Sunday, February 22, 2026 - 8:03:09 PM
Pat, I am OK. You are OK.
I am a nearly 70yr old white guy being discriminated against by the remnants of the "Jim Crow"
In the Jane Crow Era, I am a nearly 70yr old white guy, that went to "the old boys school," being discriminated against by the remnants of "Jim Crow."
The TOOOOO often overlooked last clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States was originally corrupted by the Jim Crow.
The First Amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The last clause of the First Amendment thus reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
When the founding fathers created the last clause of the First Amendment, they knew that it would be needed, and they KNEW that it would need to be constitutionally protected from any assertion of immunity, the establishment of justice was to prevail! That held fast, for almost 100 years, through the Civil war (1861-1865). And then TWO unforeseen UNCONSTITUTIONAL "Jim Crow" judge-made-laws" within 7 years:
Ø Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (decided April 15, 1869) sophistry in response to the criminal liability in The Civil Rights Act of 1866 passed in to law April 9, 1866 and then..
Ø Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (decided April 8, 1872) sophistry in response to civil liability in the Civil Rights Act of 1871 passed into law April 20, 1871 are the origins of unconstitutional "immunity" in the American Justice system.
i.e., thus judge's discretion became immune to any attempt to get "redress of grievances." Now I would have probably given the ability to make judge-made-law to Plato, the first of the "Philosopher Kings." And in the same vein James Madison (Federalist Paper #47), Alexander Hamilton (Federalist Papers #78, #79 and #81), and maybe even John Marshall (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)). The first few in the line always seemed right, but their successors would be the issue, and I think the founder's new the issue. They knew better than to give in to unrestrained, unrepresentative, undemocratic titles of nobility[1].
The founding fathers had the good sense to NOT create the concept of judge-made-law in the 4,000 words of their original or the now amended Constitution of the United States. Justice is not an assembly line you cannot standardize to mass produce it. The "establishment of Justice" is of ESSENTIAL importance to every man and can never delegated or shirked to a despotic oligarchy.
Thomas Jefferson was adamant oft time repeating the issue:
"(Y)you seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so.[2] They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots." — Thomas Jefferson 28th September 1820, letter to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello bolding and underlining added.
"It is not enough that honest men are appointed judges. All know the influence of interest on the mind of man, and how unconsciously his judgment is warped by that influence. To this bias add that of the esprit de corps, of their peculiar maxim and creed that 'it is the office of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction,' and the absence of responsibility, and how can we expect impartial decision between the General government, of which they are themselves so eminent a part, and an individual state from which they have nothing to hope or fear?" — Thomas Jefferson Autobiography, 1821.
With us, all the branches of the government are elective by the people themselves, except the judiciary, of whose science and qualifications they are not competent judges. Yet, even in that department, we call in a jury of the people to decide all controverted matters of fact, because to that investigation they are entirely competent, leaving thus as little as possible, merely the law of the case, to the decision of the judges." — Jefferson letter to A. Coray, 1823.
"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." — Jefferson letter to Charles Hammond, 1821.
Justice Thurgood Marshall confirmed the obvious:
"To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 362 (1983)
The supreme Court's[1] "judge-made-law" a.k.a. "Jim Crow" sophistry[2] tells us STILL today, "We the People" sub silentio[3] traded the "King (Nobility) can do no WRONG" for the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[4] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor[5], the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[6], the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant, conscientiously stupid actions of "all persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[7] the actions of federal, state, local, and regional legislators[8] and now PRESIDENTS[9] acting under color of law to render absolute corruption of inalienable constitutional rights.
The Constitutional Rights our Founding Fathers thought they had enshrined with Constitutional Rights did not survive the start of the civil war and then "Jim Crow" and now "Jane Crow" judge-made-law!
It is fairly well known fact "We the People" currently imprison ourselves (541/100K[10]) at FOUR times the rate of the greater civilized world (144/100K[11]). The little known lingering Jim Crow racial fact, the United States imprisons Whites 181/100K and Blacks 901/100K[12]. So if you are black in the United States you are over six times more likely to be incarcerated as the greater civilized world. And we do not need DEI, our Blacks have had time enough to equalize themselves.
Today in the ongoing Jim Crow era, judge-made-law has spawned the Jane Crow domestic era where men are discriminated against in family relations law.
You judge for yourself…. That facts of my case…. 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)
Now that Judges have since the instigation of Jim Crow been enlarging the sophistry of their despotism by eliminating constitutional instant local Jury Rule with "qualified immunity," which is a complete subterfuge to create absolute immunity. That is to say "qualified immunity" is at the absolutely immune discretion of the despotic judicial oligarchy.
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 21 plus year struggle against injustice be construed as an inconsequential "short ride."[23]
After the Civil War we were told we needed a despotic-oligarchy to keep the representative-democracy's recently freed slaves inline i.e., "Jim Crow." In the 60s and 70s we needed a despotic-oligarchy to keep the representative-democracy's males inline i.e., "Jane Crow". M.A.G.A. now needs a despotic-oligarchy to keep the representative-democracy's socialist inline.
