Showing posts sorted by relevance for query jane crow era. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query jane crow era. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, June 4, 2024

The Jane Crow Era - Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States



Monday, June 3, 2024

 

Richard V. Reeves - American Institute for Boys and Men

Brookings Institute

1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20036


Scott Galloway

Leonard N. Stern School of Business

Tisch Hall

40 West Fourth Street, 904

New York, NY 10012


 

Re: The Jane Crow Era - Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States

 

Dear People,

 

Saw you both on Morning Joe this morning June 1, 2024, 7:45am ET.  You were speaking in regard to Mellinda French Gates's grant.

You try to blame the failure of boys and men on individual failings, WRONG.  While NO one is perfect, individual failings are NOT a societal problem.  Men and boys are failing in the United States's society today because of "The Jane Crow Era" where men and boys are discounted into near oblivion by domestic relations law in the United States and, the failure of the 7th Amendment to provide its designed remedy.  Fathers are increasingly, though far toooooo sparingly, granted joint custody, but rarely if ever granted sole custody.  Equal custody has to be the rule!

20+ years ago, on Monday November 3, 2003 @ approximately 7:45pm CT, I was served am ex parte order of protection that listed no abuse and no abuse was ever claimed.   Everything I ever cared about in the world was taken form me, my son, my home of 10 years, my dark socks, my car, my tools, my computers everything… 

And EVERYTHING was handed over to my adversary in the domestic relations dispute.  I was on the street alone, without the proverbial "pot to piss in.

Now I will give you 90%-100% of the physical abuse in domestic relations is and probably always will be instigated by men.  And that is statistical FALLACY in how the extra-judicial (coram non judice) judges justify handing out ex parte orders of protection for the asking to virtually 100% of women for their CLAIMED protection.   

Where the men are maybe responsible for 90%-100% of the physical abuse.  It does not follow that 90%-100% of men instigate abuse.  I would be willing to bet, that before the Jane Crow Era, there was CREDIBLE physical or mental abuse in maybe 10%, tops 20% of the couples.  But today in the Jane Crow Era, when the Judges are ALLOWED to extra-judicially act without probable cause the first thing every woman does in a domestic relation's dispute is petition for an ex parte protection order to get the upper hand.  Ex parte orders were and still are granted for the asking, like Halloween candy, in virtually all of the United States today. 

Men and boys are DISFAVORED by domestic relations law in the United States TODAY!!!!!!!!!!   And since post-civil war's Bradley v. Fisher: 80 U.S. 335 (1871)[1] judges have been able to absolutely ignore the civil rights of former slaves[2] in the Jim Crow and now in the Jane Crow Era ignore the rights of fathers, men and boys.  Anybody that believes that criminal and civil absolute immunity for constitutional rights is ANY WAY to enforce said rights has never anyone in the Jim Crow Era, Jane Crow Era, Mass Incarceration Era or the much shorter, hopefully, Donald Trump Era.  Any assertions of absolute immunity for rights is a denial of justice and or Article III constitutional due process of law.

The issue today in the united States is not about individual failings, it is about GIVING renewed credibility to the ex parte order of protection and making JOINT physical custody the rule instead of the rare exception!!!!  You want boys to grow into good fathers, you have to afford them the inalienable NATURAL paternal rights to their FATHERS!!!!

If there is anything further, please let me know.

"Time is of the essence"

Thank you in advance.

 

David G. Jeep

 

enclosure

 

cc: Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski and Willie Geist - Morning Joe - MSNBC Network

      www.DGJeep.com

      file

 



[1] The post-Civil-War Supreme Court created the judge-made-law in the December Term, 1871 to free themselves from any and all responsibility for the Third Ku Klux Klan Act Signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871, 8 months prior and any and all constitutional civil rights via the 7th Amendment going forward.

[2]  Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13), also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, Third Enforcement Act, Third Ku Klux Klan Act, Civil Rights Act of 1871, or Force Act of 1871 (now codified into Federal Law Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights), Signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871



Tuesday, April 25, 2023

This "Jane Crow" lynching has to STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! #METOO

This "Jane Crow" lynching has to STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO - #METOO


As regards recent revelations of HIGH PROFILE sexual harassment issue - without considered Due Process, NO one can claim to REALLY know the facts!!  Use to be you could hang a Black man in the street on the basis of an accusation of his having just LOOKED at a white woman!!  Are we now going back there?

In the current "Jane Crow" era you may not be lynching people in the street any more but the defacto effect is the same; if suicide (Kentucky lawmaker Dan Johnson fatally shot himself Wednesday), destruction of careers (Franken), legacies (Rose and Conyers), family relations (DGJeep and others), finances (DGJeep and others), and personal lives (DGJeep and others) is the RESULT - WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW!

