DOWNLOAD as PDF
Monday, November 29, 2021
John Glover Roberts Jr.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: DGJeep v. United States of America et al a "case of Supreme Court original jurisdiction" AND certificate of service
Dear People,
In that this ACTION is served on and to the Supreme Court of the United States as named respondent, please accept this as certificate of service.
I present this to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States as an issue of original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court of the United States. The undisputed flagrant FALLIBILITY[1] of the Judiciary and their unconstitutional denial of 1st and 7th Amendment rights has been on display, ongoing since at least Ida B. Wells's dismissal in "Chesapeake, Ohio & Southwestern Railroad Company v. Ida B. Wells. (Supreme Court of Tennessee; April Term, 1887)." Imagine if Ms Wells and others[2] had gotten their 1st and 7th Amendment rights. There would have been NO need for the civil war, NO southern lynching, No Jim Crow, NO 1960 civil rights riots. I wouldn't be here right now.
Civilization's raison raison d'être, in direct conflict with the en vogue 2nd Amendment's extraordinary interpretation, is PEACEFUL NONVIOLENT RESOLUTION of disputes for all persons - "equal due process." I spent 411 days in jail[3] for merely asking the question, "What does a person do without access to "equal due process"?[4] The medical profession, for all its flaws, declared me sane to stand trial REPEATEDLY. But the Judicial system would/could not allow my 7th Amendment due processes rights the same sensible credibility and dismissed all charges[5] to avoid any further exposition of my rights to redress.
You again laugh and say I abuse the process by repeatedly and peacefully "petition(ing) the Government for a redress of grievances."[6] "There are none so blind as those that refuse to see." You have taken my liberty, my property, my paternity and left me nothing but the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [7] "What does a man/person do that has been repeatedly denied THE inalienable constitutional right to due process of law?"
This has been nearly a two-decade FRAUD on the court by officers of the court. I first and IMMEDIATELY objected to the FRAUDULENT denial of my inalienable constitutional rights @ 8:00pm November 3, 2003, to the arresting officer. He laughed, acknowledged the issue, but nonetheless enforced the "beyond debate"[8] NOT "facially valid court order."[9]
I have since that time pushed EIGHT in forma pauperis petitions for writ of certiorari (07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856), to you and others on the Supreme Court of the United States REPEATING THE SAME. You of course also laugh at the criminality[10]/culpability[11] of a "beyond debate"[12] NOT "facially valid court order."[13].
I am still indigent, though I did take early Social Security in December 2018. It is has taken me 3 years to establish a fixed residence and dig my way out of the enforced homeless poverty created by THIS ongoing legal struggle. I am herewith providing the fees ($300 docket fee enclosed) referenced in your letter of October 29, 2018 for petition 18-5856[14]. Since I am and have always been opposed to the en vogue 2nd Amendment solution. This is what I do now, I scrimp and save to spend what little surplus money I can scrounge, at the federal poverty level, for court fees.
I was in prisoned for 411 days[15] for merely having the impertinence to ask,
Nonetheless I persisted with seven subsequent petitions for in forma pauperis writ of certiorari (11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856). I am now herewith again asking for 1st and 7th Amendment redress for 18-year denial of inalienable constitutional rights.
Just for clarification, other than being born male, I declare had every advantage possible. I am and have always been an entitled white, Anglo-Saxon born and bred American birth right citizen. Furthermore, until the issue of this action, I had always enjoyed the economic and social advantage of the proverbial middle-class network. I graduated from an "old boys' school[16]." My brother had been an attorney. I had numerous friends/peers that were attorneys of record. My father had respected friendly relations with a member of the federal judiciary.[17] I had access to a good college education, I had some name recognition, familial and societal association. I wanted/want for nothing but access to my ESTABLISHED constitutional right to Due Process of Law. I declare that I was never in anyway discriminated against me prior to this "Jane Crow"[18] action.
A denial of rights of a "class" creates visibility but is not requirement. The denial of rights can be INDIVIDUAL and personal.
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
enclosure
Postal Service Money ORDER for fees $300
certificate of service
Petition
cc: www.DGJeep.com
Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski and Willie Geist – MSNBC Morning Joe
file
IN THE
Supreme Court of United States of America
DAVID G. JEEP, (PRO SE[19])
Petitioner,
v.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL[20],
Respondents.
Saturday, November 27, 2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The undisputed "facts of the case":
· The original order (Cause No. 03FC-10670(M)) listed NO probable cause, abuse or threatened abuse, to warrant or sustain an ex parte order of protection. This was noted at the ONE and only hearing before the ruling and in at least two post hearing motions.[21]
· In that this has been through the federal judicial system EIGHT times. I declare this to NOW BE a case regarding the Supreme Court's liability and original jurisdiction.
There can be NO statute of limitation on the denial of constitutional rights and / or fraud:
· There is no statute of limitations contained within the language of the Constitution for the United States, 42 USC §1983 or 18 USC §241. If there was, an underclass of persons once created could then ad infinitum be kept at bay. Jim Crow attempted this; Jane Crow attempts to anew.
