Share:

US ATTORNEY Lausch Jr. et, al., FRAUD UPON THE COURT COVERING UP FOR VA EMPLOYEES STEAL $ 6 MILLION OF MR. COBBS CLAIM FOR DISABILITY COMPENSTATION

US Attorney John Lausch Jr. et, al., fraud upon the court on 07/31/2019, congress will be notified, and newly discovered evidence that:
1. UNDER Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 – RELIEF FROM A JUDMENT OR ORDER (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); and on 08/11/2021, plaintiff went through and had a major low back surgery on 08/11/2021 that was necessary,

2. No civil judgment, however, is ever truly final. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (b) sets forth a narrow set of scenarios in which a losing party may seek the court’s permission to reopen an otherwise final judgment.

3. The plaintiff Mr. Cobbs, case no. 1:18-cv-00859 (that was closed, It is automatic closing by clerk, and Mr. Cobbs, need to talk to the judge. Pro-se. without prejudice) and that:
4. The United States is the only proper defendant in an FTCA action. Agencies may not be named as parties eonomine. If an offending federal employee or agency is named as a party in an FTCA suit, the United States shall be substituted as the sole defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 2679.
5. PROPER DEFENDANT, the United States is the only proper defendant in an FTCA action. Agencies may not be named as parties eonomine. If an offending federal employee or agency is named as a party in an FTCA suit, the United States shall be substituted as the sole defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 2679.

6. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
P
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
How to reopen a civil case in Federal court? It was closed by rule 41(a) 1 A (ii) with prejudice
The case (that was closed without prejudice) was closed again by submitting a Stipulation of Discontinuance with prejudice without costs to any party. It is automatic closing by clerk, and I need to talk to the judge. Pro-se.

2. D. PROPER DEFENDANT.
1. The United States is the only proper defendant in an FTCA action. Agencies may not be named as parties eonomine. If an offending federal employee or agency is named as a party in an FTCA suit, the United States shall be substituted as the sole defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 2679.

6. FEDERAL COURT JUDGE JORGE L. ALONSO IS GUILTY OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION UNEQAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS VIOLATIONS JUDICAIL CORRUPTION AND CONSPIRACY/ JUDICIAL FRAUD/ (DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS UING VARO P.O. BOX 8136 STEALING HOMES) DISPARATE TREATMENT et, al.

7. In the course of Mr. Cobbs, experience, it became very apparent that the deck was stacked against Mr. Cobbs, just because Mr. Cobbs continue proceeding as a non- represented by an attorney pro se litigant that is, representing himself, without an attorney. It's hard enough for a layman to win in court as it is, but the apparent disdain and discrimination that courts and judges, and the Northern District, Eastern Division U.S. Attorney John R. Lausch Jr., and U.S. Attorney Kristine Elise Rau, and U.S. Attorney Douglas Snodgrass, show toward pro se litigants make it that much harder, with the three U.S. Attorneys being in conspiracy and conspirators of VA employees theft and Corruption in veteran Mr. Cobbs federal case docket No. 18-cv-00859 corrupted by U.S. Attorney John R. Lausch Jr.

8. Mr. Cobbs, is very unfortunate to receive justice in the, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION FEDERAL COURT DIRKS and FEDERAL BUILDING, whom has grave influence IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS FIRST MUNICIPAL DISTRICT and in the CLERK’S OFFICE of the APPALLATE COURT FISRT DISTRICT STATE of ILLINOIS 160 N, LASALLE SUITE 1400 CHICAGO, IL, 60601 and Mr. Cobbs, pray for reforms from the President of the United States, to protect pro se litigant, Mr. Cobbs with meritorious civil cases, in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION, accusing Mr. Cobbs of being a serial filer of federal court cases and placing Mr. Cobbs on the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DIRKS AND FEDERAL BUILDING 219 S. DEABORN CHICAGO, IL EXECUTIVE ORDER.

9. U.S. Attorney John R. Lausch Jr., has covered up for VA employees stealing $ 6 Million of Mr. Cobbs, Original Claim For Disability Compensation.

