Friday, March 4, 2011

The Disposable Woman, Charlie Sheen’s History Of Violence Toward Women


Op-Ed Contributor New York Times
Published: March 3, 2011
Jezebel Mar 2, 2011

I am against violence of any sort.    There are two things you have to keep in mind regarding Charlie Sheen's public image.  I do not know the man and can not comment on him personally.
First addiction is a mental affliction.  It is not like cancer in that addiction can be and HAS to be SELF-cured.  Ask any addiction counselor and the first thing they will confirm is the ADDICT has to WANT TO BE CURED and second they have to believe that they have the power to control their addition.  As long as the addict is ambivalent towards their addiction and or believes they are powerless, they remain addicted.  Addiction is not about drugs or sex or any of the common excuse society likes to use.  Addiction is a mental affliction.  You can be addicted to anything from benign as TV to self mutilation.  Addiction is an individually specific escape that the individual uses to distort they perceptions or reality. 
They do not want to deal with their lives as others/society defines them, so they bury their heads in TV, Drugs, Sex, Alcohol, self-mutilation.  You can be addicted to anything.  Once you get past the first to steps SELF-CURE steps you have to come back to the common ground, the norm of society, and RE-learn how to deal with others and society.  There are no absolutes in this world we are all just trying to figure out the best individual paths for ourselves as we go.  Everybody is struggling, whether you are on top of the heap, the bottom of the pile or the bottom of a bottle. 
Secondly, we live in the Jane Crow era; The "Jane Crow" Era, "It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house."
fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."  "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra,, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08

Thanks in advance,

"Time is of the essence"
Thanks in advance,
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep
E-mail is preferred,
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO63103-2316

On a separate note, I would contend that we do not have any individual rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of rights and To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process”; but that is another story.

DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process

To Kill a Mocking Bird,
The Denial of
Due Process
Revised Friday, March 04, 2011, Originally Posted Fri, July 9, 2010 10:33:12 AM
The 50th anniversary of the publication of Harper Lee’s, “To Kill a Mockingbird” was Sunday July 11, 2010.  I have to ask, have we lived up to its meaning, to its hope?  We made it unfashionable to be a racist.  We eliminated most of the Jim Crow discrimination, yes.  But have we gone far enough?

Would there have been or is there today a crime in the corrupt and malicious arrest, prosecution, trial and conviction of the fictional character Tom Robinson?  Tom Robinson was a black crippled man with the audacity to feel sorry for a white woman.  What did he do wrong?

Sheriff Tate, did not want to see Tom Robinson convicted, but he had to arrest him, RIGHT?  The Prosecutor, Mr. Gilmer just wanted to win his case.  He was just prosecuting the evidence, RIGHT?  Judge Taylor asked Atticus to represent and defend Tom Robinson; he was trying to provide a fair process, RIGHT?


The arrest, the persecution, the trial and the conviction of the fictional character Tom Robinson would have been a CRIMINAL denial of Due Process of Law[1], not that anyone would be prosecuted either then or now.  Our Public Minister’s, the Supreme Court, the Justice Department, and the Executive Department have awarded themselves “absolute immunity.”

Admittedly racism has become untenable in today’s America.  But racism is only one of the symptoms of the malice, the corruption and the incompetence that would have convicted the fictional character Tom Robinson.  Atticus issues a challenge of a sort to Scout, his daughter, and Jem, his son.  I quote:

I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand.  It's when you know you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what.  You rarely win, but sometimes you do.”  ~Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird, Chapter 11, spoken by the character Atticus

Do we have the courage to take on the malice, corruption and incompetence that still infect our Justice system today? 

The Sheriff, The Prosecutor, The Judge, The Executive Department, and The Justice Department all know better, I paraphrase slightly but I quote:

They are "representatives not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, they are in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. They may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed, they should do so. But, while they may strike hard blows, they are not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much their duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction, as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.

It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the state, will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they should properly carry none" [2] (bolding and underlining added for clarity).

