Monday, March 15, 2021
The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
NYS State Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12224
Re: The Jane Crow Era – Infamous sexual accusation without Due Process
Dear Mr. Cuomo,
I realize I am not a member of your constituency. I am not a citizen of New York. I AM a 15-year VICTIM of JANE CROW[1]!!! An until we see it as James Madison[2] asserted "as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights", we will forever be victims. You need to DEMAND Due Process of LAW!!!!!
You have a RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW and a jury of your peers! The system wants to covict you via infamous accusation alone! Just imagine if Ida B. Wells had been able to sue for the property in rights per the VII Amendment, not to mention the Civil Rights Act of 1875 and the Circuit Court VERDICT[3] she secured!!! Much less, in the "Jane Crow Era," where my life was destroyed by the denial of Due Process in 2003.
I was in a position similar to yours, infamous accusation without due process. Even though I was never even accused of the bad act I was punished for, without access to due process of law.
If there is anything further, I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
cc: www.DGJeep.com
file
[1] "Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
[3] "We think it is evident that the purpose of the defendant in error was to harass with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain a comfortable seat for the short ride." (Chesapeake, O. & S. R. Co. v. Wells, 1887, p. 5.)
Thanks in advance...
"Agere sequitur esse" ('action follows being')
David G. Jeep, Federal Inmate #36072-044 (formerly)
www.DGJeep.com - Dave@DGJeep.com
Mobile (314) 514-5228 leave message
David G. Jeep
1531 Pine St Apt #403
St. Louis, MO 63103-2547
Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!
MORE to come Spring of 2021
The Idea that women need the ability to make accusations and not have to sustain them with "due process of law" is proverbially tantamount to the worst of Jim Crow's "Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases" by Ida B. Wells - in its modern manifestation "Jane Crow" sexual discrimination!
On November 3, 2003 (7:55 pm), I was getting ready to watch Monday Night Football with my son. There was a knock on the front door. My wife had just called my son from the garage. She was just coming home. I thus went to answer the front door alone.
Two police officers, with guns came in. They served me with an exparte order of protection and explained that they were going force me from my home.
It is an accepted legal axiom "possession is 9/10 of the law." I would assert in the "Jane Crow era" possession is 10/10 of the law.
It has been nearly 15 years, and to this date, the deprivation of my paternal, property and liberty rights WITHOUT reasonable probable cause has never been recognized. I was, literally, forced into a "Jane Crow era" all-consuming conspiracy against rights (18 U.S. Code § 241).
Since then I have been impoverished / homeless for 11 years, I was jailed for 411 days for charges that were dismissed all in my pursuit of my appeal to the Article III "Black Robed Royalist."
The "Jane Crow" era has NOW been PROVEN by socioeconomic statistical RESEARCH. "Jane Crow" discrimination is REAL! FATHERS ARE DISFAVORED by domestic relations law in the United States of America! With the birth rate down by 48% since 1960 and teen pregnancy down by 65% just since 1990 -- single motherhood is UP by 700% since 1960 (40% of births were to single mothers in 2015 v. 1960's 5%). This affects 35% of society (40%-5%=35%). Per the report's authors, these figures stand without regard to race or income.
The law is on OUR SIDE, it is just that we do not have ACCESS to DUE PROCESS OF LAW to prove it!!!
I herewith note - 8 petitions in "PURSUIT OF JUSTICE," see Petition of Certioraris to the Supreme Court of the United States and associated District and Circuit petitions… 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856.
Fraud Corrupts Everything It Touches—Fraus Omnia Corrumpit—Fraud Vitiates Everything It Touches
A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision or arbitral award.
"MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY AMERICAN DOMESTIC RELATION LAW."
With the birth rate down by 48% since 1960 and teen pregnancy down by 65% just since 1990 -- single motherhood is UP by 700% since 1960. 40% of all births in the United States of America were to single mothers in 2015. Why? In the "Jane Crow" era "MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY AMERICAN DOMESTIC RELATION LAW."
Case No. 4:17-cv-02690-AGF - Jeep v Government of the US of A et a!,- "EXCEPTIONS to FACTS as FRAUDULENTLY and errantly stated in the R.I.C.O. "MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dated 4th day of December, 2017" (17-3681)
I am the "greater fool" who foolishly believes he can succeed where others have failed. After 14 years - with 10 years homeless, 411 days in jail and 7 trips to the Supreme Court of the United States - I STILL BELIEVE - I can convince the courts that the Judiciary's asserted "absolute immunity" DEFEATS the Constitution's raison raison d'être - security for "the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
List of Docketed and DENIED
Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States
With links to the verbiage for same at www.DGJeep.com
David Jeep, Petitioner United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed David G. Jeep Party name: David Jeep
"The Emperor Has No Clothes" The Black Robed Royalist Article III judiciary DOES NOT HAVE the proverbial "clothes" to cover the naked criminality[1] for the 12.89-years of malice, corruption, sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity[2] on this deprivation of rights issue.
