Scott S. Harris, clerk
supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Telephone: 202-479-3000
Re: Petition to the "supreme Court" for Writ of Certiorari
DGJeep v. supreme Court
Dear People,
Please find enclosed 10 copies of the above referenced Petition to the "supreme Court" for Writ of Certiorari. This is clearly a petition of ORIGINAL JURISDICTION in the supreme Court.
If there is anything further, please let me know.
"Time is of the essence"
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
enclosure
cc: www.DGJeep.com
file
David G. Jeep, pro se
1531 Pine Street, Apt. 512
Saint Louis, Missouri 63103-2548
314-514-5228
David.G.Jeep@gmail.com
supreme Court of the United States
David G. Jeep, Petitioner, vs. supreme Court Respondent | Case No.: Pleading Title |
Petition to the "supreme Court" for Writ of Certiorari
I am asking the "supreme Court" posited by the Constitution of the United States to renounce any and all UNCONSTITUTIONAL assertions of a Supreme Court and the subsequent judge-made-law and / or binding precedent with stare decisis attached.
Article III of the Constitution for the United States posits "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish (bolding added)." The Constitution for the United States posits one supreme Court among the many Courts NOT a Supreme Court outside the many Courts. The "judicial Power" in the Constitution for the United States is ABSOLUTELY constrained by "the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy, or wish for, that he cannot be affected either in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbours and equals[1]" i.e., "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury[2]", "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[3]", and as included in the Magna Carta from 1215.
The Supreme Court's, judge-made-law i.e., binding precedent with stare decisis -- it 'is not possible to lay down, with mathematical precision, any rule in regard to the authority of precedents. Every judge and every court must consider that their function is jus aïcere and not jus dare.[4]"
"The decrees and determinations of the magistrates are not, rigorously speaking, laws: legal precedents ought therefore not despotically to govern, but discreetly to guide."[5]
Thomas Jefferson asserted the same in 1820:
"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[6] 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)
Now if you can show me anywhere in the Amended version of the Constitution for the United States there is a provision for judge-made-law i.e., binding precedent with stare decisis, IT AIN'T THERE! But as Thomas Jefferson said in 1820 "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." and Sir William Blackstone (10 July 1723 – 14 February 1780) both confirmed SEVERAL TIMES, several places!
As just a small taste of you and your Brethen's despotic behavior I offer….
There is no Constitutional premise for immunity from the Constitution, or the laws derived from it. In fact immunity from the constitution is antithetical to the premise of a constitution's raison d'etre. For the first nearly 100 years that preceded Randall and Bradley (1776-1868) there was neither need nor questions regarding Judicial Immunity and then TWO despotic precedents within 5 years.. Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (decided April 15, 1869)[7] in response to the criminal liability in The Civil Rights Act of 1866 passed in to law April 9, 1866 and then Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (decided April 8, 1872)[8] in response to civil liability in the Civil Rights Act of 1871 passed into law April 20, 1871 are the origins of unconstitutional "immunity" in the American Justice system. Not to
mention racially motivated mass murder in Blyew, and racially
motivated pogrom in Cruikshank just
post-Civil War..
Judicial Immunity has since spawned reconfirmation of immunity from liability for damages for his judicial acts, see Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), "state prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the accused's constitutional rights" see Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) gives immunity to police officers and their informants "for giving perjured testimony at the defendant's criminal trial," and Briscoe then goes further with "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[5] for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" see Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335.
And We the People imprison ourselves at 4 times the rate of the of the MORE CIVILIZED World.
We the People of the United States have no enforceable Constitutional rights. THIS is in direct contradiction to the 1st and 7th Amendments in the original amended 1790 version and the Enforcement Acts authorized by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments and passed into law post-Civil War. .
This does not even mention the immunity and the Presidential Election you hand Donald Trump with delay and your recent decision in 23-939 Trump, Donald J. v. United States "unitary theory" of the Presidency. decided July 1, 2024.
Petitioner anew presents Petition for Writ of Certioraris to the supreme Court of the United States and associated District and Circuit petitions… 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856. You already have copies of all the paperwork.
With attached accumulating damages dated Tuesday June 10, 2025 06:48:22.98 AM
Tuesday, June 10, 2025
[1] Blackstone, Sir William. Commentaries on the Laws of England: Book III: On Private Wrongs. Kindle Edition.
[2] Article III Section 2.3 of the Constitution for the United States
[3] Amendment VII of the Constitution for the United States
[4] “This phrase translates
to: "To declare
the law, not to make or give the law". ” Sir William Blackstone.
Blackstone 1387-01 (Kindle Locations 23832-23834). Kindle Edition..
[5] Sir William Blackstone. Blackstone 1387-01 (Kindle Locations 23802-23804). Kindle Edition.
[6] See the unconstitutional JUDGE-MADE-LAW Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) Argued: February 26, 1872 Decided: April 8, 1872
[7] RANDALL v. BRIGHAM is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 15, 1869. The case was argued before the court on April 6, 1869. President john Veto Overridden by the House and became law on April 9, 1866
[8] BRADLEY v. FISHER is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 8, 1872. The case was argued before the court on February 26, 1872. In a 6-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court. Signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871
\
