I am not the CRAZY one,
The Royalist Unaccountable JUDICIARY
Is Directly and Unequivocally Responsible for 100+ years of Racial Unrest.
DO NOT let them at HEALTHCARE for the NEXT 100 Years
I am not the CRAZY one, 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). DO NOT let them at HEALTHCARE for the NEXT 100 Years!!!
The majority of the victorious We the People as represented by BOTH houses of congress and the President in 1875 NEVER wanted segregation, thus the ANTI-Segregationist Civil Rights Act (1875). The Majority of We the People, as represented by BOTH houses of congress, and Presidents[1] 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[2], The Civil Rights Act of 1871, and the ANTI-Segregationist Civil Rights Act (1875).
The Royalist Unaccountable Judiciary forced segregation upon the victorious majority of We the People by voiding their constitutionally[3] authorized national corrective statutory efforts. The Civil Rights Act (1875) clearly prohibited segregation, yet six years after it was passed The Royalist Unaccountable Judiciary VOIDED the Civil Rights Act (1875) 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,[4] a white man, who sued for EQUAL and integrated schools[5] in 1850 and Ida B. Wells who sued for equal seating on a train in 1884 to name 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[6] 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)[7] if you never have. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) is an openly racist manifesto.[8] 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 1875 passed the ORIGINAL Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act (1875) 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 (1875) in favor of segregation with the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) there would NOT 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 1875 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[9] 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,[10] and Treaties Made.[11]
The Royalist Unaccountable Judiciary wants to maintain the Jane Crow[12] 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[13] 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.[14]
How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[15] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[16] i.e., the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[17]
We the People have fallen under the despotic[18] spell of the concentrated power[19] in the Supreme Court that created ABSOLUTE POWER from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[20] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor, [21] the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[22] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[23]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" [24] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.
See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 11-8211 Jeep v. Obama
I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Cloths." AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??
ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity,[25] in a government of free and equal persons on THIS PLANET!!!!!
ANY assertion of governmental ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, acknowledging un-avoidable human fallibility, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity, in a government of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!
The ministerial[26] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[27] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[28] "before out of Court"[29] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[30]
"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." I say it NOW, 2011!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967. [31] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[32].
Impeach the current Black Robed Royalist Supreme Court FIVE[33]
for condoning the denial of a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to justice[34] and
"fraud upon the court."
Before they have a chance to screw-up Healthcare for
100 years!!!!!!
Impeach the current Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour,[35]" denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances,[36] with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment[37] justice between the government and the people, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011 and "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011!!!
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"[38]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[39] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[40] "The Exclusionary Rule," "Grounds for Impeachment."
Most of the 99% of Americans have not had the pleasure and are silently intimidated by the prospect of being dragged through our corrupt COURTS kicking and screaming!!!!!! I have been kicking and screaming for nearly 8 years. I have suffered through 411 days of illegal incarceration, 4 years of homelessness and two psychological examinations. I ask you to review Jeep v Obama 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case #11-2425, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947," Jeep v Bennett 08-1823, "Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and the most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115."
I have referenced "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process," in several of my papers, I do so only because the facts of the case in "To Kill a Mocking Bird" are generally known. The abuses are happening EVERYDAY in REAL LIFE Mr. Thompson (No. 09–571),[41] Mr. Smith (No. 10-8145), [42] Mr. al-Kidd (No. 10–98)[43] and myself (USCA8 No. 11-2425).[44] The fact that "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners"[45] PROVES IT !!!!!!!!!!!!
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (www.dgjeep.blogspot.com)
Saturday, March 24, 2012, 10:43:07 AM, 0000 Blank Issue Paper REV 00.doc
[2] 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.
[3] Amendments 13, 14 and 15 all said "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
[4] "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
[6] "This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly" Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, AS CONFIRMED by the Warren Court in 1967, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967)
[7] 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.
[8] "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!!!!!!!
[9] "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
[11] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - PART II, Article 2, Section 3. (a), (b) and (c)
[12] ."The Jane Crow 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.
[13] "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
[14] 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
[15] "In short, the common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335 (parenthetical non italic text added for clarity)
[16] Alexander Hamilton June of 1788 at the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, The Federalist Papers No. 78, "The Judiciary Department"
[17] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985 The absence of exigent circumstances should be noted.
[18] Montesquieu in his "De l'Espirit des Lois" (1748) (The Spirit of the Law) defines three main kinds of political systems: republican, monarchical, and despotic. Driving each classification of political system, according to Montesquieu, must be what he calls a "principle". This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior on the part of the citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make it function smoothly. For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics), this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. For monarchies, the spring is the love of honor -- the desire to attain greater rank and privilege. Finally, for despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler. We the People have currently despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
[19] "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton, John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston: Beacon Press, p. 364
[20] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Judicial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is based on a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT court, the Star Chamber.
[21] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[22] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) Police ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[23] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!
[24] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"
[25] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into homelessness for FOUR YEARS! The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 7th Amendment's secures the right to settle all disputes/suits: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law" assures justice as regards equity.
[26] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law. For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.
[27] "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
[28] 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."
[31] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967)
[32] Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 & 394
[34] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity
[35] 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" Yes it is spelled wrong in the Constitution
[36] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[37] Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
[38] "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
[40] Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts stated: "Now, it is an effectual denial by a State of the equal protection of the laws when any class of officers charged under the laws with their administration permanently, and as a rule, refuse to extend that protection. If every sheriff in South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) refuses to serve a writ for a colored man, and those sheriffs are kept in office year after year by the people of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), and no verdict against them for their failure of duty can be obtained before a South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) jury, the State of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), through the class of officers who are its representatives to afford the equal protection of the laws to that class of citizens, has denied that protection. If the jurors of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) constantly and as a rule refuse to do justice between man and man where the rights of a particular class of its citizens are concerned, and that State affords by its legislation no remedy, that is as much a denial to that class of citizens of the equal protection of the laws as if the State itself put on its statute book a statute enacting that no verdict should be rendered in the courts of that State in favor of this class of citizens. " Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 334.( Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 177) Senator Pratt of Indiana spoke of the discrimination against Union sympathizers and Negroes in the actual enforcement of the laws: "Plausibly and sophistically, it is said the laws of North Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) do not discriminate against them; that the provisions in favor of rights and liberties are general; that the courts are open to all; that juries, grand and petit, are commanded to hear and redress without distinction as to color, race, or political sentiment." "But it is a fact, asserted in the report, that of the hundreds of outrages committed upon loyal people through the agency of this Ku Klux organization, not one has been punished. This defect in the administration of the laws does not extend to other cases. Vigorously enough are the laws enforced against Union people. They only fail in efficiency when a man of known Union sentiments, white or black, invokes their aid. Then Justice closes the door of her temples." Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 505. (Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 178) non italic parenthetical text added fro clarity.
[44] See also USCA8 07-2614,08-1823,10-1947,11-2425 and Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115&11-8211
[45] "With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners" and you have the moronic audacity to ask why???? "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
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
(314) 514-5228
David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316