Docket for 14-10088 VERBIAGE OF PETITION AT DGJEEP - http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-clerks-recent-letter-dated-may-12.html
Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. United States
David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma David G. JeepParty name: David Gerard Jeep
Docket for 14-5551 VERBIAGE OF PETITION AT DGJEEP -http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2014/07/writ-of-certiorari-how7-did-strict.html
Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. United States
David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma David G. JeepParty name: David Gerard Jeep
Docket for 13-7030 VERBIAGE OF PETITION AT DGJEEP -
Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. United States
David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma David G. JeepParty name: David Gerard Jeep
Docket for 13-5193 VERBIAGE OF PETITION AT DGJEEP - http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/06/petiton-for-writ-of-certiorari-06-10-13.html
Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit David G. Jeep Party name:David Gerard Jeep
Docket for 11-8211 VERBIAGE OF PETITION AT DGJEEP - http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012/01/docketed-petition-for-writ-of.html
Title: David G. Jeep, Petitioner v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
David G. Jeep, Petitioner Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and Party name: David G. Jeep
Docket for 07-11115 VERBIAGE OF PETITION AT DGJEEP - http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2010/05/petitioner-for-writ-of-certiorari-07.html
Title: David G. Jeep, Petitioner v. Philip E. Jones, Sr., et al.
David G. Jeep, Petitioner Philip E. Jones, Sr., et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed Party name: David G. Jeep
"Jane Crow" is REAL! With the birth rate down by 48% since 1960 and teen pregnancy down by 65% just since 1990 -- single motherhood is UP by 700% since 1960. [1] 40% of all births in the United States of America were to single mothers in 2015. Why? In the "Jane Crow" era "MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY AMERICAN DOMESTIC RELATION LAW."
"Academics have long wondered how to encourage marriage, because two parents tend to have more resources than one."
Why are two-parent household no longer as dominant as in the past? A recent study study[1] shows - it is not race, it is not income.
In the "Jane Crow" era THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS TO anybody with their eyes OPEN.
MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY AMERICAN DOMESTIC RELATION LAW.
The American legal system in America favors woman as custodial parents. The best men can hope for is part-time parenting and child support payments - AT BEST!! The issue for your consideration is - can men be disfavored under the 14th Amendment's requirement for "equal protection of the law?
If you are truly interested in finding the CAUSE of 2014's "40 percent of births in the U.S. were to unmarried mothers," I suggest you correlate the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (CAPTA), Joe Biden's good intentions with Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and the "Jane Crow" era into your formula.
We have been here before:
"Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the pur-pose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so con-strued 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 determi-nation of these cases should have been materially controlled by considera-tions 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 requir-ing, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted."[3]
The Judiciary got away with it AGAIN because they have AGAIN put themselves above Due Process of Law's GROUNDING jury requirement.
[1]The Fracking Boom, a Baby Boom, and the Retreat From Marriage" - Freakonomics – NPR - July 5, 2017 -- [1] "Women just aren't that into the 'marriageable male' anymore, economists say" Washington Post - By Danielle Paquette - May 16, 2017
The Gravamen
The asserted uncontested, undeniable, NOW-exigent and "reckonable" gravamen is an ex parte court order of protection from 13.60 years, ago they took my son, my home and all my most valued worldly possession, threw me out on the street and then forced me into a disputed divorce where my criminal adversaries had been empowered by all that has been fraudulently and criminally taken from me. I have been struggling to expose this for 13.60 years with 411 days in jail, 8 trips through the federal court system and this my 8th Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, the prior six were denied, i.e., 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, 14-5551, 14-10088 and 15-8884. The current "As mailed to the Clerk and ALL the Justices Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - a question - UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT - Case No: 17-1246 - Mandate Filed: 05/22/2017 Entry ID: 4538537 (with the 4th paragraph moved up from the reference 8th endnote)"
From the instant of day one Monday November 03, 2003 08:00 PM at the start of Monday Night Football - New England PATRIOTS v Denver BRONCOS,[4] this has been FRAUD ON THE COURT, coram non judice, an infamously-scandalous extra-judicial gravamen, by omnipotent moral busybodies, more specifically, an unconstitutional, as noted via Supreme Court precedent, deprivation of rights under color of law:
an exparte non-exigent order of protection, listing only an alleged non-exigent misdemeanor traffic violation as unreasonable probable cause…
a NOT "facially valid court ord
No comments:
Post a Comment