My
THREE BILLION DOLLAR manifesto.
"Fake News Donny"
Tuesday, October 14, 2025 - 7:19:20 PM
Pat, I am OK. You are OK.
Judge-Made-Law
The political issues today
in the United States are not about gender, not racial, not Trump’s lies, not economic,
not EVEN Trump’s lies,
Bernie Sanders and Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez want to say an oligarchy of financial interests is the issue.
The issue goes back further. The issue goes back to Socrates and Plato. “The Republic” a Socratic dialogue authored by
Plato around 375 BC. Socrates and Plato
asserted that “Philosopher-Kings” should be, “the ones” allowed to rule.
I think it is pretty obvious
even to a simple reading of “The Republic.” Socrates and Plato wanted benevolent
leaders, in their own image, i.e., Philosophers. Don’t we all?
The issue today in the United
States is judge-made-law. The
Constitution for the United States, Article I (legislature) and Article II (executive)
provide how laws are to be made. There
is no provision for judge-made-law or even Judicial review.
Chief Justice John Marshall
in Marbury
v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) made a very good case that we
need benevolent learned people, in their own image, reviewing all the laws.
I would submit that every
organization of men from the first cave-persons to the 2024 United States electorate,
thought to establish benevolent learned men, in their own image, to make and enforce
law.
The founding fathers were
learned men who had lived under an executive (king), a legislature (1265)
and a judiciary (1215)
for CENTURIES. The founding fathers set up
a representative Article I (legislature) and a representative Article II (executive)
to make the laws in our Constitution for the United States. And an Article III (“judicial
Power”) that was unconditionally Consitutionally constrained criminally
and civilly
by the discernment of a LOCAL (i.e., representative)
jury.
I want to ask every textualist,
originalist, non-originalist or living constitutionalist, show me where in the
7,000 words of the current amendment constitution for the United States, Judge-Made-Law
is called for or authorized?
It
ain’t there!
Thomas Jefferson in 1820
confirmed the proverbial caveperson’s issue, the founding father’s issue and our
issue TODAY with the dictates of any unrepresentative dictatorial body:
"(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. 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…."
"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)
The first
consequential attempt at judge-made-law was summarily negated by President Andrew
Jackson in Chief Justice John Marshall’s Worcester
v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832) -
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it".
.
The utter abhorrence of Jackson’s
“Trail of Tears” gave unconstitutional and immoral authority to Chief Justice Roger
Taney’s ruling 10 years later in Prigg
v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539 (1842), affirming slaveholders'
right to reclaim escaped slaves across state lines. And then in Ableman
v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1858) the Court upheld
the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and overturned a Wisconsin Supreme Court
decision that had declared it unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was constitutional
and that the federal government's laws, including the Fugitive Slave Act, superseded
state laws.
Now the jaundice history
that too many have been sold, asserts that Civil War was about “States Rights” and
not about slavery. The Civil War was
about judge-made-law and NOTHING else.
Chief Justice Roger Taney’s
judge-made-law first in Prigg (1842) and Ableman
(1859) that allowed the Southern States to invade the North States to recapture
fugitive slaves. And then Chief Justice
Roger Taney’s crème de la crème judge-made-law in Dred
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) saying that:
“They (Negroes) had for more than a century before been regarded as beings
of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either
in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which
the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully
be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an
ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it.(Page 60 U. S. 407)”
When Chief
Justice Roger Taney’s crème de la crème judge-made-law said that he USURPED
the Northern States’ and the new territory’s “state’s rights to be free of slavery!
Judge-made-law started
the Civil War, Judge-made-law cost
this country 600,000 with the Civil War.
Judge-made-law just after the Civil War made themselves ROYAL and
ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE from the law in Judge-made-law has since the Civil War,
FORCED the United States into 150 of ongoing racial inequality over the timely objection
ot Justice John Harlan in Plessy
v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 552 (1896)
“For
the first nearly 100 years that preceded Randall and Bradley (1776-1868) there was
neither need nor questions regarding Judicial Immunity and then TWO despotic precedents
within 5 years:
· Randall
v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (decided April 15,
1869) in response to the criminal liability in The
Civil Rights Act of 1866
passed in to law April 9, 1866 and then..
· Bradley
v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (decided April 8, 1872)
[11] 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.
There is no Constitutional
premise for immunity from the Constitution, or the laws derived from it. In fact immunity from the constitution is antithetical
to the premise of a constitution’s raison d'etre.
Judicial
Immunity has since spawned reconfirmation of immunity from liability for damages for his judicial acts, see”
· “These cases present issues involving the liability of
local police officers and judges under § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17
Stat. 13, now 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Petitioners” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 548 (1967)
o “Accordingly, this Court held in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367 (1951), that the immunity of legislators for
acts within the legislative role was not abolished. The immunity of judges for
acts within the judicial role is equally well established” Page 386 U. S. 554
· "state prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from
a civil suit for damages under § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the accused's
constitutional rights" see Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976),
· gives immunity to police officers and their informants
"for giving perjured testimony at the defendant's criminal trial," Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
· Briscoe then goes further with “absolute immunity… for
all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial
process”[5]
for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws” see Briscoe
v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page
460 U. S. 335.
You wonder
why “We the People” imprison ourselves at 4 times the rate of the of the MORE CIVILIZED
World.
“We the People” of the United States have
no enforceable Constitutional rights. THIS
is in direct contradiction to the 1st and 7th Amendments in
the original amended 1791 version and the Enforcement Acts authorized by the 13th,
14th and 15th Amendments and passed into law post-Civil War.
This does not even mention
the immunity and the Presidential Election, the “Black Rober Royalist“ handed
Donald Trump with delay and the recent decision in 23-939
Trump, Donald J. v. United States “unitary theory” of the Presidency.
decided July 1, 2024.”
Judge-Made-Law only gives
the allusion of settling things. Grey is
the best the REAL world has to offer. “We
need more GREY”
If there is anything further,
please let me know.
“Time is of the essence”
Thank you in advance.
David G.
Jeep
"Fake News Donny"
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/06/sc.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FVfm-ushzCCTS5BtH1R7MeOvnDvh_kqv/view
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-issue-with-trump.html
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
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012/07/balanced-budget-for-america.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/be-aware.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/istgtdnk.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/dark-money-senate.html
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
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
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=David+Jeep&type=Supreme-Court=Dockets
"Fake News Donny"