10. VA employees stole $ 6 Million of Mr. Cobbs, Original Claim For Disability Compensation U.S. Attorney John R. Lausch Jr., has covered up for VA employees.
11. The US Attorney John R. Lausch Jr., and U.S Attorney Kristine Elise Rau and U.S. Attorney Douglas G. Snodgrass represent Defendants employed by the Department of Veterans affairs, in the Northern District Eastern Division Dirks and Federal Building Federal Court, and the three named U.S. Attorneys John R. Lausch Jr., and U.S. Attorney Kristine Elise Rau and U.S. Attorney Douglas G. Snodgrass, all the named U.S. Attorneys, are using the laws unlawfully in violation of Mr. Calvin Ray Cobbs Sr., lawsuit case Docket # 18-cv-00859 against the Department of Veterans Affairs to justify their criminal actions of VA employees stealing possible over $ 6 Million of Mr. Cobbs, Original Claim filed for VA Disability Compensation, and Northern District Eastern Division Dirks and Federal Building, Federal Court 219 S. Dearborn Chicago, IL 60604.
12. U.S. Attorney John R. Lausch Jr., and U.S. Attorney Kristine Elise Rau and U.S. Attorney Douglas G. Snodgrass used Super Attorney Michael J. Grant who has State and federal Court in his pocket and Super Attorney Michael J. Grant not only involved himself in several and multiple conspired, conspiracy’s in helping anyone he defends that is a defendant that he defends and want to fake their Death to win the case Super Attorney Michael J. Grant will help his client who ask him to fake their Death, that’s what Super Attorney Michael J. Grant will Do, and in the courts making fake Death Certificates.

13. Order entered: July 31, 2019 by federaj court Judge Jorge L. Alonso statues as follows:
Statute: Unequal Protection of the Laws Violations, Disparate Unequal Protection of the Laws, Civil Rights Violations, Reverse Racial Discrimination, Judicial Extortion, Judge Acting outside of their immunity provisions, Anarchy, Jim Crowism, Treason, Canon Ethics violations, Judicial Extortion, Judicial Abuse of Discretion, Racial Terrorism Conspiracy, Perjury, Chicanery, Public, Political, Fraternal Corruption Conspiracies, Perjury, Fraud on the Courts and other Un-Constitutional Lawless Violations.

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
VA EMPOYEES USED P.O. BOX 8136 TO STEAL $6 MILLON, et, al., FROM VETERAN MR. COBBS, ORIGINAL VA COMPENSATION CLAIM AND HERE IS A SIMILAR STORY of exactly what happened to veteran Mr. Cobbs, following below:
WRITTEN Ben White, The Washington Post CHICAGO TRIBUNE
The federal government has charged one current and two former Veterans Affairs employees in Georgia with embezzling nearly $6 million from the department to buy houses, cars, antiques, a Barbie doll collection, a hovercraft and a submarine.
According to a criminal complaint filed Tuesday, Sarah Prater, Ernest Thornton and Kathy Eselhorst used the records of dead veterans with no beneficiaries to generate and share more than 200 fraudulent payments beginning in 1996.
They were freed on a $50,000 unsecured bond Tuesday after a hearing before a federal magistrate.
On Wednesday, the government began confiscating property that may have been purchased with the stolen VA money. The items included a hovercraft and SportSub III Submarine that belonged to Thornton, and antiques and a Barbie doll collection that belonged to Eselhorst.
The complaint filed by the U.S. attorney's office in Atlanta described the scheme this way: Prater, a veterans claims examiner and the congressional liaison for the Atlanta regional office, would use her security clearance to temporarily "resurrect" deceased veterans.
She would then change the name of the veteran to "Ernest L. Thornton" and make the effective date of the claim several years before the processing of the claim, generating large retroactive benefit payments.
The payments would be sent to Thornton at various post office boxes registered either in Thornton's or Eselhorst's name. Thornton would then disburse part of the money to Eselhorst and Prater.
Thornton, a Navy veteran, and Eselhorst are retired from the VA.
The U.S. attorney's office has uncovered 20 altered claims and 246 fraudulent payments totaling $5.9 million.
Thornton came under scrutiny after he made two deposits totaling more than $200,000 to his Navy Federal Credit Union account this month. Both were retroactive disability payments in his name, but each had a different VA claim number and Social Society number. Investigators then discovered 20 different claims in Thornton's name.
acknowledged it in a separate interview, according to the complaint.
Thornton later asked to be re-interviewed, telling authorities he had been romantically involved with Eselhorst since 1997 and had told her he wanted to buy an ultra-light plane. A week later, the government filing quoted him as saying he received a check for $7,000.
Eselhorst told investigators that the scheme was hatched to "get even" with the VA.
Donald Samuel, an Atlanta attorney representing Eselhorst and Prater, said his clients were turning over property because they were compelled to do so, not because they were admitting guilt. A preliminary hearing in the case is scheduled for Sept. 14.







