Friday, March 22, 2024

Notice of Suit and quasi-amicus-brief in support of due process of law and opposed to immunity from the rule of law






Thursday, March 21, 2024
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.[1]

Supreme Court of the United States

One First Street N.E.

Washington, DC 20543-0001

 

Re:     Notice of Suit, any and all assertions of enduring non-exigent immunity are an abdication and / or a dereliction of due process of law under Article III – as it relates to any person, a former president[2] or DGJeep[3] v. Supreme Court of the United States (Petitions for Writ of Certiorari 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856)[4]

 

Dear People,

 

I wanted to get this out to you, before you and your co-conspirators[5] FURTHER humiliated yourselves with 23-939 Trump, Donald J. v. United States.  Let's call it notice of suit and a quasi-amicus-brief in support of due process of law and opposed to immunity from the rule of law.

As I am sure you know 20 years ago, a judge signed an unconstitutional ex parte order.  It was unconstitutionally upheld over my attorney's timely constitutional objections verbally inside the courtroom and outside of court in post-trial motion and my ongoing appeals in writing, see Supreme Court of the United States Petitions for Writ of Certiorari 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856.  This unconstitutional order took away my son, my paternity, my reputation, my house, my car, and everything I once held dear.  Forced me into a no-holds-barred non-trivial civil dispute with NOTHING to defend myself.  This is and has always been a NON-TRIVIAL issue.  20+ years later, and after 411 days in federal custody[6], to my son I am an embarrassment, a crazy, ex-federal prisoner, poor relation that has to be tolerated.

Absolute non-exigent non-trivial immunity for other people's civil rights has been self-servingly sustained by the Black Robed Royalist[7] want-to-be Article III Judiciary since at least the Civil War.[8]  Nowhere in Article III is non-exigent immunity created.[9]  Any thought of immunity from a constitution is antithetical to the raison d'etre (reason for being) of a constitution.  Every FEDERAL employee has to swear:

 

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." 

 

You and your Black Robed Royalist Brethren have upheld unconstitutional absolute non-exigent immunity for the deprivation of constitutional rights since at least the civil war.

Think about it, We the People set up a Constitution with an Article III justice system to "establish justice" "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" (i.e., constitutional rights).   Any non-trivial, non-exigent immunity is self-defeating to the rule of law. 

But the Article III justice system, self-servingly assert non-exigent immunity, from traffic cops to Supreme Court Justices, again self-servingly, assert absolute non-exigent immunity for the deprivation of rights.  Now if you are a citizen Trump and you have virtually unlimited inherited financial resources you can within the Article III system, obstruct and delay any all accountability for rape, theft, fraud, tax evasion and etc. until you are 70+ years old been elected President of the United States and defeated the "popular will" with the electoral college.

Now I had to laugh, before I teared up, recently at JJ., Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, in their recent judicial sophistry i.e., 23-719 Trump v. Anderson

The Black Robed Royalist majority (i.e., 5 of 9) want to assert that because congress has never utilized the XIV Amendment's "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" to further elucidate the article as regards Section 3 of the XIV Amendment, the states cannot enforce Section 3.

Of course, that defeats a plain reading of the XIV Amendment Section 3 with the support of the X Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the peoplei.e., states do not need congressional authority to act. 

Now the Black Robed Royalist Brethren have been radiating nothing but sophistry (bullshit) for YEARS!  At least since the Civil War.  We the People of the United States invested 600,000+ lives in a civil war to do two things.  The first and most important was abolishing slavery.  The second and just as important, though overlooked, was to preserve the union[10] and MINIMIZE if not eliminate state's rights. 

Post Civil War we incorporated the XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments to abolish slavery we already had the VII Amendment to civilly insure rights. 

Unfortunately, we did nothing to address the II and X Amendment's anarchial tendencies.  And are NOW, 230+ years later, being forced to further endure armed gangs (e.g., the KKK, David Koresh / Branch Davidian, Charlottesville, Ruby Ridge, January 6th and etc.), Jim Crow discrimination and absolute non-exigent immunity for the deprivation of constitutional rights. 

Now that brings me back to the Black Robed Royalist Brethren and their 23-719 Trump v. Anderson SOPHISTRY. 

Post Civil War the congress did utilize XIV Amendment's "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article".  Congress in 1871 passed "An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes."  That is now codified into the federal statute law as 42 U.S.C. 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights.

Absolute non-exigent immunity fromyour constitutional obligations to the United States Constitution Article III, VII Amendment[11], XIV Amendment, Section 5 and as specifically and constitutionally authorized with "An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes" by Congress in 1871 and now codified into federal statute law as 42 U.S.C. 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights is just untenable. 

