# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jerry v. UAW, Local 735

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_2395%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 1987
- **Citation:** 484 U.S. 929

## Text

336 ;
sole

JOSE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED "SPe#5s5——--_

Fee seals

October Term, 1987

FREDERICK L. JERRY,
Petitioner,
-VSe=

UAW, LOCAL 735 and
GMC, HYDRA=MATIC DIVISION,

Respondents

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

FREDERICK L. JERRY
Petitioner pro se
21331 Kipling Street
Oak Park, Mich 48237
Phone (313 544773

~~

1. Whether the District Court and the
Court of Appeals can deny and prohibit
plaintiff from establishing charges of
fraud, discrimination, and an existing
conspiracy, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1655
and 2870 and Rule 60(b), contrary to the
Supreme Court establish precedents, and
the privileges granted in the United
States Constitution, lst Amendment?

2. Whether the Appeals Court acted pro-
perly in denying Plaintiff-Appellant's
Motion To Set Aside Judgment Obtained by
rraudOn The Court,and Motion For Consid-
eration And ModificationOf Appeals Court's
Order May 20, 1987 pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 6b) (3)(2)

and 56(c), up-holding the opinion fraud

and charges of an existing conspiracy are
insufficient grounds for cause of action,
in excercise of its sound discretion, con-

trary to Supreme Court's precedents?

pe

-3. Whether the APpeals Court andthe Trial
Court properly denied Plaintiff-Appellant's
Motion To S€t Aside Judgment Obtained By
Fraud On The Court, pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(3)(2)
under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1655 and
Section 2870, uov-holding the opinion
fraud and charges of an existing conspir-
acy are insufficient grounds for cause to
antine. in exercise of their sound dis-
cretion, contrary to the establish pre-

cedents by the Supreme Court?

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Questions Presented weccecccsessvees i
Parties to the Proceeding in the
Court Of AppealS ceescvecsvssesecees i

Opinions and Order Below eeeceseves

nm NW

JULISAICTLON cocvecsecesveccsvcveee

Statutes Involved ceccccccccccccess 2

Statement of the CaSe€ ceccssesevecs 5

Reasons for Granting the Writ .. 14,16

I

The Court of Appeals Should Be Sum-

marily Reversed for Holding That

Fraud and an Conspiracy are insuf-=

ficient Grounds to Establish Cause

TOP ACTION cecvccvccsecsccesesecese Lt
II

The Supreme Court has Previously

Granted Certiorari on the Issue of

Lower Courts Decisions Contrary to

‘iv

Page
its Controlling Decision; the same
Reasons Compel Review in the Instant
CASO 2c bene ene so 06h d 06506009046 0068 5
COMCLUSION esccnvesvesevdnsevseere 18
APP=NDIX B Order denying Motion For
Reconsideration, July 6, 1987 .... 24
APPENDIX A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 Or-
der denying Motion To Set Aside
Judgment Obtained By Fraud On The
COUPES 664 sec eeenteseutsssaaen 20,214 ,22,23°
APPENDIX D-l; andD-3 (of the memo-
randun)Motion For Consideration And
Modidication Of Appeals Court's Or-

der May 20, 1987 ccccoce 28,29,30,31

\

‘

APPENDIX E-1, E=-2 page lof the memoran-
dum of “Brief In Opposition To Mo-

tionTo Set Aside Judgment .... be

Page
APPENDIX F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F=5
F-6, F-7 pages of the Motion To
Set Aside Judgment Obtained By
Fraud On Phe Court oosoecsuedss secs 295
APPENDIX G-1l Communication from
the Court of AppealS ceccccevcccccs #1
APPENDIX H-l, H-2 pages from Plain-
tiff's Suit For Recission And Dam-
GRO ancien aesbbsnnenbincheneene eek OR
APPENDIX I-1, I-2 page 1976 GM-UAW
Contract Settlement Agreement .....44,45
APPENDIX J-1, J-2 page from Plain-
tiff's Motion For Dismissal Of De-

fendants International Union, UAW'S

Opposition To Motion To Set Aside
46,47

Judgment eeeseeoeeveeeeereenrteesvsereeeeeeeeeee

vi

Page
Andy McBeath -vs- Inter-American
Citizens For Decency Committee, C.A.
5th, 1967, 37% Pi2Q 359 sesecevsces 8
Bankers Mortgage Company -v=- U-
nited States of Americs, 423 F.2d
7) coseescorsecsocsoussereucsaseiaee TERS
Cavalliotis -vs- Salomon., (1966)
2 Cite, 357 Fe2d 157 casessaseseven 25
Hadden -vs=- Ramsey Products, 196 F.
ZA OZ scccccsenscenessaseseeressees 7
Hazel-Atlas Co., -vs=- Hartford-Em-
pire Go., (1996) 322 U.S: 2 s me 7 ( . « . () . © .
.- O ° q) . a . ft .- > £ ‘
. . q . Ly Ay .
. a) . cr} . ras . + qm, -
° _ ° 4? . 4? a —~ re N rH °
. 4 . U) YY) . i) om =) ¢ or od er -
. ord . a) . w —Y — > > .
. +42 . r— TS TS ed ont ord .
. Y”) . ao ad 7 ( . se! . Cc) tC) .
. ee . e- +> oe | + rH Q rd bad
oe O . erd . | - 4 . G4 G-| 7
. eo . eS ord © oo O bd
. . . C ; C Ss oY .
° Y) ° ro rH - ro ( — —~ °
e rab) . a) ad qa qd) .
° 1 ° Sus ( > ral ( qd) par « rl
> . PrP od P 4 GC 4 ~~ sie ie
° + aoe ~ +~ - en Ad ‘ ©
° WY 4 GH An 4-4 an mm Y- ~~
} oO O G4 - O | WO
HHI wT a . - O - ran! \O Ww WY)
@ ” + ” 4 } 4 hy
+> 4 4 a $y 8) Sy ( Cy qQ) qd) q @
. S ce > re @ > GB ft UD et
a) = qd) = oO a ‘@) r oO a) se qd) a
& ~~ = rr O on © oe ©) fr, Y" fr, ‘aw