AFFIDAVIT
Supporting the Motion Set for September 13, 2021, at 9:30 am, Concerning Case Docket No. 1:18-cv-00859

{Pursuant to(A) Color (Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981)
(B) Race (Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981)

US Attorney John Lausch Jr., located at the Dirks and Federal Building Federal Court 219 S. Dearborn St. 5th floor is guilty of and committed the following towards Mr. Cobbs, Racial Discrimination, Racial Retaliation, Racial Hatred, Racial Oppression, Civil Rights Violations, Unequal Applications of the Laws, and Disparate Treatment on the basis of race, color or national origin (42 U.S.C. 1981).
This court has Jurisdiction over the statutory violation alleged as conferred as follows: over Title V11 claims by U.S.C. {1331, 28 U.S.C. {1343 (a) (3), and 42 U.S.C. {2000e-5 (F) (3); over 42 U.S.C. {1981 and {1983 by 42 U.S.C. {1988; over the A.D.E.A. by 42 U.S.C. {12117}.

Order entered: July 31, 2019, by Judge Jorge L. Alonso
Statute: Unequal Protection of the Laws Violations, Disparate Unequal Protection of the Laws, Civil Rights Violations, Reverse Racial Discrimination, Judicial Extortion, Judge Acting outside of their immunity provisions, Anarchy, Jim Crowism, Treason, No Jurisdiction on Defendant, Canon Ethics violations, Judicial Extortion, Judicial Abuse of Discretion, Racial Terrorism Conspiracy, Perjury, Chicanery, Public, Political, Fraternal Corruption Conspiracies, Perjury, Fraud on the Courts and other Un-Constitutional Lawless Violations.

The defendants and US Attorneys are stealing my home and is using the laws unlawfully to justify their criminal actions and have a Circuit Court Judge in their back pocket going along with this Civil Rights Violation, hereto attached, Group Ex A, Notice of Appeal (Nov. 1, 2011) filed against District Court Judge engaging in the same Civil Rights Violations perpetrated in the State Courts, also hereto attached, Group Ex. B, Notice of Motion (Nov. 7, 2011) filed for Appointment of Counsel Rule To Show Cause Remanding Judge Darrah Into Custody Instanter For Fraud & Contempt of Court.

Section 1983 of USCS contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the unconstitutional application of a law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell V. Saunders ( CA 5 FLa) 372 F 2d 573,especially if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect and plaintiff was thereby deprived of any rights privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the gist of the action may be treated as one for the depravation of rights under 42 USCS 1983 Lewis V. Brautigam (CA 5 Fla) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505.

Section 1983 of USCS contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the unconstitutional application of a law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell V. Saunders ( CA 5 FLa) 372 F 2d 573,especially if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect and plaintiff was thereby deprived of any rights privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the gist of the action may be treated as one for the depravation of rights under 42 USCS 1983 Lewis V. Brautigam (CA 5 Fla) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505.

That Circuit Court Judge David B. Atkins without legal constitutional authority ignored and disregarded the fact he had no jurisdiction on the Defendant ignored the Federal document presented to him and argued at the Hearing, had it stricken knowing fully he had no JURISDICTION on the Defendant or over said matter, hereto attached as Group Ex E, Judge Atkins Court order.

Federal court judge’s disrespect for the rules of court demonstrates disrespect for the law. Judges are disciplined under Canon 2A for violating court rules and procedures. Judge ignored mandated witness order in attempt to accommodate witnesses’ schedules; Citing Canon 2A the court noted, “[a] court’s indifference to clearly stated rules breeds disrespect for and discontent with our justice system. Government cannot demand respect of the laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those very same laws”)

CONSPIRACY
Fraud maybe inferred from nature of acts complained of individual and collective interest of alleged conspirators, situation, intimacy, and relation of parties at time of commission of acts, and generally all circumstances preceding and attending culmination of claimed conspiracy Illinois Rockford Corp. V. Kulp, 1968, 242 N.E. 2d 228, 41 ILL. 2d 215.

