Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Petition for Writ of Certiorari #15-8884 David G. Jeep and heir, Plaintiff, vs. Government (corporation) of the United States of America, et al

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500-0001

Re: Petition for Writ of Certiorari #15-8884 David G. Jeep and heir, Plaintiff, vs. Government (corporation) of the United States of America, et al (Down/Read Load Petition as 91 page PDF File)


Dear Mr. President,[1]

The “Emperor Has No Clothes” the Black Robed Royalist Article III judiciary has no clothing that can cover the naked shame of their corrupt, malicious, sincerely ignorant, conscientiously stupid and criminal[2] assertion,[3] 148 years of ever expanding “absolute immunity.”[4]

The Supreme Court corrupted the honorable deaths of 620,000 Americans in the Civil War and denied the victorious congressional OVERWHELMING majority’s constitutional proactive efforts with ex industria statute law[5] by awarding the Article III adversaries of Justice “absolute immunity” for the deprivation of rights with Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 539 (1868),[6] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871)[7] and Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 34 (1883)[8] in the origins of the Jim Crow era.

Now with the Supreme Court’s absurd[9] exclusionary rule[10] and “contract of adhesion” - plea-bargaining,[11] in the New Jim Crow[12] and Jane Crow[13] eras.  The Supreme Court has self-servingly, with their unrestrained spirit of mere legalism and hair-splitting technicality, been expanding the OBSTRUCTION of justice.  As the result, “it is OUR highest duty to war against this spirit, whether it shows itself in the courts or anywhere else.” [14]

The problem is that, whenever a federal court gives a reasonable interpretation of AEDPA, the Supreme Court reverses it with a new, (more) extreme construction that is not justified by the text of the statute or the Court’s precedent, and that further limits the constitutional rights of those who come before our courts....

The result is an unnecessary and unjust process that values other concerns of far less importance over the constitutional rights of individuals—rights that lie at the heart of our judicial system. [15] 

I would go further and say the Supreme Court’s action literally flies in the face of “We the People’s” constitution’s raison d'être and constitutional ex industria statute law’s intent to limit the reach of our government and “establish Justice.”

There is no remedy for the big guys or the small fries like me…
Even if ultimately vindicated, the process of being charged itself takes a massive toll.[16] Arthur Andersen, guilty of no crime according to the Supreme Court, nevertheless was put out of business, leaving its 85,000 employees world-wide without jobs.  Senator Stevens lost his Senate seat even though his prosecution was riddled with misconduct and the Justice Department eventually dismissed all charges. The list of lives and businesses ruined by baseless prosecutions is long.”[17] 

I am but one more victim and proof of the extended adage - “They say that any prosecutor worth his salt can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. It may be that a decent prosecutor could get a petit jury to convict a eunuch of rape.”[18]

4,714 days ago, I was served and held to answer a flagrantly-baseless facially-invalid ex parte court order.  I have since been relentlessly asserting[19] the criminal deprivation[20] of rights as a 7th Amendment civil[21] remedy i.e., for the denial of reasonable probable cause, due process of law and exculpable evidence.  At every turn, I have been obstructed by the assertion of “absolute immunity.”  This in spite of my attuned responses to their spirit of mere legalism,  hair-splitting technicality and ever increasing obtuse restrictions[22] of current Supreme Court precedent. I again state the issue is and has always been a

Ø  NOTfacially valid court order[23]
Ø  that was issued “in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"”[24]
Ø  this was “sufficiently clear” that every “reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,[25] (i.e., the universal reckonable[26] understanding of the IV, V, VII, VIII and XIV Amendments).

I am herewith making REPEATED[27] note of the issue with my seventh Petition for Writ of Certiorari[28] to the Supreme Court (15-8884) and again asking for your assistance. 

If there is anything further, I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.
“Time is of the essence”



 David G. Jeep

cc:   Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Solicitor General
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer Supreme Court of the United States
        My Blog - Tuesday, April 11, 2016, 4:29:03 PM