I  (DGJeep) have been impoverished by my 14 year effort, I have been homeless for over 10+  years, I have been through the Federal District and Circuit courts 12 times and to the Supreme Court of the United States 7 times.  I spent 411 days in Jail, before all charges were dismissed.  I have submitted to - TWO psychiatric exams - both confirming my SANITY and my COMPETENCY!!!!  I doubt the absolutely corrupt Black Robed Royalist Judiciary could, en masse, say the same.  While social momentum is super-charging the Jane Crow LYNCHING right now. Lynching has been unconstitutionally tolerated, if not promoted, by the absolutely corrupt Black Robed Royalist Judiciary during the Jim Crow era, and the Juvenile Crow era.  Lynching is raising its ugly serpentine head again in the current Jane Crow era.  This is all impotently confirmed by prior Supreme Court precedent acknowledging the issue:

"(H)history has again demonstrated that unbridled discretion, however benevolently motivated, is frequently a poor substitute for principle and procedure. In 1937, Dean Pound wrote: "The powers of the Star Chamber were a trifle in comparison with those of our juvenile (Crow, Jane Crow and Jim Crow) courts...." "Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy (, a minority or a Man)  does not justify a (lynching or) kangaroo court…." (In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967),18)." 
 David Jeep  vs.  Philip Jones, Sr.;
 David Jeep  vs.  Jack Bennett;
 David Jeep  vs.  United States;
 David Jeep  vs.  Jack Bennett;
 David Jeep  vs.  Barack Obama, President;
 David Jeep  vs.  Barack Obama;
 David Jeep  vs.  Government of the USA;
 David Jeep  vs.  The Tea Party/GOP/Republicans;
 David Jeep  vs.  Government of United States;
 David Jeep  vs.  Government of United States;
 David Jeep  vs.  Government of United States;
 David Jeep  vs.  Government of the U.S.A.;

Jane Crow, Juvenile Crow and Jim Crow  are all based on the conviction / lynching by infamous accusation without access to 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment's SECURED Justice with the equal protection of due process of law.


Again, use to be you could lynch a black man in the street for the allegation alone, that he looked at a white woman.  We invested 600,000 American lives on the Civil War battle field, untold thousands of lives during "Jim Crow" and 150 years to establish the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection of the Due Process of Law.

Purely politically speaking RIGHT NOW without DUE PROCESS OF LAW - these assertions of sexual harassment are all just feeding the monster of Trump/Russian active measures / Trump #fakenews (propaganda machine).  We need the 14th amendment to establish equal protection of due process of law.

I realize "Jane Crow" may not be the current highbrow gender issue of the moment, but it is life threatening and destroying the elemental American family structure!


This is no more a Man's problem than racism in America is a MINORITY's problem. This is society's problem and both sides have to do some give and take off of the old established veritas.


#Metoo - In defense of of 99.9999% of men that are not Harvey Weinstein







"Agere sequitur esse" ('action follows being')
David G. Jeep, 
Mobile (314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999

Tuesday, March 16, 2021

The Jane Crow Era – Infamous sexual accusation without Due Process

PDF COPY as mailed

Monday, March 15, 2021

The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo

NYS State Capitol Building

Albany, NY 12224

 

Re: The Jane Crow Era – Infamous sexual accusation without Due Process

 

Dear Mr. Cuomo,

I realize I am not a member of your constituency.  I am not a citizen of New York.  I AM a 15-year VICTIM of JANE CROW[1]!!!  An until we see it as James Madison[2] asserted "as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights", we will forever be victims.  You need to DEMAND Due Process of LAW!!!!!

You have a RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW and a jury of your peers!  The system wants to covict you via infamous accusation alone! Just imagine if Ida B. Wells had been able to sue for the property in rights per the VII Amendment, not to mention the Civil Rights Act of 1875 and the Circuit Court VERDICT[3] she secured!!!  Much less, in the "Jane Crow Era," where my life was destroyed by the denial of Due Process in 2003. 

I was in a position similar to yours, infamous accusation without due process.  Even though I was never even accused of the bad act I was punished for, without access to due process of law.

If there is anything further, I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

 

David G. Jeep

 

cc: www.DGJeep.com

      file



[1] "Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!"  (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)

[3] "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." (Chesapeake, O. & S. R. Co. v. Wells, 1887, p. 5.)

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


Jane Crow Discrimination = Fathers are disfavored by domestic relations law in the United States of America!






MORE to come Spring of 2021




The Idea that women 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 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 15 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 11 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!!!
 

I herewith note - 8 petitions in "PURSUIT OF JUSTICE," see Petition of Certioraris to the Supreme Court of the United States and associated District and Circuit petitions… 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-7030, 13-5193, 14-5551, 14-10088, 15-8884 and 18-5856.