REPORTING JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
CANON 3D (1) REPORTING CORRUTED FERAL COURT JUDGES

Under Section 3D (1), a judge who receives information that indicates “a substantial likelihood that another judge “has violated the Code of Judicial “should take appropriate action”. The Canon does not require the judge to hold a hearing and make a definitive decision that a violation has occurred before the reporting requirement is triggered and at least one state’s judicial ethics committee has advised that the reporting requirement is triggered when the judge has “sufficient information” to conclude that a “substantial issue” has been raised that a violation has occurred, Mass. Comm. On Judicial Ethics, Op. 2002-04 (2002)

Conspirators to be guilty of offense need not have entered into conspiracy at same time or have taken part in all its actions. People V. Hardison, 1985, 911 Dec. 162, 108. Requisite men’s rea elements of conspiracy are satisfied upon showings of agreement of offense with intent that offense be committed; Actus reas element is satisfied of act in furtherance of agreement People V. Mordick, 1981, 50 ILL, Dec. 63
Circuit Court Judge Timothy Evans and Federal Court Judge Jorge L. Alonso
CANON 1
A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they should comply with the law, as well as provisions of this code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.

1. Section 1983 of USCS contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the unconstitutional application of a law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell V. Saunders (CA 5 Fla) 372 F 2d 573, especially if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect and plaintiff was thereby deprived of any rights privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the gist of the action may be treated as one for the depravation of rights under 42 USCS 1983 Lewis V. Brautigam (CA 5 Fla) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505.

2. Section 2 (42 U.S.C.) In the House of Representatives.
“Congressional Debate of the second section of the Ku Klux Klan Act was more extensive and enduring than that of Section 1; As originally presented, Sec. 2 made it a felony for any “two or more persons” to conspire to commit certain enumerated crimes “in violation of the rights and privileges, or immunities of any person, to which he is entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

That certain Judges of the Illinois Federal court have satisfied by the preponderance of evidence and met the full criteria’s of Biasness, Prejudice and Civil Rights Violations, Terrorists acts at Defendant, in that794 S.W. 2d 692 (Mo. App. 1990) “No system of justice can function at its best or maintain broad public confidence if a litigant can be compelled to submit his case in a court where the litigant sincerely believes the judge is incompetent or prejudicial …………{T}hat is the price to be paid for a judicial system that seeks to free a litigant from a feeling of oppression”. State ex Rel. McNary V. Jones, 472 S. W. 2d 637, 639-640 (Mo. App. 1971) Indeed, the right to disqualify a judge is “one of the keystones of our legal administration edifice” State ex Rel. Campbell V. Cohn, 606 S.W. 2d 399-401 (Mo. App. 1980). It is vital to public confidence in the legal system that the decisions of the court are not only fair, but also appear fair. Thus, whether the disqualification of a judge hinges on a statute or rule in favor of the right to disqualify. A liberal construction is necessary if we wish to promote and maintain public confidence in the judicial system. Kohn, 606 S.W. at 401; State ex Rel. Ford Motor Co. V. Hess S.W. 2d 147, 148 (Mo. App1987).

{Pursuant to(A) Color (Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981)
(B) Race (Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981)
Racial Discrimination, Racial Retaliation, Racial Hatred, Racial Oppression, Civil Rights Violations, Unequal Applications of the Laws, and Disparate Treatment on the basis of race, color or national origin (42 U.S.C. 1981).
This court has Jurisdiction over the statutory violation alleged as conferred as follows: over Title V11 claims by U.S.C. {1331, 28 U.S.C. {1343 (a) (3), and 42 U.S.C. {2000e-5 (F) (3); over 42 U.S.C. {1981 and {1983 by 42 U.S.C. {1988; over the A.D.E.A. by 42 U.S.C. {12117}.

Order entered: July 31, 2019, Cobbs vs. Department of Veterans Affairs, Judge Jorge L. Alonso Case Docket No. 1:18-cv-00859 JUDGE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING BELOW:
Statute: Unequal Protection of the Laws Violations, Disparate Unequal Protection of the Laws, Civil Rights Violations, Reverse Racial Discrimination, Judicial Extortion, Judge Acting outside of their immunity provisions, Anarchy, Jim Crowism, Treason, No Jurisdiction on Defendant, Canon Ethics violations, Judicial Extortion, Judicial Abuse of Discretion, Racial Terrorism Conspiracy, Perjury, Chicanery, Public, Political, Fraternal Corruption Conspiracies, Perjury, Fraud on the Courts and other Un-Constitutional Lawless Violations.

The defendants Department of Veterans Affairs and US Attorneys John Lausch Jr., et, al., for the Northern District Eastern Division, covering up for Department of Veterans Affairs stealing possible $6 million of Mr. Cobbs, Claim for disability compensation buying homes, and US Attorney John Lausch Jr., for the Northern District Eastern Division is using the laws unlawfully to justify their criminal actions and have a Circuit Court Judge Leonard Murray, in their back pocket going along with this Civil Rights Violation. District Court Judge Jorge L. Alonso engaging in the same Civil Rights Violations perpetrated in the State Courts. Mr. Cobbs seeking to be granted, Appointment of Counsel Rule To Show Cause Remanding Judge Darrah Into Custody Instanter For Fraud & Contempt of Court.

