................................................................................
Statutes
27
42 USC §1986.......
25
9-1-605 (c) decrees
Title 28 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Part IV Jurisdiction and Venue, Chapter 85 District Courts; Jurisdiction,
§1331........................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Title 28 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Part IV Jurisdiction and Venue, Chapter 85 District Courts; Jurisdiction,
8
§1331. Federal question....................
26
Title 42, Chapter 21, §1986 Federal Code
31
U.S.C. 1746; 18 U.S.C. 1621.....................
31
W.S. 6-5-301; 28......................................
25
Wyoming code 1-35-103,1-35-104.........
8
Wyoming code section 1-35-103,(b).......
8
Wyoming code subsection 1-3-105.........
Rules
Rule #4 states: "Process.(a) Issuance of summons..................................................
Rule 10.07....................................................................................................................
Rule 203(c)...................................................................................................................
Rule 203(c) U.R.D.C....................................................................................................
Rule 3 “the action shall be deemed commenced on the date when service is made"
WRCP #4: Process.(a)................................................................................................
Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.01...........................................................
Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure #3..........................................................................
12
20
21
15
15
20
22
21
15
Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure #4
15
Cases
Betts v. Easley (1946) 161 Kan 459, 169p2d 831, 18 BNALRRM 2145, ICCHEPD 9611, 11 CCHLC 63207, 166 ALR 342
...........................................................................................................................................................................18, 23
Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 US. 991 (1982)........................
25
case # S-20-0109..........................................................
17
case no. 188-643.........................................................
17
Franklin v. McCaughtry, (2005, CA7 Wis) 398 F3d 955
20
Hoke v. Motel 6 Jackson & Accor N. Am., Inc. 2006 WY 38, H 7,131P.3d 369, 374 (Wyo. 2006)(citations omitted). 15
Holloway v. Arkansas, 98 S. Ct. 1173 (1978); Shongutsie v. State, 827 P.2d 361, 378 (Wyo. 1992).....................
26
In Interest of DG, 825 P.2d 369, 377 (Wyo. 1992...................................................................................................
15
In Interest ofDG, 825 P.2d 369, 377 (Wyo. 1992)..................................................................................................
21
In re Whet, Inc., 33 BR 424 (Bankr. Mass. 1983); In re Potter, 292 BR 711 (Bankr. 10th Cir 2002).......................
26
Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 US 212, 29 L Ed2d 423, 91S Ct 1778 (1971).............................................................. 18, 20
Oliver v. Wainwright, 782 F.2d 1521CA11 (Fla.) 1986 Cert Denied 107 S. Ct. 313, 479 US 914, 93 L. Ed.2d 287)
26
Pease Brothers, Inc. v. American Pipe & Supply Company, 522 P.2d 996,1001 (Wyo. 1974)............................... 15, 21
State ex ret. Minihan v. Aronson, 350 Mo. 309,165 S.W.2d 404,407 (Mo. 1942)............................................... 15, 21
Thomas v. Denny's Inc., Ill F.3d 1506,1514 (10th cir.1997)................................................................................
18
v. 8
Walsh v Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. (1939, DC NY) 26 F Supp 566
Wheat v. United States, 486 US 153,108 S Ct 1692 (1988)..............
Zweifel v. State, 517 P.2d 493,1974 Wyo. LEXIS 172 (Wyo. 1974)...
18, 23
26
26
CASE OVERVIEW
COMES NOW, Fane R. Sellers and Steven H. Babcock, pro se, and files this Motion for
Appeal on the basis of a miscarriage ofjustice as the inferior District Court failed and/or refused
to initiate or commence the action by issuing the summons as required by Wyoming Rules of
Civil Procedure #3 and #4 while using other rule to eliminate the petitioners claim; an action that
by rule had not been initiated or commenced making all actions and rulings mute. The inferior
court actions dishonored the court rules and the Appellants’ rights to access to the courts, due
process, equal protection of the law, and to have an unbiased judge. The inferior court actions
---- demonstrate they are not a credible judicial body in which can hold any community trust. The rules
not followed by District Court were in advance of rules missed by the Appellants. The Wyoming
Supreme Court refused to exercise its superintending control over the inferior court to correct the
13
t
.
aforementioned crimes by ordering the lower court, the Wyoming District Court to issue the
summons and handle the case according to the court’s rules and appropriately by appointing a
different judge to hear the case and render rulings that do not further offend justice and the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution for the State of Wyoming. Only having
superintending control over the Wyoming District Court, the Wyoming Supreme Court had no
jurisdiction to canon on a case that had not been initiated or commenced.
