Monday, June 07, 2010
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Re: When did we authorize our Judges to become tyrants?
A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
Dear Justice Sotomayor,
Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #84 defined “the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny” as “The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments”
He was at the time defending “The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY…” as he proposed, precluding the need for a Bill of Rights in the newly drafted though not ratified Constitution for the United States of America.
Our Judiciary became tyrants when they repealed the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY with the establishment of the Judge Made Law of Absolute Judicial Immunity. I quote from Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) “This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it “is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of (the people being robbed and disenfranchised) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty (to act without regard to the law or the rights of “We the People”) to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.” ((Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.) & (Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)Page 386 U. S. 554). Bradley authorized the Judiciary as follows, I again quote “a judge of a criminal court, invested with general criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed within a certain district, should hold a particular act to be a public offense, which is not by the law made an offense, and proceed to the arrest and trial of a party charged with such act, or should sentence a party convicted to a greater punishment than that authorized by the law upon its proper construction, no personal liability to civil action for such acts would attach to the judge” Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 335 (1871) Page 80 U. S. 352
Judges admit, with their hubris unrestrained, some of them are going to be “malicious or corrupt,” we have to endure them for the greater good. The greater good is the denial of the Protection of the Laws, The Essence of Civil Liberty. Judges, by their own self aggrandizing assertion, need to be able to act without regard to very laws “We the People” have established to limit their actions. Judges assert they need to be able to act “with independence and without fear of consequences,” to be able to break the law, deny our RIGHTS at will and that “We the People” can or should do nothing to oppose them. That is INSANITY!!!
The Rule of Law stands above the Judicial Power. I quote from the Constitution for the United States of America Article III Section 2 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties.” To remove that limitation with absolute immunity and put the Judicial Power above the Rule of the Constitution is unconscionable. To put anyone above the constitution is unconscionable.
I again quote from Alexander Hamilton in the 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.” I quote from the Constitution for the United States of America Article III Section 2 “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” It is axiomatic “good Behavior” has to be submissive to “the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised.”
In Bradley the court offered “If in the exercise of the powers with which they are clothed as ministers of justice they act with partiality, or maliciously, or corruptly, or arbitrarily, or oppressively, they may be called to an account by impeachment and suspended or removed from office.” That is all well and good if the act with “partiality, or maliciously, or corruptly, or arbitrarily, or oppressively” is at odds with the Majority or in the case of Senatorial Impeachment a cloture, Super Majority, to put down a filibuster.
But how does the minority victim of an act with “partiality, or maliciously, or corruptly, or arbitrarily, or oppressively” get relief? I quote from Bivens, “But it must also be recognized that the Bill of Rights is particularly intended to vindicate the interests of the individual in the face of the popular will as expressed in legislative majorities; at the very least.” It is minorities that need “The Protection of the Law”, a majority has the strength of overwhelming numbers. Again I agree with and quote from Bivens, “For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing.”
Civilization has evolved from the law of the jungle, “survival of the fittest” to “an eye for an eye” to today “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.” We no longer compete to the death, although litigation can at times seem like slow death. We no longer ask for opposing parties to submit to mutilation. What we do in VIRTUALLY all civilized countries is establish a dollar amount to compensate the victim for redress of grievances.
The courts have long held that this will open the door to Judges being mulcted in damages. I have to counter, not if the courts do their jobs. I stress that on two levels, first that they not deny the rights, privileges or immunities secured by our Constitution and Laws and second that they not allow ANYONE to be mulcted by spurious suits. For a clearer confirmation, I would quote Justice William O. Douglas’s dissent in Pierson v. Ray:
“The argument that the actions of public officials must not be subjected to judicial scrutiny because to do so would have an inhibiting effect on their work is but a more sophisticated manner of saying "The King can do no wrong." Chief Justice Cockburn long ago disposed of the argument that liability would deter judges:
"I cannot believe that judges . . . would fail to discharge their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths and consciences . . . from any fear of exposing themselves to actions at law. I am persuaded that the number of such actions would be infinitely small, and would be easily disposed of. (Page 386 U. S. 566) While, on the other hand, I can easily conceive cases in which judicial opportunity might be so perverted and abused for the purpose of injustice as that, on sound principles, the authors of such wrong ought to be responsible to the parties wronged. Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, L.R. 5 Q.B. 94, 110 (1869) (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting) ".
