Linda Greenhouse,
Contributing Writer
The New York Times
620 8th Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10018
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: CA8 17-1246 Petition for Writ of Certiorari -
"The Supreme Court and the Law of Motion" NYTimes July 20, 2017[1]
Dear Ms. Greenhouse and Ms. Bader Ginsburg,
I cry to think that the "Law of Motion," with glacial speed, is the only hope "We the People" have to control our fate. Policy is NOT "irrevocably fixed" by binding Supreme Court precedent.
The idea of a non-exigent nor political damnum absque injuria (a loss without an injury) is nowhere contemplated or authorized by the ends of justice or the constitution. For the Supreme Court to deny a remedy, merely because the Black Robed Royalist self-servingly asserts it "is now a 'disfavored' judicial activity," is abhorrent to the "sense and reason" of the ends of justice and representative Constitutional Due Process of Law.
Abraham Lincoln notably said it first and best in his first inaugural:
"(T)the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
Again a few years later, at the start of the current issue, just post Civil War, Mr. Justice Harlan dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883):
"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."
I have no issue with the Supreme Court ruling in a specific case, one way or another, based on their interpretation of Due Process of Law with a jury's consent. My issue is when they refuse to allow Equal Protection of Due Process of Law with a jury, the constitution, the will of a victorious people in a civil war and good sense to create binding precedent. Binding precedent that "posits an uberempathetic voting population so concerned for the rights of others that they will vote on the basis of policies that do not impact their own lives. This is just too fanciful. Virtual representation cannot be effective if it depends on heroic assumptions of empathy, just as our early countrymen recognized by placing the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV and writing McCulloch with virtual representation in mind."[2]
After I read your article "The Supreme Court and the Law of Motion" NYTimes July 20, 2017 Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer I happened to also read 15-1358 Ziglar v. Abbasi et al. Additionally I feel it only reasonable to make note of my issue before the Supreme Court Petitions for Writ of Certiorari Docketed 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, 14-5551, 14-10088 & 15-8884. In the Jane Crow Era - Family law detrimentally creates singles mothers at the expense of men's rights. While teenage motherhood is declining, more women of all other ages and income levels are becoming single mothers at a similarly accelerated detrimental rate, 40% +/-, in today's America.[3]
To make my case, I have to reach back before the civil war, to Blackstone (1769) and the Declaration of Independence (1776):
"To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation"[4]
and
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
And then in response to my respondents and the recent Supreme Court Ziglar v. Abbasi et al I assert the 1st and 7th Amendments:
"Congress shall make no law respecting… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"and"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
I then quote Breyer, J., dissenting - Ziglar, Petitioner 15–1358 v. Abbasi, et al:
"Chief Justice John Marshall wrote for the Court that"
"[t]he very essence of civil liberty [lies] in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury." Id., at 163.
The Chief Justice referred to Blackstone's Commentaries stating that there "'is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . . [and that] it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.'" 1 Cranch, at 163.
The Chief Justice then wrote: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will [not] deserve this high appellation, if thelaws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." Ibid.
He concluded for the Court that there must be something "peculiar" (i.e., special) about a case that warrants "exclu[ding] the injured party from legal redress . . . [and placing it within] that class of cases which come under the description of damnum absque injuria—a loss without an injury." Id., at 163–164; but cf. id., at 164 (placing "political" questions in the latter, special category)."
The hubris of the post-civil-war Supreme Court (see Mr. Justice Harlan dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883)) is without limit. The court has forgotten "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."[5]
We the People's OWNED our rights giving definition to our liberty before anybody even had the IDEA of a constitution.
Now I will admit Liberty was not GRANTED, defined, limited or guaranteed by a God. Liberty is not GRANTED, defined, limited or guaranteed by the size of GOVERNMENT. Liberty is not GRANTED, defined, limited or guaranteed by a constitution, religion or statute law.
LIBERTY IS DEFINED/LIMITED BY THE PROXIMITY OF THE INDIVIDUALS i.e., "population density." Thus "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."[6]
"In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.
"Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own." [7]
I can not say it better than Mr. Justice Harlan dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 62 (1883):
"Today it is (was) the colored race which is denied, by corporations and individuals wielding public authority, rights fundamental in their freedom and citizenship. At some future time, it may be that some other race (age or sex) will fall under the ban of race (age or sex) discrimination. If the constitutional amendments be enforced according to the intent with which, as I conceive, they were adopted, there cannot be, in this republic, any class of human beings in practical subjection to another class with power in the latter to dole out to the former just such privileges as they may choose to grant. The supreme law of the land has decreed that no authority shall be exercised in this country upon the basis of discrimination, in respect of civil rights, against freemen and citizens because of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude. To that decree -- for the due enforcement of which, by appropriate legislation, Congress has been invested with express power -- everyone must bow, whatever may have been, or whatever now are, his individual views as to the wisdom or policy either of the recent changes in the fundamental law or of the legislation which has been enacted to give them effect."