In addition the Wyoming Supreme Court has unconstitutionally repealed Wyoming Rule
of Appellate Procedure 10.07 “In Forma Pauperis [Repealed] Repealed April 6, 2015, effective
July 1,2015.” This in effect closes access to the Court to the Appellants until after the filing fees
were paid, making it next to impossible for a poor person (prisoners) to seek justice and redress
within the Wyoming Judicial system which denies access to the Court and therefore violates the
United States Constitution and the State of Wyoming Constitution.
Circumstances
District Court
The original complaint case no. 188-643, a class action petition for redress in the act of
breach of contract by entities acting for the State of Wyoming, filed with the State of Wyoming
District Court First Judicial District on October 11th, 2017 was never commenced because the
District Court failed and/or refused to initiate the action by issuing the summons; that is a
required document to make service of the action upon the defendants.
"Strict compliance with the requirements of service of process is mandatory. Any
omissions...that are required under W.R.C.P. 4 are fatal and such omission prevents the trial
court from obtaining jurisdiction of the defendant. A judgment entered without proper
service of the summons is void and subject to attack directly or collaterally. Without proper
service of summons, a default judgment is void and must be vacated. Hoke v. Motel 6
Jackson & Accor N. Am., Inc. 2006 WY 38, H 7, 131P.3d 369, 374 (Wyo. 2006)(citations
14
omitted).”
Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure #4 states: “Process.(a) Issuance of summons. Upon the
filing ofthe complaint the clerk shall forthwith issue a summons to the plaintiff for service on
the defendant”
Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure #3 “the action shall be deemed commenced on the date
when service is made”.
“A summons is "the means of compelling a defendant to subject his person to the jurisdiction
of the court from which the summons issues." Pease Brothers, Inc. v. American Pipe & Supply
Company, 522 P.2d 996, 1001 (Wyo. 1974) (quoting State ex rel. Minihan v. Aronson, 350
Mo. 309, 165 S.W.2d 404, 407 (Mo. 1942)). Strict compliance with the requirements of
service of process is mandatory.” In Interest ofDG, 825 P.2d 369, 377 (Wyo. 1992).
Therefore, nothing after the October 11th, 2017 filing has legally occurred because the
summons has never issued by the clerk. Judge Campbell dismissing the case on February 7th,
2019 was improperly in two aspects: First the District Court’s log shows the appellants had made 4
substantial and bona fide actions of record towards disposition on December 27,2018 only 42 days
before Justice Campbell’s order for the dismissing of this case under Rule 203(c) U.R.D.C.
claiming no substantial and bona fide action of record towards disposition had been made within
90 days. Second without a summons the case had not begun so the 90 day requirement under Rule
203(c) U.R.D.C. the 90 days was not in effect. Judge Campbell in this displays an alarming bias
toward the Appellants and further, Judge Campbell has manifest a willful and wanton desire to
violate the United States Constitution, due process of law. The District Court still has the burden
to ensure the timely issuance of a summons to commence the action prior to making any order to
dismiss under Rule 203(c). The 90 day time limit cannot begin to run until after the trial court
commences the action and then rules upon it, regardless of what decision the trial court makes.
Since the action had never commenced, the time limit cannot begin to run and there cannot be any
legitimate ruling of a failure to meet a time limit.
15
■i
A Motion for Rehearing to the District Court was filed on February 25th, 2019. Justice
Campbell denied this motion claiming: “Petitioner’s motion was not properly served on the
parties”. While accurate this action (proper service) was reliant upon, proper service requiring a
summons that the District Court refused to issue. The Appellants (Petitioners) could not make a
proper service of action since it was not in force and was being obstructed due to the clerk of court
not issuing a summons to the plaintiffs upon the filing their complaint for service on the defendant,
and the Judge and Clerk of Court conspired to deny due process of law by refusing to follow their
own Court rules; ergo, the Appellees (defendants) have not yet been made a party to this action due
to the clerk failing to follow the court’s own rules and service upon them for anything other than
the complaint is not proper until after the summons has been issued. While the Appellees were
named in the claim they are not yet a party to the action until service of summons was issued by the
District Court. Without summons the Appellees were not compelled to subject themselves to the
jurisdiction of the court and the litigation has yet to begin; there has only been a notification to the
court and the Appellees that the Appellants want to begin a lawsuit.
