Excerpts. Please download the FREE Doc of the Day posted above to read the entire petition.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED:

    Whether the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals violated the appellant’s due process rights under U.S. Const. amend. XIV by affirming each of the district court’s orders—particularly those requiring de novo review—without addressing clearly erroneous findings of fact and apparent errors of law, thereby necessitating Supreme Court guidance on the revision or abolition of its local rule allowing such summary affirmance.    

    This petition also presents three cert-worthy subsidiary questions that remain unanswered:

   Whether denying access to electronic filing for pro se litigants constitutes discrimination against the majority property class, in violation of due process and the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights Article Two. The courts held that non-attorneys may not file electronically.

    Whether, consistent with Skidmore and the recent Loper decision, individuals have the right to raise a genuine dispute of material fact by citing factual records compiled through Civil Investigative Demands by government agencies. The courts ruled that CFPB findings against the defendant were irrelevant.      Whether a court must apply a negative inference for spoliation of evidence to preserve fairness and due process when a party, or its predecessor in interest, destroys or alters evidence it knew would plausibly be needed for future litigation. The implication of spoliation was left unaddressed.

**************************

B. Why Review by the Supreme Court is Necessary

     The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court in a single paragraph, stating there was ‘no basis for reversal’ and deferring to the lower court’s analysis of Hammett’s claims and costs. It then denied both motions to settle the record and unseal the evidence, undermining the transparency that is the cornerstone of justice.

     This Court has acknowledged the risk of appellate courts ‘gloss[ing] over complexities in the evidence’ by relying on clearly erroneous factual findings, as in Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. ___ (2024).

     Intermediary appellate courts throughout the country too often fail to provide adequate oversight to the lower courts, as they failed to do for Hammettin this and three other civil actions since 2020. These appellate courts give undue deference to lower court decisions, even where, as here, the standard of review is required to be de novo. “When de novo review is compelled, no form of appellate deference is acceptable.” Regina College v. Russell (89-1629), 499 U.S. 225 (1991)

    The motivation for this failure cannot excuse the denial of fundamental due process. It is unacceptable, whether the cause is to save costs for an overburdened system, a party preference, or to protect the image of colleagues.

    Even the district court recognized that the appeal was not without merit, stating it was “not frivolous”. (App- F at 5, f.n. 27). At a minimum, the appellant was entitled to a reasoned opinion from the Eighth Circuit, explaining its disagreement with the well-reasoned arguments presented in the appellant’s briefs.

     Although the Eighth Circuit did not explicitly cite Local Rule 47B (App-I at 5) when summarily affirming the district court’s decision in this case, its actions are consistent with a troubling pattern of the court using this rule to deny meaningful review—especially in cases involving pro se litigants. Rule 47B allows the court to affirm without issuing an opinion when the judgment below involves no clear factual errors or errors of law. However, this rule should not be used to sidestep a thorough de novo review, particularly in cases such as this, which raise multiple serious issues of fact and law that were overlooked or misinterpreted by the district court.

     Petitioner addressed ten serious legal issues on appeal, also exposing the district court’s significant factual misstatements. Several of the issues were raised by the District court in his order on motion for reconsideration. (App-E) The Court’s appearance of bias due to his connection with PRA and distaste for the CFPB was not raised until appeal, so the Eighth Circuit had no prior opinion to affirm.

     Justice Samuel Bernard Goodwyn, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, put it perfectly.

    “I feel like that transparency makes just a big difference in people’s perception of fairness…I always wanted to explain to people exactly what I had done and if they wanted to appeal it, that’s how I’m going to get better, right? If it comes up to the Supreme Court and they told me I made a mistake, I know not to do it next time.

     “Whereas I understand some circuit court judges felt like you never explain why you do what you do because that’s how you get reversed. Why? Why would you be afraid of being reversed?

     “I never understood that. Aren’t you more concerned about getting it right? And if you can’t articulate why you’re doing it, I always felt like you shouldn’t do it.

     “[laughs] You’re not ready to decide the case if you can’t explain why you’re deciding it.” The Art of Appellate Advocacy, Williams & Mary Law School, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6InzU3szzUY @ 1:49:00      This petition may be treated either as a writ of mandate to compel the Circuit Court to address non-frivolous arguments or as a standard writ of certiorari. If treated as the latter, the Supreme Court would answer the principal question, along with their choice of subsidiary questions fairly included under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(a) and presented herein.