Wednesday, July 15, 2026 - 1:48:44 PM
Pat, I am OK. You are OK.
The FLAW in our Article III Courts
Hakeen Jefferies.
2267 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
322 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Bernie Sanders
332 Dirksen Building,
Washington, D.C. 20510
Wesley Bell
1429 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: The FLAW in our Article III Courts
Dear People,
The flaw in our Article III courts is more systemic than a mere transient future or current majority on the supreme[1] Court. Adding or subtracting justices will not fix the clear truly systemic issue.
The flaw in our Article III courts is about a systemic corrupt despotic conspirative unconstitutional, would be Supreme[2], oligarchy. Look at the judge-made-law in Scott[3], Randall[4], Bradely[5], Blyew[6], Cruikshank[7], Civil Rights Cases[8], Plessy[9], Lochner[10], Mapp[11], Pierson[12], Bivens[13], Imbler[14], Briscoe,[15] Ashcroft,[16] Loper,[17] Trump[18], Slaughter[19] REDEFINING the redressability / culpability of “any person under color of law” -- and you can see the corruption. Now before you assume I am just criticizing bad decisions, stare decisis imbeds and exaggerates any and ALL error to an unconstitutional and unacceptable extreme.
Thomas Jefferson[20] said it first and best:
"(Y)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[21] 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 28th September 1820, letter to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello (notes, underlining and bolding of course added)
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves (think "Voting," "adversarial due process of law"[22] & "juries"): and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education[23]. this is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." (Thomas Jefferson 9/28/1820, in writing to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello – footnote / bolding / underlining / parentheticals added)
Justice Harlan dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883) confirmed, Jefferson’s expectation, post-Civil War:
Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted.
We the People need to utilize the constitutional SYSTEM the founders[24] bequeathed to us.
With the potential veto proof authority, of Article I alone. The Article I democratic-representative congress needs to take their authority back from the usurpation of the, want to be Supreme[25] oligarchy with the mere statutory constitutional provisions of Article III Section 2 “the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Congressionally eliminate judge-made-law, the use of binding judicial authority and any and all thoughts of attaching stare decisis.
Learned judicial opinions can and should be used / referenced but they cannot be used as unimpeachable judge-made-law within the rational context of adversarial due process of law in front of a trial specific constitutional local jury.
I would love to know a perfect person. I would literally kiss their ass, not on the left, not on the right but in the groove. But for at least 2,026 years there has not been one on this planet. And I do not expect one anytime soon.
Unreachable Judge-made-law with stare decisis requires perfection. Human beings constantly and unavoidably make mistakes, be they sitting at the local bar drinking a beer or on a supreme[26] Court wearing gender-neutral black robes. As a reliable source of justice, the best We the People can hope for is adversarial due process of law[27] before a trial specific constitutional local jury.
I fully admit I have a 22+ year interest in this as a constitutional financial “right of redress” issue in this issue.[28]
If there is anything further, please let me know.
“Time is of the essence”
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
enclosure
Manifesto https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r8U4WezoXXsHfNCb1U2Q2Jo-cg6fcDi9/view
cc: Josh Hawley
381 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
404 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
file
RIGHT Potential POSTS REV working
Wednesday, July 15, 2026 - 1:48:44 PM
The last clause of the First Amendment makes any assertion of IMMUNITY unconstitutional.
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2026/02/last-clause-1a.html
The Constitution for the United States - Article I, II, and Schoolhouse Rock’s[29] “I’m Just a Bill[30]” clearly define how to make law. Show me where in the amended Constitution for the United States “judge-made-law” is called for or authorized[31]?
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/06/sc.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FVfm-ushzCCTS5BtH1R7MeOvnDvh_kqv/view
The Issue with Trump, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP!
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-issue-with-trump.html
American Exceptionalism – NOT SO MUCH
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
A Balanced Budget for America
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012/07/balanced-budget-for-america.html
BE AWARE, but do not be afraid, Trump is, at best and at worst, pathetically incompetent and INEFFECTIVE manager / leader!
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/be-aware.html
Trump does not know the name of the country he was or is to be president of...
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/istgtdnk.html
The constitutional small "d" undemocratic corrupt “dark money” Senate and Electoral College
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/dark-money-senate.html
Trump is a convicted and diagnosed psychotic criminal, chronic degenerate, maniacal liar and a "fucking moron!"
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
The Judicial sophistry of "absolute immunity" creates "absolute power" to the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of We the People's unalienable rights under color of law... the AUDACITY of the INSANITY, ignorance and stupidity in support of a "fantastic or delusional" scenario.
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/if-that-is-not-absolute-corruption-of.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UmmaZmRkIUZ3EdC_9iI0Bpojr6LZ_lU0/view?usp=sharing
Petition Supreme Court website https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-5856/62608/20180904161503131_00000007.pdf
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-facts-of-my-case-are-without.html
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)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=David+Jeep&type=Supreme-Court=Dockets
Wednesday, July 15, 2026 - 1:48:44 PM
[1] 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/underling added)." The Constitution for the United States posits one supreme Court among the many inferior Courts, NOT a Supreme Court outside the many Courts. The grammar of the capitalization is important for an accurate interpretation. As is the "judicial Power" in the Constitution for the United States is ABSOLUTELY constrained by the use of a trial-specific-local-jury as originally REQUIRED 1215 - Magna Carta's Clause 39 - "No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land" and as incorporated in the in our Constitution for the United states Article II Section 2.3 criminal issues and the VII Amendment for civil Issues.