Until the action has
commenced, there is no requirement of a service upon anyone other than the court and any
communication between the Petitioners and the Court cannot be deemed as ex-parte
communication because the case has not yet begun.
The Petitioners had no choice but to
communicate with the trial court in an effort to establish the case and entreat the trial court to
commence the action via issuing the summons which they refused to do on multiple occasions
“thereby violating due process of law. If the summons was issued, then and only then, the
Petitioners would be required to communicate with the Defendants beyond the original “Notice of
Intent to Sue.” Justice Campbell held the Appellants to adhering to rules while Justice Campbell
16
and his clerk blatantly violated the Court rules themselves, showing willful and wanton direct
violation of due process of law; the Petitioners, meanwhile, were reliant on timely issuance of a
summons that has not happened, revealing bias toward the Appellants.
The District Court’s failure to follow their own rules is a direct violation of the Constitution
of the United States: Amendment 1, Amendment 5, and Amendment 14 Due Process of Law and
Equal Protection. Such an action shows the District Court incapable of following their own rules,
making them in complete violation of Due Process.
Wyoming Supreme Court
The appellants’ appeal original complaint case no. 188-643 filed appeal with the Wyoming
Supreme Court on October 19th, 2019 case # S-20-0109 was never commenced because the
District Court failed and/or refused to initiate the action by issuing the summons; that is a
required document to make service of the action upon the defe ndants. Therefore, the Wyoming
Supreme Court only has revisory jurisdiction or superintending control over the District Court
however is deficient in original jurisdiction since the case has not yet commenced. Had the
Wyoming Supreme Court made an honest comprehensive careful review of the file it would have
discovered “no summons”, “so no tolling of time”, so W.R.A.P. 2.01: 2.02 is not germane. Thus
a deficiency in jurisdiction the Wyoming Supreme Court’s canon of dismissal on June 2nd, 2020;
consequently mute, the Time Bar applied to dismiss the case is not applicable.
While the Wyoming Supreme Court duty was to exercise its superintending control
(revisory jurisdiction) over the inferior court to correct the aforementioned critical errors by
ordering the Wyoming District Court to issue the summons and handle the case according to the
court’s rules and appropriately by appointing a different non-bias judge to hear the case and render
17
rulings that do not further offend justice and the Constitutions. The Wyoming Supreme Court took
no notice of the precedence of having no summons issued or how important it is to have the lesser
Court follow the established court rules. Shall forthwith issue a summons is the duty of the Court
since October 11th, 2017.
Rules are intended to promote and not to obstruct administration ofjustice and thus enable
court to do substantial justice rather than to decide cases upon technicalities which have no
relationship whatever to rights of parties to litigation. Walsh v Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co.
(1939, DC NY) 26 F Supp 566
State Courts have not only the power but a duty to enforce the rights secured by these
Constitutions and the laws of the United States when such issues are involved in proceedings
before them. Betts v. Easley (1946) 161 Kan 459, 169p2d 831, 18 BNALRRM 2145,
ICCHEPD 9611,11 CCHLC 63207, 166 ALR 342.
Exhibiting a bias toward the Appellees, Justice Michael K. Davis the determining justice
on this appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court, had a duty to recuse himself, as requested by the
Appellees, having presided over one of the named Appellees criminal cases. This is a due process
violation of the Contract of the United States Constitution.
“Trial before unbiased judge is essential to due process.” Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 US 212,
29 L Ed2d 423, 91 S Ct 1778 (1971).
Continuing- violations doctrine is federal Law, under which a plaintiff may avoid the statute of
limitations when the defendant has acted pursuant to a pattern or longstanding policy or
practice of Constitutional violations. Thomas v. Denny’s Inc., Ill F.3d 1506, 1514 (10th
cir.1997)
The Appellees motion to proceed in forma pauperis has been ignored by the Wyoming
Supreme Court as the same motion had been ignored by the District Court effectively closing the
Court and denying justice to those without funds to pay the fee which abridge the privileges of
Court and denies access to any poor person within the Court’s jurisdiction as provided for in the
equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution. The Appellees were unaware forma
18
pauperis had been repealed Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.07 “In Forma Pauperis
[Repealed] Repealed April 6, 2015, effective July 1, 2015” by the Wyoming Supreme Court.
