Tracking
Number: 70221670000115162496 Delivered USPO 09-20-22
Download
PDF of Basic 3 Page Document
Download
PDF of Basic 52 Page Document
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: DGJeep[1] v. 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 People,
I am in receipt of the letter dated September 6, 2022. Now let us not lie to each other. You state "the Court is unable to assist you in the matter you (I) present." That is a 20 year fraud[2] on the court by a judicial officer of the court! I admit you may not want to admit your culpability. But it is my right to repeatedly petition to expose your 20 years of crimes against my rights!
This is an ongoing RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) conspiracy to UNCONSTITUTIONALLY defeat the United States Article III Supreme Court's criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &; 242 and civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 liability.
The Court could take any of the above referenced petitions on appeal or you could PROPERLY assume original jurisdiction of the past CRIMINAL RICO conspiracy you created by asserting difficult, if not IMPOSSIBLE restrictions, self-servingly, on your OWN civil and criminal liability. This has NEVER been "vexatious or a continual calumniations[3]."
I repeat - the FACTS of MY case, they are without question - my liberty rights, my paternity rights, my property rights, were unconstitutionally deprived on November 3. 2003, 7:59pm CT. I have been fighting to regain them relentlessly since.[4] The undisputed issue is and has always been – a flagrantly, infamous, fraudulent, NON-EXIGENT, extra-judicial (coram non judice) court order:
a fraud (fraus omnia corrumpit[5]) on the court by an officer of the court (FRCP 60(d)(3))[6] - a NOT "facially valid court order"[7] that was reckonably[8] issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"[9] "beyond debate"[10] "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right"[11]
It is clear to any non-partisan reading of your prior precedent that your goal is to make any judicial 1st and 7th Amendment constitutional liability difficult - not to mention the more statutorily self-evident criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &; 242 and civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 liability. And I realize that your goal here may be to NOW make it "very, very" difficult to assert any judicial 1st and 7th Amendment constitutional liability. After 20 years, I am now, if anything, MORE committed to restraining your self-serving unconstitutional assertion of immunity from the VERY document you are sworn to enforce/defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Just a little history lesson, first and foremost the United States constitution clearly limits criminal and civil judicial power to a joint verdict of a judge and jury. Unrestrained jurisdiction and / or freestanding judge made law was never conceived of or authorized by the United States constitution.
The 4th Chief Justice to the Supreme Court - John Marshall wrote a beautiful piece of constitutional fiction with Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). And for the 34 years of John Marshall's Supreme Court Tenure, it remained as a judicial aspirational on the shelf.
The United States fought a civil war 1861-1865. The impetus for and the result of the civil war was the elimination of slavery e.g., the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments with "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" - criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &; 242 and civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 statutes.
The Supreme Court of the United States, with the clear exception of the Warren court, has since the Civil War been reading vagaries to increase their power. Now "under such regulations as the Congress shall make" We the People need to eliminate any use of Judge made law. And again constrict the judicial power CONSTITUTIONALLY with a need for jury verdicts.
NOTE: Despite revisionist's corrupt assertions there was nothing about "state's rights" in any of the United States' post war amendments, criminal or civil statutes. States' rights were GREATLY reduced if not eliminated by the WINNERS, nationalizing the United States' constitutional civil, voting, and criminal RIGHTS!
If there is anything further, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
enclosure, US Postal Money Order $300 Supreme Court Filing Fee
cc: Attorney General Merrick Garland, DOJ Civil Rights Division, Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, Associate Justice, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, 104th Associate Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor (Retired), Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, (Retired) Associate Justice David H. Souter (Retired), Associate Justice, Stephen G. Breyer, (Retired), Associate Justice, Lisa Nesbit c/o Scott S. Harris Supreme Court Clerk, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski and Willie Geist - Morning Joe - MSNBC Network www.DGJeep.com, file
[1] It should be noted that my middle class family roots had the Jeep name centuries in advance of the Willys Motor Co creation of their General Purpose (GP) for the U.S. Army. My Father fought in WWII and drove / rode a GP.
[2] Fraus omnia corrumpit - "fraud corrupts all." – a long standing principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision or arbitral award.
[3] Floyd and Barker (1607) "And those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual Calumniations," in all cases it is the judiciary's responsibility to avoid "vexatious" or calumnious actions to the best of their ability not concede to their inevitability. "Vexatious" or calumnious actions are hazards in any human endeavor,
[5] 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.
[6] Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - "set aside a judgment for fraud on the court"
[7] 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)) -
[11] "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." (Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011)
