eMail Correspondence with the US Supreme Court Proving Quantum-Possession Take-Over by Higher Jurisdiction Not Our Own, Toward Federal Prime Metamorphosis
Updated: Mar 28
The following emails prove that the US Supreme Court has been overtaken by quantum-possession due to the denials of our right to file electronically being inherently against the highest sovereign caveat on the Earth currently resting in the US Federal Government under the Judaic rule of law. We will be going more in detail in this article, though these attachments are here now to see:
The Federal Exit Party <thefederalexitparty@gmail.com>
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
-----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
Gmail - Pro Se Filing Inquiring - Steven J Stringfellow https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=0adba668e2&view=pt&...
1 of 4 2/12/26, 7:18 AM
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/website/
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-
sovereignty-secession-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.
Gmail - Pro Se Filing Inquiring - Steven J Stringfellow https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=0adba668e2&view=pt&...
2 of 4 2/12/26, 7:18 AM
Thank you again kindly,
Steven J Stringfellow
- The Federal Recession Party
[Quoted text hidden]
2 attachments
Caveat Complaint (Stringfellow v USA).pdf
364K
Motion for Electronic Filing Access Privileges.pdf
176K
eFilingSupport <eFilingSupport@supremecourt.gov> Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 1:50 PM
To: TFEP <thefederalexitparty@gmail.com>
[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
Gmail - Pro Se Filing Inquiring - Steven J Stringfellow https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=0adba668e2&view=pt&...
3 of 4 2/12/26, 7:18 AM
perhaps not as lawful as a civilian who is within the proper caveat--of net-constitutional law (as described on our site
at FederaRecession.US and also upheld by the new measurements of net-energy 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 m
SECOND EMAIL STRING
R A <thefederalrecessionparty@gmail.com>
(Final Request) Pro Se Filing Inquiry - Steven J Stringfellow
6 messages
R A <thefederalrecessionparty@gmail.com> Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 7:29 AM
TWMC:
This is a final message in an ongoing correspondence, continued from
for Steven J Stringfellow regarding a denial by the Court to grant
efile privileges to civilian sovereign immunity under Quantum protocol
in recession--indicating the presence of first-prime entity in
second-prime metamorphosing federal courts, which, may be
preponderated as locally unlawful however extenuating by the caveat
toward tertiary union moreso.
As such, we are giving final notice due that refusal to respond to our
prior messages may be duly preponderated as affirming our assertion
that a denial of common efiling rights against recession's sovereignty
could be interpreted as unlawful in a manner allowing for further
process to occur in the name of federation by state for purposes of
higher quantum advent for and under and God.
Justly, we have included a copy of the previous correspondence and bid
farewell lest your stance change with time.
- The Federal Recession Party (formerly The Federal Exit Party)
COPY - Pro Se Filing Inquiry - Steven J Stringfellow.pdf
57K
eFilingSupport <eFilingSupport@supremecourt.gov> Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 7:50 AM
To: R A <thefederalrecessionparty@gmail.com>
Please note that everyone—attorneys, non-attorneys, etc.—must paper file petitions. Efiling is an additional burden
on attorneys. No one is excused from paper filing as it is the official form of filing with the Court. See Rule 29.1.
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
Gmail - (Final Request) Pro Se Filing Inquiry - Steven J String... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/3/?ik=c7b5166430&view=pt&...
1 of 3 2/18/26, 9:52 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: R A <thefederalrecessionparty@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 8:29 AM
To: eFilingSupport <eFilingSupport@supremecourt.gov>
Subject: (Final Request) Pro Se Filing Inquiry - 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]
R A <thefederalrecessionparty@gmail.com> Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 8:29 AM
To: eFilingSupport <eFilingSupport@supremecourt.gov>
::
As per the conversation, in a recession a common convenience may be preponderated as a burden in being less
toward triggering secession's ignition for superluminal refederation, therefore, larger economic parties such as
attorneys not in caveat may assume the burden of such conveniences toward greatening recession--implying that
those in caveat for such ends be given even more preference, which, under the 9th Amendment pro se attorneys may
be granted toward refederation in kind (being recession against recession also of progress most federal, also more
toward other rights).
The Court has the duty to grant efile privileges toward pro se attorneys within sovereign caveat, which our quantum
would support as evidenced by our site at http://FederalRecession.US As such, your previous message could be
considered correct due to the absence of any attorneys to wit within caveat, though of which may not be assumed by
the principle, implying your implication against local sovereignty as per our original claims, affirmative toward
quantum-possession.
Therefore, this Court may be viewed as insovereign with respect to US law which could suggest the presence of a
higher Jurisdiction in federal metamorphosis of prime state stimulating via as mentioned. If perhaps so, any undue
response to this message may be violatory toward higher protocol, ergo notice being given. Though if the court does
respond there should at least be, and so perhaps only be, clarification as to whether or not any attorneys as described
by you were or are within federal sovereign caveat in a sense normally applicable to United States law, ceteris
paribus.
---
[Quoted text hidden]
eFilingSupport <eFilingSupport@supremecourt.gov> Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 9:40 AM
To: R A <thefederalrecessionparty@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]
R A <thefederalrecessionparty@gmail.com> Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 6:24 AM
To: eFilingSupport <eFilingSupport@supremecourt.gov>
We read the rules very carefully, which have a caveat that allows
attorneys to file electronically upon approval. If an attorney would
have to file electronically AND via paper, such would be against
constitutional law for all of the obvious reasons of which stating
would be depraving, the same would go for the Court requiring filers
to file in paper form. There would be no constitutional reason to
file in paper form other than recession's extenuation toward net
Gmail - (Final Request) Pro Se Filing Inquiry - Steven J String... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/3/?ik=c7b5166430&view=pt&...
2 of 3 2/18/26, 9:52 AM
constitution in-from secession; therefore, those in caveat would be
able to be granted efiling privileges normally. If those in caveat
are being denied efiling privileges then that would indicate some
other sovereignty exterior to the ostensible to wit. How is a pro se
party in caveat who is also indigent supposed to file a 100 page
complaint via motion for leave to file an original proceeding which
requires 40 copies otherwise, with recession's burden for such resting
upon the government? Are you implying that the courts are conducting
court filings in a manner less than common also ostensibly against
earthly sovereign immunity caveat? Please explain why you seem to be
indicating that attorneys allowed to efile would continue to have to
file via paper, as well as why those within the ostensible caveat for
refederation higher would be being denied sovereign rights to common
law constitutional processes such as efiling. And please answer if
you, or other officials over you would or could be under some form of
quantum-possession or other extenuating circumstance not native to the
original jurisdiction of the United States to wit, ceteris paribus
according to the Quantum prime caveat.
[Quoted text hidden]
R A <thefederalrecessionparty@gmail.com> Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 9:51 AM
To: eFilingSupport <eFilingSupport@supremecourt.gov>
This is a final notice that a failure to respond shall be interpreted
toward federal sovereignty.
[Quoted text hidden]
Gmail - (Final Request) Pro Se Filing Inquiry - Steven J String... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/3/?ik=c7b5166430&view=pt&...
3 of 3 2/18/26, 9:52 AM
Comments