Only when the Appellees wrote the Wyoming Supreme Court looking for reason for delay and was
told by Patricia Bennett, the clerk of the Supreme Court of Wyoming, a fee of $195 had to be paid
before the case could be docketed. The Appellees raised the funds and mailed to the Supreme
Court of Wyoming a check for the $195 only to have it returned without explanation. The
Appellees changed the check and mailed to the District Court only to have it returned without
explanation. The Appellees had a family member call Patricia Bennett, the clerk Supreme Court
of Wyoming to find out why the fee had not been accepted. Patricia Bennett stated in a letter
dated March 11, 2020 needing the $195 in two checks; one for $110 to Supreme Court of
Wyoming and the second for $85 to the District Court of the First Judicial District Laramie
County. The Appellees paid as instructed. The Appellees still question the requirement of
having paid the District Court of the First Judicial District Laramie County fee of $85 a second
time since having already paid the fee (in 2017) to the District Court before they would docked our
case. Neither court has answered the Appellees query.
By repealing options to proceed in forma pauperis the Supreme Court of Wyoming made
an egregious error by defying the Constitution of the State of Wyoming (CSW), Declaration of
Rights, 8. Courts open to all; suits against state applicable through (CSW) Declaration of Rights,
37 and the U.S. Constitution Amendment 14. This issue unaccompanied is of such importance that
—itnecessitates the United States Supreme Court’s attention to address bias toward inmates and
other poor citizenry.
The appellants submitted a Motion for Rehearing to Supreme Court of Wyoming quoting
19
for the appeal and restating the facts:
(Quote) “premature since this action has not yet been deemed commenced by the inaction of
the First Judicial District Court in Cheyenne, Wyoming (hereinafter the court). Pursuant to
Rule 3 “the action shall be deemed commenced on the date when service is made". Service is
effectuated when the summons issue by the clerk of court (hereinafter the clerk) has been
served either in person (i.e. via Sheriffs Department) or mail. The commencement of the
action was blocked due to the clerk not issuing a summons to the plaintiffs upon the filing this
complaint for service on the defendant; ergo, the defendants have not yet been made a party to
this action due to the clerk failing to follow the court’s own rules and service upon them for
anything other than the complaint is not proper until after the summons has been issued. Rule
#4 states: “Process, (a) Issuance ofsummons. Upon the filing of the complaint the clerk shall
forthwith issue a summons to the plaintifffor service on the defendant.” The clerk never
issued the summons; therefore, the plaintiff could not serve the defendants and no ruling can be
made until the clerk has begun the process by issuing a summons. Thus, the case has yet to be
opened by the clerk of the court and any ruling is premature.” (End of Quote)
Need for a Prosecution, a Defense, and an unbiased Judge
An action is not deemed commenced and trial court jurisdiction does not exist to make a
decision on a case until it has been opened via a summons. Without the summons being issued by
Clerk of Court Diane Sanchez, the trial court is incomplete and any decision rendered is in excess
of jurisdiction as a trial court is not complete until it has a prosecution, a defense and an unbiased
trier of the facts.
“Trial before unbiased judge is essential to due process.” Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 US 212,
29 L Ed2d 423, 91 S Ct 1778 (1971).
“Due process clause guarantees litigants impartial judge, reflecting principle that no man is
permitted to try cases where he has interest in outcome; where judge has direct, personal,
substantial, or pecuniary interest, due process is violated.” Franklin v. McCaughtry, (2005,
CA7 Wis) 398 F3d 955.
In the immediate case, the prosecution (your Petitioners) existed; however, the defense
never existed as the trial court failed and/or refused to summons the Defendants into the action so
they could come under the jurisdiction of the trial court and account for the accusations against
them.