Now I above and restate here, "Any and all assertions of enduring non-exigent immunity are an abdication and / or a dereliction of the duty under Article III." 

I am currently suing the Supreme Court of the United States, within the corporation of the Government of the United States for non-trivial unconstitutional deprivations in DGJeep v. Supreme Court of the United States (Petitions for Writ of Certiorari 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856)per Article III, VII Amendment[12], XIV Amendment, Section 5 and as specifically and constitutionally authorized with "An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes" by Congress in 1871, now codified into federal statute law as 42 U.S.C. 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rightsand 18 U.S. Code § 1964 - Civil remedies RICO (United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit)

I site JJ., Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in 23-719 Trump v. Anderson, in support of this "notice of suit" thereof.

Please see enclosed spreadsheet, dated Wednesday March 20, 2024 08:58:59.61 PM, of the accruing damages:

 

Three billion two hundred forty-one million two hundred ninety-seven thousand five hundred fifty-seven dollars………..………………………………………….. $3,241,297,557

If there is anything further, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

 

 

 

David G. Jeep

 

enclosure

          Damages Spreadsheet

 

cc: Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice, Anthony M. Kennedy, (Retired) Associate Justice , David H. Souter (Retired), Associate Justice, Stephen G. Breyer, (Retired), Associate Justice, Lisa Nesbit c/o Scott S. Harris Supreme Court Clerk, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski and Willie Geist - Morning Joe - MSNBC Network, Attorney General Merrick Garland, DOJ Civil Rights Division, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee

      www.DGJeep.com, file


https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-facts-of-my-case-are-without.html

 

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

 


--

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

 



Thursday, March 14, 2024

Dark Money Senate


 Small "d" Un-Democratic “dark money” Senate

 116th Congress (2019–2021)
Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Originally Published September 2020



You can elect anybody to the presidency and anybody to the House, but everything in the United States Government has to pass the “dark money” corrupted Senate. Small "d" undemocratic “Dark Money" controls the SENATE!!! 

 

The 50 Senators in Mitch McConnell's small "d" undemocratic "dark money" GOP caucus represents 144,017,589 persons, 43.50% of the population.  The 50 Senators in Chuck Schumer's Democratic caucus represents 187,090,846 persons, 56.50% of the population.  The difference leaves 43,073,257 (13.01%) United States citizens without representation in the small "d" undemocratic "dark money" unrepresentative United States senate.

 

This is arithmetic there is no fancy math.  Addition, subtraction, divide the sums by the totals to get the percentages, grade school arithmetic.  Be ASSURED small "d" undemocratic "dark money" knows how to add, subtract and count!!

 

Mitch McConnell's small "d" undemocratic "dark money" unrepresentative Senate is inherently and irrevocably constitutionally CORRUPTED.

 

In a new small "d" undemocratic "dark money" senate without regard to party, 52 of the senators, from the 26 least populous states amount to a minimum 18% of the population. 

 

To hold a filibuster and BLOCK EVERYTHING takes 42 senators from the 21 smallest states with a minimum 11% of the population.

 

Now you might mistakenly ASSUME that the 30 states and the 60 senators needed to overcome a filibuster would REQUIRE a majority.  WRONG!!!!  The 30 least populated states (60 senators) with a population of 80,549,406, amount to only 24% of the total population.

 

The current UN-REPRESENTATIVE constitution produced the Civil War, sustains civil rights inequities to this day and RESISTS all improvements to our for-profit-healthcare system.


The United States senate is irretrievably, uncontestably CONSTITUTIONALLY  CORRUPT.  The founding fathers had to compromise to maintain the union in the face of slavery.  We NOW need to do away with obscene compromise and institute the representative democracy we all know is NOW required.     


Download the MS EXCEL SPREADSHEET 

 


 

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-facts-of-my-case-are-without.html

 

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/dark-money-senate.html

 

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/if-that-is-not-absolute-corruption-of.html

Wednesday, March 13, 2024

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -against- DONALD J. TRUMP,

 

Wednesday, March 13, 2024

 

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., Assistant D.A.s Catherine McCaw (Counsel to the Investigation Division), Katherine Ellis (Major Economic Crimes Bureau), Rebecca Mangold (Major Economic Crimes Bureau), Christopher Conroy (Senior Advisor to the Investigation Division), Susan Hoffinger (Chief of the Investigation Division), and Matthew Colangelo (Senior Counsel to the District Attorney) 

One Hogan Place

New York, NY 10013

 

Re: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

      -against-

      DONALD J. TRUMP,

 

Dear People,

 

Do not allow yourselves to feel intimidated by Trump’s and other’s assertion this is JUST a "paperwork" crime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trump likes to compare himself to Capone. The upcoming document case in NY is like Capone's conviction.   They put Capone away on a "paperwork" crime, i.e., tax evasion, not for “Murder Incorporated”.  You have got Trump dead to rights on the DOCUMENTS case in NY. 

