Friday, August 9, 2024
Justice Neil Gorsuch
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: "Justice Neil Gorsuch warns Biden to 'be careful' with Supreme Court reforms"
NBCNews.com - Aug. 4, 2024, 4:14 PM CDT - By Alexandra Marquez
Dear People,
I am warning you, as a PROUD college flunk-out, 68-year-old man, natural born United States citizen! As an Article III Supreme Court Justice, you do not get to WARN anybody, except on the known facts of an instant case. By definition as a judge you have no retributive prerogative, especially so as a Supreme Court Justice! If you were to use judicial authority for retribution it is and would always be an impeachable OFFENSE!
I am a PROUD college flunk-out. I have never been anywhere near the Ivy League. Yet I can read, and I have read and reread several times the 4,000 +/- words of the Constitution for the United States. No where in the Constitution for the United States is there any reference to immunity from the rule of law or judge-made-law. The original 4,000 words were presented to "We the People" as is and ratified as is. I refuse to believe "We the People" were ever told or assumed that an oligarchy appointed for life:
1. would make judge-made-law,
2. award immunity or
3. nullify jury verdicts.[1]
Constitutionally, any and all Article III judicial authority is limited to an instant case and requires the verdict of a petit jury for any authority outside the courthouse.
As a PROUD college flunk-out I will further admit that there are those that believe we need the judiciary to constitutionally review laws. Alexander Hamilton with Federalist 78, 79, 80 and John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) alluded to "Judicial Review." You and your despicable ilk have buffaloed We the People for tooooo long. Because "Judicial Review" never made it into the constitution!
Can you imagine Washington, Franklin, and Madison trying to get the first Constitutional convention to agree to establishing an oligarchy of 6? 9? 20? 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 i.e., Judge Made Law / Stare Decisis. DO NOT MAKE ME LAUGH 😁😂😆🤣!
That is where we are, that is why this greater fool, 68 yr old, PROUD college flunk-out has been fighting against YOU and your ilk for 20+ years.[2] But it is beyond the proverbial pale[3] of anything the founders ever conceived of as possible.
I maybe a PROUD college flunk-out, but I have been at this for 20+ years. I have done some research; I can find no reference or even a request for absolute immunity before 1871. What happened in or around the Supreme Court's December 1871 that created the need? The issue in dispute in Bradley[4], while linked to the emotion of Abraham Lincoln's assignation, had been mooted by the Supreme Court's December 1871 term. Why did the Supreme Court think they could reach over the Constitution for the United States and declare their judicial immunity based on the common law from the rule of the English King 250 years prior[5]?
Two things of note happened in or around the Supreme Court December term 1871 that created a self-serving desire for Judicial immunity totally unrelated to Bradley… wink😉, wink😉.
The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983) that constitutionally[6] and statutorily creating an unrestricted liability for the deprivation of rights under color of law was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on February 28, 1871, eleven months before Bradley issued. And then the case/ruling in Blyew[7] taken 1871 but issued April 1, 1872.
Blyew et.al were CONVICTED by the Kentucky state court before the Supreme Court stepped in to create absolute immunity for racially motivated MASS MURDER.[8]
"In Lewis County, KY, during the summer of 1868[9], five members of the Foster family were attacked by John Blyew and George Kennard, who used a carpenter's ax and some other bladed tool to hack at the bodies of the family members. Jack, his wife Sallie, and his grandmother Lucy Armstrong, who was blind, were killed outright. Richard, the Foster's 16-year old son, took shelter under his father's body. He later regained consciousness and crawled 300 yards to a neighbor's house for help but died two days later. The two youngest children were the only survivors: Laura Foster, 8-years old, hid and was unharmed, while her 6-year old sister Amelia was hacked about the head but lived. A posse was formed and Blyew and Kennard were arrested and indicted on four counts of murder.[10] "
The Supreme Court of the United States stepped in to insert Kentucky sovereignty that it had never claimed. The Supreme Court reached in and said that Kentucky law prohibiting an eight-year-old negro orphan victim from testifying against a white man and thus creating inter racial mass murder immunity.
Now again I have to admit, I am a college flunk-out. I have never been anywhere near an ivy league college. But I can read! And nowhere in the 4,000 +/- words of the constitution is immunity or judge-made-law provided for!
Now the Warren Court did a lot overcome 200+ years of judicial corruption from the past. But the Warren Court in no way excuses the past or precludes the continued corruption i.e., 23-719 Trump v. Anderson (03/04/2024) like corruption, in the future.
Now your predecessors took Bradely, UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, and have been expanding their corruption ever since. Trump v. Anderson was not the first expansion of absolute immunity.
The Warren Court, while exemplary in many cases, had its flaws too. Look at the exclusionary rule[11], yes it protects a criminal's rights but because of Pierson[12], Imbler[13] and Briscoe[14] 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 right of recovery!
And you get FOUR times the incarceration rate of the rest of the developed world.
And with a case like mine DGJeep V Supreme Court of the United States[15] you get "Jane Crow". In 1960 5% (one in twenty) of children had no Father in the home. In 2014 40% (eight in twenty) children have no father at home. In my LIFETIME a 700% increase, that my Son and I HAD NO SAY IN.[16] Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States today!
"We the People" do not need a constitutional amendment to contain YOU! "We the People" can do it with constitutional statute laws already available. "We the People" need to take statutory action to SHAKE up the Trumpian 6 on the Supreme Court, with fixed tenure, forced retirement[17] and regulation[18] of your jurisdiction per Article III Sections 1 & 2.
I can read! And nowhere in the 4,000 +/- words of the constitution is immunity or judge-made-law provided for!
Can you read? Do you need READING glasses? As a college-flunk-out, 68-year-old, United States citizen I do. I just bought 10 pairs for less than $15 from TEMU. I will have 10 shipped to you at your request.
If there is anything further, please let me know.
"Time is of the essence"
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
enclosure
cc: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice,
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice,
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice,
Elena Kagan, 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
file
[1] Chesapeake, O. & S. R. Co. v. Wells, 1887, p. 5. or Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871)
[2] Petitions for Writ of Certiorari 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856
[3] The Pale in Ireland was a territorial limit beyond which English rule did not extend.
[4] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)
[5] Floyd and Barker, reported by Coke, in 1608
[6] I notice how you made note of the XIV Amendment's Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article in your self-serving assertion in 23-719 Trump v. Anderson (03/04/2024). As regards The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983) it is clear and OBVIOUS constitutional authorization.
[7] Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871)
[8] This was after the passing the XIII(1865), XIV(1868), and XV(1870) Amendments and the First (1879 )and Second Enforcement Acts (1871) as provided for in the Civil War Amendments as noted in your 23-719 Trump v. Anderson (03/04/2024
[9] The XIV Amendment passed by Congress on June 13, 1866 and ratified on July 9, 1868.
[10] Two years prior to the Foster family murders, the XIV Amendment had been ratified on July 9, 1868. Congress had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which gave jurisdiction to federal courts for all causes, civil and criminal, affecting persons who are denied or cannot enforce any of the rights secured to them in the courts or judicial tribunals of the state or locality, wherever they may be.
[11] Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
[12] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) "The settled common law principle that a judge is immune from liability for damages for his judicial acts was not abolished by § 1983. Cf. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367. Pp. 386 U. S. 553-555"
[13] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) "state prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the accused's constitutional rights"
[14] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) gives immunity to police officers and their informants "for giving perjured testimony at the defendant's criminal trial."
[16] 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)
[17] Article III Section 1 "as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"
[18] Article III 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."
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