20
“A summons is "the means of compelling a defendant to subject his person to the jurisdiction
of the court from which the summons issues." Pease Brothers, Inc. v. American Pipe & Supply
Company, 522 P.2d 996, 1001 (Wyo. 1974) (quoting State ex rel. Minihan v. Aronson, 350
Mo. 309, 165 S.W.2d 404, 407 (Mo. 1942)). Strict compliance with the requirements of
service of process is mandatory.” In Interest ofDG, 825 P.2d 369, 377 (Wyo. 1992).
Therefore, the trial court was incomplete and held no jurisdiction to render a decision on
the case. Any decision rendered by the trial court before summons has been served is premature
and an exercise of excess of jurisdiction by the trial court, which is prohibited by both, the
Wyoming and United States Constitutions as well as ALL of the different courts’ rules; and shows
the trial court to be biased against the petitioners.
United States Constitution Article 4, Clause 2. Supreme law.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws ofany State to the Contrary notwithstanding. ”
Wyoming Constitution Article 1, §37. Constitution of United States supreme law of
land.
“The State of Wyoming is an inseparable part ofthe federal union, and the constitution of the
United States is the supreme law of the land. ”
Bias in the District Court’s Closed to the Poor
The Appellants provided the District Court sufficient evidence of injury done by the
Appellees due their refusal to follow Wyoming State Statues and their Constitutional duties;
combined with statements from the Appellees of this refusal.
The Wyoming Supreme Court has unconstitutionally chosen to close access to the Court to
the Appellants until after the filing fees were paid by repealing Rule 10.07 the forma pauperis rule.
' Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.01... “In Forma Pauperis [Repealed] Repealed April 6,
2015, effective July 1, 2015.” This makes it impossible for a poor person to seek justice within
the Wyoming Supreme Court when a district court, such as in the immediate case, neglects the
21
Constitution or its own rules to show prejudice against one of its litigants. This isolates justice to
only those who have the funds to pursue litigation; creating an unconstitutional cast system, just
like that of which the colonists rebelled against to create this Country.
The Appellees motion to proceed in forma pauperis has been ignored by the District Court
effectively closing the Court and denying justice to those without funds to pay the fee which
abridge the privileges of Court and denies access to any poor person within the Court’s jurisdiction
as provided for in the equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution. By repealing
options to proceed in forma pauperis the Court made another egregious error by defying the CSW,
Declaration of Rights, 8. Courts open to all; suits against state (applicable through CSW 1 #37)
and the U.S. Constitution Amendment 14. This issue unaccompanied is of such importance that it
requires this Court’s attention to address bias toward inmates and other poor people access to the
courts.
Bias in the District Court’s Actions to Delay Justice
Yet again bias is exposed as the justice in this case has not been administered without delay
or denial. Since 11th day of October, 2017, the date the District Court received the Appellants’
complaint, no summons has been issued the Clerk causing a delay of over 2 years, that is not
‘‘forthwith” as WRCP #4: Process, (a) demands.
The denial then came of the Appellants’
complaint. The complaint clearly provided evidence of injury done. Safeguard from both delay
and denial by the District Court are protected rights under CSW, Declaration of Rights, 8 all courts
shall be open and every person for an injury done to person, reputation or property shall have
justice administered without sale, denial or delay. Due Process and equal protection of the law
has not been provided by the District Court.
22
Rules are intended to promote and not to obstruct administration ofjustice and thus enable
court to do substantial justice rather than to decide cases upon technicalities which have no
relationship whatever to rights of parties to litigation. Walsh v Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co.
(1939, DC NY) 26 F Supp 566
By failure to follow the rules Justice Campbell and his clerk obstructed justice and have
recurrently violated the Appellants’ rights when it was the duty of the District Court to protect and
enforce those rights. This Court has a duty to:
State Courts have not only the power but a duty to enforce the rights secured by these
Constitutions and the laws of the United States when such issues are involved in proceedings
before them. Betts v. Easley (1946) 161 Kan 459, 169p2d 831, 18 BNALRRM 2145,
ICCHEPD 9611, 11 CCHLC 63207, 166 ALR 342.
Violation of Judicial Oath and Violation of the Constitutions
All judicial, state and county officers take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation
(a contract): “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the constitution
of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Wyoming; that I have not knowingly
violated any law related to my election or appointment, or caused it to be done by others; and that
I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity” (Wyoming Constitution Article (hereafter
WCA) 6. Suffrage and Elections 20. Oath of office; form).
