Download PDF
as mailed
Tuesday October 15, 2024
Letter to The Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Re: “We the People”
NEVER do anything sub silentio[1]
Dear Editor of The New York
Times,
Those of you that were appalled by the presidential immunity
in 23-939
Trump v. United States (07/01/2024); YOU ARE
APPALLING LATE TO THE ISSUE!
Judge made stare decisis law does not
constitutionally exist!
The Supreme Court of the United States’s precedent[2] tells us, “We the People” sub silentio[3] traded the “King
can do no WRONG” for the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the “malicious or
corrupt” judges (1871),[4] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor (1976)[5], the “knowingly false testimony by police
officers (1983)"[6], the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, “sincerely
ignorant and conscientiously stupid”[7]
actions of “all persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral
parts of the judicial process (1983)”[8] and now the President’s for his official
acts.
You wonder why "We the People" incarcerates
FOUR times as many citizens as any other developed nation TODAY? Why “We the People" have had 100+ years
of racial unrest? Why "We the
People" had the social unrest of the labor movement at the turn of the
20th century? "We the People"
have been subject to UNCONSTITUTIONAL Judge made stare decisis law. The Rights of "We the People" are
worth nothing and unenforceable in a United States court of law. Now if you are Harvey Weinstein or Donald
Trump and have millions to pay for legal defense, you can delay or avoid all
league liability.
Judge made stare decisis law does not
constitutionally exist![9] The proverbial emperor has no clothes.
The Founding Fathers KNEW BETTER! The Founding Fathers had recent
historical experience of a corrupt and fallible judiciary with the
“Abolition of the (namesake) Star Chamber 1641,”[10]
the judges of the “Bloody
Assizes” that in part fomented the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and just
the run of the mill everyday judges as functionaries of the King.. Thomas Jefferson said “Our judges are
as honest as other men, and not more so. they have, with others, the same
passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps.[11]”
Yes, Judicial independence was alluded to,
though not textually, with an appointment for life in Article III of the
Constitution for the United States.
But, judicial review i.e., judge made
stare decisis law was never ever-ever-even alluded to in the text of
the Constitution for the United States.
Yes, Socrates via Plato's Republic in 375BC talked about "philosopher kings." Judicial review was discussed by Alexander Hamilton (Federalist
#78, 79 & 80) and self-servingly
by the too much revered, long serving, early, Chief Justice John Marshal (Marbury
v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)).[12]. NONE of the matters!
Judicial review, judge
made stare decisis law, never made it into the 4,500 words
of the Constitution for the United States and the Bill of Rights.
The founding fathers did something better than the stare
decisis of judicial review; they constitutionally established the
historically tested[13]
”common law” of the trial by jury[14]
for both criminal[15]
and civil[16]
disputes[17]. The founding father believed in the commonsense
law they knew that evil could never take root, for “you can fool some
of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you
can not fool all of the people all of the time.” The possibility of a bad instant jury verdict
is a lot easier to tolerate, if not fix, than a bad oligarchy making immutable
“judge made stare decisis law.”
To think of the founding fathers even considering the
possibility of an oligarchy of 6(?), 9(?), 10(?), 20(?) persons, appointed for
life, making binding judge made stare decisis law, is totally
repugnant to their memory. Except of
course for those that are so appallingly late to the issue.
Judge made stare decisis law does not
constitutionally exist, and NEVER DID.
Yes, learned professional men, like Alexander Hamilton
and John Marshall are / would be a benefit to the society at large, the
sanitation department, the Article III Judiciary or an NFL referee. But only humble “professional
learned men” that know for a fact that they are fallible. The constitution does not authorize an
oligarchy of trash men, judges, prosecutors, policemen, presidents or NFL
referees that cannot be criminally and civilly held for the deprivation of
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS by due process,[18]
i.e., a jury.
Yes there needs to be a Supreme Court to make an ultimate
decision for AN instant case[19]
- to possible hear an appeal from a potentially unjust jury trial. But “We the People” do not need an oligarchy
to make assembly-line judge made stare decisis law. A rare Supreme Court decision in the extraordinary
INSTANT CASE alone to enlighten “We the People” will be just enough.
A case can be made that, the much revered, John Marshall
in 1803 lit the match for the Civil War some 60 year prior by positing judicial
review as judge made stare decisis law. The facts of Marbury v. Madison (1803) were
mooted before the ruling and Judicial review was never used again until the
Supreme Court lit the match for the Civil War with Dred Scott v.
Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) four years before the Civil War 1861
Judge
made stare decisis law does not constitutionally exist!
That brings us to today’s prior judge made stare
decisis law. We have already
lived through the racially discriminatory judge made stare decisis
Jim Crow law of “Blyew,” “Cruikshank”…. and “Plessy.” Judicial UNCONSTITUTIONAL controlling review
AUTHORIZED racially motivated mass murder in 1871 with Blyew v. United States |
80 U.S. 581 (1871), racially motivated pogrom with Cruikshank[20]
and 150+ years of racially motivated discrimination. Not to mention the utter absurdity of the
“liberty of contract” enshrined with Lochner.[21]
But before we get to the potential corruption of judge
made stare decisis presidential absolute immunity for “official acts”
law - for all you late comers to the appalling issue - we need to deal with the
judge made stare decisis law of absolute immunity for the
deprivation of rights[22]
i.e., Bivens (1965),[23]
Imbler (1976), Briscoe (1983) and others in our criminal system, that is handing
out incarceration at a rate FOUR times that of the rest of the civilized
world.
