President Barack Hussein Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500-0001
Re: Your "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" [1]
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193, Jeep v. Obama/Government U.S.
forma securitatis,[2] in both law and equity for RIGHTS
Dear Mr. Obama,
I realize the only "civil rights" issues you can visualize revolve around young hooded African Americans. But I assert your obligation under the Constitution for the United States of America, Article. II., Section. 3., to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed" i.e., "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,"[3] § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) and the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985).
"Immunity is given to crime,[4] 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."[5]
Neither yours nor the Supreme Court's "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" [6] can be allowed to prevail.
When I came to your campaign in 2008, I had already been denied my Civil Rights for nearly five years. I had my first Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 before the Supreme Court. I naïvely thought that you the first credible African American presidential nominee might actual stand up against the "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" [7] of the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[8] I mean by your own recent assertions you had been subjected to the mortal sin of profiling.
Now I realize that the deprivation of rights that men and women of all colors are subjected to in the Jane Crow, Plea Bargain and Exclusionary Rule Eras is trivial as compared to the drinking fountain, public restrooms, lunch counter and profiling remnants of Jim Crow.
There are people that have said to my face that my issues are trivial, that they are of no consequence to anyone but me. But the Constitution of the United States' 14th Amendment indemnifies "All persons" rights.
"With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners. We currently incarcerate 756 inmates per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the average worldwide of 158 for every 100,000."[9] I refuse to believe our Justice System is FIVE times better than the rest of the developed world. If my experience is representative I would assert our Justice System is FIVE times worse. You want to promote Civil Rights and prosecute the crimes[10] for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States?"[11]
In the Jane Crow Era[12] prosecute the "malicious or corrupt" [13] Judge that EVERYDAY authorizes "facially" [14] fraudulent[15] invalid court orders/warrants that can strip any man… white, brown, pink or purple of their children, their homes, their property and throw them on the street. Force them into a court system that has quite literally stacked the deck against men in family relation matters. A "malicious or corrupt" [16] Judge can do anything without probable cause, without any hope of Justice. The "malicious or corrupt" [17] Judge has absolute immunity in Domestic relation issues, criminal issues and civil issues.
In the Plea Bargain Era[18] prosecute the "facially" "malicious or dishonest"[19] Government Attorneys that everyday knowingly[20] "withhold exculpable evidence"[21] from their innocent victims during negotiations and then put forward "knowingly[22] false testimony by police officers"[23] to ice the cake of their criminal malice and corruption.
And if by some rare act of altruism the malice corruption and incompetence is defeated the best one can hope for is the Exclusionary Rule.[24] The Exclusionary Rule does nothing for the innocent victim. The Exclusionary Rule does nothing to punish the criminal perpetrator of the "deprivation of rights." In the Exclusionary Rule Era[25] prosecute whenever and where ever there is "facially" malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[26] deprivations of rights by any "persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process." [27] The Exclusionary Rule punishes the ends of justice. The Ends of Justice is punished and forced to let both criminals go free, the initiating criminal and the criminal perpetrator of the "deprivation of rights." The Exclusionary Rule goes beyond "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" [28] and into the realm of INSANITY!!!
I remind you of what Martin Luther King, Jr. and others[29] have said:
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
We have to get through the "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" [30] that is defeating Justice EVERYWHERE. We can not let the Supreme Court reach back into their trick bag to assert a "pre-existing right"[31] that is in conflict with common sense!!!! If you read, and I mean READ Supreme Court Opinions:
1. Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7 (1868) suspiciously subsequent to § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 (1871) suspiciously subsequent to the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985) creating an "absolute immune" royalist Judiciary by reaching back 260 years for a skewed reading, overlooking the noted exception that absolute ANYTHING creates, of Lord Coke, Floyd and Barker (1607) ruling from an acknowledged CORRUPT royalist court, the Star Chamber for a pre-existing right.
2. John Marshal Harlan's dissents in Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883) and Plessy v. Ferguson - 163 U.S. 552 (1896) a REFRESHER COURSE in common sense. The Supreme Court created Judge made law to DEFEAT the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law.
"Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted." Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 26 (1883)
"We have seen that the power of Congress, by legislation, to enforce the master's right to have his slave delivered up on claim was implied from the recognition of that right in the national Constitution. But the power conferred by the Thirteenth Amendment does not rest upon implication or inference. Those who framed it were not ignorant of the discussion, covering many years of our country's history, as to the constitutional power of Congress to enact the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 and 1850. When, therefore, it was determined, by a change in the fundamental law, to uproot the institution of slavery wherever it existed in the land and to establish universal freedom, there was a fixed purpose to place the authority of Congress in the premises beyond the possibility of a doubt. Therefore, ex industria, power to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment by appropriate legislation was expressly granted. Legislation for that purpose, my brethren concede, may be direct and primary. But to what specific ends may it be directed? This court has uniformly held that the national government has the power, whether expressly given or not, to secure and protect rights conferred or guaranteed by the Constitution. United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303. That doctrine ought not now to be abandoned when the inquiry is not as to an implied power to protect the master's rights, but what may Congress, under powers expressly granted, do for the protection of freedom and the rights necessarily inhering in a state of freedom."Civil
Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 33 (1883)
There was no pre-existing right right to refuse service or demand separate facilities:
"In Rex v. Ivens, 7 Carrington & Payne 213, 32 E.C.L. 49, the court, speaking by Mr. Justice Coleridge, said:
"An indictment lies against an innkeeper who refuses to receive a guest, he having at the time room in his house and either the price of the guest's entertainment being tendered to him or such circumstances occurring as will dispense with that tender. This law is founded in good sense. The innkeeper is not to select his guest. He has no right to say to one, you shall come to my inn, and to another, you shall not, as everyone coming and conducting himself in a proper manner has a right to be received, and, for this purpose innkeepers are a sort of public servants, they having, in return a kind of privilege of entertaining travelers and supplying them with what they want." Civil
Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 40 (1883)
3. In District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) the Supreme Court reaches back to near prehistoric times to call upon a pre-existing right to self defense to defeat at least 2,000 of civilization COMMON SENSE attempt to pacify itself by regulating private use of lethal weapons. I quote from STEVENS, J., DISSENTING, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER 554 U. S. ____ (2008)
"The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.
In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.[Footnote 1] Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, "[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature's power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment's text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.
Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there;[Footnote 2] we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55, 65–66, n. 8 (1980).[Footnote 3] No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses."
For nearly 2,000 years the trend in civilization as a whole has been to disarm itself in support of the Rule of Law in the face if individual volition. But now, because of the Supreme Court FIVE[32] has been seduced by emotionally charged fantasy movies, "Red Dawn."[33] We the People have to endure Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman's fatal anarchy.
The fatal anarchy of the Martin/Zimmerman issue is what CIVILIZATION is designed to abate, if not eliminate. But We the People cannot do what is reasonable and necessary, We the People cannot do what makes common sense because we have FIVE[34] idiots on the Supreme Court that cannot see that civility and the Rule of Law is in direct conflict with the unencumbered right to conceal and carry lethal weapons.
Do we live under a reckonable facially reasonable rule of law or under the despotic dictatorial prerogative of the Black Robed Royalist Judiciary???
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
cc: Donald B. Verrilli Jr., (via e-mail SupremeCtBriefs@USDOL.gov)
My Blog - Wednesday, August 07, 2013, 3:53:04 PM
[1] "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963). Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption.
As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[2] "A radical solution was thus proposed in clause 61 of the charter, known as the security clause (forma securitatis)." Matthew Strickland, 'Enforcers of Magna Carta (act. 1215–1216)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press. [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/theme/93691, accessed 10 July 2013]
[3] AMENDMENT XIV Section 1. Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
[4] § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242):
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
[5] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 13-5193, Jeep v. Obama/Government U.S. proves it, Monday, June 10, 2013! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.[5] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in Congress (1871)[5] at the inception of the Jim Crow Era and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871
[6] "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[7] "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
[8] 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.
[9] "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
[10] § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242):
[11] 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law
[12] Jane Crow @ www.DGJeep.blogspot.com
[13] 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.
[14] Penn v. U.S. 335 F.3d 786 (2003)
[15] United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals seven times (case #07-2614, 08-1823, 09-2848, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 and 13-2200), with two prior docketed and denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court (07-1115 and 11-8211)
[16] 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.
[17] 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.
[18] In the Plea Bargain Era, where 95% of case never come to trial, exculpable evidence is all too easily concealed.
[19] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976) Prosecutorial ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
[20] Ibid. United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals seven times – two prior Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
[21] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
[22] Ibid. United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals seven times – two prior Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
[23] United States v. Agurs - 427 U.S. 103 (1976) "typified by Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury. [Footnote 7] In a series of subsequent cases, the Court has consistently held that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, [Footnote 8] and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury."
[24] The Exclusionary Rule does nothing to punish the criminal perpetrator of the "deprivation of rights." And for Innocent People, "the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For Innocent People, "it is damages or nothing." Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971)
[25] The Exclusionary Rule does nothing to punish the criminal perpetrator of the "deprivation of rights." And for Innocent People, "the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For Innocent People, "it is damages or nothing." Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971)
[26] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. Martin Luther King said it better, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[27] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[28] "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963). Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption.
[29] "Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both." Eleanor Roosevelt "We win justice quickest by rendering justice to the other party." Mahatma Gandhi
[30] Incompetence is the most insidious and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishonesty, malice and corruption. Martin Luther King said it better, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" (MLK Jr., Strength to Love, 1963).
As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath & Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
As regards law enforcement "Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept." By Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post published The Washington Post reported on cases that demonstrate problems of COMPETENCY in forensic analysis that have been known for nearly 40 years by the Justice Department.
[32] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
[33] Red Dawn (1984) "It is the dawn of World War III. In mid-western America, a group of teenagers bands together to defend their town, and their country, from invading Soviet forces."
[34] Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts
--
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
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