“Any person who shall be convicted of having violated said oath or affirmation, shall be
guilty of perjury, and be forever disqualified from holding any office of trust or profit within this
state” (WCA 6. Suffrage and Elections 21. Oath of office; how administered). No one is exempt
from the law. The District Court Rules WRCP make clear that the duty of the clerk Diane
Sanchez was to: “Upon the filing of the complaint the clerk shall forthwith issue a summons.”
This did not happen showing Diane Sanchez did not discharge the duties of the clerk’s office with
fidelity in violation of oath or affirmation to that office, a breach of that contract. The overall
responsibility of the court was Justice Thomas TC Campbell who knew or should have known the
23
administration ofjustice was being delayed and denied the case in the District Court in violation of
the CSW A1 §8. courts open to all\ suits against state bringing into question whether he discharged
the duties of his office with fidelity. In light of his decision to deny the case based upon a failure
to prosecute when the case had not yet been activated because of his clerk’s failure to issue
summons, he showed an active and deliberate role in an egregious error violating the rights of the
Appellants and conspired with the Clerk and the Appellees to deprive those rights (Official
Misconduct/Malfeasance); and therefore, knowingly chose to violate his oath of office.
“...all courts shall be open and every person for an injury done to person, reputation or
property shall have justice administered without sale, denial or delay.” (The CSW,
Declaration of Rights, 8. Courts open to all; suits against state).
The Appellees’ motion for Rehearing (Reinstate appeal) to bring to the Wyoming Supreme
Court warning of the precedence of having no summons issued and how important it is to have the
lesser Court follow the established court rules without bias is mandatory to establish jurisdiction.
Motion was denied June 30, 2020.
Constitutional Contract
The draftsmen of State and Federal Constitutions established an agreement or contract with
the people to govern the people, provided rights were guaranteed to the people. To institute and
preserve the Government it was inconceivable that government officials would allow any
violations of these rights much less be the party to deny, impair, or disparage rights due the people.
Three equal and distinct branches of the Government were formed to be a safeguard to defend the
-----peoples’ rights. The Appellants’ complaint detailed how entities acting for the State of Wyoming
to include Governors Matt Mead & Mark Gordon and the Wyoming State Attorneys General Peter
K. Michael & Bridget Hill denied, impaired, or disparaged rights due the Appellants.
24
Much like in George Floyd’s recent murder, the Appellants had entities acting for the State
of Wyoming showing a systemic willingness to break established law and violate the Appellants
rights with no fear of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or even to be held to accountable by a civil
court. Being allied with the County Prosecuting Attorney and the District Courts was a shield to
these entities wrong doing. With no accountability these entities acting for the State have been
unchecked. Even Governors (Mead & Gordon) and their Attorney Generals have refused to
investigate reports of misconduct and malfeasance in office and the commission of a crime of a
deprival of rights by entities like the sheriff, his deputies, and the district attorney as Wyoming
code 1-35-103,1-35-104, and 9-1-605 (c) decrees.
A State is also responsible for private action when it has “exercised coercive power” over the
challenge action or it has provided significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that
choice must in law be deemed that the State. Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982)
Wyoming Constitution Article 2. Distribution of Powers
1. Powers of government divided into three departments.
The powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments: The
legislative, executive and judicial, and no person or collection of persons charged with the
exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any powers
properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or
permitted.
When the trial court rendered a decision before officially opening the case, it showed its
intent to disregard the law and it is actively disregarding the court’s own rules and the Constitution
as well as a deliberate bias against one of its litigants in support of the opposing litigant. An act of
bias by a court and/or judge violates both constitutions and perverts justice.
Therefore, when Judge Campbell became aware that he held a bias against one of his
litigants, he had the duty/obligation/mandate under the court’s rules, the Bar Association’s code of
ethics and the Constitution to recuse himself “to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of
25
interests.” Wheat v. United States, 486 US 153, 108 S Ct 1692 (1988) teaches that “an actual or
potential conflict of interest poses a serious challenge indeed to the integrity of the judicial
process.” A “Conflict of interest is never harmless error.” Holloway v. Arkansas, 98 S. Ct. 1173
(1978); Shongutsie v. State, 827 P.2d 361, 378 (Wyo. 1992). (See also USCA Const. Amend. 6;
Oliver v. Wainwright, 782 F.2d 1521 CA11 (Fla.) 1986 Cert Denied 107 S. Ct. 313, 479 US 914,
93 L. Ed.2d 287).
“There may be a very few, rare cases in which the personal attacks or law suites are so
egregious that a reasonable person would perceive the judge as being biased. In such case, the
judge should recuse'himself or herself in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict.” See In
re Whet, Inc., 33 BR 424 (Bankr. Mass. 1983); In re Potter, 292 BR 711 (Bankr. 10th Cir
2002).