Not to mention the “Jane Crow” discrimination in domestic
relations law that has created a 7-fold increase in fatherless children in 40
years.[24] Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are
disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States! See the facts of my case, DGJeep v Supreme
Court of the United States.[25]
Any and all asserted immunity from the constitution NOW
or in the past is BY DEFINITION unconstitutional. The Constitution is defined as the ultimate
law that everyone has to adhere to, ESPECIALLY government actors i.e., Judges.
Judge made stare decisis
law does not constitutionally
exist.
“We the people” do not need a constitutional amendment to
eliminate “judge made stare decisis law”. “We the people” need to use the Constitution
for the United States Article III, Section 2 “In all the other Cases before
mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law
and Fact, with such Exceptions, and undersuch Regulations as the Congress shall
make” as the founders had intended.
If there is anything further, please let me know.
“Time
is of the essence”
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
cc: President Joe Biden
Vice
President Kamala Harris
Lance
Kunce
Wesley
Bell
United
States Senator Elizabeth Warren
United
States Senator Eric Schmitt
United
States Senator Chuck Schumer
www.DGJeep.com
file
[2] Sophistry(?) is a logical fallacy that involves the use
of deceptive, superficial arguments.
[3] sub silentio is a Latin
phrase that means "under silence" or "in silence". It's often
used in legal contexts to describe something that's implied but not explicitly stated.
For example, a court might overrule a case's holding sub silentio without explicitly
stating that it's doing so. Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 362
[4] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U.
S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. 349 (1978)
[5] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
[8] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[9] It should be noted that the FIRST reference to
“absolute immunity for judges” nearly a 100 after country’s inception was
possibly the SECOND – third judge made stare decisis law that
NEVER constitutionally existed, i.e., “absolute judicial immunity” with Bradley
v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871). Bradley was
a case that was emotionally though obscurely linked to the recent assassination
President Abraham Lincoln. AND thr claim
was less than 12 months after President Grant signing The Enforcement Act[9]
of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, that had made the deprivation of constitutional
rights a crime. “Because as was noted in
1871, Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374. Mr. Rainey of South Carolina noted
that "[T]he courts are in many instances under the control of those who are
wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity.” Congressman Beatty of Ohio claimed that it was
the duty of Congress to listen to the appeals of those who, “by reason of popular
sentiment or secret organizations or prejudiced juries or bribed judges, [cannot]
obtain the rights and privileges due an American citizen. . . ." NOW codified as 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (also
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967)”
[10] “The Act for the Abolition of the Court of Star
Chamber” [July 5, 1641. Statutes of the Realm, v. 110. 17 Car. I. cap. 10. See Hist.
of Engl. ix. 404.]
[12] The facts of Marbury v. Madison were mooted before
the ruling and Judicial review was never used again until the Supreme Court lit
the match for the Civil War with Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19
How.) 393 (1857).
[13] Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was
the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his
government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting
his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power
in itself via trial by jury
[14] You
might have notices I do not say “due process of law.” Due process of law includes a judge and
jury. And while the instant case and the
courtroom threshold are also controlling.
A judge has absolutely no power without a jury verdict or a concession
to a bench trial by all parties.
[15] Constitution for the United States Article
III Section 2, “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall
be by Jury”
[16] Constitution for the United States Amendment
VII “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved”
[17] It should be noted that a judge has near
absolute yet appealable authority over the evidence in the instant case and
within the threshold of the courthouse.
But constitutionally any and all authority going forward
outside the courthouse threshold and the instant case has to have the
concurrence of a JURY.
[18] It should be noted that a judge has near
absolute yet appealable authority over the evidence in the instant case and
within the threshold of the courthouse.
But constitutionally any and all authority going forward
outside the courthouse threshold and the instant case has to have the
concurrence of a JURY.
[19] In legal terms, "instant case" is
a descriptive term used to refer to a case, motion, order, or judgment that is
currently being discussed or considered in court.
[20] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542
(1875)
[21] Lochner v. New York, 198
U.S. 45 (1905), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court holding that
a New York State statute that prescribed maximum working hours for bakers
violated the bakers' right to freedom of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
[22] 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Criminal and Civil protection of Civil Rights.
[23] Bivens created a cause of action for rights against
six unknown FBI agents, but reaffirmed Judicial absolute immunity
[24] “Jane
Crow” discrimination is REAL. In 1960 5%
(one in twenty) children had no Father in the home. In 2014 40% (eight in twenty) children have no
father at home. In my LIFETIME a 700% increase,
that my Son and I HAD NO SAY IN. (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, “Male Earnings, Marriageable Men, and Nonmarital
Fertility: Evidence from the Fracking Boom” Melissa S. Kearney & Riley Wilson
- May 2017).
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-facts-of-my-case-are-without.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-facts-of-my-case-are-without.html
Letter to The
Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
cc:
President Joe
Biden
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC
20500
Vice President
Kamala Harris
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC
20500
Lance Kunce
Lucas Kunce for
Missouri
PO BOX 1240
Independence, MO
64051
Wesley Bell
100 S. Central Ave
2nd Floor
Clayton, MO 63105
United States
Senator Elizabeth Warren
309 Hart Senate
Office Building
Washington, DC
20510
United States
Senator Eric Schmitt
387 Russell Senate
Office Building
Washington, DC
20510
United States
Senator Chuck Schumer
322 Hart Senate
Office Building
Washington, D.C.
20510
www.DGJeep.com
file
--
Thanks in
advance...
"Agere
sequitur esse" ('action follows being')
David G.
Jeep, Federal
Inmate #36072-044 (formerly)
www.DGJeep.com - Dave@DGJeep.com
Mobile (314)
514-5228 leave message
David G. Jeep
1531 Pine St Apt
#512
St. Louis, MO
63103-2548
www.DGJeep.com
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/dark-money-senate.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/if-that-is-not-absolute-corruption-of.html
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=David+Jeep&type=Supreme-Court=Dockets
