"The Earth and everything that's in it": One Person ONE VOTE.

Friday, August 9, 2024

One Person ONE VOTE.

Download as a PDF

Wednesday, August 7, 2024

Lucas Kunce for U.S. Senate

PO BOX 1240

Independence, MO 64051

Wesley Bell for Congress

PO Box 190669

St Louis, MO 63119

Re: One Person ONE VOTE.

I am pro United States, not really worried about America just yet.

Dear People,

You are running against Trump/Hawley and Trump/Jones as individuals and against Trump/Kehoe and Trump/Bailey as Missouri Citizens. We need to rid ourselves of M.A.G.A.!!!

Additionally, there are three existential questions we need you and your opponents to ALL answer:

1. Do you support One Person One Vote in fairly decided elections?

2. Do you support the United States or the ephemeral assertion of the M.A.G.A. leader?

3. Do you support the Constitution's elected Article I Congress and Article II executive over the unelected unauthorized Article III power grab of judge made law?

First, we need to combat Trump's "2020 big lie" and maintain the foundation of "One Person One Vote" with fairly decided elections! Assertions do not sustain facts, EVIDENCE sustains facts. Trump had 62 opportunities in court to present evidence for a case for fraud in 2020. He lost 62 times. And no "fairly decided" does not mean endless litigation of absurdities. Election laws come with a workable "Final Certification Date" for a reason. We need to know that you and your opponent both support One Person One Vote in fairly decided elections.

Secondly, the tag line M.A.G.A. makes no sense. The proper name of our country is the United States. Our proper name, United States, is used 52 times in the constitution only twice is the descriptive prepositional phrase "of America" added.

From the United States's inception it has always figuratively been a part of the new world in the Americas, as opposed to the old world of Europe. M.A.G.A. is not about making the new world in America great again. M.A.G.A. wants to take that valor of the America's and put up walls to keep all the brown Americans out of the United States. So sad, but too true.

Thirdly, there is no constitutional authority for judge-made-law generally or immunity specifically in the Constitution of the United States. All Article III judicial authority is limited to the instant case and the concurrence of a petit jury. The legal profession self-servingly snuck constitutional review in by reference from Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 78, 79, 80 and John Marshal's Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

The recent obscenity of presidential immunity in Trump v United States is nothing new. The corrupt Supreme Court asserted it for themselves in December 1871[1]. Eleven months after the Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983) signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on February 28, 1871 had created unrestricted liability for constitutional rights.

The post-Civil War Supreme Court judge-made-law found a reasons to give immunity to racially motivated mass murder in Blyew (1871)[2], immunity for racially motivated Colfax Massacre in Cruikshank[3], immunity for racially motivate discrimination in Civil Rights Cases [4] and Plessy[5]. Those judge-made-laws and others assured us of 100+ years Jim Crow's racial unrest in the United States.

Now the Warren Court went a long way to eliminating the judge-made-law of prior Supreme Courts. But that does not excuse the past nor preclude the future corruption of the Black Robed Royalist Brethren on the Supreme Court.

Today, you step away some from the racial corruption of post-Civil-War and you wonder why the United States incarcerates FOUR times more of its citizens than the rest of the developed world?

Citizens in general in the United States today have no enforceable rights. I was a success white guy, that had literally gone to the old boy's school. Law enforcement today starts with the virtually unlimited "qualified immunity" and then the judge-made-law in Briscoe[6] gives immunity to police officers and their informants[7] "for giving perjured testimony at the defendant's criminal trial."[8] You add that to Imbler's[9] "state prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the accused's constitutional rights[10]" and you get outsized mass incarceration.

To support judge-made-law you have to believe that the founding fathers wanted to create an unelected politically selected lifetime appointed absolutely immune oligarchy of 6-9-? men that could overrule the duly elected Article I congress and Article II executive AT WILL.

As regards immunity, the trite assertion is, without immunity they will be subject to "vexatious actions[11]" and "continual calumniations.[12]" That argument can be made for any law, every law. There is only one fix for it, good judgement. Given good judgement. "vexatious actions" and "continual calumniations"can be minimized if not eliminated. At worst it is like saying any and all judgement is impossible because mistake will be made. Good judgement of an instant case does not necessitate judge-made-law.

My case is different, I have evidence of the two police officer's corruption, the NHTSA handbook and the Trial transcript. As regards the Judge I have the Ex Parte order as served, the trial transcript and the two additional motions presented by my attorney that were ignored.

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]}

If there is anything further, please let me know.

"Time is of the essence"

Thank you in advance.

David G. Jeep

cc: www.DGJeep.com

file

[1] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)

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

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

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

[5] Plessy v. Ferguson :: 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

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

[7] "public policy support absolute immunity for such witnesses " Page 460 U. S. 326

[8] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 329-346. (1983)

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

[10] Pp. 424 U. S. 417-431

[11] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U. S. 349

[12] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U. S. 348

^{^[13]} Petitions 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856

[14] fraus omnia corrumpit - "Fraud corrupts all." - A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision or arbitral award. THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION on fraud or the deprivation of constitutional rights.

[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.

[17] If reason (reckonabilty) does not limit jurisdiction with probable cause, nothing can."reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)

[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.