[2] 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/underling added)." The Constitution for the United States posits one supreme Court among the many inferior Courts, NOT a Supreme Court outside the many Courts. The grammar of the capitalization is important for an accurate interpretation. As is the "judicial Power" in the Constitution for the United States is ABSOLUTELY constrained by the use of a trial-specific-local-jury as originally REQUIRED 1215 - Magna Carta's Clause 39 - "No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land" and as incorporated in the in our Constitution for the United states Article II Section 2.3 criminal issues and the VII Amendment for civil Issues.
[3] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) -- The Dred Scott ruling STARTED the Civil War.
[5] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) “any person under color of law”
[6] Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871) Government sanctioned MASS MURDER with undemocratic unrepresentative stare decisis attached.
[7] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) Government sanctioned racial pogrom (massacre) and an unregulated militia with undemocratic unrepresentative stare decisis attached.
[8] Justice Harlan’s lone dissent in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883):
“Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted.”
[9] Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) Government sanctioned separate and with lip service alone to equal
[10] Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) Lochner created the still tooooo prevalent and nebulously defined term, “liberty of contract”, to emotionally enable Government sanctioned union busting and anti-regulation.
[11] Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) CONFIRMS the immunity for the deprivation of rights and EXCLUDES the evidence.
[12] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) QUALIFIED immunity does nothing to sustain inalienable rights.
[13] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) Any person under color of law.
[14] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) Any person under color of law
[15] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) Any person under color of law
[16] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Ashcroft asserted they need to be to be freed to act without regard after 9/11? And yet it lingers to corrupt EVERYTHING going forward.
[17] In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court's landmark June 28, 2024 decision, the judiciary abolished the 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine. Loper took power from the elected executive and installed under themselves self-servingly with undemocratic unrepresentative stare decisis attached.
[18] 23-939 Trump v. United States (07/01/2024) absolute immunity to the Article II executive with undemocratic unrepresentative stare decisis attached.
[19] Trump v. Slaughter, 609 U.S. ___ (2026) Decided: June 29, 2026 took power away from the Article I, legislature and Article II executive working harmoniously together and handed it to the Article II executive EXCLUSIVELY with undemocratic unrepresentative stare decisis attached.
[20] I will not accept the attempted incrimination of Thomas Jefferson as a salve holder. Thomas Jefferson’s first draft of the declaration the Declaration of Independence included his true belief on slavery.
Thomas Jefferson was an incompetent heir, with incumbent dependents blacks and white.
[21] An unacknowledged FACT, the founding fathers had lived under “judge-made-law” with 544 years since the Magna Carta at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. They knew better than to Constitutionally sanction it.
[22] In today's justice system that still holds in local juries for others. Article III Judges today profess the concept of “adversarial-due-process-of-law” and local jury of peers in highly technical disputes in the criminal and civil liability of medical, environmental, product liability and etc. issues. You don't have to be a PHD pr legal scholar to decide any civil rights issue in a grounded adversarial due process court in the developed world of today.
[23] In today's justice system that still holds in local juries for others. Article III Judges today profess the concept of “adversarial-due-process-of-law” and local jury of peers in highly technical disputes in the criminal and civil liability of medical, environmental, product liability and etc. issues. You don't have to be a PHD pr legal scholar to decide any civil rights issue in a grounded adversarial due process court in the developed world of today.
[24] An unacknowledged FACT, the founding fathers had lived under “judge-made-law” with 544 years since the Magna Carta at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. They knew better than to Constitutionally sanction it.
[25] 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/underling added)." The Constitution for the United States posits one supreme Court among the many inferior Courts, NOT a Supreme Court outside the many Courts. The grammar of the capitalization is important for an accurate interpretation. As is the "judicial Power" in the Constitution for the United States is ABSOLUTELY constrained by the use of a trial-specific-local-jury as originally REQUIRED 1215 - Magna Carta's Clause 39 - "No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land" and as incorporated in the in our Constitution for the United states Article II Section 2.3 criminal issues and the VII Amendment for civil Issues.
[26] 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/underling added)." The Constitution for the United States posits one supreme Court among the many inferior Courts, NOT a Supreme Court outside the many Courts. The grammar of the capitalization is important for an accurate interpretation. As is the "judicial Power" in the Constitution for the United States is ABSOLUTELY constrained by the use of a trial-specific-local-jury as originally REQUIRED 1215 - Magna Carta's Clause 39 - "No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land" and as incorporated in the in our Constitution for the United states Article II Section 2.3 criminal issues and the VII Amendment for civil Issues.
[27] In today's justice system that still holds in local juries for others. Article III Judges today profess the concept of “adversarial-due-process-of-law” and local jury of peers in highly technical disputes in the criminal and civil liability of medical, environmental, product liability and etc. issues. You don't have to be a PHD pr legal scholar to decide any civil rights issue in a grounded adversarial due process court in the developed world of today.
Thanks in advance...
“Agere sequitur esse” (‘action follows being’)
David G. Jeep, Federal Inmate #36072-044 (formerly)
www.DGJeep.com - From: Dave@DGJeep.com - David.G.Jeep@Gmail.com
Mobile (314) 514-5228 leave message
David G. Jeep
1531 Pine St Apt #512
St. Louis, MO 63103-2548
