President Barack Hussein Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500-0001
Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
You are both suppose to be somewhat versed in constitutional law. That being said neither of you seem to have the faintest idea of a constitution's raison d'être.
The Constitution for the United States of America was irrefutably written to give We the People recourse, a cause of action, against the government whenever and wherever an individual's reckonable "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" were deprived by the government. This is clearly demonstrated by Chief Justice John Marshal quoting Blackstone in Marbury v Madison, "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."
Yet, neither of you will enforce the
Constitution's raison d'être.
ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT, Mr. President you will not enforce the constitutionally authorized ex industria criminal law, We the People lawfully enacted post civil war, the Civil rights Act of 1866. Mr. Chief Justice you will not enforce the constitutionally authorized ex industria civil law, We the People lawfully enacted post civil war, the Civil rights Act of 1871.
You both support and assert the American coveted status of victimhood. The American coveted status of victimhood was spawned by the corrupt, self-serving Unconstitutional Article III Judiciary. As we all know, the judiciary corruptly asserts they would be unable to function, OVERWHELMED by "continual calumnious" or "vexatious" actions, if they were not afforded absolute immunity. That assertion is based on the premise that "equal protection" of Due Process of law is not possible. Thus the Constitution for the United States of America is without validity or enforceability. This absolute immunity empowers absolute power to the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of individual reckonable inalienable rights.
That is the MODERN American definition of victimhood. Without extraordinary measure for XYZ they cannot SURVIVE. XYZ needs protection above and beyond that of normal persons or they will never survive.
This creates a multi-tier system of justice which is diametrically incompatible with the 14th Amendment's REQUIREMENT of "equal protection of the laws." Nonetheless it is unconstitutionally sustained and enforced by our constitutional guardians, the Article III Judiciary, for their and their chosen few self-serving benefit to the detriment of the overwhelming majority of We the People.
One need only look at the Jane Crow sexual and Post Jim Crow racial discrimination e.g.:
With the coveted status of victimhood in the Jane Crow era, "It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman (with the coveted status of victimhood) is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an ex parte 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."
With the coveted status of victimhood in the Post Jim Crow era, we have the criminal profiteering, looting and rioting in Ferguson Missouri over a blatantly false assertion of a civil rights violation, as the result of Michael Brown's strong armed robbery, jaywalking and assault on a police officer with SHOTS FIRED.
I feel it appropriate to quote from Lord Coke, "invigilandum est semper, multae insidiae sunt bonis" (Ed.: one must always be on one's guard, for in good things there are many snares) there is a difference from being on one's guard and turning the blind eye of "absolute immunity." We the People hoped to "establish justice" with our constitution, not blindly sustain and promulgate "malice and corruption" of "absolute immunity's" ABSOLUTE POWER.
On another note - How can a Petition be "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014," that is not on the schedule? There is NO CONFERENCE SCHEDULED for September 29, 2014.
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"
David G. Jeep
cc: My Blog - Friday, September 05, 2014, 3:36:32 PM
 Absolute Immunity DEFEATS that without due process of law!!!!!!!!!!
 You try negotiating for your life, liberty, property or your children in the "Jane Crow" / "Plea Bargain" / "Post Jim Crow era" overseen by an "absolutely immune" sincerely ignorant, conscientiously stupid, "malicious or corrupt judge" (Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)) with an "absolutely immune" "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976)), the "absolutely immune" "knowingly false testimony by police officers," (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)) or malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions of "all persons (including spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process" (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)). This creates ABSOLUTE POWER to the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of inalienable rights!!!!
We the People of the United States of America have NO enforceable Civil Rights!!!!!
 To hear the Supreme Court tell us, via their unrestricted absolutely immune power, We the People, all evidence to the contrary, traded the "King can do no WRONG" for 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 -- governmental or otherwise -- who (spouses) 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.
 Floyd and Barker (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber. "For they are only to make an account to God and the King, and not to answer to any suggestion in the Star Chamber; for this would tend to the scandall and subversion of all Justice. And those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual Calumniations, for which reason the Orator said well, invigilandum est semper, multae insidiae sunt bonis.( Ed.: one must always be on one's guard, for in good things there are many snares.)"
 Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 354 (1871) "The exemption of judges of the superior courts of record from liability to civil suit for their judicial acts existing when there is jurisdiction of the subject matter, though irregularity and error attend the exercise of the jurisdiction, the exemption cannot be affected by any consideration of the motives with which the acts are done. The allegation of malicious or corrupt motives could always be made, and if the motives could be inquired into judges would be subjected to the same vexatious litigation upon such allegations, whether the motives had or had not any real existence. Against the consequences of their erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort. But for malice or corruption in their action whilst exercising their judicial functions within the general scope of their jurisdiction, the judges of these courts can only be reached by public prosecution in the form of impeachment, or in such other form as may be specially prescribed.
 "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.
 "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, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08.
 See my blog for more specific information on Michael Brown/Ferguson Missouri
 "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Lord Acton 1887.