The fictional character Tom Robinson was denied fair Due Process of Law[3].  They got away with it in the past and continue to get away with it in the present and will in the future because the police, the prosecutors and the Judges have immunity they have no responsibility for their official actions. 

None of us has the protection of the law as envisioned by our founding fathers.  We are at the discretion of the police, the prosecutors and the Judges.  We have relinquished our inalienable rights in favor of the police’s, the prosecutors’ and especially the Judges’ impunity.

The Police don’t have to investigate the crimes they arrest people for.  The Police don’t even need to know the technical aspects of the crimes.  They can just point a finger and lie on the witness stand[4] to convict their innocent victims.  They have immunity.

The Prosecutors have no professional responsibility to verify the evidence they present.  They have no professional responsibility to provide exculpable evidence[5] that might prove the innocence of their victims.  They have immunity.

You would think that Judges as the presiding authority would have some responsibility?  Judges have absolutely no responsibility for the credibility of “Due Process” of law.  A Judge can knowingly sign a malicious, corrupt or incompetent warrant[6] and he or she is absolutely immune.  The 4th Amendment’s protection “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” is unenforceable and completely at any Judges’ discretion.  Once a Judge signs it or lets an issue go to a jury it is all covered by HIS trickle down absolute immunity.  No one can be held accountable.  A Judge can let it all go to hell in a hand basket and a Judge and EVERYONE under their authority has impunity.  They have ABSOLUTE impunity[7].

The victims of the malice, corruption and / or incompetence, at their own expense, are forced against long odds to pursue vindication in an appeal process that is just as UNJUST and corrupt.  An appeal process that is both more expensive and more time consuming for the slim possibility for a dubious vindication in a name clearing hearing, there is no redress for cost or damages.

So where do we go for Justice?  There is no justice in Our Justice system.  The Supreme Court has affirmed it:
This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly” (Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) @ page 349), (Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ page 554) and (Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)).
In such cases, there is no safety for the citizen except in the protection of the (malicious and corrupt) judicial tribunals for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government professing to act in its name. There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime.” (non-italic and parenthetical text added for clarity) (United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) , Page 106 U. S. 219) (Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) @ 403 US 394-395)

Our police, prosecutors and judges are just doing their jobs, RIGHT?  The police, the prosecutors and the judges have no regret or culpability, RIGHT?  Their job has nothing to do with Justice, their job is to arrest, persecute and adjudge so as to instill fear of the Law, RIGHT?  Fear is more important than Justice, RIGHT?  We must all live in FEAR of the potential arrest, prosecution and conviction, without regard to our rights, the protection of the law or the procedural and substantive protection of Due Process, RIGHT?  Abject assiduous fear is a requirement for a civilized society, RIGHT? 


The police, the prosecutors, the judges and the entire Executive and Justice Departments of the United States of America’s JOB is not to intimidate nor threaten, nor instill fear. Their job is Justice!!!  It is best expressed best by the protection of IV Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects… shall not be violated.” 

It is the job of the Justice and Executive Departments to see that neither those acting under color of law or those acting outside the law violate this security.

Constitutionally “We the People” have RIGHTS!!!  Ninety-five percent (95%) of the people[8] have done nothing wrong and NEVER will.  We need to base our Government policies on the Majority, not the MINORITY!

“Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy . . . but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.” ~Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

Too many mockingbirds have been destroyed at the hands of our self-admitted malicious, corrupt and incompetent Justice Department. 

We HAVE RIGHTS in this country!!!!!!!!!!!!  We the People surrender NOTHING.  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice… and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[9] "  The establishment of Justice under the Constitution and Laws of “We the People” is the responsibility of our employees, the police, the prosecutors, the Judges and our President[10].  We need to hold them liable per the 1st Amendment “Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress[11] of grievances[12].

“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection,” THE PROTECTION OF LAWSMarbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 (1803) Page 5 U. S. 163

Not currently in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, we have NO freedom; we have NO courage.  But yet, I am an idiot, I still have the audacity of HOPE.

