Thursday, August 15, 2024

No where in the Constitution for the United States is there any reference to immunity from the rule of law or judge-made-law.



Friday, August 9, 2024

 

Justice Neil Gorsuch

Supreme Court of the United States

One First Street N.E.

Washington, DC 20543-0001

 

Re: "Justice Neil Gorsuch warns Biden to 'be careful' with Supreme Court reforms"

      NBCNews.com - Aug. 4, 2024, 4:14 PM CDT - By Alexandra Marquez

 

Dear People,

 

I am warning you, as a PROUD college flunk-out, 68-year-old man, natural born United States citizen!  As an Article III Supreme Court Justice, you do not get to WARN anybody, except on the known facts of an instant case.  By definition as a judge you have no retributive prerogative, especially so as a Supreme Court Justice!  If you were to use judicial authority for retribution it is and would always be an impeachable OFFENSE!

I am a PROUD college flunk-out.  I have never been anywhere near the Ivy League.  Yet I can read, and I have read and reread several times the 4,000 +/- words of the Constitution for the United States.  No where in the Constitution for the United States is there any reference to immunity from the rule of law or judge-made-law.  The original 4,000 words were presented to "We the People" as is and ratified as is.  I refuse to believe "We the People" were ever told or assumed that an oligarchy appointed for life:

1.    would make judge-made-law,

2.    award immunity or

3.    nullify jury verdicts.[1] 

Constitutionally, any and all Article III judicial authority is limited to an instant case and requires the verdict of a petit jury for any authority outside the courthouse.

As a PROUD college flunk-out I will further admit that there are those that believe we need the judiciary to constitutionally review laws.  Alexander Hamilton with Federalist 78, 79, 80 and John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) alluded to "Judicial Review."  You and your despicable ilk have buffaloed We the People for tooooo long.  Because "Judicial Review" never made it into the constitution!

Can you imagine Washington, Franklin, and Madison trying to get the first Constitutional convention to agree to establishing an oligarchy of 6? 9? 20? learned men(?), by political means, appointed for life with "a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office" AND unlimited jurisdiction to decide any issue of controversy that they wanted for all time i.e., Judge Made Law / Stare Decisis.  DO NOT MAKE ME LAUGH 😁😂😆🤣!

That is where we are, that is why this greater fool, 68 yr old, PROUD college flunk-out has been fighting against YOU and your ilk for 20+ years.[2]  But it is beyond the proverbial pale[3] of anything the founders ever conceived of as possible.

I maybe a PROUD college flunk-out, but I have been at this for 20+ years.  I have done some research; I can find no reference or even a request for absolute immunity before 1871.  What happened in or around the Supreme Court's December 1871 that created the need?  The issue in dispute in Bradley[4], while linked to the emotion of Abraham Lincoln's assignation, had been mooted by the Supreme Court's December 1871 term.  Why did the Supreme Court think they could reach over the Constitution for the United States and declare their judicial immunity based on the common law from the rule of the English King 250 years prior[5]?

Two things of note happened in or around the Supreme Court December term 1871 that created a self-serving desire for Judicial immunity totally unrelated to Bradley…  wink😉, wink😉.


The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983) that constitutionally[6] and statutorily creating an unrestricted liability for the deprivation of rights under color of law was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on February 28, 1871, eleven months before Bradley issued.  And then the case/ruling in Blyew[7] taken 1871 but issued April 1, 1872. 

Blyew et.al were CONVICTED by the Kentucky state court before the Supreme Court stepped in to create absolute immunity for racially motivated MASS MURDER.[8] 

"In Lewis County, KY, during the summer of 1868[9], five members of the Foster family were attacked by John Blyew and George Kennard, who used a carpenter's ax and some other bladed tool to hack at the bodies of the family members. Jack, his wife Sallie, and his grandmother Lucy Armstrong, who was blind, were killed outright. Richard, the Foster's 16-year old son, took shelter under his father's body. He later regained consciousness and crawled 300 yards to a neighbor's house for help but died two days later. The two youngest children were the only survivors: Laura Foster, 8-years old, hid and was unharmed, while her 6-year old sister Amelia was hacked about the head but lived. A posse was formed and Blyew and Kennard were arrested and indicted on four counts of murder.[10] "

The Supreme Court of the United States stepped in to insert Kentucky sovereignty that it had never claimed.  The Supreme Court reached in and said that Kentucky law prohibiting an eight-year-old negro orphan victim from testifying against a white man and thus creating inter racial mass murder immunity. 