· Fraud, fraus omnia corrumpit - by its inherent, incriminating, and hidden nature - cannot be held to a statute of limitations - until fraud is exposed, acknowledged, and confronted by "due process" of law
The Petitioner asks a question):
· A directed verdict is in order, authorizing 18 years of damages[22] for the deliberate "denial of rights" from a NOT "facially valid court order,"[23] issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdictions,"[24] that was and is "beyond debate"[25] "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,"[26] from the United States of America et al[27]?
The reason for granting the petition:
· From the instant of day one Monday November 03, 2003 08:00 PM at the start of Monday Night Football - New England PATRIOTS v Denver BRONCOS, this has been a FRAUD ON THE COURT by officers of the court, coram non judice, creates an infamously-scandalous extra-judicial gravamen, more specifically, an unconstitutional, as noted via Supreme Court precedent, deprivation of rights under color of law
.
· a NOT "facially valid court order,"[28] creates an INFAMOUSLY SCANDALOUS EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN
· that was issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdictions,"[29] creates an INFAMOUSLY-SCANDALOUS EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN
· that over comes "difficult problems of proof" and "stringent standard of fault"[30] with the ubiquitous UNCONSTITUTIONAL "Jane Crow" assertion of a Woman's "victimhood" at the expense of any Man's constitutional rights in legal disputes[31] and as it relates to[32] creating an INFAMOUSLY SCANDALOUS EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN
· that the facts were and are "beyond debate"[33] "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,"[34] and thus creates an INFAMOUSLY SCANDALOUS EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN (i.e., the universal reckonable[35] understanding of the I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV Amendments).
· If the reckonable Supreme Law of the Land, Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII &; XIV, statutes 42 USC §1983&;1985 Civil Action for the Deprivation of Rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) imposes upon Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and numerous Article III precedents, as noted above, do not restrict a judicial act's jurisdiction the candid citizen must confess "We the People" "have ceased to be their own rulers"[36] and "We the People" have resigned ourselves into the hands of an infamously-scandalous extra-judicial group of "omnipotent moral busybodies," claiming delegated respondeat superior infamously-scandalous extra-judicial authority, acting against our liberty at any time, for any reason without recourse to the due process of the Supreme Law of the Land.
![Icon Description automatically generated]()
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________Saturday, November 27, 2021
David G. Jeep – 1531 Pine St, Apt 403 - Saint Louis, MO 63103-2547 – 314-514-5228 -
Dave@DGJeep.com
[1] Judicial infallibility was and is NULLIFIED with the trial by jury requirement. Trial by jury became an explicit right in one of the most influential clauses of Magna Carta (1215) Article 39 (and as codified in the Constitution for the United States Article III Section 2.3 and the VII Amendment). The FALLIBILITY of Judges has been an ESTABLISHED acknowledge rule of law since the Magna Carta at least 1215.
[2] One need only look at the treatment of Octavius Catto in 1865, the combined plaintiffs in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (Stanley, Nichols, Ryan, Robinson (and wife) and Singleton) in 1883, Ida B. Wells 1884, Bayard Rustin in 1942, Irene Morgan in 1946, Lillie Mae Bradford in 1951, Sarah Louise Keys in 1952 and Rosa Parks in 1955 with regard to public accommodation transportation to realize the disreputable history of the "Black Robed Royalist" Article III posers.
[3] Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP
[5] Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP
[6] I Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
[7] I Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
[8] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[10] 18 U.S. Code § 241 – CRIMINAL Conspiracy against rights
[12] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[14] "As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curium)),"
[15] Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP
[16] Christian Brother's College, High School, Military Institute graduated May 10, 1974
[17] Edward Louis Filippine (born June 11, 1930) is an inactive Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
[18] The Fracking Boom, a Baby Boom, and the Retreat From Marriage" - Freakonomics – NPR - July 5, 2017 -- "Women just aren't that into the 'marriageable male' anymore, economists say" Washington Post - By Danielle Paquette - May 16, 2017 - The "Jane Crow" era has NOW been PROVEN by socioeconomic statistical RESEARCH. "Jane Crow" discrimination is REAL! FATHERS ARE DISFAVORED by domestic relations law in the United States of America! With the birth rate down by 48% since 1960 and teen pregnancy down by 65% just since 1990 -- single motherhood is UP by 700% since 1960 (40% of births were to single mothers in 2015 v. 1960's 5%). This affects 35% of society (40%-5%=35%). Per the report's authors, these figures stand without regard to race or income.
[19] Please note this pro se petitioner is still not capable of clerical and bureaucratic perfection. Digital copies (ASCI and PDF) are available on line at www.dgjeep.com
[20] See 8 prior petitions for more detail RESPONDENT information
[21] Copy of the court record and transcript are available.
[22] Note there are several cost GROWING estimates for damages in the EIGHT prior petitions
[25] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[26] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[30] Bryan County, 520 U. S., at 406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392 - Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson, Certiorari to the Supreme Court, No. 09–571
[31] Bryan County, 520 U. S., at 406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392 - Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson, Certiorari to the Supreme Court, No. 09–571
[33] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[34] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
[35] Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[36] as asserted by Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address, (Monday, March 4, 1861)
