The Royalist Unaccountable JUDICIARY
Is Directly and Unequivocally Responsible
for 100 years of Racial Unrest in this Country
DO NOT let them at HEALTHCARE for the NEXT 100 Years!!!
Friday, October 07, 2011, 10:47:52 AM
The Royalist Unaccountable Judiciary 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 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, The Civil Rights Act of 1871, and the ANTI-Segregationist Civil Rights Act (1876).
The Royalist Unaccountable Judiciary forced segregation upon the victorious majority of We the People by voiding their constitutionally authorized national corrective statutory efforts. The Civil Rights Act (1876) clearly prohibited segregation, yet six years after it was passed The Royalist Unaccountable Judiciary 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."
Thurgood Marshall and Rosa Parks were NOT the first persons NOR the only persons to think of suing for the "equal" in separate but equal. I cite Charles Sumner who sued for EQUAL and integrated schools in Roberts v. Boston, 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 198 (1850) and Ida B. Wells who sued for equal seating on a train in 1884 to name the just TWO, of the unknown THOUSANDS, who tried to overcome the Royalist Unaccountable Judiciary's WRONG!!!!!!!!! The Royalist Unaccountable Judiciary utilized its Royalist Unaccountable discretion to not entertain the obvious issue, claiming immunity, to in essence look the other way to the inequality thus maliciously and corruptly violate 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 UNEQUAL unconstitutional inconsistency.
You ought to actually read the Royalist Unaccountable Judiciary opinions in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) and Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) if you never have. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) is an openly racist manifesto. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) has always been regarded as the source of the term Separate but Equal. Separate 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 Judiciary 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 Unaccountable Judiciary 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 in effect supported property rights over We the People's, worker's, rights and may have indeed fomented if not prolonged the Great Depression while restraining Roosevelt's New Deal
The Royalist Unaccountable Judiciary is now using their unchecked ROYALIST UNACCOUNTABLE power to sustain their and others Royalist Unaccountable 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, and Treaties Made.
The Royalist Unaccountable Judiciary wants to maintain the Jane Crow 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 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.
Impeach the Judiciary FIVE
We the People need to use constitutionally assured
representative power to IMPEACH for NOT "good Behaviour."
Do NOT let them have the CHANCE to SCREW up HEALTHCARE for the NEXT 100 years!!!!!!!!!!!!
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, because of the Royalist Unaccountable Judiciary "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" 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)
Friday, October 07, 2011, 10:47:52 AM, 2011 10-07-11 100 Years of Judicial Corruption (see orign 07-13-11) REV 00.doc
 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.
 Amendments 13, 14 and 15 all said "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
 "I speak what cannot be denied when I declare that the opinion of the Chief Justice in the case of Dred Scott was more thoroughly abominable than anything of the kind in the history of courts. Judicial baseness reached its lowest point on that occasion. You have not forgotten that terrible decision where a most unrighteous judgment was sustained by a falsification of history. Of course, the Constitution of the United States and every principle of Liberty was falsified, but historical truth was falsified also ..." Charles Sumner February, 1865
 "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 get their cases heard, they had no LEGAL STANDING!!!!!!!
 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - PART II, Article 2, Section 3. (a), (b) and (c)
 ."The era" "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, By John Maguire, "Hitting below the belt" 10/25/99, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08.
 "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
 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
 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" and YES it is spelled wrong.
Thanks in advance
To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process
"agere sequitor esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316