Saturday, May 4, 2024
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice – REGISTERED US Mail
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: You think the Supreme Court is infallible?
Notice of Suit, any and all assertions of enduring non-exigent immunity are an abdication and / or a dereliction of due process of law under Article III – as it relates to any person, a former president[1] or DGJeep[2] 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)
Dear Sam,
Your recent[3] question:
"JUSTICE ALITO: Do you think the FDA is infallible?"[4]
exposed your corrupt and unmitigated gall. Now, you were naively overthinking, being smart, wanting to expose a perceived fallacy with the Chevron doctrine.[5] The attorney answered adroitly:
"MS. ELLSWORTH: No, Your Honor, we don't think that at all. And we don't think that question is really teed up in any way in this case." [6]
What you did was expose YOUR fraud i.e., the known fallacy of judge-made-law and stare decisis. Just show me where in the constitution - judge-made-law, stare decisis, and absolute immunity - are provided for? No person or group on this planet; this millennia, is omniscient or infallible.
"We the People" fought the Civil War 150+ years ago to sustain the United States, Declaration of Independence's premise "all men are created equal" and constitutional rights. The greater part of society had fought the good fight and at the end of the Civil War wanted to do right by the freed slaves. Yet with unencumbered sophistry the Black Robed Royalist Brethren, believing they were doing good, condoned mass murder,[7] racial pogrom,[8] government sanctioned kidnapping and murder,[9] deprivation of the 15th Amendment's right to vote,[10] 100+ years of Jim Crow[11] and today, 20+ years of Jane Crow.[12]
Post Civil War the 42nd congress utilized XIV Amendment's "Section 5[13] - "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article". The 42nd Congress in 1871 passed "An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes." That is now codified into the federal statute law as 42 U.S.C. 1983&1985 - Civil action for deprivation of rights and 18 U.S.C. § 241 &; 242 Criminal action for deprivation of rights.
I beg of you learn from 100+ years of Jim Crow, Lochner v. New York, Buck v. Bell and today's Jane Crow,[14] these are just a few of the Black Rober Royalist Brethren's demonstrations for Lord Acton's axiom "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."[15] The founding father were not perfect. But as learned men, they had a much more intimate historical memory of "the Abolition of the Court of Star Chamber" (1641). They knew unconstrained judicial power corrupts. They thought they had created the "weakest" and "least dangerous" branch[16] with Article III. I can only imagine how the founders would have responded to the idea that an unelected oligarchy on the Supreme Court, that asserted it had discretion to approve everything and anything.
But to this day, the VII Amendment and the statutes Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &; 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 are without authority. Immediately post-Civil War, we got the sophistry of the corrupt and SELF-SERVING Judge Made law "This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly" Bradley v. Fisher 80 U.S. 335 (1871)[17]. Judges were and are asserted to be immune from any consequence for the deprivation of constitutional rights. Why kid ourselves that we have rights? When the person or persons responsible for their enforcement have no consequences from the deprivation of rights.
Judges knew, post-civil war, exactly what they were doing. To clarify this MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967):
"The congressional purpose 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 42nd 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. . . . "
From the 42nd Congressional record (1871).
Post-Civil War Judges KNEW they were subject to the statute and common law, not immune from it. Their EVER-growing figment[18] of their imagination is corrupting.
The Judges who were tasked to "establish justice" have abandoned the proverbial "Blackstone's ratio" "proof beyond reasonable doubt" and awarded absolute immunity to the Police Officer (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)) who gives "knowingly false testimony," the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor that withholds "evidence favorable to an accused" (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) and Connick v Thompson 2011), and the "malicious or corrupt" "absolutely immune" Judges (Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967)) who turn a blind eye to it all!!!! The United States incarcerates about 20% of the world's prisoners, even though it only represents about 4.2% of the world's population.[19]
Constitutional Rights of the naturally born United States citizen are not worth the parchment they were written on. The VII Amendment and / or 42 U.S. Code § 1983 a civil action that allows people to sue the government for civil rights violations be damned. We the People have no enforceable constitutional rights.
If you are just a regular person, your child can be taken away, you can be thrown out of your home of 10 years, your car and everything you owned can be taken away with an infamously-scandalous, non-exigent, extra-judicial ex parte NOT "facially valid court order" that was reckonably[20] issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,""[21] "beyond debate"[22]"sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right"[23] and you can then be forced into the Article III poser's domestic relations court – 20+ year struggle- where I had fewer rights than a so called "nigger" in a "Jim Crow" Alabama shot dead in the back trying to resist arrest for merely looking at a white woman.
Now if you are Trump-like figure, inherit a billion dollars, you can rape random women, cheat on your taxes, rape your wife, cheat your business partners, reap the profits of billions of dollars in fraud, conspire with the enemies of the United States to corrupt a presidential election, get elected President of the United States, instigate an insurrection, all in seventy-seven years or less. You have no chance to hold Trump accountable, he is 77 years old and will not live long enough to pay allegorically for any of his crimes.
We the People still do not have the VII Amendment protection our founding fathers had bequeathed us for our rights. The VII Amendment is simple enough:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The three important factors in the VII Amendment that the Black Robed Royalist Brethren's sophistry cannot tolerate are "controversy shall exceed twenty dollars (non-trivial), the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined (Judges are out) in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
The Constitution for the United States Article III states "Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The VII Amendment supersedes with "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined" and "the rules of the common law".
