Source: https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2018/05/jane-crow-is-real-with-birth-rate-down.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:34:26+00:00

Document:
"The Earth and everything that's in it": "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.  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 immunity" DEFEATS 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."
"The Emperor Has No Clothes" The Black Robed Royalist Article III judiciary DOES NOT HAVE the proverbial "clothes" to cover the naked criminality for the 12.89-years of malice, corruption, sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity on this deprivation of rights issue.
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.
"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."
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)"
that the facts were and are "beyond debate" (Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011) - Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)) "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right," (Ashcroft V. Al-Kidd 563 U. S. _(9)_ (2011) - Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987)) an INFAMOUSLY-SCANDALOUS EXTRA-JUDICIAL GRAVAMEN (i.e., the universal reckonable understanding of the I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and XIV Amendments).
If the reckonable Supreme Law of the Land, Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII &amp; XIV, statutes 42 USC §1983&amp;1985 Civil Action for the Deprivation of Rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) imposes upon Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and numerous Article III precedents, as noted above, do not restrict a judicial act's jurisdiction the candid citizen must confess as rhetorically asserted by Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address, Monday, March 4, 1861, "We the People" "have ceased to be their own rulers" and "We the People" have resigned ourselves into the hands of an infamously-scandalous extra-judicial group of "omnipotent moral busybodies," claiming delegated respondeat superior infamously-scandalous extra-judicial authority, acting against our liberty at any time, for any reason without recourse to the due process of the Supreme Law of the Land.
We the People have fallen under the despotic spell of the self-servingly constructed "excess of power" in the Supreme Court that has constructed ABSOLUTE POWER from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for denial of INALIENABLE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &amp; 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 ) by "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)), the 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.
The Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary on the Supreme Court since the civil war in 1868 and 1871 (and again in 1967 by repeated reference) has cited Floyd &amp; Barker (Star Chamber 1607) to construct an "excess of power" to quash the "sense and reason" for the "raison d'être" of We the People's Constitution, Amendments, and the enactment of the constitutionally authorized ex industria statute laws, now codified into the U.S. Code as 18 USC §241 - §242 Criminal Deprivation of rights under color of law and 42 USC §1983 - §1985 Civil action for deprivation of rights. We the People have been suffering from the Black Robed Royalist Article III Judiciary's criminal deprivation of rights under color of law EVER SINCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In 1868 the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court first CONSTRUCTED "absolute immunity" in Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) asserting Floyd &amp; Barker (Star Chamber 1607). Randall v. Brigham (1868) was Judicial sophistry at its finest, a judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary immunity from the recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 made it a CRIME for "Whoever, under color of any law…, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Judicial liability for the crime was brought up extensively in the congressional debates and EXPRESSLY made part of President Johnson's Veto (March 27, 1866), noted as "assailing the independence of the judiciary," which was then congressionally over ridden into statute two weeks later. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted into LAW over the expressed objection of the President, overridden by the Senate on April 6, 1866 (33 - 15) and then overridden by the House and became law on April 9, 1866 (122 - 41).
Likewise the judicial sophistry of Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), also asserting Floyd &amp; Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was a subterfuge to give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the civil liability enacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Passed by the House on April 19, 1871 (93–74) and by the Senate on April 19, 1871 (36–13) and then it was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871.
The KICKER IS, wait for it… BOTH Randall v. Brigham (1868) and Bradley v. Fisher (1871) were based on the corrupt "black bag of tricks" assertion of Floyd &amp; Barker (Star Chamber 1607) as precedent. What Randall and Bradley fail to tell you is that the "Star Chamber" was abolished for CAUSE, I quote from the Act of Parliament "Abolition of the Star Chamber" July 5, 1641 "the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void."
So our sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court constructed,  and has since pulled the wool over We the Peoples eyes, a precedent from a court that asserted "absolute immunity" but who's power was, by Act of Parliament, ultimately "clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away and determined," FOR CAUSE, abusing said "absolute immunity." That would be like allowing a potential thief into your house because his father a known thief, a convicted thief asserted that he would not steal before he was caught stealing. If there is anything to be learned from Floyd &amp; Barker (Star Chamber 1607) it is the Black Robed Royalist Article III Supreme Court CANNOT BE "ABSOLUTELY" TRUSTED!!!!!!!!!! It is INSANITY to think any other way!!!!!!
We the People have fallen under the despotic spell of the constructed "excess of power" in the Supreme Court that has constructed ABSOLUTE POWER from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for denial of INALIENABLE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 &amp; 242 and Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 ) by "malicious or corrupt" judges, the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor,  the "knowingly false testimony by police officers," corrupt, malicious, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions of federal, state, local, and regional legislators are entitled to absolute immunity" and the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid actions of "all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"  acting under color of law to render ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of inalienable rights under color of law.
Tom Robinson was convicted because of the infamy of the charge and the deliberate indifference to his right to JUSTICE under fair Due Process of law as required and asserted in the Constitution for the United States of America – the preamble to establish justice, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, Article III, §1 &amp; 2, Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph and the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment.
"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." I say it NOW, Sunday, August 06, 2017!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said respectively said it originally in 1871 at the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985).
"Consequently, it (the judge's order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted)." Id.".
 C. S. Lewis prescient assertion: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do" 12/08/2010 USAToday by Brad Heath &amp; Kevin McCoy ("Federal prosecutors series"). The "OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."
 Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (1868) , asserting Floyd &amp; Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was judicial sophistry at its finest, a judicial subterfuge to give the judiciary immunity from the UNQUALIFIED recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1866 (18 USC §241-§242).
 Likewise Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871), also asserting Floyd &amp; Barker (Star Chamber 1607), was a subterfuge to give the judiciary ABSOLUTE immunity from the UNQUALIFIED civil liability for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" enacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC §1983-§1985).
 Title Criminal 18, U.S.C, § 241 &amp; 242, and Title Civil 42 U.S.C. § 1983 &amp; 1985 The absence of exigent circumstances should be noted.
 Lord Coke Floyd and Barker (1607) "Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &amp;c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy."

References: Case No: 17
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 §1983
 § 241
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §241
 §242
 §1983
 §1985
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 241
 § 1983
 §1
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 §241
 v. 
 §1983
 § 241
 § 1983