"The Earth and everything that's in it": June 2, 2024

Wednesday, June 5, 2024

23-939 Trump, Donald J. v. United States - unsolicited amicus curiae brief again REJECTING absolute immunity for ANYBODY!!!

URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT

USPS Certified Tracking Number: 7022 1670 0001 1516 2410

Expected Delivery by SATURDAY 8 -June-2024 by 9:00pm

USPS is now in possession of your item as of 10:08 am on June 5, 2024 in SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101.

Your item has been delivered and is available at a PO Box at 11:00 am on June 10, 2024 in WASHINGTON, DC 20543.

Download PDF as mailed US CERTIFIED to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. – REGISTERED US Mail

URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT

Note: all Justices got an individual addressed mailing. I thought it reasonable to NOTE the upside down flag stamp for Alito's envelope. You think he noticed?

Monday, June 3, 2024

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.[1]

Supreme Court of the United States

One First Street N.E.

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Re: 23-939 Trump, Donald J. v. United States - unsolicited amicus curiae brief again REJECTING absolute immunity for ANYBODY!!!

22 CFR § 93.2 - 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,

This is going to be short and REAL simple, so the proverbial first grader can understand it.

Any and all assertion of "absolute" immunity are opposed to the Constitution for the United States' "due process" rule of law. Unless you assert due process of law is supposed to be unavoidably punitive, even qualified immunity is unsustainable / unconstitutional.

The self-evident purpose of the Constitution and Article III has always been to "establish Justice." Yet the self-serving interests of the legal profession has made Justice and inalienable rights in the United States a luxury only the wealthy few can afford.

Yes, Harvey Weinstein (72) and Donald Trump (77) can get "due process." Weinstein and Trump prove that wealthy people have RIGHTS, they can do as they please regardless of the law for long and happy lives. But the poor and the middle class have to do as they are told by the arbitrary and "absolutely immune" judges[5], prosecutors[6] and police.[7] Rights cost too much to be commonly affordable. Rights in the 18^th century were a new thing. But the founders knew that RIGHTS had to be inalienable and have a civil remedy for their deprivation, thus the 7^th Amendment.[8]

For the first hundred years of our union, before 1871 Judges had never needed to assert immunity in the United States. That brings us to the Civil War and the XIII(1865), XIV(1868) and XV(1870) Amendments assurances of due process of law to protect birth rights. Congress having lived through the horrors of slavery, more specifically the unconstitutional fugitive slave laws, based on an untenable interpretation of the "three fifths" compromise alone. Congress included the constitutional clause "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article[9]" in each of the post-Civil War Amendments.

With that in hand, Congress passed, and President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law on April 20, 1871, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 to authorize a civil action against "Every person who under color of law[10]… causes… the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" now codified in the US Code as 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights. Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 simply reinforces the 7^th Amendment's assurance of a common law jury for any non-trivial civil dispute.

That brings us to the December 1871 term of the Supreme Court and their self-serving assertion of Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U. S. 335 (1871) i.e., "Judges of courts of record of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly."

The decision in Bradley reaches back early into the 17^th century for precedent (i.e., judge made law) based on the divine right of King's judicial[11] authority, saying judges have always had immunity. This was and is self-servingly over-looking the Constitution for the United States' assertion of due process of law and the authority of common law civil juries[12] ultimately independent of judicial authority.

Twenty plus years ago before I was victimized in the Jane Crow Era, I would have happily asserted "Judicial Immunities Promote Fair and Impartial Judgments". I know NOW that is just plain WRONG!

Ask anyone that has actually or historically been victimized by Jim Crow, Jane Crow or mass incarceration[13] and you will realize that unconstitutional "judge made law" with stare decisis attached is a recipe for stagnate corruption.

If there is anything further, please let me know.

"Time is of the essence"

Thank you in advance.

David G. Jeep

enclosure

escalating damages spreadsheet Friday May 31, 2024 04:21:17.87 PM

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, Tom Cotton, Richard V. Reeves - American Institute for Boys and Men

www.DGJeep.com, file

[1] via USPO Certified Mail 7022 1670 0001 1516 2410

[2] 23-939 Trump, Donald J. v. United States

[3] a.k.a., David Gerard Jeep. It should be noted that my middle-class family had the Jeep name centuries in advance of the Willys Motor Co creation of their General Purpose (GP) vehicle for the U.S. Army. The Jeep family has been traced back to the 1500's, My paternal grandfather was born 21 NOV 1888 • my father fought in WWII and drove / rode a GP. There was NO proverbial "Henry Jeep!!!!"

[4] My argument NOW includes 23-719 Trump v. Anderson!!!

[5] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U. S. 335 (1871), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967), and its progeny…."

