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 CIVILIZED 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. 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.
Our forefathers gave We the People the last right of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting.... the right of the people... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
as coupled with the Seventh Amendment's jury requirement that frees We the People from the dictates of the black-robed-royalist judge-made-law.
We the People need to CIVILIZE ourselves with a well regulated militia, as premised by the Second Amendment, with licensing, liability insurance to regulate guns like cars. We the People then need to free ourselves from the black-robed-royalist judge-made-law and reinstitute the Article III Justice system LIMITTED by our Amended Constitution's reliance on a jury's interpretation.
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)
[26] Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011)
1/3/24 5:14 PM
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://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=David+Jeep&type=Supreme-Court=Dockets
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 #512
St. Louis, MO 63103-2548
