Dear People,
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[1] 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.[2] 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.”[3][4]
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”
AND
“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,[5]
Prosecutors,[6] Police[7]
and All Persons[8] 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[9]
turn a blind eye to “malicious or
dishonest”[10] unconstitutional
persecutions via a prosecutors[11]
withholding of “evidence favorable to
an accused”[12]
with “knowingly false testimony by police
officers,”[13] “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
enclosure
cc: My Blog - Thursday, June 18, 2015, 4:51:44 PM
[1] Although the “Civil Rights Cases” only involved the
Civil rights Act of 1875 (repassed as 1964 Civl Rights Act), the same could be
said of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now
known as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242 and
Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 respectively)
[2] 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.
[3] MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883)
[4] This also includes the Judicial creation of “absolute
immunity” in
[5] “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)
[6] “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)
[7] 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)
[8] “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. 335 (1983)
[10] Ibid., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
[11] Ibid., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
[12] 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))
[13] Ibid., Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
No comments:
Post a Comment