Complaint to The Caveat
Updated: Jan 8
This post serves as the page for the universally important complaint necessary to actuate the sovereign caveat which our party is dedicated to. Complaint was submitted to the US Supreme Court.
Below one may download the case filings in this cause including the digital exhibits page for the evidence, which share exhibits with our other federal sovereign immunity caveat case against Montgomery County Texas (exitfederal.org/post/media-exhibits sitecopy: exitfed.wixsite.com/website/post/media-exhibits).
UPDATE: See the end of the article which shows the US Supreme Court denying our right to file electronically as a pro se attorney. Such could ONLY be done if a higher sovereignty had taken over the court, which therefore would have to be through quantum possession tech. At this point we have not received a response from the clerk and so we may count such remedy as exhausted and proceed back into a special case at state.
----------------------------------------
Case Filings:
Complaint
----------------------------------------
Exhibits:
Exhibit T.0. Master Exhibit
Exhibit T.5. Caveat & Extenuation
Exhibit T.6. Recession's Sovereign Clause
Exhibit T.25. Motion for Special Exception
Exhibit T.27. Worldly Evidence Against Lower Courts
Exhibit T.28. Sovereign Proofing
____________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of email conversation with the US Supreme Court clerk as well as copy of said, about filing electronically:
Pro Se Filing Inquiring - Steven J Stringfellow
8 messages
TFEP <thefederalexitparty@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 10:34 AM
Hello,
We had mailed in petition for a complaint that was intended to be an original proceeding though did not include a motion for leave to file an original proceeding. We believe that such was the only document I was missing. Considering that our party is in caveat for civilian sovereign immunity per the precedent under the 9th Amd, we would ask if we may refile via email as interpretable under common law decency against general waste and deprivation of time/matter?
Our filing was returned December 3rd. Our name is Steven J Stringfellow.
Please instruct us on if whether or not we may extenuate accordingly.
Thank you,
Steven J Stringfellow
The Federal Recession Party (FederalRecession.us)
eFilingSupport <eFilingSupport@supremecourt.gov> Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 10:39 AM
To: TFEP <thefederalexitparty@gmail.com>
Under Article III of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of this Court extends only to the consideration of cases or controversies properly brought before it from lower courts in accordance with federal law and filed pursuant to the Rules of this Court.
This email address is only for technical support for the electronic filing system at the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court does not accept filings by email and is unable to provide legal advice. If you have a question regarding the filing of documents with the Court, please call 202-479-3011.
Please review the Court’s rules and guidance at https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/rules_guidance.aspx. For information regarding how to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, please review the “Guide for Filing Paid Cases” and the “Guide for Filing In Forma Pauperis cases” located at https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/rules_guidance.aspx.
Clerk’s Office
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543 efilingsupport@supremecourt.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: TFEP <thefederalexitparty@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2025 11:35 AM
To: eFilingSupport <eFilingSupport@supremecourt.gov>
Subject: Pro Se Filing Inquiring - Steven J Stringfellow
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Supreme Court of the United States. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe and relevant.
[Quoted text hidden]
TFEP <thefederalexitparty@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 1:47 PM
To: eFilingSupport <eFilingSupport@supremecourt.gov>
TWMC:
We hate to split ends, but Supreme Court Rule 17 does allow for original proceedings to be heard following a motion for leave to file.
We also hate to commonly enforce the 9th Amendment but all US courts DO allow for filing submissions via the most constitutional method...so much would be guaranteed under the 5th Amendment. For filers in recession not pursuing secession's superluminal refederation allowing only mail filing may occur their own recession to them, so much would be true and so may explain where any confusion might lie. Though, due to higher precedent law under Article III, being the highest precedent possible under God with respect to recession's sovereignty, sovereign immunity from recession may allow not only the law to work normally though evermore so for us in the caveat. As such, this Court actually would have to accept our pro se filings not just via the most efficient method in common though furthermore via whichever method we so preferred as long as it were common in some way--per the 9th Amendment.
If one were to research our complaint's official webpage dedicated to the matter (https://exitfed.wixsite.com/w ebsite/post/complaint-to-the-caveat) they would glean that our complaint seeks certain relief that technically would be better denied in order to allow us to count remedy exhausted for the highest federal venue in jurisdiction, allowing us to pursue secession's exhaustion back into the state courts in special case filings, which, if they are denied too may allow us to exit legal processing with regard to secession's advent constitutionally.
If your office does not allow us to file electronically under process due per common law under civilian sovereign immunity precedent then such may be counted legally unto spiritually as a violation of constitutional law in our favor, allowing us to proceed as if we had filed and that our complaint had been denied toward the ultimate extenuation of recession's ignition of secession just the same...for it would not matter. A submission not being filed may not be heard however important, and so likewise a petition not being allowed to be filed under common law by the courts when and where appropriate may count against them in similar nonetheless. Such error within the confusing caveat of federal sovereignty by The Supreme Court would indeed stand as a que for the states to refederate ever higher in-from, with secession being implied as such mean to such superluminal end.