As you are probably rapidly becoming aware I am asking for a redress of grievances on an ongoing issue in federal court. I am asking you to step in to assist in the issue and bring it to a wider audience, the United States Supreme Court, for consideration.
I ask you to accept this Petition for a Writ of Certiorari per the United States Code of Law directive in Title 28 § 2111 Harmless error, “On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Please consider this and by reference I include US Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947.
I seek damages and the Protection of the Laws, criminal law. The issue is currently before the as US Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947. There is a thirty page brief on file with the court that explains the issue further. I seek Redress of Grievances per the First Amendment. I see that as damages.
I will be honest; I did over a year (411 days) in Federal Custody on a trumpet up charge that violated my Freedom of Speech. I think there are parties to this action that need to do jail time. If there are no criminal consequences to actions there are no crimes. The Judges who made it all possible by conscientious indifference to the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process of Law, step outside of procedural and substantive Due Process and “coram non judice” ought to do time and our have a very large BLACK mark put on their records. The incompetent police officers, that perjured themselves and instigated the second issue, ought to do time. The Prosecuting attorney that denied me exculpable material and suborned the perjury of the officers ought to do time. My ex-spouse as the originator of the Fraud, fraus omnia corrumpit, ought to do time.
My existence is day to day. I have been homeless since the fall of 2007. These issues have taken everything from me. “Except the Will which says: “Hold on!” I have been living under the enormous strain of the denial of my basic human rights as a Father, a Person and a Citizen of the United States of America for too long. I am in need of immediate relief of this burden.
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
E-mail of Letter dated Monday May 17, 2010 to President Barack Obama
cc: President Barack Obama
 “The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact” A Judge made law the repeal of the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws, US Constitution Section 9 - No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
 “the practice of arbitrary imprisonments” A Judge made law the repeal of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, US Constitution Section 9 - The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
 “no personal liability” A Judge made law the repeal of the Constitutional prohibition for a Title of Nobility. Immunity is in fact a Title of Nobility in the terminology of Colonial Times and the Constitution of the United States of America
 Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 335 (1871) Page 80 U. S. 350
 Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (Page 403 U. S. 407) "(Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co. v. May, 194 U. S. 267, 194 U. S. 270 (1904)).
 Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (Page 403 U. S. 410)
 Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law… prohibiting… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 "Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decision makers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre." Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980) Page 445 U. S. 657
 Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), Page 386 U. S. 565-566
 See 4:09cr0659-CDP it was dismissed
 Dues Process of Law as prescribed by Amendments IV, V, VI and XIV of US Constitution
 Coram non judice, Latin for "not in the presence of a judge," is a legal term typically used to indicate a legal proceeding without a judge, with improper venue, or without jurisdiction.
 TITLE 18 § 1621. Perjury generally and § 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court not to mention Title 18 § 242 A criminal deprivation of Rights
 TITLE 18 § 1621. Perjury generally, § 1622. Subornation of perjury and § 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court not to mention Title 18 § 242 A criminal deprivation of Rights
 As a matter of law, the defendant, Sharon G. Jeep, was acting “ex parte” under color of law as afforded a presumed victim of abuse, when she filed the fraudulent petition with the intent of having the plaintiff evicted from their home for self-serving reasons in her planned divorce action. Thus, she denied the plaintiff his constitutional rights to Due Process of Law via fraud. TITLE 18 § 1621. Perjury generally and § 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court not to mention Title 18 § 242 A criminal deprivation of Rights
 Apologizes to Kipling for paraphrasing of his Poem “If”