Thursday, July 14, 2011

President Barack Hussein Obama , The Royalist IMMUNE Supreme Court Is SOLELY Responsible for 100 years of Racial Unrest in this Country, David Jeep vs. Barack Hussein Obama 4-11-cv-0931-CAS 11-2425


President Barack Hussein Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500-0001

Re:      The Royalist IMMUNE Supreme Court Is SOLELY Responsible for 100 years of Racial Unrest in this Country
       David Jeep vs. Barack Hussein Obama 4:11-cv-0931-CAS / 11-2425

Dear Barack,
I realize you may or may not even be aware of what is being done on your watch and what has been done on other’s watch.  This unlawful conspiracy against rights is extrajudicial, before out of court.  I ask you to consider the enclosed and the above referenced action as regards the CORRUPTION of the American Judiciary.
The ministerial[1] grant of “Absolute Immunity [2] for ministers and by ministers in the government of the United states of America is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial unconstitutional “unlawful Conspiracy[3]before out of Court[4] to obfuscate “false and malicious Persecutions.” [5]
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”




David G. Jeep

enclosure
a.       “The Royalist IMMUNE Supreme Court Is SOLELY Responsible for 100 years of Racial Unrest in this Country” Wednesday, July 13, 2011

cc:  My Blog - Thursday, July 14, 2011, 6:48:42 PM


The Royalist IMMUNE Supreme Court
Is SOLELY Responsible for 100 years of Racial Unrest in this Country
Thursday, July 14, 2011, 6:48:42 PM
The Royalist Supreme Court is directly and unequivocally responsible for 100 years (1865- Civil Rights Act 1964) of Jim Crow’s racial unrest and criminal malfeasants after the end of the American Civil War (1861–1865)The Majority of the victorious We the People as represented by BOTH houses of congress and the President in 1876 NEVER wanted segregation.  The Majority of We the People as represented by BOTH houses of congress and Presidents[6] passed into law AMENDMENT XIII (Passed by Congress January 31, 1865, Ratified December 6, 1865), AMENDMENT XIV (Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, Ratified July 9, 1868), AMENDMENT XV (Passed by Congress February 26, 1869, Ratified February 3, 1870), Force Act of 1870-1875[7], The Civil Rights Act of 1871, and the ANTI-Segregationist Civil Rights Act (1876)
The Royalist Supreme Court forced segregation upon the victorious majority of We the People by voiding their constitutionally[8] authorized national corrective statutory efforts.  The Civil Rights Act (1876) clearly prohibited segregation, yet six years after it was passed The Royalist Supreme Court VOIDED the Civil Rights Act (1876) with the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) and then iced the cake with Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) creating the concept and sanctioning 100 years of government sponsored “Separate and Unequal.”  
I will and have always refused to believe that Thurgood Marshall was the first person black or white to think of suing for the “equal” in separate but equal.  I have always held that the Royalist Supreme Court utilized its Royalist discretion to not entertain the obvious issue, claim immunity, to in essence look the other way to inequality thus breaching its responsibility and establishing its malfeasants.  There is no way in a country based on equal protection you can install 100 years of “Separate and Unequal” without a Royalist’s IMMUNE prerogative to ignore the INHERENT unconstitutional inconsistency.
You ought to actually read the Royalist Supreme Court opinions in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) and Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)[9] if you never have.  Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) is an openly racist manifesto.[10]  Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) has always been regarded as the source of the term Separate but EqualSeparate but Equal does not even appear in the Majority opinion.  The majority opinion references “equal, but separate,” separate being the controlling exception to the rule.  “Equal, but separate” does not even come close to Separate but Equal.  The majority opinions in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) and Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) all but sanctions the race warfare that would consume us unnecessarily for a 100 years.  Separate and VERY unequal better describes the majority opinion.  John Harlan’s well-reasoned timely dissent to the majority’s opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) supporting integration, which spoke for the majority of the people at the time, has the only reference to Separate but Equal.
We the People in 1876 passed the ORIGINAL Civil Rights Act.  The Civil Rights Act (1876) is a virtual match with the Civil Rights Act (1964).  If the Supreme Court had not over-ruled the majority of We the People as represented by both house of congress and the President of the United States U.S. Grant to void the Civil Rights Act (1876) in favor of segregation with the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) there would have been any SEGREGATION, no Jim Crow, no 60’s race riots, no Rodney King riots and no 100 years of racial motivated lynching.  We would have dealt with race as an issue as the victorious We the People wanted to in a smaller, more immediate, civilized and less violent world in 1876 before it had morphed throughout a 100 year lifespan into the institution of Jim Crow.
The Royalist Supreme Court REPEATEDLY attempted to DERAIL Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal with its manufactured vision of the “Liberty of Contract” (Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)) that supported property rights over worker’s rights and may have indeed fomented if not prolonged the Great Depression while restraining Roosevelt’s New Deal
The Royalist Supreme Court is now using their unchecked ROYALIST IMMUNE UNIMPEACHABLE power to sustain their Royalist Immunity, CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON (3/29/11), from substantive Justice between the Government and We the People in spite of the Supreme Law of the Land that clearly denies IMMUNITY, the Declaration of Independence’s precedent for “repeated Petitions for redress answered only by repeated injury,” the First Amendment’s lawfully un-abridge-able right to petition for redress of grievances, Substantive Justice, Statute Law,[11] and Treaties Made.[12] 
The Royalist Supreme Court wants to maintain the Jane Crow[13] era where a man’s rights in family law are secondary to a woman’s AND the Plea Bargain/Exclusionary Rule era in Criminal law where we incarcerate 5 times[14] as many people per capita as the rest of the world.  This does not even address the lingering New Jim Crow Laws that incarcerate African Americans at 10 TIMES the rate of non-African Americans.[15]