- °F Game Bly be
atVUe 4 ale Ye {
-. ™
D1,
thn 1 |
‘'TIDP HM . nor nyYR T \ VAM .
SUPR COURT ¢ THE UNIT STATES

FREDERICK L. JERRY,

UAW, LOCAL 735 and
GMC, HYDRA=MATIC DIVISION,

Respondents

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPISALS FOR

SIXTH CIRCUIT

The petitioner respectfully prays that
a writ of certiorari issue to review the
decision and opinion of the United States

}

Court of Avpeals for the Sixth Circuit en-

tered in this proceeding.

<2-
Opinions and Order Below.

The order of the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals denying the motion for recon-
Sideration, is annexed hereto as Appen-
dix B.

The decision and opinion of the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals is annexed here
to as Appendix A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4.

Jurisdiction

The decision and opinion of the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals was entered on
July 14, 1987

The order denying the motion for recon-
Sideration was filed July 6, 1987.

Jurisdiction in this Court is invoked
pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1254(1)
end to Rule 17.1.

Statutes Involved
1. Title 28 U.S.C. Sec 1655 provides:

Relief from judgment or order, USCS

sini
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60. Judg-

ment for specific acts; USCS Rules Proced-~
ure, Rule 70.

United States Code, Title 28, Section
2870 Provides:

The power to vacate a judgment that
has been obtained by fraud upon the
court is inherent in courts. Indeed
even the strong statutory policy of
finality of judgments of the Tax

Court yields to this inherent power,
on the theory that "a decision pro-
duced by fraud on the court is not
in essence a decision at all, and
never become final."

Constitutional Provision Involved
United States Constitution Amendment I:
; or the rights of the people peaceably
to assemble, and petition the Govern-
ment for redress of grievances. (Unquotd
United States Constitution Amendment 14th
snor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any per
son within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws. (Unquote)

Rules Involved

Rules of the United States Supreme Court

Whe
Rule 17 2. (a) Provides:

(a) When a federal court of appeals
has rendered a decision in conflict
with the decision of another federal
court of appeals on the same matter;
or has decided a federal auestion in
a way in conflict with a state court
of last resort; or has so far depart
ed from the accepted and usual course
of judicial proceedings, or so far
Sanctioned such a departure bya low-
er court, as to call for an exercise
or this court's power of supervision.

Rules of the United States Suvreme Court,
Rule 17.1. (c) Provides:

(c) When a state court or a federal
court of appeals has decided an inm-
portant question of federal law which
has not been, but should be, settle
by this Court, or has decided a fed-
eral question in a way in conflict
with applicable decision of this Court.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule
60(b) that provides:

(b) This rule does not limit the pow-
er of a court to entertain an imo@en-
dent action to relieve a party from a
judgment, order, or proceedure or to
grant relief to a defendant not act-
ually personally notified as provided
in Pitle 28, U.S.C., Section 1655, or
to set aside a judgment for fraud upon
the court.

oo Sen
Statement of the Case

The original complaint was filed June
1980 and charged the UAW, Local 735 and
GMC, Hydra-Matic Division with fraud, dis-
crimination and violation of contractual
agreement under Labor-Management Act 301
Title 29 U.S.C. Section 185.

On January 5, 1981 attorney for UAW Lo-
cal 735, filed a motion for summary Judg-
ment, excluding UAW and the International
Union collectively; and obtained a Sum-
mary judgment, January 8, 1981, case No.
80-72246. That exclusion of UAW and the
International Union from charges as filed
meant the full cause was not before the
Court.

Plaintiff in pro se with the intent to
reopen case No. 80-72246 and establish
charges of an existing conspiracy, fraud

and to have the UAW and the Internation-

a
al Union heretofore excluded, establish
therein as charged. To accomplish those
Objectives, plantiff filed Motion To Set
Aside Judgment Obtained By Fraud On The
Court, filed August 4, 1985.

On August16, 1985, Defendants Interna-
tional Union, UA filed Entry Of Special
Appearance And Opposition To Motion To Set
Aside Judgment. Thereinthat motion, page
lof the Brief, Defendants stated “For the
purpose of this brief,the allegations set
forth in the plaintiff's motion will be
takenas true. (see Appendix E-1 lines 12
to 14).

