Trump, "the Deplorable"
Pat, I am OK. You are OK.
I am 70yr old white guy being discriminated against by the remnants of "Jim Crow"
In the Jane Crow Era, I am 70yr old white guy, that went to "the old boys school," being discriminated against by the remnants of "Jim Crow"
The TOOOOO often overlooked last clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States was originally corrupted by the Jim Crow.
The First Amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The last clause of the First Amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
When the founding fathers created the last clause of the First Amendment, they knew that it would be needed, and the founding fathers KNEW that it would need to be constitutionally protected! That held fast, for almost 100 years, through the Civil war (1861-1865). And then TWO unforeseen UNCONSTITUTIONAL "Jim Crow" judge-made-laws" within 7 years:
Ø Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (decided April 15, 1869) sophistry in response to the criminal liability in The Civil Rights Act of 1866 passed in to law April 9, 1866 and then..
Ø Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (decided April 8, 1872) sophistry 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.
Now I would have probably given the ability to make judge-made-law to James Madison (Federalist Paper #47), Alexander Hamilton (Federalist Papers #78, #79 and #81), or even John Marshall (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)) but their successors would be my issue, and I think the founder's issiue. .
The founding fathers had the good sense to NOT create the concept of judge-made-law in the 4,000 words of their original or the now amended Constitution of the United States.
Justice Thurgood Marshall said it best,
"To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 362 (1983)
The supreme Court's[1] "judge-made-law" a.k.a. "Jim Crow" sophistry[2] tells us STILL today, "We the People" sub silentio[3] traded the "King can do no WRONG" for the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[4] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor[5], the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[6], the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant, conscientiously stupid actions of "all persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[7] the actions of federal, state, local, and regional legislators[8] and now PRESIDENTS[9] acting under color of law to render absolute corruption of inalienable constitutional rights.
The Constitutional Rights our Founding Fathers thought they had enshrined with Constitutional Rights did not survive the "Jim Crow" judge-made-law!!!
It is fairly well known fact "We the People" currently imprison ourselves (541/100K[10]) at FOUR times the rate of the rest of the developed world (144/100K[11]). The little known lingering Jim Crow racial fact, the United States imprisons Whites 181/100K and Blacks 901/100K[12].
Today in the ongoing Jim Crow era, judge-made-law has spawned the Jane Crow domestic era where men are discriminated against in family relations law.
You judge for yourself…. That facts of my case…. The FACTS of MY case are without question - my liberty rights, my paternity rights, my property rights, were unconstitutionally deprived on November 3. 2003, 7:55pm CT. THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION on fraud or the deprivation of constitutional rights. I have been fighting to regain them relentlessly since.[13] The UNDISPUTED issue is and has always been – a flagrantly, infamous, and fraudulent non-exigent, extra-judicial (coram non judice) court order:
1. a fraud (fraus omnia corrumpit[14]) on the court by an officer of the court (FRCP 60(d)(3))[15]
2. a NOT "facially valid court order"[16] (Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) -
3. that was reckonably[17] issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction," (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)
4. "beyond debate" (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. _(2015))
5. "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right" (Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011)[18]
"The congressional purpose[19] seems to me to be clear- NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. A condition of lawlessness existed in certain of the States under which people were being denied their civil rights. Congress intended to provide a remedy for the wrongs being perpetrated. And its (US Congress 1871) members were not unaware that certain members of the judiciary were implicated in the state of affairs which the statute(s) (now codified as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &; 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985) was intended to rectify…. 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. . . ." MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967)
THE GRAVITAS OF THE PERSONAL[20] ISSUE IS BEYOND QUESTION, IT TOOK AWAY PETITIONER'S SON, HOME, CAR AND EVERYTHING HE ONCE HELD DEAR IN THE WORLD. Thus, the issue could never be construed as vexatious[21] nor is the ongoing fight against flagrant injustice "continual Calumniations"[22] nor could a near 20 year struggle against injustice be construed as an inconsequential "short ride."[23]
"Fake News Donny"
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/06/sc.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FVfm-ushzCCTS5BtH1R7MeOvnDvh_kqv/view
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-issue-with-trump.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2023/10/american-exceptionalism-not-so-much.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/04/equal-rights-in-free-market-economy.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012/07/balanced-budget-for-america.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/be-aware.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/istgtdnk.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/dark-money-senate.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/be-aware.html
The constitutional small "d" unrepresentative corrupt "dark money" Senate and Electoral College
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://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-facts-of-my-case-are-without.html
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=David+Jeep&type=Supreme-Court=Dockets
"Fake News Donny"
[1] Article III of the US Constitution posits a "supreme Court" among the many courts NOT a Supreme Court outside of the many. ALL Article III Judicial power REQUIRES the assent of an instant jury.
[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)
[7] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[8] Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138
[12] Prisoners in 2021 – Statistical Tables U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Table 5 Imprisonment rates of U.S. residents of all ages, based on sentenced prisoners under the jurisdiction of state or federal correctional authorities, by jurisdiction, sex, and race or Hispanic origin, 2011–2021 https://bjs.ojp.gov/media/68246/download
[15] Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - "set aside a judgment for fraud on the court"
[16] 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.
[18] "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 as he repeated his prior objections."
[19] Jim Crow and/or Jane Crow
[20] While the petitioner asserts this is not necessarily an isolated Jane Crow issue, it is a uniquely flagrant "first impression" and PERSONAL for the petitioner. Per McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914) " The essence of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected"
[21] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 348 and 349
[22] Floyd and Barker. (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I - In the Court of Star Chamber. - First Published in the Reports, volume 12, page 23.
[23] Ida B. Well v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad - Tennessee Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's ruling in 1887. It concluded, "We think it is evident that the purpose of the defendant in error was to harass with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain a comfortable seat for the short ride."[Southwestern Reporter, Volume 4, May 16–August 1, 1887.
