"The Earth and everything that's in it": August 18, 2024

Wednesday, August 21, 2024

"Jane Crow" sexual discrimination is REAL!

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

The idea that women[1] and / or the police[2] 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 to 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 21 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 18 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!!!

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. THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION on fraud or the deprivation of constitutional rights. I have been fighting to regain them relentlessly since.[3] The UNDISPUTED issue is and has always been – a flagrantly, infamous, and fraudulent non-exigent, extra-judicial (coram non judice) court order:

1. a fraud (fraus omnia corrumpit ^{^[4]}) on the court by an officer of the court (FRCP 60(d)(3))^{^[5]}

2. a NOT “facially valid court order”^{^[6]} (Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) -

3. that was reckonably^{^[7]} issued “in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,” (Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)

4. “beyond debate” (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. _(2015))

5. “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right” (Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011)^{^[8]}

“The congressional purpose[9] 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)

THE GRAVITAS OF THE PERSONAL^{^[10]} ISSUE IS BEYOND QUESTION, IT TOOK AWAY PETITIONER’S SON, HOME, CAR AND EVERYTHING HE ONCE HELD DEAR IN THE WORLD. Thus, the issue could never be construed as vexatious^{^[11]} nor is the ongoing fight against flagrant injustice “continual Calumniations”^{^[12]} nor could a near 20 year struggle against injustice be construed as an inconsequential “short ride.”^{^[13]}

[1] Petitions for Writ of Certiorari 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856

[2] Two police officers presented fraudulent testimony at trial. I have the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standard and the trial transcript. See 4:07-cv-506-SOW (WD) – 8th Circuit 08-1823

^{^[3]} Petitions 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856

[4] fraus omnia corrumpit - “Fraud corrupts all.” - A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision or arbitral award. THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION on fraud or the deprivation of constitutional rights.

[5] Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - “set aside a judgment for fraud on the court”

[6] The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide REASONABLE probable cause for an ex parte order of protection. Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge.

[7] If reason (reckonabilty) does not limit jurisdiction with probable cause, nothing can."reckonability" is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name." Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)

[8] "To this day, I am haunted by the vivid memory of the confirming shrug from the Police Officer when I questioned it as served on November 3, 2003. I am further haunted by the memory of the same confirming shrug when Commissioner Jones first saw the absurdity of the court order on the bench November 20, 2003 as my attorney then highlighted as he repeated his prior objections."

[9] Jim Crow and/or Jane Crow

[10] While the petitioner asserts this is not necessarily an isolated Jane Crow issue, it is a uniquely flagrant “first impression” and PERSONAL for the petitioner. Per McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914) " 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”

[11] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), Page 80 U. S. 348 and 349

[12] Floyd and Barker. (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I - In the Court of Star Chamber. - First Published in the Reports, volume 12, page 23.

[13] Ida B. Well v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad - Tennessee Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's ruling in 1887. It concluded, "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."[Southwestern Reporter, Volume 4, May 16–August 1, 1887.