Monday, August 5, 2024
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Hart Senate Office Bldg., Rm. 530
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2921
Fax: (202) 228-6362
Re: Judge Made Law / Stare Decisis
Dear People,
I just finished watching your "How We Fix The Corrupted Supreme Court with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse" Democracy Docket YouTube podcast from 2 weeks ago. It is 1:39AM and I CAN NOT go to sleep with this unsaid!
Your court reforms are pathetically inadequate.
I am a college flunk-out. I flunked out of college three times in succession. I was trying to make a statement. Then, like Henry David Thoreau "I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived".
And I do not regret one moment of not having the burden of the BS. I believe Socrates, Abraham Lincoln, and Barack Obama know / knew everything that they needed to know and most of it was not learned in school.
I know I would like to be able to make "Judge Made Law" and I would want it to last forever with "Stare Decisis", but I know I am humanly fallible. I would never have the conceit to think I had the enduring right to make Judge Made Law / Stare Decisis. But I went to that Socrates, Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama school of life and never stepped foot in a law school. Socrates thought "Philosopher Kings should rule. But Plato his student did not agree. Nonetheless the Rule of Kings caught on and persisted for a while. But in 1789, We the People took control with our Constitution for the United States.
I have spent my son's childhood, my life's work and the last 20 years in pursuit of my rights. I was impoverished/homeless. I spent 411 day in federal custody, for having asked the FBI / USMS for assistance with my Civil rights Issue.[1] I have filed 8 Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States through the District and Circuit Federal Court.[2] The Founding fathers gave me the VII Amendment and Abraham Lincoln's followers gave me The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983) but in today's United States those are not even a parchment guarantee.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78, 79, & 80 along with John Marshal's sham in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) were the instigation for today's issue. They both purported a need for a learned Judiciary "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."
Just imagine if you will, how much trouble George Washington, Ben Franklin, and James Madison would have had getting the first Constitutional convention to agree to establishing an oligarchy of six? nine? learned men, by political means, appointed for life with "a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office" AND unlimited jurisdiction to decide any issue of controversy that they wanted for all time. Judge Made Law / Stare Decisis. That is where we are, that is what this greater fool college flunk-out has been fighting against for 20+ years, but it is beyond the proverbial pale[1] of anything the founders ever conceived of as possible.
The Founding Fathers had REAL intimate historical knowledge of judicial over reach, with the "Star Chamber" abolished 1641 and the "Bloody Assizes" 1685.
Judicial review, as utilized today, was never even REMOTELY considered at the founding.
Today we need to regulate their jurisdiction and restrict their authority to the instant cases before them. We let ourselves be intimidated into thinking there was no such thing as the "common law", that the law was too high brow for juries, that juries are nothing more than playthings in the hands of evil conspiring men.
Citizens were first guaranteed the right to the common law juries with the Magna Carta in June 1215. The RIGHT to a common law jury was enshrined in the Constitution of the United States July 2, 1788 and then again in the Bill of Rights to the December 15, 1791.
I am just a college flunk-out, but I think that with FAIR[3] due process of law, I can be relied upon[4] to decide anything put before me by learned men, who cite precedent all day long to convince me but cannot bind me to it! If juries can be shown the ins and out of product liability of a chemical carcinogen, they can be enlightened as to the rights of the accused too.
Again, I am just a college flunk-out but you think the recent Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ is flawed BINDING precedent? Just do some googling and lookup Bradley, Blyew, Cruikshank, Plessy, Lochner, Stump, Weeks, Mapp….
The Warren Court, while exemplary in many cases, had its flaws too. Look at Mapp v. Ohio (1961), yes it protects a criminal's rights but because of Pierson, Imbler and Briscoe an innocent person has no right to recovery. They are just SOL. That is in direct conflict with the VII Amendment and The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983) the innocent person has no recovery!
I have done some research. The scrouge of "jury nullification" came up. No other country but the United States has any issue with jury nullification, because it is assumed that juries have the unfettered right to decide the case before them. Judges, Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys have the duty to fair due process of law.
Everybody in the United States has immunity for the deprivation of rights. Everybody but the victims of the deprivation of rights, they pay. We need to make rights worth something in the United States. We the People need to indemnify each other's rights with respondeat superior liability.
We the People do not need a constitutional Amendment. Congress needs to create a statute law per Article III Section 1 & 2 of the constitution:
Section. 1.
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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
&
Section. 2.
…. "In all the other Cases before mentioned, 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.…."
I have no issue with the potential to change this statue law with constitutional congressional action, if human fallibility is never again attached to immutable stare decisis that has given us 150 yrs. of lingering Jim Crow, Jane Crow and Mass Incarceration.
Proposed statute law:
A. All Supreme Court Justices shall be regulated to a 16(?) year term on the bench, Current and future terms to be retired at 70 and / or staggered every two years going forward. Their continued Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office as senior Justices.
B. All Article III authority shall be regulated with personal and respondeat superior liability for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" per The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
C. All Article III authority shall be regulated for future consideration with binding authority limited to due process procedure for the instant case before them as confirmed by a Jury or the abdication of the same by concurrence of the parties.
If there is anything further, please let me know.
"Time is of the essence"
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
cc: President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.
Senator Elizabeth Warren
file
Chief Justice John Roberts
[1] I was released on April 26, 2010, "Charges are Dismissed without Prejudice for failure to comply with the Speedy Trial Act (Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP)."
[2] 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)
[3] Judges should have the responsibility for fair due process and should have some limited binding precedential authority over PROCESS inside their courtrooms
No comments:
Post a Comment