Now again I have to admit, I am a college flunk-out.  I have never been anywhere near an ivy league college.  But I can read!  And nowhere in the 4,000 +/- words of the constitution is immunity or judge-made-law provided for!

Now the Warren Court did a lot overcome 200+ years of judicial corruption from the past.  But the Warren Court in no way excuses the past or precludes the continued corruption i.e., 23-719 Trump v. Anderson (03/04/2024) like corruption, in the future.

Now your predecessors took Bradely, UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, and have been expanding their corruption ever since.  Trump v. Anderson was not the first expansion of absolute immunity.

The Warren Court, while exemplary in many cases, had its flaws too.  Look at the exclusionary rule[11], yes it protects a criminal's rights but because of Pierson[12], Imbler[13] and Briscoe[14] an innocent person has no right to recovery.  They are just SOL.  That is in direct conflict with the VII Amendment and The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983) the innocent person has no right of recovery!  

And you get FOUR times the incarceration rate of the rest of the developed world.

And with a case like mine DGJeep V Supreme Court of the United States[15] you get "Jane Crow".  In 1960 5% (one in twenty) of children had no Father in the home.  In 2014 40% (eight in twenty) children have no father at home.  In my LIFETIME a 700% increase, that my Son and I HAD NO SAY IN.[16]  Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States today!

"We the People" do not need a constitutional amendment to contain YOU!  "We the People" can do it with constitutional statute laws already available.  "We the People" need to take statutory action to SHAKE up the Trumpian 6 on the Supreme Court, with fixed tenure, forced retirement[17] and regulation[18] of your jurisdiction per Article III Sections 1 & 2.

 I can read!  And nowhere in the 4,000 +/- words of the constitution is immunity or judge-made-law provided for!

Can you read?  Do you need READING glasses?  As a college-flunk-out, 68-year-old, United States citizen I do.  I just bought 10 pairs for less than $15 from TEMU.  I will have 10 shipped to you at your request.

If there is anything further, please let me know.

"Time is of the essence"

Thank you in advance.

 

David G. Jeep

 

enclosure

 

cc: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

      Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice,

Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice,

Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice,

Elena Kagan, 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

www.DGJeep.com,

file


[1] Chesapeake, O. & S. R. Co. v. Wells, 1887, p. 5. or Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871)

[3] The Pale in Ireland was a territorial limit beyond which English rule did not extend.

[4] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)

[5] Floyd and Barker, reported by Coke, in 1608

[6] I notice how you made note of the XIV Amendment's Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article in your self-serving assertion in 23-719 Trump v. Anderson (03/04/2024).  As regards The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983) it is clear and OBVIOUS constitutional authorization. 

[7] Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871)

[8] This was after the passing the XIII(1865), XIV(1868), and XV(1870) Amendments and the First (1879 )and Second Enforcement Acts (1871) as provided for in the Civil War Amendments as noted in your 23-719 Trump v. Anderson (03/04/2024

[9] The XIV Amendment   passed by Congress on June 13, 1866 and ratified on July 9, 1868.

[10] Two years prior to the Foster family murders, the XIV Amendment had been ratified on July 9, 1868. Congress had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which gave jurisdiction to federal courts for all causes, civil and criminal, affecting persons who are denied or cannot enforce any of the rights secured to them in the courts or judicial tribunals of the state or locality, wherever they may be.

[11] Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

[12] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) "The settled common law principle that a judge is immune from liability for damages for his judicial acts was not abolished by § 1983. Cf. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367. Pp. 386 U. S. 553-555"

[13] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) "state prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the accused's constitutional rights"

[14] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) gives immunity to police officers and their informants "for giving perjured testimony at the defendant's criminal trial."

[16] The Fracking Boom, a Baby Boom, and the Retreat From Marriage" - Freakonomics – NPR - July 5, 2017, "Women just aren't that into the 'marriageable male' anymore, economists say" Washington Post - By Danielle Paquette - May 16, 2017, "Male Earnings, Marriageable Men, and Nonmarital Fertility: Evidence from the Fracking Boom" Melissa S. Kearney & Riley Wilson - May 2017)

[17] Article III Section 1 "as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"

[18] Article III Section 2  "In all the other Cases before mentioned, 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."




--

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

 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, August 9, 2024

One Person ONE VOTE.


