Download PDF
Download PDF as Mailed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, Samuel A. Alito, Jr. , Associate Justice, Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: "The Emperor Has No Clothes" – "judge made law" is an unconstitutional usurpation
West Virginia et al. v. EPA et al.- Decided June 30, 2022
Dear People,
The Supreme Court OPINION, in the above refenced case, runs on and on about how the executive has exceeded its authority. I quote the hubris "Such a vague statutory grant is not close to the sort of clear authorization required."
Yet, both the statute and the constitution clearly assign the President executive authority. Show me specifically WHERE in the constitution Article III or controlling statute and / or Title 28 Judicial Administration - Parts 0 to 42 - Revised as of July 1, 2016 assign authority for Judge Made law - "The Emperor Has No Clothes".
Note Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is NOT LAW - "The Emperor Has No Clothes".
Now I realize the FASCIST 6 politically do not like the idea of combatting global warming or "cap and trade." Your LAUGHABLE opinion on the issue refers constantly to Section 111 referencing as "a new Section 111(d) rule" "not pertinent "cap and trade" and "Section 111(d) only been used a handful of times." I see no reason to care about any of that!!!!
Article II assigns, "The executive Power" to the President, the statute relies on the Presidents Executive Authority via DESCRIPTIVE, possibly never used prior, statute authority. I quote the full and descriptive statute title (not just the section #) here… "42 U.S. Code §7411 (d) Standards of performance for existing sources; remaining useful life of source." NOTE the title – "Standards of performance for existing sources; remaining useful life of source" in that Executive is now asserting the RARE historical first-time "remaining useful life of source" i.e. coal fired power plants "cap and trade" seems a fare redress / compensation for the now OBSOLETE coal fired power plants.
Now I have to ask, where is the clear statutory or constitutional required authorization for a general warrant, court order, stare decisis or judge-made-law UN-supported by criminal trial or civil trial jury?
The Founders in the 18th century were ADAMANT about limiting, appointed for life, judicial power. The Constitution clearly states the trial of all crimes. "shall be by Jury". The VII Amendment clearly states, "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved" for "common law" i.e., "civil issues." The Amendments VI, V, VII and XIV go even further limiting judicial power and always REQUIRING juries. There is nothing ANYWHERE in the constitution, Statute Law (Title 28 Judicial Administration - Parts 0 to 42- Revised as of July 1, 2016) that authorizes stare decisis or any judicial orders unsupported due process AND by a petit/trial jury.
This argument Is not limited to the above referenced case. I refence the above case because the specific issue EXEMPLIFIES the hubris and corruption of the Supreme Court's would be judicial order/general warrant" – "The Emperor Has No Clothes".
The Article III judiciary's originating power is limited intentionally and constitutionally; the judiciary was and is the least powerful branch. The proverbial "Founding Fathers" had historical and FIRST-HAND experience with an out-of-control royalist appointed for life absolutely immune judiciary. The Royalist British Judiciary had in the mid-18th century been using "general warrants" and / or historically reminiscence the "Star Chamber" to seize liberty. Any court order outside of "pure procedure" has no constitutional or statutory standing.
I have for the last 20 years been attempting to get the flagrant, (The FACTS of MY case are without question)
NOTE: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), a beautiful piece of polished English "pros", was a U.S. Supreme Court usurpation that attempts to established the NON-EXISTENT and unconstitutional principle of judicial-made-law / review in the United States – "The Emperor Has No Clothes".
As examples of past MALEVOLENCE – see the Supreme Court's, Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871), United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883), Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)," Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976)," Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) ACTING UNASHAMEDLY, INCOMPETENTLY, CORRUPTLY, unconstitutionally, illegally and MALICIOUSLY!!!
I quote West Virginia et al. v. EPA, "Given that precedent counsels skepticism toward EPA's claim that Section 111 empowers it to devise carbon emissions caps based on a generation shifting approach, the Government must point to "clear congressional authorization" to regulate in that manner.
"The Agency ultimately projected, for instance, that it would be feasible to have coal provide 27% of national electricity generation by 2030, down from 38% in 2014. From these projected changes, EPA determined the applicable emissions"
"And as Justice Frankfurter has noted, "just as established practice may shed light on the extent of power conveyed by general statutory language, so the want of assertion of power by those who presumably would be alert to exercise it, is equally significant in determining whether such power was actually conferred." FTC v. Bunte Brothers, Inc., 312 U. S. 349, 352 (1941).
Please "Justice Frankfurter" and / or the current Supreme Court's FASCIST 6 WHERE does the constitution or statute law provide for decades of contestable "Judge-Made-Law --- "The Emperor Has No Clothes".
NOTE: Congress can fix this easily by adjusting the jurisdiction of the court, per Article III, Section. 2. § 2. "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!
If there is anything further, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
enclosure
cc: Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor (Retired), Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice David H. Souter (Retired) Associate Justice, Stephen G. Breyer (Retired)
www.DGJeep.com
file
Elbridge Thomas Gerry, stated the objections which determined him to withhold his name from the Constitution. He could however he said get over all these, if the rights of the Citizens were not rendered insecure - to establish a tribunal without juries, which will be a Star-Chamber as to Civil cases.[160] The Star-Chamber as a prerogative court immune from the reach of jury was known and feared in the mind of the Constitutional founders. The VII Amendment was ULTIMATELY the result and they thought solution.