Plaintiff filed Motion For Dismissal of

Defendant's opposition motion, on August

Throughout this petition Motion To Set
Aside Judgment Obtained By Fraud On The
Court, will be refered to as "Filed Mo-
tion of August 4, 1985."

i
30, 1985, addressed to the discretion of
the Court, and requested that MOtion To
Set Aside Judgment,be treatedas “the in-
stitution of an independent action" (see
Appendix J-1). Plaintiff used the case of
Bankers Mortgage Co. as relevant author-
ity. Inthat csse Plaintiff sought to have
review of his actionfrom adverse decision
of Federal Tax Court ina Federal District
Court under Federal Rules Of Civil Pro-
ure Rule 60(b)(1)(2)(3)s3 Suchrules to be
effective, motion must be made within the
one year limit. Nevertheless the Court in
its discretion, instituted Plaintiff's
cause under the saving: clause of Rule 60
(b) that provides that 60(b) does not limit
the power of the court to entertain such
an action, as an independent action. See
Bankers Mortgage Company -v=- United States
of America, 423 F.2d 73; also see Hadden

-vs- Ramsey Products, 196 F.2d 92.

wife
Plaintiff says in-his opinion

as a layman: The District Court and the
Court of Appeals should have applied the
Same principleof "Assumption of Innocent,"
the same as the Defendants. Granting plain-
tiff the privilege of an hearing, and op-
portunity to prove and devélop those charges
» because of their importance to the pub-
lic; by reason of the seriousness of any
threat to the functioning and integrity
of the very institution set-up as safe-
guard against such charges of fraud.

In a Similar situation, the Court in
its opinion stated;

“McBeath should have been allowed

to develop his evidence in a full

hearing on the merits where the is-

Sue of jurisdiction and the merits

are so closely tied together and in-

Separable. It was an error for the

court summarily to preclude him from

so doing.: See Andy McBeath -vs-

Inter-American Citizens For Decency

Committee f.A. 5th, 1967, 374 F.2d
359.

Also see Standard Oil Co. of New

mo
Jersey v. United States 221 U.S. 1. 31S
Ct. 502.

On August 25, 1986 the Distric* Court
denied Motion filed August 4, 1985, in
court order. Plaintiff filed Appeal Notice
September 22, 1986, that was given docket
No. 86-1873. Plaintiff filed Brief March
16, 1987. TheCourt entered its order May
20,1987 denying filed Motion of August 4,
1985, and Appeal No. 86-1873. Therein the
Court's opinionit stated Plaintiff's said
filed Motion August 4, 1985, TO Set Aside
Judgment, was filed to vacate Defendants
Judgments. Plaintiff object to that state-
ment by reason said filed motion was only
against UAW Local 735's judgnent (see cap=
tion Appendix F-1), and requested that it
be set aside (see Appendix F-6 lines 17
thru 18). Also see Appendix G-1 that was
filed in the Appeal Court, that factually

showedthe relating judgment case of General

-Ai0-
Motors Corporation No. 82-70212 was on ap-
peal September 24,1985, when motion again-
st UAW Local 735's judgment was filed
August 4, 1985.

Plaintiff-Appellant further object to
the mmtioning of UAW Local 735's judgment
and relating caseof General Motors Corp-
Oration No. 82-70212 (see Appendix A-l
lines 15 and16) inan suggestive and sanc-
tioning manner, not before the court in
its court erderof May 20, 1987. In Plain-
tiff's opinion: That action denying his mo-
tions as lacking substance for a cause of
action,merely restating matters previously
before the court (see Appendix A-4 lines
6,7,8and 16 and 17), without due consid-
eration of charges of fraud and an exist-
ing conspiracy that included both hereto-

fore not charged International Union and

the UAW cdllectively (see AppendixD=-3 lines

=;
9 thrul3);besides error in discretion,pre-
judiciali.y denying and prohibit future mtion
by plainviff to have grievances in those
judgements: addressed without preconceived
adverse cainion on establishcharges there-
in, withottre new evidence amd charges in
said motion filed August4, 1985, and mo-
tion for reconsideration, because of the
Appeals Ccurt's sanctioning the granting of
those judsments in its order of May 20,
1987 That action also deny plaintiff's
his constitutional privilegs granted by
the United States Constitution,lst Amend-
ment, that afford him tne right to bring
his grievances for redress t any Federal
Court, in accordwithnsaid Amendment, that
read in part;
sor the risnts of the people
peaceably to assemble, and Dét=

ition the Government for redress
of grievances. (Unquote)

Further Plaintiff being so privilege

ah tu

has the right to the protection of his
grievances under the law, enforced ac-
cording to the 14th Amendment, that read
in part;

;nor shall any state deprive

any person of life, liberty, or

property, without due processof

law;nor deny to any person with-

in its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws. (Unquote)

In further comment upon the wording

in the lst Amendment, where it read " and
petition tne Government for redress of
grievances;" Plaintiff exvressed his ob-
jections tothe fact UAW Local 735'sJuds-
ment was obtained without the UAW he in
the original complaint charged with fraud,
or the International Union, whom the com-
pany recognized as revresented collectively
in the persons of UAW- Local 735 (see Appen-
dix I-l lines 11 thru 15). Charges filed

in the original complaint, that in accord

with the lst Amendment cf the United States's

At
Constitution, must be heard, as a right
granted; with full protection of the law,
as establish by the United States Supreme
Court in acase wherein the Honorable Chief
Justice Marshall stated in the Court's
opinion:

"If, then, the courts are to
regard the constitution, and the
constitution is superior to any
ordinary act of the legislature,
the constitution,and not such or-
dinary act, must govern the case
to whichthey both apply. See Mar-
bury v. Madison,1l Cranchl37, 2L.