Fraud Corrupts Everything It Touches—Fraus Omnia Corrumpit—Fraud Vitiates Everything It Touches



A principle according to which the discovery of fraud invalidates all aspects of a judicial decision or arbitral award.





"MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY AMERICAN DOMESTIC RELATION LAW."

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 all births in the United States of America were to single mothers in 2015. Why? In the "Jane Crow" era "MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY AMERICAN DOMESTIC RELATION LAW."








I am the "greater fool" who foolishly believes he can succeed where others have failed.  After 14 years - with 10 years homeless, 411 days in jail and 7 trips to the Supreme Court of the United States - I STILL BELIEVE - I can convince the courts that the Judiciary's asserted "absolute immunityDEFEATS the Constitution's raison raison d'être - security for "the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."



List of Docketed and DENIED
Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States

With links to the verbiage for same at www.DGJeep.com



David Jeep, Petitioner United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed David G. Jeep Party name: David Jeep

"The Emperor Has No Clothes" The Black Robed Royalist Article III judiciary DOES NOT HAVE the proverbial "clothes" to cover the naked criminality[1] for the 12.89-years of malice, corruption, sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity[2] on this deprivation of rights issue.

Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. United States
David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma David G. JeepParty name: David Gerard Jeep

Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. United States
David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma David G. JeepParty name: David Gerard Jeep

Docket for 13-7030 VERBIAGE OF PETITION AT DGJEEP -
Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. United States
David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma David G. JeepParty name: David Gerard Jeep

Title: David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
David Gerard Jeep, Petitioner Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit David G. Jeep Party name:David Gerard Jeep

Title: David G. Jeep, Petitioner v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
David G. Jeep, Petitioner Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and Party name: David G. Jeep

Title: David G. Jeep, Petitioner v. Philip E. Jones, Sr., et al.
David G. Jeep, Petitioner Philip E. Jones, Sr., et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed Party name: David G. Jeep


 "Jane Crow" is REAL!  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. [1]  40% of all births in the United States of America were to single mothers in 2015.  Why?   In the "Jane Crow" era "MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY AMERICAN DOMESTIC RELATION LAW."

"Academics have long wondered how to encourage marriage, because two parents tend to have more resources than one."

Why are two-parent household no longer as dominant as in the past? A recent study study[1] shows - it is not race, it is not income.   

In the "Jane Crow" era THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS TO anybody with their eyes OPEN.

MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY AMERICAN DOMESTIC RELATION LAW.

The American legal system in America favors woman as custodial parents.  The best men can hope for is part-time parenting and child support payments - AT BEST!! The issue for your consideration is - can men be disfavored under the 14th Amendment's requirement for "equal protection of the law?

If you are truly interested in finding the CAUSE of 2014's "40 percent of births in the U.S. were to unmarried mothers," I suggest you correlate the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (CAPTA), Joe Biden's good intentions with Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and the "Jane Crow" era into your formula.

We have been here before:

"Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the pur-pose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so con-strued as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determi-nation of these cases should have been materially controlled by considera-tions of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requir-ing, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted."[3]

The Judiciary got away with it AGAIN because they have AGAIN put themselves above Due Process of Law's GROUNDING jury requirement.

[1]The Fracking Boom, a Baby Boom, and the Retreat From Marriage" - Freakonomics – NPR - July 5, 2017 -- [1] "Women just aren't that into the 'marriageable male' anymore, economists say" Washington Post - By Danielle Paquette - May 16, 2017

The Gravamen

The asserted uncontested, undeniable, NOW-exigent and "reckonable" gravamen is an ex parte court order of protection from 13.60 years, ago they took my son, my home and all my most valued worldly possession, threw me out on the street and then forced me into a disputed divorce where my criminal adversaries had been empowered by all that has been fraudulently and criminally taken from me.  I have been struggling to expose this for 13.60 years with 411 days in jail, 8 trips through the federal court system and this my 8th Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, the prior six were denied, i.e., 07-11115, 11-8211, 13-5193, 13-7030, 14-5551, 14-10088 and 15-8884.  The current "As mailed to the Clerk and ALL the Justices Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - a question - UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT - Case No: 17-1246 - Mandate Filed: 05/22/2017 Entry ID: 4538537 (with the 4th paragraph moved up from the reference 8th endnote)"

From the instant of day one Monday November 03, 2003 08:00 PM at the start of Monday Night Football - New England PATRIOTS v Denver BRONCOS,[4] this has been FRAUD ON THE COURT, coram non judice, an infamously-scandalous extra-judicial gravamen, by omnipotent moral busybodies, more specifically, an unconstitutional, as noted via Supreme Court precedent, deprivation of rights under color of law:

an exparte non-exigent order of protection, listing only an alleged non-exigent misdemeanor traffic violation as unreasonable probable cause…

a NOT "facially valid court ord