Wednesday, August 7, 2024

 

Lucas Kunce for U.S. Senate

PO BOX 1240

Independence, MO 64051

 

Wesley Bell for Congress

PO Box 190669

St Louis, MO 63119

Re: One Person ONE VOTE.

      I am pro United States, not really worried about America just yet.

 

Dear People,

 

You are running against Trump/Hawley and Trump/Jones as individuals and against Trump/Kehoe and Trump/Bailey as Missouri Citizens.  We need to rid ourselves of M.A.G.A.!!!

Additionally, there are three existential questions we need you and your opponents to ALL answer:

1.    Do you support One Person One Vote in fairly decided elections?

2.    Do you support the United States or the ephemeral assertion of the M.A.G.A. leader?

3.    Do you support the Constitution's elected Article I Congress and Article II executive over the unelected unauthorized Article III power grab of judge made law? 

First, we need to combat Trump's "2020 big lie" and maintain the foundation of "One Person One Vote" with fairly decided elections!  Assertions do not sustain facts, EVIDENCE sustains facts.  Trump had 62 opportunities in court to present evidence for a case for fraud in 2020.  He lost 62 times.  And no "fairly decided" does not mean endless litigation of absurdities.  Election laws come with a workable "Final Certification Date" for a reason.  We need to know that you and your opponent both support One Person One Vote in fairly decided elections.

Secondly, the tag line M.A.G.A. makes no sense.  The proper name of our country is the United States.  Our proper name, United States, is used 52 times in the constitution only twice is the descriptive prepositional phrase "of America" added. 

From the United States's inception it has always figuratively been a part of the new world in the Americas, as opposed to the old world of Europe.  M.A.G.A. is not about making the new world in America great again.  M.A.G.A. wants to take that valor of the America's and put up walls to keep all the brown Americans out of the United States.  So sad, but too true.

Thirdly, there is no constitutional authority for judge-made-law generally or immunity specifically in the Constitution of the United States.  All Article III judicial authority is limited to the instant case and the concurrence of a petit jury.  The legal profession self-servingly snuck constitutional review in by reference from Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 78, 79, 80 and John Marshal's Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). 

The recent obscenity of presidential immunity in Trump v United States is nothing new.  The corrupt Supreme Court asserted it for themselves in December 1871[1]. Eleven months after the Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983) signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on February 28, 1871 had created unrestricted liability for constitutional rights. 

The post-Civil War Supreme Court judge-made-law found a reasons to give immunity to racially motivated mass murder in Blyew (1871)[2], immunity for racially motivated Colfax Massacre in Cruikshank[3], immunity for racially motivate discrimination in Civil Rights Cases [4] and Plessy[5].  Those judge-made-laws and others assured us of 100+ years Jim Crow's racial unrest in the United States. 

Now the Warren Court went a long way to eliminating the judge-made-law of prior Supreme Courts.  But that does not excuse the past nor preclude the future corruption of the Black Robed Royalist Brethren on the Supreme Court.  

Today, you step away some from the racial corruption of post-Civil-War and you wonder why the United States incarcerates FOUR times more of its citizens than the rest of the developed world? 

Citizens in general in the United States today have no enforceable rights.  I was a success white guy, that had literally gone to the old boy's school.  Law enforcement today starts with the virtually unlimited "qualified immunity" and then the judge-made-law in Briscoe[6] gives immunity to police officers and their informants[7] "for giving perjured testimony at the defendant's criminal trial."[8]  You add that to Imbler's[9] "state prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the accused's constitutional rights[10]" and you get outsized mass incarceration.  

To support judge-made-law you have to believe that the founding fathers wanted to create an unelected politically selected lifetime appointed absolutely immune oligarchy of 6-9-? men that could overrule the duly elected Article I congress and Article II executive AT WILL. 

As regards immunity, the trite assertion is, without immunity they will be subject to "vexatious actions[11]" and "continual calumniations.[12]"  That argument can be made for any law, every law.  There is only one fix for it, good judgement.  Given good judgement. "vexatious actions" and "continual calumniations"can be minimized if not eliminated.  At worst it is like saying any and all judgement is impossible because mistake will be made.  Good judgement of an instant case does not necessitate judge-made-law.  

My case is different, I have evidence of the two police officer's corruption, the NHTSA handbook and the Trial transcript.  As regards the Judge I have the Ex Parte order as served, the trial transcript and the two additional motions presented by my attorney that were ignored.