Ed. 60 (1803)
Plaintiff also pointed
out in said filed Motion of August 4, 1985
» ToSet Aside Judgment, contained provis-
jons charging the International Union with
fraud, and in an conspiracy, that hereto-
fore was uncharged (see Appendix D-3 lines

10 thru 14). Charges the Trial Court dis-

missed as restated charges without merits

for a cause of action, in denying Plain-

=
tiff's filed Motion of August 4, 1985.
Plaintiffalso findhis present situation
not unlike the case of a plaintiff in cer-
tiorari that felt his cause had been pre-
judice by outside influence, wherein the
U.S. Supreme Court stated in its opinion:

"The case is here on petition for
certiorari, * * * which we granted
because of doubts whether exvosure
of some of the jurors to the new-

paper article about the petitioner
was so prejudicial in the setting of
the case as to warrant the exercise
of our supervisory power to order a
new trial." See Marshall V. U.S, 366
U.S. 316.

Also see Montana «v= Kennedy,
1961 366 U.S. 308.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
I
The Court of Avpeals and the District
‘Court Should Be Summarily Reversed
for Holding That Fraud and an Con-

Spiracy are Insufficient Grounds to
Establish cause for Action

Supreme Court's Rule .1.(c) provides

=] 5~

that one reason a writ of certiorari may
pe srantedis thatacourt of appeals “has
decideda federal questionin a wayin cone
flict with applicable decisions of the Su-
preme Court, The first question present-
ed for reviewon the instant petition in-
volves avery opposing departure from Su-
preme Court vrecedent established in Richard
Dale Martin V. United States, C.A. 10th
(1968) 404 F.2d 640. Therein that case,
the same as the instant case, Rule 17 .1.
(a) and (c) is applicable because of the
oposing difference in the decision of the
Appeal Court and District Court holding
charges of fraud is insufficient ground
to cause for action; compared to the decis=
ion of the Court of Appeals for the 10th

circuit, in its opinion stated:

In the trial court defendants
a fa|
he |

upon the one vear period

c

Fo
applicable to grounds (3). Evi-
dently,the trial court did also
This, we hold, was error.

Also see Bankers Mortgage Company -vs-
United States of America, 423 F. 2d 73
Fraud is a very serious charse, that war-
rant full supvort of the Court. A fact
further reiteratedin Supreme Court decis-
ionin Klapprott V. United States 366 U.S.
942; also see Cavalliotis -vs- Salomon.,
(1966) 2 cir. 357 F.2d 157.

Tne Suoreme Court has Previously Granted
Certiorari on the Issue of Lower Court
Decisions Contrary to its Controlling
Decisions; the same Reason Compel Re-
view in the Instance Case
The precedents establish by the United

States Supreme Court that fraudor an con-

sDiracy to subvert the administration of

Justice, is an attack upon the whole ju-

Gicial system; and must be sought out at

all expense, until ail such threats have

peen removed and the records have been

oo] Fa
cleared of all such allegations of fraud.
Such precedents being so established by
the Supreme Court, has controlling influ-
ence an the discretion af the lower courts.
By reasons the Court of Appeals and the
District Court have failed t recognize in
the original complaint UAW and Local 735
was charged with fraud (see Appendix H-1
lines 8, 9, and 10); and too, said filed
Motionof August4, 1985,To Set Aside Judg-
ment, charged International Union and UAW
with fraud (see Appendix F=-3 lines17 thru
19). The filed Brief and Motion for con-
sideration, in the Appeals Court, all three
motions contained charges of fraud and ad-
dressed to the discretion of the Court;
both Courts in error of discretion, issued
orders denying full disclosure of all fraud
charges, contrary to Supreme Court's est-

ablish precedents. Such action bring into

~] Ba
action the Supreme Court's Rule 17 .1.(c),
by reason those orders are in opposition
to the controlling decisions of the Supreme
Court concerning charges of fraud. That in
such a case, stated in its opinion:
The Court said at 523, con-

cerning the facts that had come

to its attention "Not only jus-

tify the inquiry but impose uwodon

us the duty to make it, even if

no party to the original cause

Should be willing to cooperate,

to the end that the records of

the court might be vurged of frawd

if any should be found to exist.

Hazel-Atlas Co. -vs=- Hartford-

Papire Co., 322 U.S. 238.