Judge Campbell’s failure to recuse himself brings his judgments under scrutiny as they are
unconstitutional and clearly against established legal procedure. This Court has a duty to correct
the miscarriage of justice that has resulted by his prejudice against the petitioners.
The problems and crimes against the petitioners, the other people partaking in this case,
and the others they are trying to protect have been brought to the attention of the Governors as well
as the Wyoming Attorney Generals, who have chosen to ignore the claims without providing any
action. Therefore, they have been abnegating their duty and responsibilities to the people of
Wyoming.
“Under the provisions of subsection 9-1-608 (a), the attorney general has the power and duty
to protect the state and its citizens against abuse of its laws.” Zweifel v. State, 517 P.2d
493,1974 Wyo. LEXIS 172 (Wyo. 1974)
According to the United States’ Code Service:
“Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs have been committed, conspired
to be committed, or, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in
preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be
committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages
caused by such wrongful act.” Title 42, Chapter 21, § 1986 Federal Code.
26
This places upon every person who was appraised of the crimes being committed a
responsibility to correct them regardless of whether they are an elected official, an appointed
official, an employed official, or even a general citizen. However, those that were given notice
who were officials have gone beyond violating 42 USC § 1986, but also a breach of both their oaths
of office as well as a breach of the Constitutions.
WHEREFORE, your petitioners appeal to this Court’s conscience, duty to justice, and
superintending control over all inferior courts to correct the aforementioned crimes by the lower
courts, that was bad behaviour by the magistrates in offence to the Constitution and the rules of the
Courts, and should cause these magistrates to loses their Offices according to Constitution of the
United States Article III, Section 1.
We ask the U.S. Supreme Court to remand this case and Order: the Wyoming District
Court to issue the summons and handle the case according to the court’s rules and appointing a
different judge to hear the case and render rulings that do not further offend justice and the
Constitutions.
We ask the U.S. Supreme Court to Order: the Wyoming Supreme Court to open access to
the Court for a poor person to seek justice and redress within the Wyoming Judicial system in
forma pauperis or some other avenue.
We ask the U.S. Supreme Court to Order: the District Court of the First Judicial District
Laramie County to refund the second for fee of $85.
We ask the U.S. Supreme Court to Order: the District Courts and Wyoming Supreme Court
to rule in favor of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
Wyoming in all cases under close scrutiny from a federal oversight board.
27
t.1
Solemn Proclamation
We solemnly proclaim that the Constitution of the United States was ordained by God to
ensure the freedoms and rights of all citizens of these United States from tyranny, from oppression,
and from abuse by government officials, and further, we proclaim that all officials for this
government that abuse the Constitution of the United States and set it at naught, will answer to the
Almighty God for their abuse of this authority given them by Him, and such officials will stand
condemned before Him in this life and at the last day. I quote:
“And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in
maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
“Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law
which is the constitutional law of the land;
“And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.”
Doctrine and Covenants 98:5-7
“I have sworn, and the decree hath gone forth by a former commandment which I have given
unto you, that I would let fall the sword of mine indignation in behalf of my people; and even
as I have said, it shall come to pass.”
Doctrine and Covenants 101:10
“And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that
they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are
placed as rulers and are in authority over you—
“According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established,
and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy
principles;
“That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the
moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own
sins in the day of judgment.
“Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
“And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men
whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.”
Doctrine and Covenants 101:76 - 80
“Let them importune at the feet of the judge;
“And if he heed them not, let them importune at the feet of the governor;
“And if the governor heed them not, let them importune at the feet of the president;
“And if the president heed them not, then will the Lord arise and come forth out of his hiding
place, and in his fury vex the nation;
28
“And in his hot displeasure, and in his fierce anger, in his time, will cut off those wicked,
unfaithful, and unjust stewards, and appoint them their portion among hypocrites, and
unbelievers;
“Even in outer darkness, where there is weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth.
