President Barack Hussein Obama
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
NOT “facially
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 Consequences” Stephen 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
No comments:
Post a Comment