Re: The Black Robed Royalist UNCONSTITUTIONAL conspiracy against rights
REAL-despotic-oligarchy - un-constitutional judge-made-law - conspiracy against rights
Dear Senators and Representatives
You are sooooooooooooooooooooooo missing it.
If you are RICH, with judge-made-law, you can live happily for 70+ years, promiscuously rape women, defraud your customers, evade your taxes and lie your way into the Presidency by defrauding the United States[2].
If you are a former congressman George Santos, closer to a disfavored everyman, you can do virtually the exact same thing[3] in just two years and get thrown out office, investigated, prosecuted and then put in jail for 8 years.
For an everyman, judge-made-law can take your liberty rights, your paternity rights, your property rights with a flagrantly, infamous, fraudulent, non-exigent, extra-judicial (coram non judice) court order and there ain't a damn thing you can do.[4]
What is purported to be inalienable Rights cost sooooooo much more than the everyman can afford. This in spite of the Founder's constitutional remedy providing for with 1st and 7th Amendment, much less the remedies the post-Civil War congress REITERATED with the Enforcement Acts in 1871 (Civil (Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983) and Criminal (Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 242)..
Take a second breath ---- .
If the supreme Court had not been the Supreme Court.[5] Trump would have had NO HOPE in 2016. Even with McConnel's unrepresentative remnant of the EVIL of slavery,[6] the senatorial pocketed supreme Court appointment, the proverbial "golden ring" everyone Democrat, Republican or Flat Earther wanted. But that is merely on the surface, the problem of a ruling "under the despotism of an oligarchy" goes much deeper.
Judge-made-law has created a corrupt system for the rich and immunity for the deprivation of rights for everyone but the everyman who suffers the deprivation of inalienable rights. That is why the United States has a criminal in the Presidency and imprisons 4 times as many of its citizens than the rest of the developed world. It is just now becoming apparent to some:
"The wealthiest 1% are protected by the law but are not bound by it. The bottom 99% are bound by the law but are not protected by it" Professor Scott Galloway[7]
I have been at this for 20+ years[8], 10+ years homeless, 411 days in jail.[9] I have an INVESTMENT![10] The issue in the United States today has very little to do with America, Trump or M.A.G.A. Now admitted, I am just a 68 yr old PROUD college-flunkout, conscientious-objector, autistic, dyslexic, ADHD proponent. And if it wasn't for the benevolence of the "old boy's school[11]" network, I probably would not have even made it out of high school.
The issue in the United States TODAY revolves EXCLUSIVELY around the UN-constitutional usurpation of power and it is not where you think it is. It is NOT Presidential power. The 2nd President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson elucidated the corruption and despotism in 1820. The founding fathers prohibited said corruption and despotism, by clearly omitting it, over timely suggestions to have included it, in their 4 page, 4,000 word Constitution signed on September 17, 1787:
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. 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 privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."(Thomas Jefferson 9/28/1820, in writing to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello - bolding/underlining added)
The roots of the conspiracy started with "Plato's Republic in 375 BC. Plato's good intentions suggested that his "Philosopher Kings" should rule the aristocracy[12] admitting that they "are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.""
To make it simple, everyone wants to rule for their own interest and are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.
And yes, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78-83, October 1787 thru May 1788 had suggested that we have learned men like him in the judiciary to rule, to make decisions and they were as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.. And AGAIN yes, self-servingly the Fourth Chief Justice, John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), a very wise man indeed, suggested that learned men like him on the supreme Court be allowed to make the decisions on the supreme Court. Now they humbly probably would have admitted they "are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.""
Now you like me, like everybody wants to think the founding fathers were ignorant because they did not have space-ships, computers and MODERN technology. And that is soooo constitutionally and sagaciously soooooooooo WRONG.
The Founding Fathers were technologically ignorant but nonetheless. They were wise deep thinkers that had been trying to lead with Plato's "Philosopher Kings" for 2,002 years, the Magna Carta's[13] due process of law jury system for 561 years, and the corrupt Crown's Judges[14] for 145 years - a long, long TIME! And with wisdom of the ages, they "sagaciously[15]" gave us the Constitution for the United States. "The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.[16]"
Now the Constitution for the United States was never perfect. The Constitution had its original sin of slavery and STILL has the appeasement of the EVIL of slavery with an unrepresentative upper house (Senate/House of Lords) and an unrepresentative and nearly incomprehensible Electoral College.