The Progressives cannot see the issue because they want to cling to the Warren Court's sophistry. And while the Warren Court moved us ahead on some racial issue they made no headway on the root CAUSE there own despotic oligarchy:
(J)judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so.[3] They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots." — Thomas Jefferson 28th September 1820, letter to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello bolding and underlining added.
We have to eliminate the judicial absolute immunity and the qualified immunity at judicial discretion. We need to put the "establishment of justice" back in the hands of We The People with the system that our Founding Fathers had proscribed for us.
The Constitution limits Article III discretion by requiring a Jury in all Civil (VII Amendment) and Criminal (Article III, section 2.3) issues. The Constitution contains a rogue judiciary congressionally with Article III, Section 2.2 "Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
We do not need a Constitutional Amendment, We the People need to take back the democratic-representative congressional responsibility that has abdicated the power to the despotism of an oligarchy and denied us a local jury of our peers to decided instant issues, consulted by but not controlled by judicial stare decisis precedent. I have an open mind, I would listen to any well-reasoned opinion on anything and everything.
Thomas Jefferson had the answer that we use today in every case but those defined by others as constitutional cases:
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves (think "Voting," "due process of law" & "juries"): and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. this is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." (Thomas Jefferson 9/28/1820, in writing to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello - bolding/underlining/parentheticals added)
We allow the adversarial due process of the jury trial to educate juries as to the criminal and civil liability in extra-ordinary circumstances of medical and scientific nature. The detailed knowledge of the specifics is totally outside the knowledge base of local juries. You do not need to be a medical professional to sit on malpractice jury. Adversarial due process can and should inform/educate juries as the medical issues, the scientific issues and the pros and cons of presidential, prosecutorial. law enforcement and/or "all persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[24] need for immunity from the constitution and the laws derived from it.
Donald Trump's corrupt intentions and efforts is not the issue. The REAL issue is the preexisting despotic oligarchy that spread their corruption by awarding him absolute immunity from his duty as a United States citizen and President of the United States as he swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He goes to jail for shooting someone on 5th Avenue and he can not assess taxes and by calling them unbounded tariffs.
Sunday, February 22, 2026 - 8:03:09 PM
The Constitution for the United States - Article I, II, and Schoolhouse Rock's[25] "I'm Just a Bill[26]" clearly define how to make law. Show me where in the amended Constitution for the United States "judge-made-law" is called for or authorized[27]?
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/06/sc.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FVfm-ushzCCTS5BtH1R7MeOvnDvh_kqv/view
The Issue with Trump, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP!
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-issue-with-trump.html
American Exceptionalism – NOT SO MUCH
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2023/10/american-exceptionalism-not-so-much.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/04/equal-rights-in-free-market-economy.html
A Balanced Budget for America
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012/07/balanced-budget-for-america.html
BE AWARE, but do not be afraid, Trump is, at best and at worst, pathetically incompetent and INEFFECTIVE manager / leader!
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/be-aware.html
Trump does not know the name of the country he was or is to be president of...
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/istgtdnk.html
The constitutional small "d" undemocratic corrupt "dark money" Senate and Electoral College
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/dark-money-senate.html
Trump is a convicted and diagnosed psychotic criminal, chronic degenerate, maniacal liar and a "fucking moron!"
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/be-aware.html
The constitutional small "d" unrepresentative corrupt "dark money" Senate and Electoral College
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/dark-money-senate.html
The Judicial sophistry of "absolute immunity" creates "absolute power" to the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of We the People's unalienable rights under color of law... the AUDACITY of the INSANITY, ignorance and stupidity in support of a "fantastic or delusional" scenario.
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/if-that-is-not-absolute-corruption-of.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-facts-of-my-case-are-without.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
Sunday, February 22, 2026 - 8:03:09 PM
[1] Article I, section 9.8 "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:"
[2] See the unconstitutional JUDGE-MADE-LAW Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)
[3] See the unconstitutional JUDGE-MADE-LAW Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)
[1] Article III of the US Constitution posits a "supreme Court" among the many courts NOT a Supreme Court outside of the many. ALL Article III Judicial power REQUIRES the assent of an instant jury.
[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] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[8] Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138
[10] List of countries by incarceration rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
[11] List of countries by incarceration rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
[12] Prisoners in 2021 – Statistical Tables U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Table 5 Imprisonment rates of U.S. residents of all ages, based on sentenced prisoners under the jurisdiction of state or federal correctional authorities, by jurisdiction, sex, and race or Hispanic origin, 2011–2021 https://bjs.ojp.gov/media/68246/download
[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.
[24] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
Thanks in advance...
"Agere sequitur esse" ('action follows being')
David G. Jeep, Federal Inmate #36072-044 (formerly)
www.DGJeep.com - Dave@DGJeep.com - David.G.Jeep@Gmail.com
Mobile (314) 514-5228 leave message
David G. Jeep
1531 Pine St Apt #512
St. Louis, MO 63103-2548
No comments:
Post a Comment