Source: http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013_07_07_archive.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:55:40+00:00

Document:
Re:Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193, Jeep v. Obama/Government U.S.
Why would anyone commit to a contract much less a Constitution without a specified ex industria power to reciprocal forma securitatis for its enforcement? It is transparently axiomatic that any agreement among men imposes an ex industria power to enforce the forma securitatis. The chosen pacific forma securitatis under We the People's constitutional agreement is Due Process in both law and equity. The default forma securitatis is war. Absolute immunity for the forma securitatis, in both law and equity, QUASHES basic inalienable human rights.
I doubt I am the first supporter to petition/sue you while you have been in office. I would assert that I am the only supporter to suffer through 10 years of deprivation, 5 years homeless, 411 days in jail, 2 psychological competency exams and been through the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals seven times (case #07-2614, 08-1823, 09-2848, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200), with two prior docketed and denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court (07-1115 and 11-8211) while you have been in office. I further admit that even though I have, several times, written to you on this issue you may, for bureaucratic reasons, not be aware of the specifics of the issue. Nonetheless you are the executive of the government and thus have the executive duty for the Constitution's forma securitatis. Specifically I refer to the duty as specified under the Constitution for the United States of America, Article. II., Section. 3., to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
If you have studied the evolution of Constitutional legal precedent, I am sure you are aware of the two seminal Supreme Court precedents regarding "absolute immunity" and their timely proximity to the ex industria statute law specifically called out in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. They were criminal "absolute immunity," Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7 (1868) suspiciously subsequent to § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) and civil "absolute immunity," Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 (1871) suspiciously subsequent to the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985). As an example of the "absolute immune" confirmation bias of precedent that makes manifest evil look accepted benign and inevitable, I would site 100 plus years of Jim Crow Lynching (1864-present), Jane Crow Lynching (1974-present) and John Marshall Harlan's (1833 – 1911) Dissent in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883) defending the "sense and reason" of the amended Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil Rights Act of 1964).
I supported your recent refusal to defend DOMA. The defeat of DOMA at the Supreme Court was roundly applauded. That affected maybe 4% of the population. When the ex industria statute law for the forma securitatis for rights was passed by Congress and then defeated by the Supreme Court post-Civil War that affected 12.7% of the total population, nearly 50% in the more critical states of Louisiana and Mississippi. That was a bad THING. Now I ask you to NOT defend the grant of absolute immunity. This will affect 100% of the population. I doubt there ever was or even could be a more incredible, fantastic or delusional scenario than the malicious, corrupt, dishonest or incompetent grant of "absolute immunity."
Why would anyone commit to a contract much less a Constitution without a specified ex industria power to reciprocal forma securitatis for its enforcement? Just imagine how different post-Civil War America would have been if the freed slaves could have actually gotten the ex industria power to reciprocal forma securitatis for rights. And I do not care what REVISIONIST HISTORY says We the People invested over a half million lives to rid our Constitution and our Country of slavery, "the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law."
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid" (i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America").
The judiciary has done this by unlawfully denying the constitutional forma securitatis of governmental accountability, 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?
We the People have fallen under the despotic spell of the concentrated power in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges, the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor,  the "knowingly false testimony by police officers" and any malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent by "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"  acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.
The undisputed, undisputable FACTS of my case concern a fraudulent  NOT "a facially valid court order." The issuing Judicial Officer did not facially have "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation" for the stated charge and thus it was "taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction." Clearly too any facially reckonable reading of Due Process rights, reasonable probable cause is a prerequisite for government action/jurisdiction. There are "absolutes" in our Bill of Rights, and they were put there on purpose by "men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be "absolutes."
In the 9.58 years since, there has never been any mention of "exigent circumstances" nor "good faith" mistakes. The order stands on its own, brazenly, NOT a "facially valid court order." Since this is a civil domestic issue and has been ongoing for 9.58 years, "the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant... it is damages or nothing." Since 2003 the Commissioner Jones and the original petitioner Sharon G. Jeep both contradicted their original assertions, although neither took the "Good Faith" requisite of RESPONSIBILITY!!!
Now if you could somehow get past the constitutional security of REASONABLE probable cause and thus the prohibition of a "general warrant," which you cannot. The 8th Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments" for an alleged, later disproven, misdemeanor traffic violation precludes the imposed punishment, the ongoing deprivation of my home, my son, my paternity, my liberty… my everything.
Do we live under a reckonable facially reasonable rule of law or under the despotic dictatorial prerogative of the Black Robed Royalist Judiciary???
a. "Supreme Court docketed Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193"
b. "SupremeCourt.gov search results for Jeep's petitions 07-11115, 11-8211 and 13-5193"
 CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U. S. 26 (1883) MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting.
 Justice Thurgood Marshal dissenting, Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!