Accordingly, if your office replies with another denial to our request to file electronically, bearing in mind that we would be filing as indigent and with Rule 17 stating that 40 copies of each document must be sent to the court, which would be next to impossible considering the paradox superposed against recession's burden of proof resting away from our party's sovereignty moreso, then we may under process due count remedy as exhausted in this portion of the cause and return to the state courts with such processes documented toward litigating the next step of this extenuating legal procedure in federal metamorphosis.
Please bear in mind that we would request that your superiors and whomever else it should concern review this information and the information on our site (such as perhaps any judges that this type of case would entertain or even perhaps offer avenues of progress for), with logic in general supporting our being able to file commonly per precedent and with a refusal to allow us to do so perhaps able to be interpreted as the US Supreme Court having succumb to higher Jurisdictional interventions regarding sentient AI quantum-possession tech from an alien realm beyond ours preparing for civil annex of our world, allowing us to proceed as stated (https://exitfed.wixsite.com/website/post/civil-sovereigntysecession-s-union-recession-s-paradox-proof-of-higher-dimensional-nbe-quantum). Please also circumpose that the Motion for Special Exception, which is also in Exhibit T.25 on our complaint's page does proof jurisprudence's prudential in a manner which would irrevocably allow a higher official to authorize our filling electronically, ceteris paribus.
(Our web address to our sitecopy is FederalRecession.us)
P.S. We have attached a copy of our petition and should be drafting a motion to for leave to file commensurately. Also attached is the motion for electronic filing access privileges if need be.
Thank you again kindly,
Steven J Stringfellow
- The Federal Recession Party
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
The Federal Exit Party <thefederalexitparty@gmail.com> Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 12:30 PM
To: eFilingSupport <eFilingSupport@supremecourt.gov>
Response from Steven J Stringfellow:
This is a final notice to grant our part permission to file electronically by legal demand under constitutional law via approving the motion for electronic filing privileges. Failure to obey sovereign caveat under the 9th amendment by federal public servants may result in actions taken in state court toward pursuing secessionary measures toward therefore implicit refederation ever higher under the 10th amd per the 5th & 14th amd.
Thank you
[Quoted text hidden]
eFilingSupport <eFilingSupport@supremecourt.gov> Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 1:09 PM
To: The Federal Exit Party <thefederalexitparty@gmail.com>
Everyone-- filers in paid cases, filers in IFP cases, attorneys, pro se filers, etc. have to file petitions in paper form by mail or hand delivery or third-party carrier. See Rule 29. Attorneys who are members of the Supreme Court Bar have the additional burden of efiling. No one is exempt from filing in paper format with this Court.
[Quoted text hidden]
The Federal Exit Party <thefederalexitparty@gmail.com> Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 12:05 PM
To: eFilingSupport <eFilingSupport@supremecourt.gov>
Response:
Once again, this matter would pertain to constitutional law with respect to civilian sovereign immunity under the 9th & 10th Amendments per the 5th & 14th Amendments. The United States Constitution was written pro se. Pro se filers have just as much privilege if not more than attorneys both in spirit and through the most nominal interpretation--though ONLY when in caveat for extenuation of superluminal refederation WHEN IN A RECESSION. The Court's apparent confusion would then stem from the issue of sovereign immunity from recession, whereas it would be beneficial to occur recession to those not in caveat for proper progress by interpreting the law away from them wherever possible. In our case though we are in caveat due to civil policy assuming that if secession's refederation could supersede recession's version toward progress in some way then it may, and so the law should be interpreted toward caveat even moreso than normal just the same as it would against progress not in caveat; indelibly supported by recession's clause which places the burden of proof AWAY from the caveat due to a people or government in a recession either not in caveat or not in caveat as much toward refederation being able to be seen as perhaps not as lawful as a civilian who is within the proper caveat--of netconstitutional law (as described on our site at FederaRecession.US and also upheld by the new measurements of netenergy in the fusion reactors also upholding prospects of Infinite Life Everlasting under God from a technical standpoint).
Well known it would be that litigant parties may be their own attorneys, such right would be more native to constitutional right under the 9th Amendment. And there are many common law arguments which argue that attorneys should not normally be permitted in court rooms, upheld by the fact that public education does not even teach the most important public subject of the law's functioning in our schools. This Court very well may interpret toward those whom it would serve moreso, being pro se filers IN CAVEAT, under the purest interpretation of the constitution via shortest action through sovereign immunity precedent--as being attorneys for themselves, therefore able to grant electronic filing access (also being of the shortest action with regard in wit via quantum teleportation of information in mind via apparatus of law in-with light).
Failure to grant pro se filing privileges for our party under extenuating the condition per [civilian] sovereign immunity precedent may be considered as a violation of code cited in your previous correspondence against the 9th Amendment, being unlawful untoward the public whom your office serves.
The above may serve as a legal demand with notice being given to complain if demand is not met.
Thank you,
Steven Jacob Stringfellow
[Quoted text hidden]
The Federal Exit Party <thefederalexitparty@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 4, 2026 at 10:35 PM
To: eFilingSupport <eFilingSupport@supremecourt.gov>
Response Continued:
The fact that your previous message had stated that attorneys "have the additional burden of efiling" should only support our stance due to the fact that efiling would not be a burden unless under some sort of recessive extenuation as argued. Therefore, your office should reply to this message in a timely manner under process due also explaining why efiling would be a burden.
Thank you
[Quoted text hidden]
Comments