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.

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

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

Tuesday, August 6, 2024

Judge Made Law / Stare Decisis

Download as PDF

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

www.DGJeep.com

file

Chief Justice John Roberts

[1] The Pale in Ireland was a territorial limit beyond which English rule did not extend.

[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

[4] Every five + years I am called to Jury Duty

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

Monday, August 5, 2024

The unconstrained executive, the unrepresentative “dark money” Senate and the corrupt oligarchy of the Supreme Court for the United States

Download as COPIED PDF

The unconstrained executive, the unrepresentative "dark money" Senate and the corrupt oligarchy of the Supreme Court for the United States

Wednesday, July 31, 2024

President Joe Biden

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

United States[1]

Vice President Kamala Harris

Eisenhower Executive Office Building

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

United States

Re: The unconstrained executive, the unrepresentative "dark money" Senate and the corrupt oligarchy of the Supreme Court for the United States

Dear People,

I apologize to you, Mr. President, I believe in your personal integrity. Integrity is to be valued above all else in my world. I would have never asked you to leave or had any part of forcing you out. I do now support, just as unequivocally, your chosen replacement, Vice President Kamala Harris.

That being said, I disagree with your blind subservience to institutions. You have given too much leeway to the unconstrained executive, unrepresentative "dark money" Senate and the corrupt oligarchy of the Supreme Court for the United States. Give up any and all attempts for stare decisis[2].

The United States is not now and never was anointed by god. The success of the United States is not in its Constitutional heroes. The success of the United States is and has always been the result of the United States isolation, taking possession of the last undeveloped fertile-crescent like continent on the PLANET.

"We the People the United States" live on an 8,000,000,000 persons planet, with a projected 10 billion by 2050. Wealth today is directly related to population density. If you assume the United States sets the standard. Relative to the United States, the Mexico has 1.89 persons, EU has 3.59, China has 4.35, India has 11.39. Just imagine at every stoplight / checkout line you had 2? 3? 4? 11? more people in front of you.

The United States has been lucky, but the luck is about run out. The World is coming, and short of self-annihilation with an Atom Bomb, you cannot widen the ocean or builder higher walls to keep the United States separate and alone. "The Real Competitive World and the Necessity of Democratic Socialism" (February 3, 2016) is undeniable. Democratic Socialism will happen, with or without the United States's consent. Enough said….

The Unconstrained Executive

I get a kick out of M.A.G.A., asserting their opposition is trying to create a "banana republic" in the United States today. It is projection and an admission. Trump is the one trying to create a banana republic in the United States. Ask any political science STUDENT, banana republics failed because we LITERALLY took the Constitution of the United States and changed the name to Constitution of the Banana Republics.

The Constitution of the Banana Republics, without the humility of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams leadership to start, failed faster than a Trump bankruptcy.

Somehow presciently these proverbial Banana Republics turned themselves into the proverbial Trump want-a-be dictatorships. Where the President is the absolutely immune Article II executive authority with unbound power over the enforcement of law and the military.

Because of the humility of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams leadership the proverbial banana republic problem had never exemplified itself in the United States until Trump.

The failure of the banana republics was/is the direct result of trying to create the fallacy of "American Exceptionalism"[3] with a recreation of the Constitution for the United States in all of the Americas.

I hope the Trumpian 6 on the Supreme court read the last few sentences. The learned men on the Supreme Court of the United States never studied the proverbial political science of the Trump-like bankruptcies of the Banana Republics in their Ivy League Colleges! They have an unwarranted unfettered Article II faith in a bumptious Trump.

The unrepresentative "dark money" Senate

The Supreme court's "dark money" Senate is corrupted by its inescapable un-representative nature. 52 of the 100 senators from the 26 least populous states (58,200,744) can do virtually anything but a filibuster's cloture, with a minimum 18% of the population (58,200,744 / 331,232,689).

To hold cloture with a filibuster and BLOCK EVERYTHING takes 42 senators from the 21 smallest states (36,435,595) with a minimum 11% of the population.

Now you might mistakenly ASSUME that the 30 states and the 60 of 100 senators needed to overcome a filibuster would REQUIRE a majority. WRONG!!!! The 30 least populated states (60 senators) with a population of 80,549,406, amount to only 24% of the total population.

