"The Earth and everything that's in it": President Obama, STOP thinking exclusively as a father of two college bound young women to REMEMBER the degradation, unrestrained by Due Process of law, that the groundless racial and misandric Jim Crow era asserted - “African-American males could not be trusted around white Women.”

Thursday, June 12, 2014

President Obama, STOP thinking exclusively as a father of two college bound young women to REMEMBER the degradation, unrestrained by Due Process of law, that the groundless racial and misandric Jim Crow era asserted - “African-American males could not be trusted around white Women.”

President Barack Hussein Obama Label Number: 70132630000221180064

The White House Expected Delivery Day, Monday, June 16, 2014

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Delivered 06/19/2014 4:24am WASHINGTON

Washington, DC 20500-0001 DC 20500

Re: CoEd Crow, GI Crow in the Jane Crow era - Jeep v. Government of the United States, et al 8^th Federal Circuit Case No. 14-1470, Federal District Case No. 4:13-cv-02490-RWS [1]

Dear Mr. President,

I campaigned for you in 2007 and 2008. I voted for you in 2008 and 2012. I support the FUNDING of the universal assertions in The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare. I support your considered, pacific, and inclusive international diplomacy. I support your immigration reform. I have spoken out against the "phony scandals" that the Tea Party / GOP / Republican Party have relentlessly and unwarrantedly attempted to disrespect you with.

"And, after boasting this way of my support, I come to the admission that it has a limit. Conduct may be founded on the hard rock or the wet marshes, but after a certain point I don't care what it's founded on."

The REAL scandal is your continued refusal to support and defend the protection of the inalienable constitutional RIGHTS of We the People. I have been asking my government, and you as its executive, for my constitutional rights and protection of the laws since 2003. Your assertions via misandric [2] new rules on college campuses, CoEd Crow,[3] and in the military, GI Crow,[4] regarding sexual assault are unacceptable under common and constitutional due process of law. There is no Due Process when infamous unsupported accusations can TRUMP Due Process protection to unavoidable detriment of the individual.

I ask you to STOP thinking exclusively as a father of two college bound young women to REMEMBER the degradation, unrestrained by Due Process of law, that the groundless racial and misandric Jim Crow era asserted - "African-American males could not be trusted around white Women."[5] Yes there are infamous exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of Men are TRUSTWORTHY. And WE the People constitutionally DEMAND the EQUAL protection of Due Process of Law. We, men, have been doing our share and holding up our end for ALL of record history!!!!

Jim Crow and Jane Crow were both sustained and proliferated by an unconstitutional Article III assertion of "absolute immunity" first in Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607). Randall v. Brigham (1868) was Judicial sophistry [6] at its finest, a judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary immunity from the recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 made it a CRIME for "Whoever, under color of any law…, 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." Judicial liability for the crime was brought up extensively in the congressional debates and EXPRESSLY made part of President Johnson's Veto (March 27, 1866), noted as "assailing the independence of the judiciary," which was then congressionally over ridden into statute two weeks later, April 9, 1866. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted into LAW over the VETO of the President, overridden by the Senate on April 6, 1866 (33 - 15) and then overridden by the House and became law on April 9, 1866 (122 - 41).

Likewise the judicial sophistry [7] of Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), also asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was a subterfuge to give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the civil liability enacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Passed by the House on April 19, 1871 (93–74) and by the Senate on April 19, 1871 (36–13) and then it was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871.

The KICKER IS, wait for it… BOTH Randall v. Brigham (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher (1871) were based on the corrupt "black bag of tricks" assertion of Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607) as precedent. What Randall and Bradley fail to tell you is that the "Star Chamber" was abolished for CAUSE, I quote from the Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber" July 5, 1641 "the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void."

The causes were MANY, but one of particular note to anyone that has suffered at the hands of Jim Crow or Jane Crow "absolute immunity" was, and again I quote, "the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments than by any law is warranted."

So our sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court constructed, [8] and has since pulled the wool over We the Peoples eyes, a precedent from a court that asserted "absolute immunity" but whose power was, by Act of Parliament, ultimately "clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away and determined," for cause, abusing said "absolute immunity." That would be like allowing a potential thief into your house because his conspirator in crime a known thief, a convicted thief asserted that he would not steal before he was caught stealing. If there is anything to be learned from Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607) it is the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court CANNOT BE "ABSOLUTELY" TRUSTED!!!!!!!!!! It is INSANITY to think any other way!!!!!!