“Pray ye, therefore, that their ears may be opened unto your cries, that I may be merciful unto
them, that these things may not come upon them.
“What I have said unto you must needs be, that all men may be left without excuse;
“That wise men and rulers may hear and know that which they have never considered;
Doctrine and Covenants 101:86 - 94
Respectfully submitted to the United States Supreme Court on this 21 day of July, 2020.
Reasons for Writ of Certiorari
The evidence is in the Court Docket (also in list of proceedings) of the District Court for
the First Judicial District, Laramie Wyoming that provides proofthe District Court has not issued
a summons and provides evidence the dismissal of this case was only 42 days rather than 90 days
claimed. Validating the fact that Court violated its oath and duty to uphold the Federal Constitution
(Due Process of Law), the State of Wyoming Constitution, and its own Court rule.
The Court Docket of the District Court for the First Judicial District, Laramie Wyoming
provides confirmation that the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming erred using the date of
submission of the rehearing 02/25/2019 to toll the time rather than the date the motion was ruled
on 09/26/2019. Unquestionable and undisputed evidence of errors were made by the lesser Courts
and confirms that fundamental justice and thousands individuals rights under the Constitution has
been denied give this Court amplified reason to hear this Writ of Certiorari to correct these errors
of the lesser Courts.
The perceived two systems of justice that has led to the nationwide demands for justice
reform and the defunding of the police is evidenced within this claim. Rights were deprived by
entities acting for the State, and when reported State Officials refused to even investigate as
29
required by the State Constitution. Justices appointed or promoted by these State Officials have not
let this case come to trial showing, in this case, that there are two justices with no fairness in the
system. We pray this last resort Court will correct the injustice we have experienced.
•
The Wyoming Supreme Court Judges, the Wyoming District Court Judges, the Clerks of
Court, the Judicial Review Board, the Govemor(s) of the State of Wyoming, the Attorney
General for the State of Wyoming, the District Attomey(s), the police officers have
conspired to deprive the rights guaranteed within the Contract of the Constitution of the
United States; they have conspired to deprive these rights willfully and wantonly in blatant
disregard for the Supreme Law of the Land and a multitude of lesser laws.
•
The Wyoming Supreme Court Judges, the Wyoming District Court Judges, the Clerks of
Court, the Judicial Review Board, the Governor(s) of the State of Wyoming, the Attorney
General for the State of Wyoming, the District Xttorney(s), the police officers have
violated their own Oath’s of Office and have done so willfully and wantonly.
•
The Wyoming Legislature has passed and the State has enforced laws that are in direct
violation of the Constitution. These laws abridge fundamental justice by changing the
requirement that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and through the
preponderance of the evidence (historically due process), into just being accused of a crime
is sufficient to obtain a conviction of guilt, needing no corroborating evidence (Wyoming
Statue 6-2-311). Since 1982 convictions have been made and upheld by Wyoming Courts
under this law. Those accused must seek a plea agreement or face life in prison.
•
The Wyoming Courts have closed their doors to those unable to pay their fees. They
require fees so high that an inmate would have to save for years to be able to pay them and
30
then the Courts time bar the inmates, effectively denying access to the Courts by the poor
which violates equal protection under the law and access to the Courts as required by the
Contract of the Constitution of the United States.
Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury
The undersigned declares (or certifies, verifies, or states) under penalty of perjury that the
information contained within the above action is true and correct to the best of his knowledge
pursuant to W.S. 6-5-301; 28 U.S.C. 1746; 18U.S.C. 1621.
FANE R. SELLERS Pro Se
STATE OF WYOMING
STEVEN BABCOCK Pro Se
)
)SS.
COUNTY OF WESTON
)
Subscribed and swom/affirmed before me this
CRISTAL N.CARPENTER - NOTARY PUBLIC
\\
County of
Weston
in
State of
Wyoming
My CommlBalon Expiresjylarch 21^2024
fibli'
yj
My Commission Expires:
31
Appendix
Wyoming Supreme Court Rulings
Order Dismissing Appeal
June 02,2020
Order Denying Petition to Reinstate Appeal
32
June 30, 2020
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.