A California Senator represents 19,788,379 citizens, 62 times as many as a Wyoming Senator represents 288,860.

This is not theoretical calculus; this is simple arithmetic based on Table 1. Apportionment Population and Number of Representatives by State: 2020 Census. If you think "dark money" is not doing the arithmetic, you are a fool.

"Dark Money" knows how to work the system, better than anyone. Now these numbers have never been perfectly / effectively utilized to this extreme, at least not since the Civil War. Yet any faction that can defeat the popular will with far less than 50% is corrupt and violates the one person one vote small "r" republican government[4] the Article III Supreme Court for the United States purports to guarantee[5] with its own Article III Section 4. Constitution for the United States.

The United States senate is irretrievably, uncontestably CONSTITUTIONALLY corrupt by its unrepresentative upper house, the Senate. The founding fathers had to immediately compromise to originally create the union in the face of slavery. Since we defeated slavery and effectively eliminated States Rights with the Civil War. We NOW need to do away with the obscene compromise and institute the representative democracy of the Article III Section 4 guaranteed republican government of the developed world.

Culpability for the "dark money" slavery-like corrupt aspect of the Senate is shared with the corrupt oligarchy of the Supreme Court for the United States[6].

The corrupt oligarchy of the Supreme Court for the United States

On to the Supreme court, if I seem overly familiar with this issue, I am. I have been impoverished by this issue for 20+ years. I have presented this issue to the Article III, Supreme Court of the United States through the Article III court, District, Circuit 9 times with Writ of Certiorari[7]. I spent 411 days in federal custody for openly questioning Article III, Supreme Court authority, before all charges were dismissed for failure to prosecute[8].

The undisputed Jane Crow[9] 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 ^{^[10]}) on the court by an officer of the court (FRCP 60(d)(3))^{^[11]}

2. a NOT "facially valid court order"^{^[12]} (Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) -

3. that was reckonably^{^[13]} 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))

"The congressional purpose[15] of The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983) and the VII Amendment[16] seems to me to be clear and - NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

Thomas Jefferson first noted the issues of the Supreme Court in 1821:

"It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,… that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary–an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed." — Thomas Jefferson Letter to Charles Hammond, 18 August 1821 National Archives

You currently think you have an issue with "Presidential Immunity[17]" Abortion[18] and Chevron[19] doctrine. You may not know it yet, but your issue is with "the field of jurisdiction." The issue of immunity started with Bradley v Fisher in December of 1871 almost immediately after the then recent passage of The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983) in April of 1871.

Federalist 78, 79, & 80 along with John Marshal's sham in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), purport a need for a learned Judiciary for "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."

That is a figment of their imagination. Nowhere is binding judicial interpretation / review or immunity with immutable stare decisis[20] called for in the Constitution of the United States.

Immunity is the complete opposite of what The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983) had created[21], liability for the Judiciary at its passage just prior to the decision in Bradley. The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983) created a civil action against "Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Judges were and are liable as was noted in the congressional record[22] concurrently and in several subsequent Supreme Court Dissents[23]. I quote both here:

"To most, "every person" would mean every person, not every person except judges….

"The congressional purpose seems to me to be clear. 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 members were not unaware that certain members of the judiciary were implicated[24] in the state of affairs which the statute was intended to rectify. It was often noted that "[i]mmunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374. 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. . . ."

The members supporting the proposed measure were apprehensive that there had been a complete breakdown in the administration of justice in certain States, and that laws nondiscriminatory on their face were being applied in a discriminatory manner, that the newly won civil rights of the Negro were being ignored, and that the Constitution was being defied. It was against this background that the section was passed, and it is against this background that it should be interpreted."

The Supreme Court first usurp the field of jurisdiction on the issue of immunity in December of 1871 with Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U. S. 335. But since then the Supreme Court has taken the authority and the jurisdiction to hand out immunity wholesale to Judges, Bradley v Fisher in 1871, immunity for racially motivate MASS MURDER Blyew v. United States (1871), racially motivated pogrom immunity (Colfax massacre) United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), reinforced by immunity for legislature Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967), "immunity for a prosecutor withholding exculpable evidence" Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) and its progeny, Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978), immunity for "police officer for giving perjured testimony at the defendant's criminal trial" and its progeny Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983), --- Post 9/11 CORRUPT judicial authority authorized unconstitutional torture and rendition, thus they needed to expand their unconstitutional assertion to SUPER-DUPER absolute immunity to cover it --- Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003), Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. _(2015). And then creating Presidential Immunity Trump v US.

