Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.[1]
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: 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[2] or DGJeep[3] 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)[4]
Dear People,
I wanted to get this out to you, before you and your co-conspirators[5] FURTHER humiliated yourselves with 23-939 Trump, Donald J. v. United States. Let’s call it notice of suit and a quasi-amicus-brief in support of due process of law and opposed to immunity from the rule of law.
As I am sure you know 20 years ago, a judge signed an unconstitutional ex parte order. It was unconstitutionally upheld over my attorney’s timely constitutional objections verbally inside the courtroom and outside of court in post-trial motion and my ongoing appeals in writing, see 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. This unconstitutional order took away my son, my paternity, my reputation, my house, my car, and everything I once held dear. Forced me into a no-holds-barred non-trivial civil dispute with NOTHING to defend myself. This is and has always been a NON-TRIVIAL issue. 20+ years later, and after 411 days in federal custody[6], to my son I am an embarrassment, a crazy, ex-federal prisoner, poor relation that has to be tolerated.
Absolute non-exigent non-trivial immunity for other people’s civil rights has been self-servingly sustained by the Black Robed Royalist[7] want-to-be Article III Judiciary since at least the Civil War.[8] Nowhere in Article III is non-exigent immunity created.[9] Any thought of immunity from a constitution is antithetical to the raison d'etre (reason for being) of a constitution. Every FEDERAL employee has to swear:
“I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”
You and your Black Robed Royalist Brethren have upheld unconstitutional absolute non-exigent immunity for the deprivation of constitutional rights since at least the civil war.
Think about it, We the People set up a Constitution with an Article III justice system to “establish justice” “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” (i.e., constitutional rights). Any non-trivial, non-exigent immunity is self-defeating to the rule of law.
But the Article III justice system, self-servingly assert non-exigent immunity, from traffic cops to Supreme Court Justices, again self-servingly, assert absolute non-exigent immunity for the deprivation of rights. Now if you are a citizen Trump and you have virtually unlimited inherited financial resources you can within the Article III system, obstruct and delay any all accountability for rape, theft, fraud, tax evasion and etc. until you are 70+ years old been elected President of the United States and defeated the “popular will” with the electoral college.
Now I had to laugh, before I teared up, recently at JJ., Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, in their recent judicial sophistry i.e., 23-719 Trump v. Anderson
The Black Robed Royalist majority (i.e., 5 of 9) want to assert that because congress has never utilized the XIV Amendment’s “Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article” to further elucidate the article as regards Section 3 of the XIV Amendment, the states cannot enforce Section 3.
Of course, that defeats a plain reading of the XIV Amendment Section 3 with the support of the X Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” i.e., states do not need congressional authority to act.
Now the Black Robed Royalist Brethren have been radiating nothing but sophistry (bullshit) for YEARS! At least since the Civil War. We the People of the United States invested 600,000+ lives in a civil war to do two things. The first and most important was abolishing slavery. The second and just as important, though overlooked, was to preserve the union[10] and MINIMIZE if not eliminate state’s rights.
Post Civil War we incorporated the XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments to abolish slavery we already had the VII Amendment to civilly insure rights.
Unfortunately, we did nothing to address the II and X Amendment’s anarchial tendencies. And are NOW, 230+ years later, being forced to further endure armed gangs (e.g., the KKK, David Koresh / Branch Davidian, Charlottesville, Ruby Ridge, January 6th and etc.), Jim Crow discrimination and absolute non-exigent immunity for the deprivation of constitutional rights.
Now that brings me back to the Black Robed Royalist Brethren and their 23-719 Trump v. Anderson SOPHISTRY.
Post Civil War the congress did utilize XIV Amendment’s “Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”. 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 - Civil action for deprivation of rights.
Absolute non-exigent immunity from, your constitutional obligations to the United States Constitution Article III, VII Amendment[11], XIV Amendment, Section 5 and as specifically and constitutionally authorized with "An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes" by Congress in 1871 and now codified into federal statute law as 42 U.S.C. 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights is just untenable.
Now I above and restate here, “Any and all assertions of enduring non-exigent immunity are an abdication and / or a dereliction of the duty under Article III.”
I am currently suing the Supreme Court of the United States, within the corporation of the Government of the United States for non-trivial unconstitutional deprivations in DGJeep 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)per Article III, VII Amendment[12], XIV Amendment, Section 5 and as specifically and constitutionally authorized with "An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes" by Congress in 1871, now codified into federal statute law as 42 U.S.C. 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights, and 18 U.S. Code § 1964 - Civil remedies RICO (United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit).
I site JJ., Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in 23-719 Trump v. Anderson, in support of this “notice of suit” thereof.
Please see enclosed spreadsheet, dated Wednesday March 20, 2024 08:58:59.61 PM, of the accruing damages:
Three billion two hundred forty-one million two hundred ninety-seven thousand five hundred fifty-seven dollars………..………………………………………….. $3,241,297,557
If there is anything further, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
enclosure
Damages Spreadsheet
cc: Clarence Thomas, 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, 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, Attorney General Merrick Garland, DOJ Civil Rights Division, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
www.DGJeep.com, file
[1] via USPO Certified Mail 7022 1670 0001 1516 2380
[2] 23-939 Trump, Donald J. v. United States
[3] 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!!!!”
[4] My argument NOW includes 23-719 Trump v. Anderson!!!
[5] JJ., Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh
[6] The federal government, wanted to impeach me. They questioned my sanity for questioning them. Though they could not sustain it after 411 days in custody and numerous Psychological Examinations. They were forced to drop the charges for their OWN failure to prosecute.
.[7] A RICO (18 U.S. Code § 1964) conspiracy against rights (42 U.S.C. 1985), the current conspiracy is arguably represented by JJ., Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
[8] see Civil Rights Cases 109 U.S. 3 (1883), Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Chesapeake, Ohio & Southwestern Railroad Company v. Ida B. Wells. (Supreme Court of Tennessee; April Term, 1887)
BTW, if you are into horror I suggest you READ, Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871) and United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)[
[9] Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 78, titled "The Judicial Department", is an essay that discusses the judiciary department of the proposed government. It is not part of the constitution. Yes Hamilton talks about utilizing learned men as Judges to assist the system. But nowhere does Federalist 78 conceive of or provide for Judge made LAW not subject to a Jury.
[10] e pluribus unum - reflects the states' willingness to unite under one government
[11] The Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars (i.e., non-trivial), 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.
[12] The Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars (i.e., non-trivial), 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.
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
"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