[1] This is in no way ex parte communications, I am publishing this to the WORLD WIDE WEB and addressing via US Mail to all sides MY GOVERNMENT SERVANTS!!!!
[2] US Code, 18 USC §241 - §242
[3] Martin Luther King, Jr. said it first and best… "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
   [4] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) - William O. Douglas dissenting "It is one thing to say that the common law doctrine of judicial immunity is a defense to a common law cause of action. But it is quite another to say that the common law immunity rule is a defense to liability which Congress has imposed upon "any officer or other person" as in Ex parte Virginia, or upon "every person," as in these cases.," Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983))Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 564 (1967), the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[4] actions of “all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) were integral parts of the judicial process,” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) “the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor”,Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)[4] the “knowingly false testimony by police officers," Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138)[4] the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid[4] actions[4] of federal, state, local, and regional legislators, Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9, 112, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 where liability for individual rights was reduced from what should have been Strict Liability to somewhere less than respondeat superior liability, Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011)- Decided May 31, 2011
[5] The 1866, 1871 and 1875 Civil Rights Acts, now codified into statute law as the US Code, 18 USC §241 - §242, 42 USC §1983 - §1985 and 1964 civil Rights Act
[6] Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 539 (1868) (and subsequently Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871)) was a criminal, sophisticated  and timely judicial subterfuge to assert ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY based on the fraudulent precedent of Floyd and Barker (1607), from a court abolished for cause, abuse of said absolute immunity.  Additionally Randall was a professional dispute between a judge and an attorney regarding a judge’s administration of his court; it should never have been generalized to abolish inalienable constitutional rights.  To allow that to take precedence would be to require that all persons be required to maintain the elevated professional decorum of a courtroom all the time.
I.      As regards judicial liability the above precedent asserts:  “"Whenever," said the learned chief justice, "we subject the established courts of the land to the degradation of private prosecution, we subdue their independence and destroy their authority. Instead of being venerable before the public, they become contemptible."”
a)     Was the idea of sub silentio “absolute immunity” for criminal and civil liability ever reasonable leaving only the act of an uberempathetic Congress, with an impeachment for not “good Behavior,” as the only means of “binding the judiciary?”
b)     Let us now ask how that venerability and lack of liability sustained the civil rights of oppressed minorities in:
i)      Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871) where a mass murder was obfuscated by judicial prerogative… “a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.”
ii)     United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) where program of a lawful minority was obfuscated by judicial prerogative… “a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.”
iii)    Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883) where “Jim Crow” originated with 90+ subsequent years of lynching and the deprivation of  civil rights for an oppressed minority were… “sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.
(1)   "It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul."
(2)   Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted.”
[7] It should be noted that both Randall v. Brigham and Bradley v. Fisher were both the result of contrived ministerial courtroom issues, between a judge and lawyer, not necessarily related to the General Rule of Law for all persons.  Much like an umpire and or the league office can throw a manger out of the game or band him for life for the good of the game BUT can not outside the game take the person’s life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  
[8] If there is only one thing you read this YEAR, please, PLEASE read MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 1883… AND THEN CONSIDER WHERE "We the People" would be had "WE THE PEOPLE" prevailed in 1883 with constitutionally authorized "necessary and proper" ex industria statute law the 1875 Civil Rights Act!!!!!!!     http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/12/if-there-is-only-one-thing-you-read.html
[9] Given two crimes (one against persons and one against rights) and two perpetrators, we let the perpetrators go unheeded for their deeds and force the victim to suffer. 
[10] Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes (i.e., mine, Arthur Andersen, Senator Stevens, untold innocent plea bargainers and etc.), it is damages or nothing.”  Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971)
[11] In the PLEA BARGAIN era “The Supreme Court’s suggestion that a plea bargain is a fair and voluntary contractual arrangement between two relatively equal parties is a total myth: it is much more like a “contract of adhesion” in which one party can effectively force its will on the other party.”  Why Innocent People Plead Guilty by Jed S. Rakoff a United States District Judge for the ­Southern District of New York. (May 2015)
[12] Mass Incarceration of African Americans
[13] The Jane Crow era, asserting Women’s “victimhood” at the expense of Men’s rights in legal disputes
[14]When the spirit of mere legalism, the spirit of hair-splitting technicality, interferes with justice, then it is our highest duty to war against this spirit, whether it shows itself in the courts or anywhere else.” Theodore Roosevelt - “Majority Rule And The Judiciary, An Examination Of Current Proposals For Constitutional Change Affecting The Relation Of Courts To Legislation” – By William L. Ransom Of The New York Bar, with an introduction by Theodore Roosevelt, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons 1912 -Page 4-5
[15] The Demise Of Habeas Corpus And The Rise Of Qualified Immunity: The Court’s Ever Increasing Limitations On The Development And Enforcement Of Constitutional Rights And Some Particularly Unfortunate ConsequencesStephen R. Reinhardt Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. ( Michigan Law Review - Vol. 113:1219 May 2015)
[16] I was thrown out of my home, my son and everything in the world I cared for taken away. And then forced to fight against those that had been empowered by EVERYTHING that had been taken from ME.
[17] 44 GEO. L.J. ANN. REV. CRIM. PROC (2015) “PREFACE - CRIMINAL LAW 2.0” by Hon. Alex Kozinski, a judge on the Ninth Circuit.
[18] 44 GEO. L.J. ANN. REV. CRIM. PROC (2015) “PREFACE - CRIMINAL LAW 2.0” by Hon. Alex Kozinski, a judge on the Ninth Circuit.
[19] I have, in the “Jane Crow” era, been fighting this for 12+ years, I spent 411 days in jail (Federal Inmate #36072-044), I have been homeless for 8+ years, I have been through the Article III Judicial System 7 times and I have presented 6 DOCKETED AND DENIED Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United states i.e., 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, 14-5551 and 14-10088!!!!
[20] US Code, 18 USC §241 - §242
[21] US Code 42 USC §1983 - §1985
[22] “The problem is that, whenever a federal court gives a reasonable interpretation of AEDPA, the Supreme Court reverses it with a new, (more) extreme construction that is not justified by the text of the statute or the Court’s precedent, and that further limits the constitutional rights of those who come before our courts.....”  ibid. ( Michigan Law Review - Vol. 113:1219 May 2015)
[23] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte order of protection.  Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge.  “Consequently, it (the judge’s order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted).” Id.” PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003). 
[24] PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)
[25] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011)), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987).
[26] "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name."  Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules,  56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[27] 6 DOCKETED AND DENIED Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United states i.e., 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, 14-5551 and 14-10088
[28] 6 DOCKETED AND DENIED PWC 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, 14-5551 and 14-10088
Post a Comment