Today in the United States the judges, the prosecutors, the police, have immunity for the deprivation of rights. And the victims of the deprivation of rights are the only ones that pay. That is not how the founding fathers or the winners of the Civil War foresaw it.

If you are Donald Trump or Harvey Weinstein you can afford rights. But if you do not have the price of an expensive attorney you have to suffer the deprivation of inalienable Constitutional rights! The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983) is powerless!!!

Jane Crow, maybe embarrassing and unseen, but it is real. The "violence against women movement" has had an EXTREME and unsought effect. At end of the 20^th century in 1960, I grew up in a world where 1 in 20 kids had no father in the home. At the beginning of the 21^st my son grew up in in a home without me, without a Father along 8 of 20 kids. That is an unreversed 700% increase in single parent households, female led households in less 40 years.[25] Society "at large" is failing fathers!!!! The issue with the Family today is Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States!

Today in the United States constitutional rights are unenforceable, with the corrupt oligarchy of the Supreme Court for the United States we have lingering Jim Crow, Jane Crow and Mass incarceration!

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.

Section. 2.

Said constitutional congressional statute law to REGULATE judicial liability, limit Article III Judicial Authority to the instant case before them as confirmed by Jury and establish a new number of Justice with a fixed tenure of service without limiting their continued compensation. I offer the following for consideration:

If there is anything further, please let me know.

"Time is of the essence"

Thank you in advance.

David G. Jeep

enclosure

cc: Senator Elizabeth Warren

Senator Chuck Schumer

Representative Hakeem Jeffries

Representative Jerrold Nadler NY 12

Senator Dick Durbin

www.DGJeep.com

file

Chief Justice John Roberts

[1] We live in the United States. The Constitution for the United States uses the name United States 52 times only twice does it add the prepositional descriptive phrase "of America." The Citizens of the United States are Americans, but so are the Canadians and the Mexicans. Trump is opposed to the United States in principle. Trump wants to divide the United States.

[2] Is a recipe for STAGNATED corruption. Just look at the still lingering Jim Crow 150 years after the passage of the XIV Amendment,

[3] The only exceptional thing about the United States is that we were the last undeveloped fertile crescent like continent on the planet. European democracies met or exceeded our democratic freedoms by mid 18^th Century.

[4] Article III Section 4. Constitution for the United States

[5] Article III Section 4. Constitution for the United States

[6] Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)

[7] 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)

[8] Charges are Dismissed without Prejudice for failure to comply with the Speedy Trial Act (Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP).

[9] Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States!

[10] 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.

[11] Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - "set aside a judgment for fraud on the court"

[12] 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.

[13] If reason (reckonability) 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)

[14] "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."

[15] Jim Crow, Jane Crow and Mass incarceration at 4 times the prison population of the rest of the world.

[16] A brief survey of the history of the Seventh Amendment shows it was intended only as a check on the power of federal judges.

Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts cited the omission. "The jury is adapted to the investigation of truth beyond any other system the world can produce. A tribunal without juries would be a Star Chamber in civil cases." Gerry's position was affirmed and seconded by George Mason, who argued that the document needed a Bill of Rights to guarantee both freedom of the press and trial by jury.

[17] Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___

[18] Roe v Wade

[19] The Chevron Doctrine is only an issue because you can not rule day to day with the the unrepresentative "dark money" Senate

[20] Is a recipe for STAGNATED corruption. Just look at the still lingering Jim Crow 150 years after the passage of the XIV Amendment,

[21] Signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871

[22] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess.

[23] MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. U. S. 559

[24] Blyew v. United States (1871) Racially motivate MASS MURDER & United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) racially motivated pogrom immunity (Colfax massacre)

[25] The Fracking Boom, a Baby Boom, and the Retreat From Marriage" - Freakonomics – NPR - July 5, 2017, "Women just aren't that into the 'marriageable male' anymore, economists say" Washington Post - By Danielle Paquette - May 16, 2017, "Male Earnings, Marriageable Men, and Nonmarital Fertility: Evidence from the Fracking Boom" Melissa S. Kearney & Riley Wilson - May 2017

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