First I apologize for not having included you in the prior mailing, as attached here. I realize, like your fellows, you have absolutely no accountability for your actions. You are free to act to the detriment of your enemies and in support of you accomplices in crime.
“We the People’s” Original Constitution, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, the Amendments subsequent ex industria statute law and the Rule of Law were all sacrificed to the South’s victory in the Civil War. “We the People” passed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments and subsequent ex industria statute law as expressly granted. The oligarch in the Supreme Court OVERULED US.
The Supreme Court. acting as a malicious and corrupt oligarch promoting the South’s victory, defeated the substance and spirit of “We the People’s” efforts as Justice Harlan noted in his dissent from Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883):
“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.”
Now, some 132 years later, as a victim of the South’s victory in the Civil War in the Jane Crow era I am forced to ask how can…
"rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”
“absolute immunity” for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America” BOTH BE CONSTITUTIONAL?
Judges, Prosecutors, Police and All Persons have “absolute immunity” for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."
Malicious or corrupt OR INCOMPETENT judges turn a blind eye to “malicious or dishonest” unconstitutional persecutions via a prosecutors withholding of “evidence favorable to an accused” with “knowingly false testimony by police officers,” “under color of law.” IT HAPPENS EVER SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA!!!!
THINK!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!! THINK!!!!!!!!!
In the past Jim Crow era Martin Luther King, Jr. knew better when he said… "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."” In the current Jane Crow era, I reassert the same "NOTHING IN THE WORLD IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN SINCERE IGNORANCE AND CONSCIENTIOUS STUPIDITY."
Fathers have EQUAL RIGHTS with mothers. Fathers are just as important as mothers! “A woman who FALSELY claims abuse should be imprisoned as the WORST ABUSER WOULD BE and have no say in the custody or parenting of her children, because she is not a mother but a CHILD ABUSER, DEBAUCHER and a THIEF!!!!”
By the way if you think HISTORY will be kind to your legacy if you without exception support the South’s Victory in the Civil War by turning a blind eye to this ongoing transgression, I WILL DO EVERYTHING within my power to see that it does not happen!!!!!!
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
“Time is of the essence”
David G. Jeep
cc: My Blog - Thursday, June 18, 2015, 4:51:44 PM
 To hear the supreme court sophistry tell us, via their unrestricted absolutely immune power, “We the People,” all evidence to the contrary, “sub silentio” traded the “King can do no WRONG” for the of the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the “malicious or corrupt” judges (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) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)), the “malicious or dishonest” prosecutor (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)), the “knowingly false testimony by police officers" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)), corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions of federal, state, local, and regional legislators (Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138) and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions of “all persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)) acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of INALIENABLE RIGHTS under color of law.
 This also includes the Judicial creation of “absolute immunity” in
 “This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences."” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 554 (1967)
 “To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty. But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor's immunity would disserve the broader public interest. It would prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor's duty that is essential to the proper functioning (Page 424 U. S. 428) of the criminal justice system.”Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
 There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by police officers. (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
 Ibid., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
 Ibid., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
 The Bill of Rights does not require “’difficult problems of proof,’ and we must adhere to a “stringent standard of fault,” lest municipal liability under §1983 collapse into respondeat superior.12 Bryan County, 520 U. S., at 406, 410; see Canton, 489 U. S., at 391–392.”(CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON)
Any violation of rights secures for the INDIVIDUAL person “where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy” (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 167 (1803)) and "it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 164 (1803))
 Ibid., Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)