David G. Jeep

cc:  President Barack Hussein Obama
       Justice Sonia Sotomayor
       Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General of the United States
       Solicitor General of the United States
       e-mailed to a select group of favorites
       file (Revised Friday, March 04, 2011, Originally Posted Fri, July 9, 2010 10:33:12 AM)

On a separate note, I would contend that we do not have any individual rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of rights; but that is another story.

DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (

----- Forwarded Message ----

From: David G. Jeep 

To: Barack Obama ; Barack Obama ; Claire Mccaskill ; David Plouffe ; "David Jeep Dave@dgjeep" ; Eric H. Holder Jr. ; Joe Biden ; Joe Biden ; Kit Bond ; Office of the Solicitor General ; President Barack Hussein Obama ; Raymond M. Meyer ; "Robert O'Connor" ; 48 Hours <>; Alan Dershowitz ; Amnesty International USA Midwest Office ; Amnesty International USA ; Anthony D. Romero ACLU ; Ari B. Bloomekatz ; Bill McClellan ; Bob Woodward ; Camilla Cavendish ; Caroline Fredrickson ACLU ; Carolyn Tuft ; CBS Evening News ; Chicago Tribune ; Chris Fusco ; CHRISTINE CHRISTINE BYERS ; Christopher Beam ; Daniel Politi Politi ; David Savage ; David G. Jeep ; Editor ;; Eidtor American Chronical ; Federal City ; FeedBack Human Rights First ; Genral Manager ; Irene Haskins ; J Mannies ; James Janega ; Jason Rosenbaum ; Jeff Coen ; Jeremy Kohler ; Joe Mahr ; John Kass ; KansasCityStar ; KMOV-TV ; "Ktvinews@Foxtv. Com" ; Lake Sun Leader DAILY ; Laura Meckler ; Letters to the Editor The New York Times ; Letters to the Editor ; Letters to the Editor ; Los Angeles Times ; Mary DeLach-Leonard ; McClatchy Newspapers News TIP ; Mike Wallace <>; Mike Christian at 314-280-5222 FBI Report ; MSNBC on the Internet ; My Turn Editor Newsweek ; News Tip BBC ; News Tip CNN ; News Tribune Jefferson City ; Newsweek ; "Patrick M. O'Connell" ; Peace Economy News ; Pete Bland ; PressRelease ; Robert Patrick ; Sky News ; Slate Magazine ; Southeast Missourian ; St. Louis Business Journal ; St. Louis Justice and Shares ; Staff ; STEPHEN STEPHEN DEERE ; Steve Chapman ; Sunday Morning CBS ; Tami Abdollah ; The Editors ; The Joplin Globe Publishing Company ; TheSpringfieldNews-Leader 

Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 10:33:12 AM
Subject: To Kill a Mocking Bird,

[2] Due Process of Law as described in Berger v. United States 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
[3] The Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment XIV No State shall make or enforce any law which shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law & Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 241 Conspiracy against rights & 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law
[4] See Case 08-1823 Dismissed by the United States of America 8th Circuit Court of appeals
[5] See Case 08-1823 Dismissed by the United States of America 8th Circuit Court of appeals
[6] “Jim Crow” may be unfashionable, but “Jane Crow” discrimination, the preference for a woman’s maternal rights over a man’s paternal rights in Family Law reigns supreme.  See also Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 to the Supreme Court
[7] See Cases 08-1823 and 07-2614 Dismissed by the United States of America 8th Circuit Court of appeals
[8] Criminals amount to 5% of the population
[9] Preamble to the United States Constitution, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #84
[10] United States of America Constitution Article 2. § 3 “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
[11] n. ree-dres,   re·dress ri-dres; v. ri-dres –noun   1.compensation or satisfaction for a wrong or injury.
[12] griev·ance (grē'vəns) –noun 1.The cause of hardship or harm.