"The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.[17]"
The founding Fathers could not avoid the potential corruption of mob rule. But both the Founding Fathers and Thomas Jefferson were explicit in addressing it. The Founding Fathers in 1787 had Article IV, Section 4 "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". Thomas Jefferson out of government had concurred in his more elucidating statement:
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves (think "due process of law" & "juries"): and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. this is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."[18]
As I am sure you know, with this unchecked unauthorized power of judge-made-law, we have a felon in the Presidency and the We the People incarcerate FOUR-TIMES as many people as any CIVILIZED country in the world today. Alexander Hamilton said it first and best in Federalist Paper #78:
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. "
"The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.[19]" Absolut immunity is VOID; "there is no position which depends on clearer principles!
English common law gets around any need for a Sovereign with the individualized judicial discernment "due process of law" and "petit juries" for each specific instant cases. English common law does not presume the power to make judge-made-law. The English COMMON Law, OUR Founding Fathers grew up with, abolished their Star Chamber in 1641[20] - 146 years prior to their/OUR Constitution for the United States in 1787.
"The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.[21]"
If there is anything further, please let me know.
"Time is of the essence"
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
Pat, I am OK, you are OK. |
enclosure: Damages DGJeep v U.S, - spreadsheet escalating as of Sunday May 25, 2025 10:01:24.30 AM
cc: www.DGJeep.com
file
Please NOTE I use footnotes and references not as authoritative PROOFS. I use footnotes and references as further elucidating support for what I proport to be self-EVIDENT all its OWN.
[1] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871) Racially motivated Mass Murder in the post-Civil War south is LEGAL, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) Pogrom in in the post-Civil War south is LEGAL, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Judge-Made-Law would rather let provable CRIMINALS free than hold themselves and others to civil rights (Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 and Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) QUALIFIED immunity does nothing to sustain inalienable rights., Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) Any person under color of law immunity does nothing to sustain inalienable rights, Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) Prosecutors can withhold evidence, immunity does nothing to sustain inalienable rights, Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) Police can KNOWINGLY lie on the stand immunity does nothing to sustain inalienable rights, Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) M.A.G.A. Presidents can do no wrong, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). Loper now attempts to put the Article III over the Legislature and the Executive.
[2] Trump is currently the "President of the United States." The proper-name the "United States" is self-reverentially used 52 times in our naming document the Constitution for the United States. The merely descriptive and NON-controlling prepositional phrase "of America" is only used twice. NO-ONE should be allowed to claim they are going to "Make America Great Again" by putting up walls and tariff barriers, destroying the peaceful homogeneity of a once "free and equal" hemisphere.
[5] I realize I am just a 68 yr old PROUD college-flunkout, conscientious-objector, autistic, dyslexic, ADHD proponent but you have to READ the original 1787 version of the Constitution grammatically. The original Constitution and as amended then and now posits a "supreme Court" e.g., "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." The term "supreme" in the verbiage "supreme Court" is merely descriptive and not controlling. The CORRUPT UNCONSTITUTIONAL despotic oligarchy usurps the incorrect proper name "Supreme Court" outside of Article I & III as it now purports UNCONSTITUTIONALLY to be.
[6] We should abolish the constitutional appeasement of the EVIL of slavery i.e., the UN-representative Senate and the UN-representative Electoral College.
[10] See attached Damages DGJeep v U.S, - spreadsheet escalating as of Sunday May 25, 2025 10:01:24.30 AM
[13] King John of England in 1215
[14] Parliament abolished the Star Chamber in 1641 after abuses of power. King Charles I used the Star Chamber to crush opposition to his policies. In 1641 the Long Parliament abolished the court and the "Bloody Assizes" (1685)
[15] with keen perception or discernment; in a shrewd or wise manner
[16] Ibid. Thomas Jefferson 9/28/1820, in writing to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello - bolding/underlining added
[17] Ibid. Thomas Jefferson 9/28/1820, in writing to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello - bolding/underlining added
[18] Thomas Jefferson 28th September 1820, in writing to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello
[19] Ibid. Thomas Jefferson 28th September 1820, in writing to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello
[20] "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. - An Act for the Regulating the Privy Council and for taking away the Court commonly called the Star Chamber.
[21] Ibid. Thomas Jefferson 9/28/1820, in writing to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello - bolding/underlining added