The FACTS of MY case are without question - my liberty rights, my paternity rights, my property rights, were unconstitutionally deprived on November 3. 2003, 7:55pm CT.  THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION on fraud or the deprivation of constitutional rights. I have been fighting to regain them relentlessly since.[13]  The UNDISPUTED issue is and has always been – a flagrantly, infamous, and fraudulent non-exigent, extra-judicial (coram non judice) court order:

1.    a fraud (fraus omnia corrumpit[14]) on the court by an officer of the court (FRCP 60(d)(3))[15]

2.    a NOT "facially valid court order"[16] (Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) -

3.    that was reckonably[17] issued "in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction," (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)

4.    "beyond debate" (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. _(2015))

5.    "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right" (Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011)[18]

"The congressional purpose[19] 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 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. . . ."  MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967)

THE GRAVITAS OF THE PERSONAL[20] ISSUE IS BEYOND QUESTION, IT TOOK AWAY PETITIONER'S SON, HOME, CAR AND EVERYTHING HE ONCE HELD DEAR IN THE WORLD.  Thus, the issue could never be construed as vexatious[21] nor is the ongoing fight against flagrant injustice "continual Calumniations"[22] nor could a near 20 year struggle against injustice be construed as an inconsequential "short ride."[23] 

If there is anything further, please let me know.

"Time is of the essence"

Thank you in advance.


David G. Jeep

 

cc: www.DGJeep.com

      file


[1] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)

[2] Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871)

[3] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

[4] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)

[5] Plessy v. Ferguson :: 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

[6] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)

[7] "public policy support absolute immunity for such witnesses " Page 460 U. S. 326

[8] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 329-346. (1983)

[9] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)

[10] Pp. 424 U. S. 417-431

[11] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U. S. 349

[12] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U. S. 348

[14] 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.  THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION on fraud or the deprivation of constitutional rights.

[15] Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - "set aside a judgment for fraud on the court"

[16] 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.  

[17] If reason (reckonabilty) does not limit jurisdiction with probable cause, nothing can."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)

[18] "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."

[19] Jim Crow and/or Jane Crow

[20] While the petitioner asserts this is not necessarily an isolated Jane Crow issue, it is a uniquely flagrant "first impression" and PERSONAL for the petitioner.  Per McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914) " The essence of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected"

[21] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 348 and 349

[22] Floyd and Barker. (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I - In the Court of Star Chamber. - First Published in the Reports, volume 12, page 23.

[23] Ida B. Well v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad - Tennessee Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's ruling in 1887. It concluded, "We think it is evident that the purpose of the defendant in error was to harass with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain a comfortable seat for the short ride."[Southwestern Reporter, Volume 4, May 16–August 1, 1887.





 

www.DGJeep.com

 

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

 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 6, 2024

Judge Made Law / Stare Decisis


Manifesto

Download as PDF



Monday, August 5, 2024

 

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

Hart Senate Office Bldg., Rm. 530

Washington, DC 20510

 

Phone: (202) 224-2921

Fax: (202) 228-6362

 

Re: Judge Made Law / Stare Decisis

 

Dear People,

 

I just finished watching your "How We Fix The Corrupted Supreme Court with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse" Democracy Docket YouTube podcast from 2 weeks ago.  It is 1:39AM and I CAN NOT go to sleep with this unsaid!

Your court reforms are pathetically inadequate.

I am a college flunk-out.  I flunked out of college three times in succession.  I was trying to make a statement.  Then, like Henry David Thoreau "I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived".

And I do not regret one moment of not having the burden of the BS.  I believe Socrates, Abraham Lincoln, and Barack Obama know / knew everything that they needed to know and most of it was not learned in school. 

I know I would like to be able to make "Judge Made Law" and I would want it to last forever with "Stare Decisis", but I know I am humanly fallible.  I would never have the conceit to think I had the enduring right to make Judge Made Law / Stare Decisis.  But I went to that Socrates, Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama school of life and never stepped foot in a law school.  Socrates thought "Philosopher Kings should rule.  But Plato his student did not agree.  Nonetheless the Rule of Kings caught on and persisted for a while.  But in 1789, We the People took control with our Constitution for the United States.