Also see Ken-=
ner -vs=- Commissioner of Internal Reve-
nue, C.A. 7th, (1968), 387 F . 2d 689,
wherein the court's opinion it was stated
"Fraud upon the court is never closed un-
til all such charges of fraud, has been
laid to rest. Those decisions by the Su-

preme Court has already establishthe cri-

~19—
teria for prohibition, the lower courts
may not expand them. That fact was never
more explicitly noted than in Richard
Dale Martin 'vs- United States, C.A. 10th
(1968) 404 F. 2d 640., and reiterated in
a case wherein the Supreme Court granted
certiorari because its decision had been
invalidated by a lower court summarily.
The Court stated in its opinion:
"Because of petitioner's claim
that this holding is contrary to
controlling decisions of this
Court, we granted certiorari."
Radiant Burn rs Inc. V. Peoples
Gas Light & Coke Inc, 1961, 36/4
U.S. 656.

CONCLUSION

Frederick L. Jerry, Plaintiff do most
respectfully submit: The actions of the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit,and the United States Dis-
trict Court for the Eastern District to

the attention of this most Honorable Court

-20-
in this petition, being such an opposing
departure from the established precedents
of this Court. For the foregoing reasons
a writ of certiorari should be granted,
and the granting of the first question

raised in this vetition.

Oak Park, Michigan 48237

Telephone: (313) 5447736

Date 9-8-87

Subscribed and sworn to
before me this 9th day of

vO. 1987 ,
f é
ee ee sere es

Notary public

My Commission Expires:
ARLENE S. FIRSHT
Notary Puptic. Qaldand County. Mi

ary FURS. Oakland County, Mich.
Acticn in QAKLAN SE County. Mich,
My Commission Expires Octoder 25, 1988

~ ,
APPENDIX A-l

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Frederick L. Jerry
Plaintiff-Appellant,
-VsSe-

UAW=-LOCAL 735 &
GMC-HYDRA-NMATIC DIV-
ISION,

Defendants=- Appellees.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

BEFORE: KEITH and NORRIS, Circuit Judges;
PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.

The Plaintiff has appealed from the
order filed August 5, 1986, and entered
September 10, 1986, denying his Rule 60(
b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, mo
tions to vacate the summary judgements for
the defendants. Pending in this court are
plaintiff's motion to reconsider his mo-
tion to perpetuate testimony, motion for
leave to amend defective jurisdiction, mo-
tion against fraud upon the court and mo-

tion for a special determination on the

wo OnN Wir F&F WwW ND EF

Nn YF YP FPF FP YP PP BP BY BP pb
o . 2S OG NM FOU ON UR CS

-22-—
A-2

motion against fraud uponthe court. Briefs
have been filed by the parties. Pursuant
to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit,
this appeal has been referred to a panel
of the court for consideration. Upon ex-
amination of the documents filed in this
court and the district court record, this
panel agree unanimously that oral argument
is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Ryles
of Appellate Procedure.

Plaintiff was discharged from employ-
ment after a series of disciplinary action
were taken by General MOtors against him.
Grievances were filed regarding the dis-
Cciplinary actions and his discharge. A
representative of the International UAW
settle all four grievances and plaintiff
was awarded reinstatement, back pay, and
amendment of the suspensions recorded in

his work record. Plaintiff failed to re-

—_- WwW AN

27. Oo — cr Aw

22 3-
A=3
port to work andvas eventually terminated
In the complaint filed in the district
court, plaintiff sought recision of the
settlement and an award of monetary re-

lief. Summary judgment were entered in

favor of the defendants after. determinig

that plaintiffhad failed to allege facts
sufficient to state a cause of action.
After receiving numerous motions over a
four year period,thedistrictcourt entered
anorder denying plaintiff's Rule 60(b),
Federal Rule ofcivil Procedure,motions to
vacate. Plaintiff avpealed from that order.
A ruling ma Rule 60(b), Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, motion to vacate is
appealable but it does not pring under
review the final judgment. Peake V. First
National Bank & Trust Co., 717 F. 2d1016
(6th Cir. 1983). The abuse of discretion

standard of review is applied to an appeal

oOo On NWN | W ND FE

FPP BFP YP YP BP PP B
I~ nn FW DN FE O

-~2h.
A-l

from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion.

Smith v. Secretary of Health and Human

Services, 776 F. 2d 1330 (6th Cir, 1985);

Jasany v. United States Postal Service,

755 F.2d 1244 (6th Cir. 1985). The Motims |
filed by plaintiff merely restated matters
which were before the district court at
the time the summary judgmentwere grant-
ed. This Court therefore concludes that
the district court did not err in deny-
the motion to vacate.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's motions
are denied and tne order of the district
court is affirmed under Rule 9(b)(5),
Rules of the Sixth Circuit, because the
issues are not substantial and do not
require oral argument.

Entered By Order Of
The Court

~ 25=
APPENDIX B
NO. 86-1873

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Frederick L. Jerry

FILED

Plaintiff-Appellant, July 6.1987

Ve

GMC-HYDRA-MATIC DIV-

)
)

UAW=LOCAL 735; ORDER
{SION,
)

Defendants-Appellees.

BEFORE: KEITH and NORRIS, Circuit Judgess
an PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.

This matter is before the court upm
consideration of the motion for reconsid-
eration of the court's decision.

This court having carefully reexam-
ined the record, finds that it misappre-
hended no questions of law or fact in May
20, 1987, decision.

It is ORDERED that motion for recor

Sideration be denied.