Antonin Scalia wrote a paper The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989). In it he stated "reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." The VII Amendment's inclusion of a jury trial and the Common law is the definition of "reckonability". When the founding fathers superseded Article III with the VII Amendment, they precluded Royalist/Judicial/Congressional sophistry and put the ultimate decision on all issues in the hands of a common law jury.
Sophistry[24] has told you that the common law is superseded by statute law. Common law is uneducated, you can not trust it. Yet, the Common Law jury decides medical, corporate, and personal liability every day of the week. Jurors do not bring any first-hand medical knowledge to the jury box. Due process informs the issues and jurors then decide.
Harvey Weinstein recently got his conviction reversed. Weinstein, like Trump, can afford constitutional rights. Most middle class people just can't. His problem was not as glaring as mine, there were just too many #MeToos i.e., unsubstantiated "witnesses a series of women who said Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them — but whose accusations were not part of the charges against him."[25]
In the Jane Crow[26] / #MeToo era the ex parte order in my issue never listed any abuse and no one ever claimed any abuse. Yet I was thrown out of my house, my son and everything I ever held dear was taken from me.
Now I see the Black Robed Royalist Brethren want to create absolute immunity for a former president. The Supreme Court wants to look into "absolute immunity" for all presidents, i.e.,
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, I want to talk about… whatever we decide is going to apply to all future presidents.. [27]
As regards No. 23-939 DONALD J. TRUMP v. UNITED STATES there is one case that was not presented in the argument. That was "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Vincent Bugliosi. Bugliosi never brought the case, but presented all the arguments and represented that it could have been brought in any venue in the United States. I read the book; I was animated at first. But like virtually everyone else cooler heads prevailed, and we saw the invasion of Iraq as a mistake, based on bad information, but a justifiable use of Presidential authority. We do not need you to immunize us from a problem that has not yet, to assert itself. Decide the case before you!
Decide the case before you! Show me where in the constitution is judge-made-law, stare decisis and absolute immunity from the constitution/rule of law are called for? I ask you look at Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871) sophisticated "absolute immunity" for racially motivate mass murder. I feel confident that the Supreme Court in Blyew was every bit as honorably intended as the current court. Power corrupts. Do not reach, decide the case before you!
If there is anything further, please let me know.
"Time is of the essence"
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
enclosure, damages spreadsheet Saturday May 04, 2024 01:56:28.07 PM
cc: Justices of the Supreme Court, Lisa Nesbit c/o Scott S. Harris Supreme Court Clerk, Joe Scarborough, Morning Joe - MSNBC Network, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
file
[1] 23-939 Trump, Donald J. v. United States
[2] a.k.a., David Gerard Jeep. It should be noted that my middle-class family had the Jeep name centuries in advance of the Willys Motor Co creation of their General Purpose (GP) vehicle for the U.S. Army. The Jeep family has been traced back to the 1500's, My paternal grandfather was born 21 NOV 1888 • my father fought in WWII and drove / rode a GP. There was NO proverbial "Henry Jeep!!!!"
[3] 23-235 Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
[4] 23-235 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Transcript March 26, 2024
[5] What you and other opponents of the Chevron doctrine miss is the validity or corruption of Chevron has more to do with the small "d" un-democratic "dark money" senate[5] anarchist's Rule 22 than the executive or the Supreme Court.
[6] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Transcript March 26, 2024
[7] Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871) sophisticated "absolute immunity" for racially motivate mass murder
[8] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) sophisticated "absolute immunity" for racially motivated massacre (Colfax Riot/pogrom)
[9] United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883) sophisticated[76] "absolute immunity" for the state's sanctioned kidnapping, assault and murder without regard to the 14th Amendment's security
[10] United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875) sophisticated deprivation of the 15th Amendment's Voting Rights protection with the subterfuges of poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses
[11] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) creating sophisticated[77] racial segregation and the ongoing Jim Crow discrimination over the "necessary and proper" "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) separate and UNEQUAL, clarifying sophisticated[78] segregation over the necessary and proper "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875
[12]20+ years of Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States, Jeep v United States Petitions 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856
[13] Just like you, the Black Robed Royalist Brethren (5-9) asked for in your recent ruling 23-719 Trump v. Anderson (3/4/24)
[14] 20+ years of Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States, Jeep v United States Petitions 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856
[15] John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, 13th Marquess of Groppoli, KCVO, DL (10 January 1834 – 19 June 1902), better known as Lord Acton.
[16] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78,
[17] See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967), Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011)
[18] See absolute immunity for Police (Briscoe), Prosecutors (Imbler) and all person integral in the judicial process. (ABSOLUTE OFFICIAL IMMUNITY IN CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION, Michael L. Wells* GEORGIA LAW REVIEW Vol. 57:919)
[19] The World Prison Brief at PrisonStudies.org is an online database providing free access to information on prison systems around the world. It is now hosted by the Institute For Crime & Justice Policy Research (ICPR), Birkbeck College, University of London.
[20]."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)
he Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
[21] 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)
[22] Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U . S. _(2015)
[23] Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011)
[24] Marbury v. Madison :: 5 U.S. 137 (1803) & Federalist No. 81-85 of the Federalist Papers
[25] Thursday, April 25, 2024 9:21 AM ET, Manhattan prosecutors must now decide whether to retry the disgraced Hollywood producer. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/25/nyregion/harvey-weinstein-appeal?emc=edit_na_20240425&ref=cta&nl=breaking-news#harvey-weinstein-conviction-appeal
[26] 20+ years of Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States, Jeep v United States Petitions 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856
[27] No. 23-939 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES April 25, 2024
HERITAGE
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
