Showing posts with label Mullenix. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mullenix. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 3, 2024

ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION

 My THREE BILLION DOLLAR manifesto.


This is the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION

of

We the People’s intent to establish justice!!!


     


      We the People imprison ourselves at FOUR times the rate of the rest of the world.    Are We the People of the United States FOUR times as corrupt or violent?  NO!!!  We the People do not have the CIVILIZED justice system or forefathers provided for us in the amended Constitution for the United States of America.  We the People are subject to the Black-Robed-Royalist unconstitutional judge-made-law.

    Supreme Court’s precedent / sophistry tell us, “We the People” sub silentio[2] traded the “King can do no WRONG” for the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the “malicious or corrupt” judges,[3] the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor[4], the “knowingly false testimony by police officers"[5], the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions of “all persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[6], the corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant, conscientiously stupid actions of federal, state, local, and regional legislators[7] and NOW PRESIDENTS[8].... to render absolute corruption of inalienable rights under color of law

 

         For additional support of CORRUPT rulings of the Supreme Court I submit their own published precedents[9] examples of the Judicial sophistry[10], that has corrupted We the People’s unalienable rights under color of law, I submit, sophisticated “absolute immunity” for racially motivate mass murder,[11] sophisticated immunity for a racially motivated  sophisticated deprivation of the 15th Amendment’s Suffrage[12] Rights protection with the subterfuges of poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses,[13] sophisticated “absolute immunity” for racially motivated massacre[14] (Colfax Riot/pogrom), sophisticated “absolute immunity” for the state’s sanctioned kidnapping, assault and murder without regard to the 14th Amendment’s security,[15] creating sophisticated racial segregation and the ongoing Jim Crow discrimination over the “necessary and proper” “Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights."[16] 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, separate and UNEQUAL, clarifying sophisticated segregation[17] over the necessary and proper "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, reaffirmed Judicial sophisticated “absolute immunity,”[18] prosecutorial sophisticated “absolute immunity,”[19] sophisticated “absolute immunity” for forced sterilization,[20] and sophisticated “absolute immunity” for “knowingly false testimony by police officers," and “all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process.”[21]

 

         There were several post 9/11 sophisticated precedents[22] to sustain the SUPER DUPER absolute immunity to wage WAR without congressional justification issue an unreasonable court order  - that was reckonably issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"[23] that was "beyond debate"[24] "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right"[25], [26]

 

    If that is not ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of “We the People’s” intent to establish justice, I cannot imagine what is.


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

[2] 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

[3] 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)

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

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

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

[7] 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

[9] Sophistry is a logical fallacy that involves the use of deceptive, superficial arguments.

[10] Sophistry is a logical fallacy that involves the use of deceptive, superficial arguments.

[11] Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871)

[12] United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875)

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

[14] United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883)

[15] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)

[16] Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

[17] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976)

[18] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)

[19] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)

[20] Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)

[21] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)

[22] Sophistry is a logical fallacy that involves the use of deceptive, superficial arguments.

[24] Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam)  PENNv. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003))

[25]  Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. _(2015)

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 25, 2023

The FACTS of MY Case Are Without Question!

Manifesto


The FACTS of MY Case Are Without Question!

 


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.  On the ex parte order of abuse in question, there was NO claim of  physical abuse and there has never been any claim or substantiation of physical abuse before or since. THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION on fraud or the deprivation of constitutional rights.  I have been fighting to regain "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" relentlessly since.[1]  The UNDISPUTED issue is and has always been – a flagrantly, infamous, fraudulent, non-exigent, extra-judicial (coram non judice) court order:

   

1.       a fraud (fraus omnia corrumpit[2]) on the court by an officer of the court (FRCP 60(d)(3))[3]


2.       a NOT "facially valid court order"[4] (Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) - 


3.    that was reckonably[5] 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)[6]

 

Congress and the Supreme Court are very much historically aware of judicial culpability in the deprivation of rights, "The congressional purpose[7] 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 United States citizen. . . ."  MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967)

 

THE GRAVITAS OF THE PERSONAL[8] 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[9] nor is the ongoing fight against flagrant injustice "continual Calumniations"[10] nor could a near 20 year struggle against injustice be construed as an inconsequential "short ride."[11] 


At issue – a flagrantly, infamous, fraudulent, non-exigent, extra-judicial (coram non judice) COURT ORDER - a fraud (fraus omnia corrumpit[12]) on the court by an officer of the court (FRCP 60(d)(3))[13] - a NOT "facially valid court order"[14] - that was reckonably[15] issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"[16] "beyond debate"[17] - "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates"[18]  a right that right.[19] [20] [21] [22] [23]


There is no statute of limitations on “war crimes” or “murder”…

 

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/12/it-is-murder.html

 


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


“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).



There is no statute of limitations on “war crimes” or “murder”…

 

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/12/it-is-murder.html

 


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

  


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

  


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

 

 

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


[2] 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.

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

[4] 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.  

[5] 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)

[6] "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."

[7] Jim Crow and/or Jane Crow

[8] 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"

[9] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 348 and 349

[10] Floyd and Barker. (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I - In the Court of Star Chamber. - First Published in the Reports, volume 12, page 23.

[11] 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.

[12] 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.

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

[14] 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.   (Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003))

[15] 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)

[16]  (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)

[17] (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. _(2015))

[18] Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011) - "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] 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"

[20] 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.

[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] "The congressional purpose (now codified as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &; 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985) 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 United States citizen. . . ."  MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967) THE GRAVITAS OF THE PERSONAL 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 nor is the ongoing fight against flagrant injustice "continual Calumniations" nor could a near 20 year struggle against injustice be construed as an inconsequential "short ride."


"Fake News Donny"

 

Sunday, October 12, 2025 - 2:19:02 PM

 

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. 

The Emperor Has No Clothes.

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, October 12, 2025 - 2:19:02 PM

"Fake News Donny"

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


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)