Oo On ON WN —- WNF

=
oO

kk
ke

lee
Wd

to
I

ao
nn

NN NN FY F FF
Vv J Ga SS co nN

26
APPENDIX D-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SIXTH CIRCUIT

FREDERICK L. JERRY Appeals Court's No.
86-1873
Plaintiff-Apvpellant,
District Court No.
-vs- 80=72246

Appeal from the Or-

UAW, Local 735 and der-of the

GMC, Hydra-Matic Div-
ision,

Defendants-Appellees

JURISDICTION

The Jurisdiction of this Court is In-
‘“veked under Title 28 U.S.C.A. Sect 1291

MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
AND MODIFICATION OF APPEALS
COURT"S ORDER May 20, 1987

TO The DISCRETION OF THE COURT

Plaintiff-Appellant Frederick L. Jerry,
bring this Motion For Consideration And
Modification Of Appeals Court's Order May
20, 1987; Pursuant to Fed. Riles Of Civ.
Pro. Rule 3 and 5, and 60(b),(2),(3), and

2%
APPENDIX D2

52(b), amd 56(c) and Constitutional Amend-
ment 1 and 14, and local Rules of FRAP
Rules 27(a) and 8(c) under U.S.C.A.
26 Section 1291; on the grounds to avoid
an mis-carriage of Justice;on the grounds
the material evidence demand that case No.
80-7226 be remand back to District Court;
on the grounds the Court erred in its
judgement that breached Fed. Rules Of Civ.
Fro. Rule 60(b); Plaintiff-Appellant
states as follows:

1. The Court in denying Plaintiff's lMo-
tion To Set Aside Judgment Cbtained By
Fraud On The Court, filed Aug 4, 1985 (
hereinafter= filed Aug 4, 1985 Motion)
erred in its judgment by claiming Appeal
No. 86-1873 was filedto vacate UAW Local

735's Judgment of Jan 8, 1981.

a

18

20

in ee
APPENDIX D-3

2.-Plaintiffdo hereby says: In the GMC
UAW's Agreement the company recognize theUAW
,»Local 735 collectively as representatives
ofthe International Union (seeExh. 3). By
reason of that inseparability of the In-
ternational Union,the UAW,the Local 735,
the Appeal court erredby denying plaintiff's
filed Aug4,1985 Motion, that sought to. in-
clude the heretofore excluded International
Union, the UAW, in the establishment of
acaseor fraud and an existing conspiracy
to subvert the administration of Justice.

A fact acknowledge in the UA’ Local 735

"This isa dutyof Bir representation case
asainst the Local Unim,only.The Internat-
ional was not namedas a party. (Unquote)

That exclusion of
the International Union, meant the full

cause,as charged wasnot before the Court,

oOo ON WOWN F WD N FH

MP RP
WwW NY F&F O

\

yw FP FP FP FP FP
ow ON Awa F&

-29-
APPENDIX D=-4
therefore Plaintiff charge the Court of
Appeals erred in denying filed Aug. 4,
1985 Motion to establish those defendants
therein case No. 80-72246.

3. Plaintiffdo says the Appeals Court
preached Fed. Rulesof Civ. Pro. Rule 60(
b) by sanctioning District Court's decis-~
ion in granting UAW Local 735 judgment,
and passing its opinion on matters not be-
fore the court. By that action, without
argument from Plairtiff, has nullified all
such future actions by Plaintiff in the
Appeals Court.

4, The Appeals Courtin denying plaintiff
filed Avg 4,1985 Motion, erred by not ack-
nowledging the International Union(herein-
after-International),UAW fraud and mis-re-
presentation in its claims of Settlement
withdraw(Unquote) Further evidence of those

charges of fraud, is acknowledge on page

‘oO On OVn WN - WNEF

Ny NHN NY FP HF FP FP RP HP HB BB YH
uF So Oo CO Om in UF hUlfUNE ro)

_—.
APPENDIX ‘E-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDERICK L. JERRY, Case No. 80-72246
Hon. Anna Diggs
Plaintiff, Taylor

¥.

UAW, Local 735 and
GMC, Hydra-Matic Div-
ison,

Defendants.

/

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE
JUDGMENT

Introduction

The plaintiff has filed a motion to set
aside judgment obtained by alieged fraud
on the Court. For the purpose of this
brief, the allegations set forth in the
plaintiff's motion will be taken as true.

Statement of Facts

This action was originally filed on or
about June 20, 1980 in this Court. Summary

judgment was granted in favorof the Union

~31.

APPENDIX R_»o
Defendants on January 8, 1981.

On or about August 1, 1985, the Plain-
tiff filed an untimely motion to have the
Original judgment set aside alleging that
such decision was based on fraud. The
plaintiff specifically filed his motion
under Rule 60(b) (2) and (3) of the Fed-
eral Rules of Civil Procedure. See Plain-
tiff's Motion. Such motion was filed ap-
proximately 56 months after the final

judgment was rendered.

at2=

APPENDIX F-l
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDERICK L. JERRY, Case No. 80-72246

Plsintiff, Hon. Anna Diggs Tay-
lor
-VS=
Re: UAW Local 735's
UA, LOCAL 735 and Judgment of Jan-
GMC, HYDRA-MATIC DIV- vary 8, 1981
ISION,

Filet Aug 4,1987
Defendants.