[6] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) and its progeny….

[7] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) and its progeny….

[8] Elbridge Gerry urged the "necessity of Juries to guard against corrupt Judges," later arguing that without juries, "The Judiciary will be a Star Chamber." Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Vol. II (1911) at 587, 635, 640.

[9] This article was referred to as CONTROLLING in TRUMP v. ANDERSON, ET AL. No. 23–719

[10] Under color of law, clearly includes Judges, prosecutors and law enforcement.

[11] Floyd and Barker, reported by Coke, in 1608

[12] 7^th Amendment common law juries

[13] Is there a case to be made that United States citizens are FOUR times more criminal than other developed CIVILIZED countries? I say NO. United States Citizens do not have access to affordable RIGHTS.

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

David G. Jeep

1531 Pine St Apt #403

St. Louis, MO 63103-2547

The FACTS of MY case are without question

www.DGJeep.com

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, June 4, 2024

The Jane Crow Era - Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States

Monday, June 3, 2024

Richard V. Reeves - American Institute for Boys and Men

Brookings Institute

1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20036

Scott Galloway

Leonard N. Stern School of Business

Tisch Hall

40 West Fourth Street, 904

New York, NY 10012

Re: The Jane Crow Era - Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States

Dear People,

Saw you both on Morning Joe this morning June 1, 2024, 7:45am ET. You were speaking in regard to Mellinda French Gates's grant.

You try to blame the failure of boys and men on individual failings, WRONG. While NO one is perfect, individual failings are NOT a societal problem. Men and boys are failing in the United States's society today because of "The Jane Crow Era" where men and boys are discounted into near oblivion by domestic relations law in the United States and, the failure of the 7^th Amendment to provide its designed remedy. Fathers are increasingly, though far toooooo sparingly, granted joint custody, but rarely if ever granted sole custody. Equal custody has to be the rule!

20+ years ago, on Monday November 3, 2003 @ approximately 7:45pm CT, I was served am ex parte order of protection that listed no abuse and no abuse was ever claimed. Everything I ever cared about in the world was taken form me, my son, my home of 10 years, my dark socks, my car, my tools, my computers everything…

And EVERYTHING was handed over to my adversary in the domestic relations dispute. I was on the street alone, without the proverbial "pot to piss in.

Now I will give you 90%-100% of the physical abuse in domestic relations is and probably always will be instigated by men. And that is statistical FALLACY in how the extra-judicial (coram non judice) judges justify handing out ex parte orders of protection for the asking to virtually 100% of women for their CLAIMED protection.

Where the men are maybe responsible for 90%-100% of the physical abuse. It does not follow that 90%-100% of men instigate abuse. I would be willing to bet, that before the Jane Crow Era, there was CREDIBLE physical or mental abuse in maybe 10%, tops 20% of the couples. But today in the Jane Crow Era, when the Judges are ALLOWED to extra-judicially act without probable cause the first thing every woman does in a domestic relation's dispute is petition for an ex parte protection order to get the upper hand. Ex parte orders were and still are granted for the asking, like Halloween candy, in virtually all of the United States today.

Men and boys are DISFAVORED by domestic relations law in the United States TODAY!!!!!!!!!! And since post-civil war's Bradley v. Fisher: 80 U.S. 335 (1871)[1] judges have been able to absolutely ignore the civil rights of former slaves[2] in the Jim Crow and now in the Jane Crow Era ignore the rights of fathers, men and boys. Anybody that believes that criminal and civil absolute immunity for constitutional rights is ANY WAY to enforce said rights has never anyone in the Jim Crow Era, Jane Crow Era, Mass Incarceration Era or the much shorter, hopefully, Donald Trump Era. Any assertions of absolute immunity for rights is a denial of justice and or Article III constitutional due process of law.

The issue today in the united States is not about individual failings, it is about GIVING renewed credibility to the ex parte order of protection and making JOINT physical custody the rule instead of the rare exception!!!! You want boys to grow into good fathers, you have to afford them the inalienable NATURAL paternal rights to their FATHERS!!!!

If there is anything further, please let me know.

"Time is of the essence"

Thank you in advance.

David G. Jeep

enclosure

cc: Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski and Willie Geist - Morning Joe - MSNBC Network

www.DGJeep.com

file

[1] The post-Civil-War Supreme Court created the judge-made-law in the December Term, 1871 to free themselves from any and all responsibility for the Third Ku Klux Klan Act Signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871, 8 months prior and any and all constitutional civil rights via the 7^th Amendment going forward.

[2] Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13), also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, Third Enforcement Act, Third Ku Klux Klan Act, Civil Rights Act of 1871, or Force Act of 1871 (now codified into Federal Law Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights), Signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871