 Based on the Constitution's Article I section 7&8 it was mistakenly and naively assumed that only the Legislature could enact Law. I would assert it is axiomatic that all "delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void" the legislative (Article I), executive (Article II) and judiciary (Article III).
 Montesquieu in his "De l'Espirit des Lois" (1748) (The Spirit of the Law) defines three main kinds of political systems: republican, monarchical, and despotic. Driving each classification of political system, according to Montesquieu, must be what he calls a "principle". This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior on the part of the citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make it function smoothly. For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics), this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. For monarchies, the spring is the love of honor -- the desire to attain greater rank and privilege. Finally, for despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler. We the People currently have a despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
 "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.
 The fraud exception to rei publicae, ut sit finis litium, and nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadam causa is self evident, the "sense and reason" of a Supreme Law of The Land. You assert judicial interpretation. Here we agree as noted in United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65 (1878) is applicable here "But there is an admitted exception to this general rule in cases where, by reason of something done by the successful party to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial or decision of the issue in the case. Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court."
Thomas Jefferson wrote those words. Thomas Jefferson was a slave holder. Thomas Jefferson not only owned slaves, he fathered slaves. Thomas Jefferson was civilized for "his" time maybe? But he is not civilized for our TIME!!!
Andrew Jackson (1767 – 1845), the seventh President of the United States (1829–1837), was a genocidal maniac, but yet we venerate him on our $20 bill. General Andrew Jackson virtually annihilated the Cherokee, Creek and Seminole Indians in what would become the state of Florida. President Andrew Jackson was largely responsible for the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the pogrom of the "Trail of Tears."
Imagine if Germany wanted to put Adolph Hitler on their 20 Deutsche Mark. We have to be willing to confront our PAST!!!! The United States did not have the divinely inspired VIRGIN birth that it claims. We made mistakes and WE hopefully learned from them. Revisionist history creates "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" while defeating lessons learned for our prosperity.
The WORST utilization of revisionist history… is the institutionalized use of "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" with the confirmation bias of Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court of the United States' unchecked confirmation bias of absolute immunity, as precedent, has for too long made manifest evil look accepted benign and inevitable. Our ABSOLUTLY immune Supreme Court has made mass murder, racially inspired pogrom/massacre, Jim Crow Lynching, separate and UNEQUAL segregation, forced sterilization, false arrest without arraignment or charge, false imprisonment for 15 years on death row, breaking and entering, "fraud upon the court," Jane Crow Domestic/Family Law discrimination and absolute immunity for any malicious, corrupt or incompetent actions "for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" look accepted benign and inevitable. The Supreme Court is at War with the Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The confirmation bias of absolute immunity works against our ability to learn from both current and historical mistakes. We allow our existence and our history to be despoiled by the assertion of divine absolute immunity. Until we hold ourselves responsible for the bad acts we are destine to REPEAT them! Those that do not study history to learn from it, are destine to repeat it.
"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." I say it NOW, Monday, July 08, 2013!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871 at the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985). The original fraudulent  court order at the inception and center of this issue, in 2003, was NOT "a facially valid court order" the issuing Judicial Officer did not have "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation" for the stated charge and thus it was "taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction." Clearly to any facially reckonable reading of Due Process rights, reasonable probable cause is a prerequisite for government action/jurisdiction. There are "absolutes" in our Bill of Rights, and they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be "absolutes."
In the 9.58 years since there has never been any mention of "exigent circumstances" nor "good faith" mistakes there for the order stands on its own as brazenly NOT a "facially valid court order." Since the civil domestic issue has been ongoing for 9.58 years it is, as it was for Bivens, "damages or nothing." Since 2003 the Commissioner Jones and the original petitioner Sharon G. Jeep both contradicted their original assertions, although neither took the "Good Faith" requisite of RESPONSIBILITY!!!
 The Trail of Tears is a name given to the forced relocation and movement of Native American nations from southeastern parts of the United States following the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The removal included many members of the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations, among others in the United States, from their homelands to Indian Territory in eastern sections of the present-day state of Oklahoma. The phrase originated from a description of the removal of the Choctaw Nation in 1831.
In the winter of 1838 the Cherokee began the thousand-mile march with scant clothing and most on foot without shoes or moccasins. The forced relocations have sometimes been referred to as a "death march", in particular with reference to the Cherokee march across the Midwest in 1838, which occurred on a predominantly land route.
Now granted The Trail of Tears, Andrew Jackson's genocide, did not have access to the mechanizations that facilitated later genocides and thus did not rack up the big numbers.
 Jeep v Government of the United States of America 12-2435, Jeep v Obama 11-2425 , Jeep v United States of America 10-1947," Jeep v Bennett 08-1823, "Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and the most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211."

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 § 241
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983