Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Aderson Francois Re: Jeep v Obama “unfair procedural barriers to the courts”

Aderson Francois
Associate Professor and Supervising Attorney, Civil Rights Clinic
Room G18, Notre Dame Hall
Howard University School of Law
2900 Van Ness Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008

Re:      Jeep v Obama
       "unfair procedural barriers to the courts"

Dear Mr. Francois,
I am in need of help.  I have been denied the protection of the supreme Law of the Land[1] because of what I assert are "unfair procedural barriers to the courts."  I am and or WAS an upper middle class, smart athletic, nice looking, white man.  I literally went to the old boys school.  In colloquial terms I have had my Civil rights, the supreme Law of the Land, denied by the draconian measures of the DWI laws[2] and the Jane Crow Era.[3]
I am not new to this struggle I have been at it since 2003.  I I have endured over 8.02 years (2,926 days +/-) of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[4] (where I was humiliated with the denial of the most basic of liberties - regularly and repeatedly subjected to strip searches), two psychological examinations, and 3 ½ years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America.
I am currently trying to get my issue based on the Magna Carta § 61 (1215),[5] Floyd and Barker (1607),[6] The Declaration of Independence (1776),[7] the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America (1789),[8]  Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242 (1871), Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 (1871) and treaties made, "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[9]" (as adopted by the United Nations[10] on 12/16/66, and signed by the United States on October 5, 1977) before the US Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Court as Jeep v Obama, Case #4:11-cv-00931-???.
I am an open book.  Everything is on my blog from the evidence to the latest court filings.  Please review and let me know if you would be interested in assisting me.  Again this is not about racial, sexual or social CIVIL RIGHTS.  This is about CIVIL RIGHTS for EVERY PERSON.  You do not need the backing of a minority or repeated actions of a criminal[11] actor under color of law to have RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"

Revised and extended Tuesday, June 07, 2011, 4:04:21 PM

David G. Jeep

cc:  My Blog - Tuesday, June 07, 2011, 4:04:21 PM

[1] The Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph
[2] With 33% of automobile accidents involving alcohol the Law makers feel pressured to draconically enforce strict laws regarding DWI.  33% is a raw statistic, I can say that 99.99% persons involved in automobile accidents have ten fingered persons, by logic of strict adherence to statistics we ought cut off the finger of all ten fingered drivers because only .00001% of automobile accidents involve 9 fingered persons.  I do not want argue it here in a foot note, but lets just say the issue when looked at unemotionally has credibility, we are draconian in our enforcement of DWI laws.
[3] The Jane Crow era started in 1974 with The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA).  CAPTA was followed by The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA).  Admittedly Children and Woman are abused.  And by process of elimination Men are responsible for the abuse.  But where 1 in a thousand Children and Woman are subjected to abuse 1 in 4 men are subjected to the again draconian remedy an exparte order of protection.  As a victim of frivolous exparte order of protection I can unequivocally attest they are not a benign remedy.  Frivolous exparte order of protection can have far reaching and long lasting effects on the victim.  Enough said for now..
[5] The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, established the right of redress:
"If we, our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon."
[6] The ministerial grant of "Absolute Immunity" for and by Judges in the government of the United states of America is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional "unlawful Conspiracy" "out of Court" to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."
Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) "Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy."
[7] The Declaration of Independence: "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."  Obviously The Colonist were not content to just be filing petitions they were looking for more - SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE between themselves and the government of King George III with "Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."
[8] Amendment I, Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[9] "The Treaty "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" is presented for both its binding force as "Supreme Law of the Land", and also for its persuasive force in reason, to help understand the nature of our own Petition Clause, that it is a law of reason freely chosen by our founders: If we now choose it freely as a basis for the organization of free nations, why should we presume that it was less compelling when our Founding Fathers brought the Thirteen Colonies together under one Constitution?" 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM
[10] "And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun." 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM

Thanks in advance

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process

"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
Post a Comment