I have spent my son's childhood, my life's work and the last 20 years in pursuit of my rights.  I was impoverished/homeless.  I spent 411 day in federal custody, for having asked the FBI / USMS for assistance with my Civil rights Issue.[1]  I have filed 8 Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States through the District and Circuit Federal Court.[2]  The Founding fathers gave me the VII Amendment and Abraham Lincoln's followers gave me The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983) but in today's United States those are not even a parchment guarantee.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78, 79, & 80 along with John Marshal's sham in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) were the instigation for today's issue.  They both purported a need for a learned Judiciary "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."

Just imagine if you will, how much trouble George Washington, Ben Franklin, and James Madison would have had getting the first Constitutional convention to agree to establishing an oligarchy of six? nine? learned men, by political means, appointed for life with "a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office" AND unlimited jurisdiction to decide any issue of controversy that they wanted for all time. Judge Made Law / Stare Decisis.  That is where we are, that is what this greater fool college flunk-out has been fighting against for 20+ years, but it is beyond the proverbial pale[1] of anything the founders ever conceived of as possible.

The Founding Fathers had REAL intimate historical knowledge of judicial over reach, with the "Star Chamber" abolished 1641 and the "Bloody Assizes" 1685.

Judicial review, as utilized today, was never even REMOTELY considered at the founding. 

Today we need to regulate their jurisdiction and restrict their authority to the instant cases before them.  We let ourselves be intimidated into thinking there was no such thing as the "common law", that the law was too high brow for juries, that juries are nothing more than playthings in the hands of evil conspiring men. 

Citizens were first guaranteed the right to the common law juries with the Magna Carta in June 1215.  The RIGHT to a common law jury was enshrined in the Constitution of the United States July 2, 1788 and then again in the Bill of Rights to the December 15, 1791. 

I am just a college flunk-out, but I think that with FAIR[3] due process of law, I can be relied upon[4] to decide anything put before me by learned men, who cite precedent all day long to convince me but cannot bind me to it!  If juries can be shown the ins and out of product liability of a chemical carcinogen, they can be enlightened as to the rights of the accused too.

Again, I am just a college  flunk-out but you think the recent Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ is flawed BINDING precedent?  Just do some googling and lookup Bradley, Blyew, Cruikshank, Plessy, Lochner, Stump, Weeks, Mapp…. 

The Warren Court, while exemplary in many cases, had its flaws too.  Look at Mapp v. Ohio (1961), yes it protects a criminal's rights but because of Pierson, Imbler and Briscoe an innocent person has no right to recovery.  They are just SOL.  That is in direct conflict with the VII Amendment and The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983) the innocent person has no recovery! 

I have done some research.  The scrouge of "jury nullification" came up.  No other country but the United States has any issue with jury nullification, because it is assumed that juries have the unfettered right to decide the case before them.  Judges, Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys have the duty to fair due process of law.

Everybody in the United States has immunity for the deprivation of rights.  Everybody but the victims of the deprivation of rights, they pay.   We need to make rights worth something in the United States.  We the People need to indemnify each other's rights with respondeat superior liability.

We the People do not need a constitutional Amendment.  Congress needs to create a statute law per Article III Section 1 & 2 of the constitution:

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

&

Section. 2.

…. "In all the other Cases before mentioned, 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.…."

I have no issue with the potential to change this statue law with constitutional congressional action, if human fallibility is never again attached to immutable stare decisis that has given us 150 yrs. of lingering Jim Crow, Jane Crow and Mass Incarceration.

          Proposed statute law:

A.     All Supreme Court Justices shall be regulated to a 16(?) year term on the bench, Current and future terms to be retired at 70 and / or staggered every two years going forward. Their continued Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office as senior Justices.

B.     All Article III authority shall be regulated with personal and respondeat superior liability for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" per The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13 now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

C.    All Article III authority shall be regulated for future consideration with binding authority limited to due process procedure for the instant case before them as confirmed by a Jury or the abdication of the same by concurrence of the parties.

If there is anything further, please let me know.

"Time is of the essence"

Thank you in advance.

  

David G. Jeep

 

cc: President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.

      Senator Elizabeth Warren

      www.DGJeep.com

      file

      Chief Justice John Roberts

 


[1]  The Pale in Ireland was a territorial limit beyond which English rule did not extend.


[1] I was released on April 26, 2010, "Charges are Dismissed without Prejudice for failure to comply with the Speedy Trial Act (Case #4:09-cr-00659-CDP)."

[2] 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)

[3] Judges should have the responsibility for fair due process and should have some limited binding precedential authority over PROCESS inside their courtrooms

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)