Chris Hayes
MSNBC
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Re: The Warren Court - The Dobbs abortion ruling - Trump v United States
Dear Mr. Hayes,
You recently did a piece referencing Battle of Liberty Place (September 14, 1874) and the PRIOR Colfax massacre (April 13, 1873). While you did make an effort you FELL WOEFULLY SHORT! Yes the Battle of Liberty Place and Colfax massacre were potentially similar to January 6, 2021 i.e.,
You made no mention that the Supreme Court would corrupt Justice in the Colfax massacre with United States v. Cruikshank (1876) ruling that protections of the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to the actions of individuals, but only to the actions of state governments. Or that the Republicans sold the south out in the 1877 compromise.
The people of the United States are too enthralled with the Warren Court. When the Supreme Court created, maintained and ENFORCED Jim Crow for 100 years over the post war congresses EXPRESSED INTENT[1] with The Enforcement Acts were three bills that were passed by the United States Congress between 1870 and 1871 (now codified 18 U.S.C. § 241 &; 242, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985.)
Please do some research, here are a few of the Supreme Court's offensive Jim Crow, Union, FORCED Sterilization and other unjust atrocious rulings. And while the Warren Court might have appeared benevolent, the many prior MALEVOLENT Supreme Courts e.g., Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871), United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883), Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)," Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976)," Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) ACTED UNASHAMEDLY, INCOMPETENTLY, CORRUPTLY, and MALICIOUSLY!!!
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967) the Supreme Court NEUTERED The Enforcement Acts (now 18 U.S.C. § 241 &; 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985) over the XIV Amendments EXPRESSED[2] provision e.g.,
"The congressional purpose seems to me to be clear- NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. A condition of lawlessness existed in certain of the States under which people were being denied their civil rights. Congress intended to provide a remedy for the wrongs being perpetrated. And its (US Congress 1871) members were not unaware that certain members of the judiciary were implicated in the state of affairs which the statute(s) (now codified as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &; 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985) was intended to rectify…. Mr. Rainey of South Carolina noted that "[T]he courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity. Congressman Beatty of Ohio claimed that it was the duty of Congress to listen to the appeals of those who, by reason of popular sentiment or secret organizations or prejudiced juries or bribed judges, [cannot] obtain the rights and privileges due an American citizen. . . ." MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967)
Looking at the Supreme Court's recent ruling on abortion Dobbs, et al. v. Jackson et al - SCARES ME TO THINK but, we could have the Supreme Court rule "executive privledge" in any and / or ALL possible Trump v. United States, and We the People could do nothing!!!!
I have been at this for 20 years!!! The FACTS of my case are without question, my liberty rights, my paternity rights, my property rights, were unconstitutionally deprived on November 3. 2003, 7:55pm CT. I have been fighting to regain them relentlessly since.
Not that it should matter but I am a "white" guy, I was born a "white" guy, and I will always be a "white" guy. I even had the privilege of attending the proverbial "old boy's school."
Again, not that this should matter either, but in 1960 1 in 20 (5%) children grew up without a father in the home. In 2014 the FATHERLESS rate had increased to 1 in 2 ½ (40%). "Anything that spikes from 5 percent to 40 percent is a big change. But when you're talking about something as elemental as family structure — what does that mean?" It means that "Jane Crow" discrimination is REAL in the United States of America today! Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!
The United States Supreme Court says "The essence of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected" (McCabe v. Atchison, 235 U.S. 151 (1914)).
It has been nearly 20 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).
Now I realize the BLACK ROBED ROYALIST brethren would prefer I act insane and violently attack someone or even myself. THAT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!!! 10 years ago, your royalist absolute immune brethren had me arrested, subjected me to TWO psychological exams held me for 411 days in jail, BEFORE finding me sane and DISMISSING ALL CHARGES. I am STILL sane and STILL demanding my 1st Amendment right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If there is anything further, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
cc: www.DGJeep.com
file
[1] XIV Amendment - Section 5 - The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
[2] XIV Amendment - Section 5 - The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
[1] XIV Amendment - Section 5 - The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
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