When the courts are presented with what reasonably, to a jury amounts to a deprivation of rights SECURED by the constitution and laws there must be "a remedy." Even more so in cases such as mine the result of an infamously-scandalous, non-exigent, extra-judicial gravamen - a NOT "facially valid court order" [8] - that was issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,""[9] - "beyond debate sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right"[10] [11].
If "We the People" allow the courts to disfavor a due process jury based "remedy," "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."
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: My Blog -
[2] "EQUALITY IN THE WAR ON TERROR" 2007 Stanford Law Review Volume 59, Issue 5 – by Neal Katyal Page 1387
[3] "Women just aren't that into the 'marriageable male' anymore, economists say" Washington Post - By Danielle Paquette - May 16
[4] FEDERALIST No. 84 "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" by Alexander Hamilton - As quoted form Blackstone. Vide Blackstone's "Commentaries,'' vol. 1., p. 136.
[5] IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 - The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[6] IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 - The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
[7] "Property" James Madison Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792, 27 March 1792
[8] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide REASONABLE probable cause for an ex parte order of protection. Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge. (Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003))
[9] If reason (reckonabilty) does not limit jurisdiction with probable cause, nothing can. (Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003))
[10] Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. _(2015).
[11] "To this day, I am haunted by the vivid memory of the confirming shrug from the Police Officer when I questioned it as served on November 3, 2003. I am further haunted by the memory of the same confirming shrug when Commissioner Jones first saw the absurdity of the court order on the bench November 20, 2003 as my attorney then highlighted and repeated his prior objections." See letter - Lisa Nesbit c/o OFFICE OF THE CLERK Thursday, June 15, 2017, 10:23:36 AM
Melissa Kearney, Professor (kearney@econ.umd.edu)
3115L Tydings Hall - 7343 Preinkert Dr.
College Park, MD 20742-0001
Freakonomics – NPR - July 5, 2017
Dear, Ms. Kearney
I enjoyed your podcast as referenced above. I think we have a common interests in poverty and family structure - I quote:
"I'm really interested in issues of poverty, U.S. poverty in particular. It turns out that poverty and family structure are very intertwined in this country. If you're thinking about the economic well-being of children in particular, it's really hard not to be interested in questions of family structure."
I appreciate that you, I think, proved the issue, "over 40 percent of births in the U.S. were to unmarried mothers," is not necessarily strictly an issue of poverty.
For years issues of poverty have been unreasonably derided for creating "welfare queens" i.e., women that produce nothing but babies. Your assertion in the podcast would seems to shift this. While teenage motherhood is declining, more mature women of all income levels are becoming single mothers at a similarly accelerated destructive rate, 40% +/-, in today's America.
I think we both postulate and agree that a two-parent household is better for children - be it poor, middle or upper income.
The issue of single/unmarried mothers, as I see it, is more legal than fiscal or sociological. In the "Jane Crow era" men are un-equally protected i.e., legally disfavored. I have been impoverished fighting against UN-equal protection of the laws[1] for nearly 15 years. I feel I must make note of my issues before the Supreme Court Petitions for Writ of Certiorari Docketed 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, 14-5551, 14-10088 & 15-8884.
If you are truly interested in finding the CAUSE of 2014's "40 percent of births in the U.S. were to unmarried mothers," I suggest you correlate the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (CAPTA), Joe Biden's good intentions with Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and the "Jane Crow era" into your formula.
The chance to be rid of a mate, with the house, an all-expense paid baby and an increase in disposable income (i.e., child support) is too good of a deal for many middle and upper income woman to resist.
"It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house."
And in America today with 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorcing. Marriage is not even an issue. If DNA can establish parenthood, a one-night-stand can, and unfortunately sometimes clandestinely does, form the basis of a baby with a 22-year "child support" annuity, with proverbial benefits, to a single mother.
Now I have to admit that some states, my own at the forefront are trying something - "New Missouri law pushes divorce judges to establish equal child custody time"[2] although it was 13 years too late for me. However, we still have a long way to go to get to the 14th Amendment's "EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW." Any help you could provide, with a study exposing the forced single parenting via UN-equal protection of the laws, would be GREATLY appreciated?
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: My Blog -
[1] Amendment XIV - Section 1. - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
[2] "New Missouri law pushes divorce judges to establish equal child custody time" By Nancy Cambria • St. Louis Post-Dispatch Aug 29, 2016 see HOUSE BILL NO. 1550
"Agere sequitur esse" ('action follows being')
David G. Jeep,
PREFERRED - E-mail address - Dave@DGJeep.com
Mobile (314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
No comments:
Post a Comment