Section 1983 of USCS contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the unconstitutional application of a law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell V. Saunders ( CA 5 FLa) 372 F 2d 573,especially if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect and plaintiff was thereby deprived of any rights privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the gist of the action may be treated as one for the depravation of rights under 42 USCS 1983 Lewis V. Brautigam (CA 5 Fla) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505.


Federal Court Judges, disrespect for the rules of court demonstrates disrespect for the law. Judges are disciplined under Canon 2A for violating court rules and procedures. Judge ignored Citing Canon 2A the court noted, “[a] court’s indifference to clearly stated rules breeds disrespect for and discontent with our justice system. Government cannot demand respect of the laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those very same laws”)

Federal Court Judges CONSPIRACY
Fraud maybe inferred from nature of acts complained of individual and collective interest of alleged conspirators, situation, intimacy, and relation of parties at time of commission of acts, and generally all circumstances preceding and attending culmination of claimed conspiracy Illinois Rockford Corp. V. Kulp, 1968, 242 N.E. 2d 228, 41 ILL. 2d 215.

REPORTING JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
CANON 3D (1) REPORTING CORRUTED JUDGES Federal Court

Under Section 3D (1), a judge who receives information that indicates “a substantial likelihood that another judge “has violated the Code of Judicial “should take appropriate action”. The Canon does not require the judge to hold a hearing and make a definitive decision that a violation has occurred before the reporting requirement is triggered and at least one state’s judicial ethics committee has advised that the reporting requirement is triggered when the judge has “sufficient information” to conclude that a “substantial issue” has been raised that a violation has occurred, Mass. Comm. On Judicial Ethics, Op. 2002-04 (2002)

Conspirators to be guilty of offense need not have entered into conspiracy at same time or have taken part in all its actions. People V. Hardison, 1985, 911 Dec. 162, 108. Requisite men’s rea elements of conspiracy are satisfied upon showings of agreement of offense with intent that offense be committed; Actus reas element is satisfied of act in furtherance of agreement People V. Mordick, 1981, 50 ILL, Dec. 63
Circuit Court Judge Timothy Evans and Federal Court Judge Jorge L. Alonso
CANON 1
A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they should comply with the law, as well as provisions of this code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.


1. Section 2 (42 U.S.C.) In the House of Representatives. Section 1983 of USCS contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the unconstitutional application of a law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell V. Saunders (CA 5 Fla) 372 F 2d 573, especially if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect and plaintiff was thereby deprived of any rights privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the gist of the action may be treated as one for the depravation of rights under 42 USCS 1983 Lewis V. Brautigam (CA 5 Fla) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505.

2.
“Congressional Debate of the second section of the Ku Klux Klan Act was more extensive and enduring than that of Section 1; As originally presented, Sec. 2 made it a felony for any “two or more persons” to conspire to commit certain enumerated crimes “in violation of the rights and privileges, or immunities of any person, to which he is entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

That certain Judges of the Illinois Courts and Federal have satisfied by the preponderance of evidence and met the full criteria’s of Biasness, Prejudice and Civil Rights Violations, Terrorists acts at Defendant, in that794 S.W. 2d 692 (Mo. App. 1990) “No system of justice can function at its best or maintain broad public confidence if a litigant can be compelled to submit his case in a court where the litigant sincerely believes the judge is incompetent or prejudicial …………{T}hat is the price to be paid for a judicial system that seeks to free a litigant from a feeling of oppression”. State ex Rel. McNary V. Jones, 472 S. W. 2d 637, 639-640 (Mo. App. 1971) Indeed, the right to disqualify a judge is “one of the keystones of our legal administration edifice” State ex Rel. Campbell V. Cohn, 606 S.W. 2d 399-401 (Mo. App. 1980). It is vital to public confidence in the legal system that the decisions of the court are not only fair, but also appear fair. Thus, whether the disqualification of a judge hinges on a statute or rule in favor of the right to disqualify. A liberal construction is necessary if we wish to promote and maintain public confidence in the judicial system. Kohn, 606 S.W. at 401; State ex Rel. Ford Motor Co. V. Hess S.W. 2d 147, 148 (Mo. App1987).