Off to jail he goes!

If there is anything further, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

 

 David G. Jeep

 cc: www.DGJeep.com

      file


 

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-facts-of-my-case-are-without.html

 

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/dark-money-senate.html

 

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/if-that-is-not-absolute-corruption-of.html


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -against- DONALD J. TRUMP,

Wednesday, March 13, 2024

 

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., Assistant D.A.s Catherine McCaw (Counsel to the Investigation Division), Katherine Ellis (Major Economic Crimes Bureau), Rebecca Mangold (Major Economic Crimes Bureau), Christopher Conroy (Senior Advisor to the Investigation Division), Susan Hoffinger (Chief of the Investigation Division), and Matthew Colangelo (Senior Counsel to the District Attorney) 

One Hogan Place

New York, NY 10013

 

Re: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

      -against-

      DONALD J. TRUMP,

 

Dear People,

 

Do not allow yourselves to feel intimidated by Trump's and other's assertion this is JUST a "paperwork" crime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trump likes to compare himself to Capone. The upcoming document case in NY is like Capone's conviction.   They put Capone away on a "paperwork" crime, i.e., tax evasion, not for "Murder Incorporated".  You have got Trump dead to rights on the DOCUMENTS case in NY. 

Off to jail he goes!

If there is anything further, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

 

David G. Jeep

 

cc: www.DGJeep.com (https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/03/the-people-of-state-of-new-york-against.html )

      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

 

Wednesday, January 3, 2024

This is the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of We the People’s intent to establish justice!!!


This is the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of 

We the People’s intent to establish justice!!!



To hear the Supreme Court’s precedent (i.e., sophistry[1]) tell us, “We the People” sub silentio traded the “King can do no WRONG” for the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the “malicious or corrupt” judges,[2] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor[3], the “knowingly false testimony by police officers"[4], the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions of “all persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[5] acting under color of law and the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions of federal, state, local, and regional legislators[6] to render absolute corruption of inalienable rights under color of law.

For additional support of CORRUPT rulings of the Supreme Court I submit their own published precedents[7] examples of the Judicial sophistry[8], that has corrupted We the People’s unalienable rights under color of law, I submit, sophisticated “absolute immunity” for racially motivate mass murder,[9] sophisticated of a pogrom,[9a]  sophisticated deprivation of the 15th Amendment’s Voting Rights protection with the subterfuges of poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses,[10] sophisticated “absolute immunity” for racially motivated massacre[11] (Colfax Riot/pogrom), sophisticated “absolute immunity” for the state’s sanctioned kidnapping, assault and murder without regard to the 14th Amendment’s security,[12] creating sophisticated racial segregation and the ongoing Jim Crow discrimination over the “necessary and proper” “Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights."[13] 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, separate and UNEQUAL, clarifying sophisticated segregation[14] over the necessary and proper "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, reaffirmed Judicial sophisticated “absolute immunity,”[15] prosecutorial sophisticated “absolute immunity,”[16] sophisticated “absolute immunity” for forced sterilization,[17] and sophisticated “absolute immunity” for “knowingly false testimony by police officers," and “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process.”[18]

There were several post 9/11 sophisticated precedents[19] to sustain the SUPER DUPER absolute immunity to wage WAR without justification issue an unreasonable court order  - that was reckonably issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"[20] that was "beyond debate"[21] "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right"[22] [23]

If that is not ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of We the People’s intent to establish justice, I cannot imagine what is.



[1] Sophistry is a logical fallacy that involves the use of deceptive, superficial arguments.

[2] 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)

[3] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)

[4]  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)

[5] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)

[6] 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

[7] Sophistry is a logical fallacy that involves the use of deceptive, superficial arguments.

[8] Sophistry is a logical fallacy that involves the use of deceptive, superficial arguments.

[9] Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871)

[10] United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875)

[11] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

[12] United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883)

[13] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)

[14] Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

[15] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)

[16] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976)

[17] Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)

[18] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)

[19] Sophistry is a logical fallacy that involves the use of deceptive, superficial arguments.

[21] Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam)  PENNv. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003))

[22]  Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. _(2015)