"The Earth and everything that's in it": October 13, 2024

Wednesday, October 16, 2024

“We the People” NEVER do anything sub silentio[1]

Download PDF as mailed

Tuesday October 15, 2024

Letter to The Editor

The New York Times

620 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10018

Re: “We the People” NEVER do anything sub silentio[1]

Dear Editor of The New York Times,

Those of you that were appalled by the presidential immunity in 23-939 Trump v. United States (07/01/2024); YOU ARE APPALLING LATE TO THE ISSUE!

Judge made stare decisis law does not constitutionally exist!

The Supreme Court of the United States’s precedent [2] tells us, “We the People” sub silentio[3] traded the “King can do no WRONG” for the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the “malicious or corrupt” judges (1871),[4] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor (1976)[5], the “knowingly false testimony by police officers (1983)"[6], the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, “sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid”[7] actions of “all persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process (1983)”[8] and now the President’s for his official acts.

You wonder why "We the People" incarcerates FOUR times as many citizens as any other developed nation TODAY? Why “We the People" have had 100+ years of racial unrest? Why "We the People" had the social unrest of the labor movement at the turn of the 20th century? "We the People" have been subject to UNCONSTITUTIONAL Judge made stare decisis law. The Rights of "We the People" are worth nothing and unenforceable in a United States court of law. Now if you are Harvey Weinstein or Donald Trump and have millions to pay for legal defense, you can delay or avoid all league liability.

Judge made stare decisis law does not constitutionally exist![9] The proverbial emperor has no clothes.

The Founding Fathers KNEW BETTER! The Founding Fathers had recent historical experience of a corrupt and fallible judiciary with the “Abolition of the (namesake) Star Chamber 1641,”[10] the judges of the “Bloody Assizes” that in part fomented the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and just the run of the mill everyday judges as functionaries of the King.. Thomas Jefferson said “Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. they have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps.[11]”

Yes, Judicial independence was alluded to, though not textually, with an appointment for life in Article III of the Constitution for the United States.

But, judicial review i.e., judge made stare decisis law was never ever-ever-even alluded to in the text of the Constitution for the United States. Yes, Socrates via Plato's Republic in 375BC talked about "philosopher kings." Judicial review was discussed by Alexander Hamilton (Federalist #78, 79 & 80) and self-servingly by the too much revered, long serving, early, Chief Justice John Marshal (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)).[12]. NONE of the matters!

Judicial review, judge made stare decisis law, never made it into the 4,500 words of the Constitution for the United States and the Bill of Rights.

The founding fathers did something better than the stare decisis of judicial review; they constitutionally established the historically tested[13] ”common law” of the trial by jury[14] for both criminal[15] and civil[16] disputes[17]. The founding father believed in the commonsense law they knew that evil could never take root, for “you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” The possibility of a bad instant jury verdict is a lot easier to tolerate, if not fix, than a bad oligarchy making immutable “judge made stare decisis law.”

To think of the founding fathers even considering the possibility of an oligarchy of 6(?), 9(?), 10(?), 20(?) persons, appointed for life, making binding judge made stare decisis law, is totally repugnant to their memory. Except of course for those that are so appallingly late to the issue.

Judge made stare decisis law does not constitutionally exist, and NEVER DID.

Yes, learned professional men, like Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall are / would be a benefit to the society at large, the sanitation department, the Article III Judiciary or an NFL referee. But only humble “professional learned men” that know for a fact that they are fallible. The constitution does not authorize an oligarchy of trash men, judges, prosecutors, policemen, presidents or NFL referees that cannot be criminally and civilly held for the deprivation of CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS by due process,[18] i.e., a jury.

Yes there needs to be a Supreme Court to make an ultimate decision for AN instant case[19] - to possible hear an appeal from a potentially unjust jury trial. But “We the People” do not need an oligarchy to make assembly-line judge made stare decisis law. A rare Supreme Court decision in the extraordinary INSTANT CASE alone to enlighten “We the People” will be just enough.

A case can be made that, the much revered, John Marshall in 1803 lit the match for the Civil War some 60 year prior by positing judicial review as judge made stare decisis law. The facts of Marbury v. Madison (1803) were mooted before the ruling and Judicial review was never used again until the Supreme Court lit the match for the Civil War with Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) four years before the Civil War 1861

Judge made stare decisis law does not constitutionally exist!