#

Tne Jurisdiction of this Court is Invoked
under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1331

MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT
OBTAINED BY FRAUD ON TH COURT

TO TH= DISCRETION OF THE COURT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Frederick L.
Jerry, and bring this Motion To Set Aside
Judgment Obtained By Fraud On Tne Court,
and moves this Court pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(3) and
(2), Rule 5(b), Rule 15(a) under Title 28
U.S.C. Section 1655 and 2870, and under

(continue annexed page F-1)

-33 =
APPENDIX F-2

Title 28 U.S.C. Section1653; on the ground
the judgment of Defendant UAW Local 735
of 1981 and GMC, Hydra-Matic Division's
Judgment of January 28, 1981 in case No.
80-72246 and companion case NO. 82=70212
should be invalidated because of ekda il-
licit conspiracy; and states as follows:

1. Plaintiff charge: UAW and GHC's con-
tractual agreement settlement of January
19, 1979 is the fraudulent constructed in-
strument used in their conspiracy to de-
ceive the Court with malic in breach of
the grievance procedure,to obstruct just-
ice.

2. Plaintiff charge UAW and its Local
735 and GMC, Hydra-Matic Division blatanly
breached their contractual sgreement with
intent to impose financial and mental

hardship upon Plaintiff;—

- w

- 0 oe «* Ch AR

-34-
APPENDIX F-3
4, Plaintiff charge: UAW and its Local
735 with breach of GMC-UAW Contract Agree-
ment's grievance procedure, and breachof
Duty and Trust in deceiving Plaintiff it
had negotiated grievance of March15,1978
» progressively through Grievance procedure.
5. Plaintiff chargeY UAW and its Local
735 bargain in bad faith by fraudulently
presenting contractual inactive grievances
of March 15, and March 29, and May 22,
1978 to the International to be pvrogress-
ively promoted from step 3, to the final
step four of the Grievance procedure;
thereby obtained an fraudulent Settlenmt
of January 19, 1979.
6. Plaintiff charge: Internation Union
(hereinafter International), UAW with

Fraud and misrepresentationinits claim

7+ Plaintiff charge: International, UAW

Oo ON WOWWNA | W ND FH

Mm RP
mw FF Oo

13

-35~—
APPENDIX F-4
andits Local 735 and GMC, Hydra-Matic with
breach of UAW-GMC Contract Agreement.
8. Plaintiff charge: UN, Local 735 and

GMC, Hydra-Matic Division conspired to

deny grievances of March 15, March 29,ad

May 22, 1978 proper union representation,
to get Plaintiff discharged through GMC's
penal system.

9. Plaintiff charge: UAW and its Local
735 and GMC, Hydra-Matic Division withan
illicit conspiracy to deceive the Court
by the use of their fraudulent obtained
Settlement of January, 1979 and did there-
by obtained an judgments in case No. 80-
72246 and companion case No. 82=70212 a-
gainst Plaintiff.

10. Plaintiff charge: The Court being
deceived by the defendants illicit con-
spiracy to obstruct justice, caused itto

error in the granting of Judgment incase

-36-
APPENDIX F-5
No. 80-72246 and companion case No. 82-

70212, and both cases should be invali-

—- W wm

dated because of that illicit conspiracy.
11. Plaintiff charge: The controversy

concerning terms therein settled, and tre

S OW WN

validity or invalidity of the Settle-

=37=
APPENDIX F-6
ment of Januaryl19, 1979,render it invalid.

12. That this motion is based upon the
pleading herein, the Affidavit of Fred-
erick L. Jerry submitted herewith, and all
the pleadings in this case No. 80-7 246
and case NO. 82-70212. ,

13. That this Motion is supported by its
Brief In Support Of Motion To Set Aside
Judgment Obtained By Fraud On The Court.

14. That this Motion is based upon the case
of Root Refining Co, -v tmniversal Oil Prod-
ucts Co. American Safety Table -vs- Singer
Sewing Machine Co. (1948) 169 F.2d 514.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, FrederickL. Jerry
prays that this Honorable Court grant tre
MOtion To Set Aside Judgment Obtained By
Fraud On The Court; and set aside Judg-
ment of UAW Local 735 of January 8, 1981;
Grant entry of Motion To Additional Or

Amend Findings And Judgment, and Change

on AO wn F&F WwW ND F

_ *

APPENDIX F-7
Relief. & opinion (docket No. 43); Grant
leave to file MOtion For Leave To Amend
Defective Jurisdiction, hereto attached
as Exhibit G; and Grant an expeditious
rehearing of all charges of illicit con-
Spiracy and full disclosure ofall charges

of fraud in case No. 80-7226.

-39=
APPENDIX G-l

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

U.S. Post Office & Courthouse Building
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

September 24, 1985
John P. Hehman
Clerk

Frederick L. Jerry
21331 Kipling
Oak Park, Michigan 48237

RE: 85-1562 Frederick L. Jerry
v. General Motors Corpora-
tion D.C. #82-70212/Taylor

Dear Mr. Jerry:

Enclosed please find a copy of the
order which was entered today in the
above-styled appeal.