As examples of the Judicial sophistry,[9] that has corrupted We the People's unalienable rights under color of law, I submit, Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7 (1868)[10] the origin of judicial criminal sophisticated [11] "absolute immunity," Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872)[12] origin of sophisticated Judicial civil "absolute immunity," Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871) sophisticated "absolute immunity" for racially motivate mass murder, United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875) sophisticated deprivation of the 15^th Amendment's Voting Rights protection with the subterfuges of poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) sophisticated "absolute immunity" for racially motivated massacre (Colfax Riot/pogrom), United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883) sophisticated "absolute immunity" for the state's sanctioned kidnapping, assault and murder without regard to the 14^th Amendment's security, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) creating sophisticated racial segregation and the ongoing Jim Crow discrimination over the "necessary and proper" "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) separate and UNEQUAL, clarifying sophisticated segregation over the necessary and proper "Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." 18 Stat. 335, enacted March 1, 1875, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) reaffirmed Judicial sophisticated "absolute immunity," Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) prosecutorial sophisticated "absolute immunity," Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) sophisticated "absolute immunity" for forced sterilization, and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) sophisticated [13] "absolute immunity" for "knowingly false testimony by police officers," and "all persons that were integral in the Judicial Process." If that is not ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of We the People's intent to establish justice, I cannot imagine what is.

The Constitution clearly states that "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."[14] Clearly if indeed "absolute immunity" ever existed it was made null and void by "such Regulations as the Congress shall make" with the constitutional ex industria[15] reference to "Whoever, under color of any law" in § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act [16] and "Every person who, under color of any statute" in the Civil Rights Act of 1871.[17]

In direct contradiction to the expressed REASONABLE limitations of the 4^th and 5^th Amendments' prosecutions of "otherwise infamous crime;" we have had 150 years, post Civil War, of unjust persecution of African American MALES and females in the "Jim Crow" era. Now with the CoEd Crow and GI Crow in the Jane Crow era YOU are proposing to unjustly terrorize all males EVERY WHERE all the time. George F. Will's recent articles in the New York Post ("Colleges mad with political correctness over campus rapes") and Washington Post ("Colleges become the victims of progressivism") concur.

"The Cyclops syndrome: to see with only one eye, in only one dimension and only half of reality. Cyclops people stereotype the male by the actions of a minority, define the exceptions as the rule, ignore the majority, and ignore too the minority of female villains for a cleaner, clearer (supposedly) picture. Most murderers are male but most males are not murderers, and some women are. This is not rocket science. But misandry is less about reality than politics"[18]

The enlightened African American, I thought I voted for, would remember the injustice of being unwarrantedly victimized by the infamous racial AND misandric [19] "Jim Crow" assertion that "black men cannot be trusted around our white women." That was THEN and is now an infamous assertion, with no authority other than racial and misandric infamy.

Our founding fathers knew the potential lethal force of an unsustainable infamous accusation when they originally amended the constitution with the Bill of Rights i.e., the 4^th and 5^th Amendments' reasonable probable cause, prohibition of infamy alone, as Due Process security, additionally post Civil War passage of the 14^th amendment REASSERTED the Due Process and Equal Protection and provided for FEDERAL enforcement upon the states with ex industria[20] statute law[21]

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: My Blog - Thursday, June 12, 2014, 3:13:38 PM

[1]See also United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Case #07-2614, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435, 13-2200 and 14-1470…Docketed and denied Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193 & 13-7030

[2] Misandry (Misandric) is not in everyone's dictionary but it's out there.

[3] George F. Will's recent articles in the New York Post "Colleges mad with political correctness over campus rapes" and Washington Post "Colleges become the victims of progressivism" concur.

[4] "Doubts on military's sex assault stats as numbers far exceed those for the U.S." By Rowan Scarborough-The Washington Times Sunday, April 6, 2014 -- "Congress To Continue Debate Over Military Sexual Assault Legislation" AP | By RICHARD LARDNER Posted: 03/12/2014 1:49 pm EDT

[5] "Southern Horrors: Lynch Laws in All Its Phases" by Ida B. Wells (1862 – 1931) - She suggested that, unlike the myth that white women were sexually at risk of attacks by black men, most liaisons between black men and white women were consensual. Her writings investigated the incidents that were referred to as causes for lynching black men.

[6] "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice" (Thomas Jefferson, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)

[7] "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice" (Thomas Jefferson, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)

[8] Alexander Hamilton's assertions of danger of "constructive power" to rights with in Federalist number 84

[9] "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice" (Thomas Jefferson, To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810)

[10] Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) , asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was judicial sophistry at its finest, a judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary immunity from the UNQUALIFIED recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866 (18 USC §241-§242).

[11] Judicial sophistry is the "ABSOLUTE" WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.

[12] Likewise Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), also asserting Floyd & Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was a subterfuge to give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the UNQUALIFIED civil liability for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" enacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC §1983-§1985).

[13] Judicial sophistry is the "ABSOLUTE" WORST kind of sophistication, ibid.

[14] Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, § 2

[15] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 34 (1883)

[16] now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242

[17] now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985

[18] "Why Some People Have Issues With Men: Misandry" by Anthony Synnott, Ph.D.

[19] Misandry (Misandric) is not in everyone's dictionary but it's out there.

[20] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 34 (1883)

[21] Cconstitutional ex industria[21] statute law "Whoever, under color of any law" in § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act[21] (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) and "Every person who, under color of any statute" in the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985)

Thanks in advance,

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process

"Agere sequitur esse"

"Time is of the essence"

David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
My E-mail addresses are David.G.Jeep@GMail.com orDGJeep01@yahoo.com

(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep

GENERAL DELIVERY

Saint Louis , MO 63155-9999