That brings us to today’s prior judge made stare decisis law. We have already lived through the racially discriminatory judge made stare decisis Jim Crow law of “Blyew,” “Cruikshank”…. and “Plessy.” Judicial UNCONSTITUTIONAL controlling review AUTHORIZED racially motivated mass murder in 1871 with Blyew v. United States | 80 U.S. 581 (1871), racially motivated pogrom with Cruikshank[20] and 150+ years of racially motivated discrimination. Not to mention the utter absurdity of the “liberty of contract” enshrined with Lochner.[21]

But before we get to the potential corruption of judge made stare decisis presidential absolute immunity for “official acts” law - for all you late comers to the appalling issue - we need to deal with the judge made stare decisis law of absolute immunity for the deprivation of rights[22] i.e., Bivens (1965),[23] Imbler (1976), Briscoe (1983) and others in our criminal system, that is handing out incarceration at a rate FOUR times that of the rest of the civilized world.

Not to mention the “Jane Crow” discrimination in domestic relations law that has created a 7-fold increase in fatherless children in 40 years.[24] Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States! See the facts of my case, DGJeep v Supreme Court of the United States.[25]

Any and all asserted immunity from the constitution NOW or in the past is BY DEFINITION unconstitutional. The Constitution is defined as the ultimate law that everyone has to adhere to, ESPECIALLY government actors i.e., Judges.

Judge made stare decisis law does not constitutionally exist.

“We the people” do not need a constitutional amendment to eliminate “judge made stare decisis law”. “We the people” need to use the Constitution for the United States 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 undersuch Regulations as the Congress shall make” as the founders had intended.

If there is anything further, please let me know.

“Time is of the essence”

Thank you in advance.

David G. Jeep

cc: President Joe Biden

Vice President Kamala Harris

Lance Kunce

Wesley Bell

United States Senator Elizabeth Warren

United States Senator Eric Schmitt

United States Senator Chuck Schumer

www.DGJeep.com

file

[1] sub silentio is a Latin phrase that means "under silence" or "in silence". It's often used in legal contexts to describe something that's implied but not explicitly stated. For example, a court might overrule a case's holding sub silentio without explicitly stating that it's doing so. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 362

[2] Sophistry(?) is a logical fallacy that involves the use of deceptive, superficial arguments.

[3] sub silentio is a Latin phrase that means "under silence" or "in silence". It's often used in legal contexts to describe something that's implied but not explicitly stated. For example, a court might overrule a case's holding sub silentio without explicitly stating that it's doing so. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 362

[4] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)

[5] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)

[6] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)

[7] “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

[8] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)

[9] It should be noted that the FIRST reference to “absolute immunity for judges” nearly a 100 after country’s inception was possibly the SECOND – third judge made stare decisis law that NEVER constitutionally existed, i.e., “absolute judicial immunity” with Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871). Bradley was a case that was emotionally though obscurely linked to the recent assassination President Abraham Lincoln. AND thr claim was less than 12 months after President Grant signing The Enforcement Act[9] of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, that had made the deprivation of constitutional rights a crime. “Because as was noted in 1871, 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. . . ." NOW codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (also MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967)”

[10] “The Act for the Abolition of the Court of Star Chamber” [July 5, 1641. Statutes of the Realm, v. 110. 17 Car. I. cap. 10. See Hist. of Engl. ix. 404.]

[11] Thomas Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis, 28 September 1820

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-16-02-0234

[12] The facts of Marbury v. Madison were mooted before the ruling and Judicial review was never used again until the Supreme Court lit the match for the Civil War with Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857).

[13] Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself via trial by jury

[14] You might have notices I do not say “due process of law.” Due process of law includes a judge and jury. And while the instant case and the courtroom threshold are also controlling. A judge has absolutely no power without a jury verdict or a concession to a bench trial by all parties.

[15] Constitution for the United States Article III Section 2, “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury”

[16] Constitution for the United States Amendment VII “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved”

[17] It should be noted that a judge has near absolute yet appealable authority over the evidence in the instant case and within the threshold of the courthouse. But constitutionally any and all authority going forward outside the courthouse threshold and the instant case has to have the concurrence of a JURY.

[18] It should be noted that a judge has near absolute yet appealable authority over the evidence in the instant case and within the threshold of the courthouse. But constitutionally any and all authority going forward outside the courthouse threshold and the instant case has to have the concurrence of a JURY.

[19] In legal terms, "instant case" is a descriptive term used to refer to a case, motion, order, or judgment that is currently being discussed or considered in court.

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

[21] Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court holding that a New York State statute that prescribed maximum working hours for bakers violated the bakers' right to freedom of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[22] 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Criminal and Civil protection of Civil Rights.

[23] Bivens created a cause of action for rights against six unknown FBI agents, but reaffirmed Judicial absolute immunity

[24] “Jane Crow” discrimination is REAL. In 1960 5% (one in twenty) 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. (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).

[25] 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://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-facts-of-my-case-are-without.html

Letter to The Editor

The New York Times

620 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10018

cc:

President Joe Biden

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20500

Vice President Kamala Harris

The White House