Impeach the Supreme Court FIVE[16]
We the People need to use constitutional assured
representative power to
IMPEACH for NOT “good Behaviour,[17]

The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people.  We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America[18] e.g., To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process, The Exclusionary Rule, Grounds for Impeachment, Jeep v Obama, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947, Jeep v Jones “The most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115.”

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Thursday, July 14, 2011, 6:48:42 PM, 2011 07-13-11 Barack Obama 100 Years of Supreme Court Corruption REV 00.doc



[1] Ministerial i.e., unauthorized by the Constitution, Laws and Treaties made.  As opposed to an authorized judicial act under the Constitution, Laws and Treaties made.
[2] “absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335
[3] 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.”
[6] Lincoln, Over President Johnson’s veto and Grant
[7] Series of four acts passed by the U.S. Congress (1870–75) to protect the rights guaranteed to blacks by the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The acts authorized federal authorities to penalize any interference with the registration, voting, office holding, or jury service of blacks. Violations produced over 5,000 indictments and 1,250 convictions throughout the South. The Supreme Court later ruled sections of the acts unconstitutional.
[8] Amendments 13, 14 and 15 all had the provision “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
[9] They are readily available online Justia website Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) or Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) or Google them. 
[10]There were thousands of free colored people in this country before the abolition of slavery, enjoying all the essential rights of life, liberty and property the same as white citizens, yet no one at that time thought that it was any invasion of his personal status as a freeman because he was not admitted to all the privileges enjoyed by white citizens, or because he was subjected to discriminations in the enjoyment of accommodations in inns, public conveyances and places of amusement. Mere discriminations on account of race or color were not regarded as badges of slavery.That is a bold face LIE, they complained, they were not heard, they had no LEGAL voice!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[12] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - PART II, Article 2, Section 3. (a), (b) and (c)
[13] ."The Jane Crow era” “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, By John Maguire, “Hitting below the belt 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08.
[14] "Why We Must Fix Our Prisons", By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009, U.S. Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: February 29, 2008, Our Real Prison Problem. Why are we so worried about Gitmo? Newsweek by Dahlia Lithwick Published June 5, 2009
[15] About 10.4% of the entire African-American male population in the United States aged 25 to 29 was incarcerated, by far the largest racial or ethnic group—by comparison, 2.4% of Hispanic men and 1.2% of white men in that same age group were incarcerated.  Prison Population Exceeds Two Million — Infoplease.com
[17] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”