"The Earth and everything that's in it": Warren Court

Showing posts with label Warren Court. Show all posts

Saturday, March 22, 2025

PWarrenC

Friday, March 21, 2025 - 7:07:25 PM

Progressives are STILL too INFATUATED

with the Warren Court.

Yes, the Warren court was progressive. But what Progressives fail to realize is that every issue that the Warren Court attempted to fix, was the direct result of a prior DESPOTIC judge-made-law of an UNCONSTITUTIONAL Supreme Court. "The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."[1]

A plain reading of the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments with their enforcement acts[2] and you ask how we got 150 years of racial inequality? Look at the judge-made-law in Scott[3] Bradely^{^[4]}, Blyew^{^[5]}, Cruikshank^{^[6]}, Plessy^{^[7]}, Lochner^{^[8]}, Mapp[9], Pierson^{^[10]}, Bivens^{^[11]}, Imbler^{^[12]}, Briscoe^{^[13]} REDEFINING "any person under color of law" and you can see the corruption. Thomas Jefferson saw the CORRUPTION coming in 1820:

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so.[14] They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."(Thomas Jefferson 9/28/1820, in writing to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello - bolding/underlining added)

The Issue with Trump is not about Trump. The issue with Trump is the corruption of Due Process created by the judge-made-law of the Supreme Court, delay, delay, delay…. his out of office prosecution. And then the unconstitutional judge-made-law grant of absolute-immunity from the constitution.

The corruption of the Constitution for the United States has been perpetrated by a 236 years scam of an unconstitutional Supreme Court's judge-made-law reinterpreting and diabolically limiting "any person under color of law." It is INSANITY!!!

We do not need a constitutional amendment.

The forefathers probably assumed that the corrupt unrepresentative Senate and corrupt unrepresentative Electoral College Presidency would assure "We the People" would never be subject to an unelected appointed for life "despotism of an oligarchy" because the "Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.

But it was not a complete assumption, because the Founding Fathers did leave us Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution for the United States, "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." And congress with a simple act of congress signed by a president can EXCLUDE any and all use of a corrupt oligarchy's stare decisis judge-made-law.

[1] Thomas Jefferson 9/28/1820, in writing to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello

[2] Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 & 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1985

[3] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) -- The Dred Scott ruling STARTED the Civil War.

[4] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) Any person under color of law

[5] Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871)

[6] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

[7] Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

[8] Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)

[9] Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) CONFIRMS the immunity for the deprivation of rights and EXCLUDES the evidence.

[10] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) QUALIFIED immunity does nothing to sustain inalienable rights.

[11] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) Any person under color of law.

[12] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) Any person under color of law

[13] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) Any person under color of law

[14] See the unconstitutional JUDGE-MADE-LAW Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)

Friday, March 21, 2025 - 7:07:25 PM

The Issue with Trump, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP!

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-issue-with-trump.html

This is how a naïve-teenage-high-school-spoiled-rich-BOY negotiates with naïve-impressionable-teenage-girls.

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/02/this-is-how-naive-teenage-high-school.html

BE AWARE, but do not be afraid, Trump is, at best and at worst, pathetically incompetent and INEFFECTIVE manager / leader!

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/be-aware.html

Trump does not know the name of the country he was or is to be president of...

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/istgtdnk.html

The constitutional small "d" undemocratic corrupt "dark money" Senate and Electoral College

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/dark-money-senate.html

Trump is a convicted and diagnosed psychotic criminal, chronic degenerate, maniacal liar and a "fucking moron!"

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/be-aware.html

Small "d" Un-Democratic "dark money" Senate

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/dark-money-senate.html

The Judicial sophistry of "absolute immunity" creates "absolute power" to the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of We the People's unalienable rights under color of law... the AUDACITY of the INSANITY, ignorance and stupidity in support of a "fantastic or delusional" scenario. The Emperor Has No Clothes.

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/if-that-is-not-absolute-corruption-of.html

The FACTS of MY case are without question

https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-facts-of-my-case-are-without.html

DGJeep v. Supreme Court of the United States (Petitions for Writ of Certiorari 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=David+Jeep&type=Supreme-Court=Dockets

Thanks in advance...

"Agere sequitur esse" ('action follows being')

David G. Jeep, Federal Inmate #36072-044 (formerly)

www.DGJeep.com - Dave@DGJeep.com - David.G.Jeep@Gmail.com

Mobile (314) 514-5228 leave message

David G. Jeep

1531 Pine St Apt #512

St. Louis, MO 63103-2548

Thursday, June 30, 2022

The Warren Court - The Dobbs abortion ruling - Trump v United States

My THREE BILLION DOLLAR manifesto.

DOWNLOAD AS A PDF

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.,

"A total of 97 white militia men were arrested and charged with violation of the U.S. Enforcement Act of 1870 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act). A handful of them were convicted but were eventually released in 1875 when the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank ruled the Enforcement Act was unconstitutional. No one was ever arrested by the state of Louisiana or by intimidated local officials."

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