Yours very truly,
JOHN P. HSHMAN, CLERK

Tom Bennignus, Deputy

Enclose

XC: Mark R. Flora

on vnawnr & WwW WN PY

\O

21

my,
Appendix H-1
(5l)in Settlementof 1-17-49 or there-about,.

4, Plaintiff charge: UAW-Local 735 in
Breach offairrepresentation and Breachof
Collective Bargaining Agreement's paragraph
(5) and GMC-Hydra-Matic Division with
Aiding and Abeting.

5. Plaintiff charge: UAiw-Local 735 in
Breach of Duty in fair representation,
Fraud and Breach of Trust in unlawful use
of Grievance Procedure, in Settlement of
1-17-79 or there-about, Aid and Abet by
GMC_Hydra-Matic Division.

6. Plaintiff charge UAW-Local 735 in
Breach of Duty and Breach of Trust in
Grievance Procedure.

7. Plaintiff base this plead upon case

"VACA ET AL. -ve- SIPES ADMINISTRATOR, 386

U.S. 171, S, CT. 903, 17 L. Ed. 2d 842

8. This suit is supported by Plaintiff

oO ™N OV - WN Ff W NO -

-41 .
APPENDIX H=2
brief in support of its Suit for Fecissim
and Damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, pray that the
Court will grant Recission of written
Settlement of 1-17-79 or thereabout and
order Defendants UAW-Local 735 to paythe
Plaintiff Punitive Damages in amount of
$700,000 and GMC-Hydra-Matic Division be
ordered to vay Plaintiff Punitive Damages
in amount of 3500,000, for cruel and un-

usual emotional trauma.

( continue page 4)

OHO OIAN FW NF

he
NH Oo

NNHP RP RRP HEEH
HOO ONAN FW

N
ae)

NMMNNN Pd
CON) ONIN 40

~42-

APPENDIX I-1

1976 GM-UAW
CONTRACT SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT

the Union, provided that each such employe
executes or has executed the following "
Authorization for Check-Off of Dues" from;

‘provided further however, that the Corpo-

ration will continue to deduct monthly
membership dues from the pay of each em-
ploye for whom it has on file an unrevoked
Authorization for Check-Off of Dues form.

"AUTHORIZATION FOR CHECK-OFF OF DUES
To: General Motors Corporation

"I hereby assign to Local Union No. .
International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workes
of America(UA'), from any wages earned or
to be earned by me as your employee, or
from any Regular Benefits to be paid to me
under the Supplemental Unemployment Bene-
fit Plan (in my present or in any future
emoloyment by you), such sums as the Fin-
ancial Offer of said Local Union iyNo.---_
may certify as due and owing from me as
membership dues, including an initiation
or reinstatement fee and monthly dues in
such sums as may be establish from timeto
time as union dues in accordance with the
Constitution of the International Union,
UAW. I authorize and direct you or the
Trustee of the GM-UAY Supplemental Unem-
ployment Benefit Plan Fund, as the case
may be, to deduct such amounts from mypay
or from any Regular Benefits and to remit
same to the Union at such time and insuch.

ah 3
APPENDIX I-2

manner as may be agreed upon between you
and the Union at any time while this au-
thorization is in effect.

"This assignment, uthorization and di-
rection shall be irrevocable ir the period
of one (1) year from the date of delivery
hereof to you, or until the termination of
the collective agreement between the Com-
pany and the Union which is in force at
the time of delivery of this authorization
and direction shall be automatically re-
newed, and shall be irrevocable for suces-
Sive period of one (1) year each or for the
period of each succeeding applicahle col-
lective agreement between the Company and
the Union, whichever be shorter, unless
written notice is given by me to the Com-
pany and the Union not more that twenty (
20) days and not less than ten (10) days
peior to the expiration of each period of
one (l1)year,or of each applicable collec-
tive agreement between the Company and the
Union whichever occurs sooner.

— Ah
APPENDIX J-l

to entertain an independent action
a party from a judgment, order, or
proceeding, or grant relief to a
defendant not actually personally
notified as provided in Title 28
U.S.C. Section 1655, or to set ae: -
Side a judgment for fraud upon the
court.

In Andy W. McBeath -vs- Inter-American
Citizens For Decency Committee, the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals, wherein the
Court stated:

"MicBeath should have been allowed
to develop this evidence in a full
hearing on the merits where the is-
sue of jurisdiction and the merits
are so closely tied together and in-
separable. It was error for the
court to preclude him from so doing.
"See Andy W. McBeath -vs=- Inter-
American Citizens For Decency Com-
mittee, C.A. 5th, 1967, 374 F.2d

359.
For all reasons stated in McBeath case,
Defendants motion must be dismissed.

IV. CONCLUSION

For all the reasons stated above, Plain
tiff Frederick L. Jerry respectfully re-

quest and prays that tnis Honorable Court

-45-
APPENDIX J=2
| grant his Motion For Dismissal Of Defend-
ants Opposition Motion (docket entry No.
88); and grant Plaintiff's Motion To Set
Aside Judgment Obtained By Fraud On The
Court (docket entry No. 87), and treat
Same as the institution of an independ-

ent action.

Address 21331 Kipli

Oak Park, Michigan 48237
Phone: (313) 5447736

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_2395%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.