Source: http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013_06_02_archive.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:01:29+00:00

Document:
"To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process"
Jane Crow and Jim Crow are both based on the conviction via infamous allegation rather than due Process of law as REQUIRED by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America.
I have referenced "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process," in several of my papers, I do so only because the facts of the case in "To Kill a Mocking Bird" are generally known. In both Jim Crow and the Jane Crow era the infamous accusation alone defeated Due Process Law and Equal Protection of the law.
If the Sheriff Tate had investigated the accusations of Mayella Ewel, he would have seen them for the inconsistent racially motivated vexatious or calumnious accusations against a crippled African American citizen of good character that they were. How could the crippled Tom Robinson been able to do the things he was accused of? If Horace Gilmer the prosecuting attorney had actually looked at the evidence Atticus presented instead of blindly pushing the perjured racially biased testimony of the Ewels he would have offered to dismiss the charges to the Ends of Justice. If Judge Taylor had any of the altruistic courage that our judiciary is based on, he would have dismissed the charge as vexatious or calumnious so as not to offend the Ends of Justice that should have been his soul motivation. Again, the Ends of Justice should have been his soul motivation.
Tom Robinson was convicted because of the deliberate indifference to his right to justice under fair Due Process of law as stated in the preamble to establish justice, Article III, §1 & 2 and Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. Atticus should not have had to say a word, just present the evidence of a crippled, since childhood, man of good character. The Sherriff, the Prosecutor and the Judge are all 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, the Sherriff, the Prosecutor and the Judge are in a peculiar and very definite sense the servants of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. The Sherriff and the Prosecutor 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 they're 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. (paraphrased slightly from Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 88 (1935)) Judges by definition in our system are there to altruistically enforce fair Due Process of law on the Sherriff, the Prosecutor and the defendant as necessary to the Ends of Justice.
You would like to believe that this kind of denial of Due Process is not possible in our racially sensitive world. Jim Crow has been replaced by Jane Crow. In Jane Crow America, a man in a divorce can be stripped of his children, his home… his EVERYTHING and there is not a Dam thing he can do about it. I have been fighting this fight for 9.67 years, 3,531 calendar days, 56,490 waking hours, 3,389,392 waking minutes, 203,363,546 waking seconds as of Monday January 14, 2013 03:48:38.59 PM. I have filed 5 civil rights appeals to the Federal Eighth District Court in St. Louis, MO. I have filed 5 petitions for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States based on 5 8th Circuit Court of Appeals cases, 07-2614 David Jeep vs. Philip Jones, Sr.; Jeep, David, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 David Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America. I have legal standing of an abuse victim; I have OVER ripeness of the issue. The Federal Courts refuse to do their job and enforce the 14th Amendment on the States. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The original court order at the center and inception of this issue, in 2003, was NOT "a facially valid court order" the issuing Judicial Officer did not have "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation" for the stated charge and thus it was "taken in a complete absence of all jurisdiction." Clearly too any facially reckonable reading of Due Process rights, reasonable probable cause is a prerequisite for government action/jurisdiction. There are "absolutes" in our Bill of Rights, and they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be "absolutes."
In the 9.58 years since there has never been any mention of "exigent circumstances" nor "good faith" mistakes there for the order stands on its own as brazenly NOT "a facially valid court order." Since the civil domestic issue has been ongoing for 9.58 years it is, as it was for Bivens, "damages or nothing." Since 2003 the Commissioner Jones and the original petitioner Sharon G. Jeep both contradicted their original assertions, although neither took the "Good Faith" requisite of RESPONSIBILITY!!! If you deny this petition you are again putting the rule of corrupt judges in front of the facially reckonable rule of We the People's law. You have done it before and you probably will again unless We the People rise up in rebellion.
The Rule of Law, as described by Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, the seminal Supreme Court case said, "The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."
"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, Wednesday, June 05, 2013!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.  Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871.
Impeach the current Supreme Court FIVE for verifiable NOT "good Behaviour," denying the establishment of justice and abridging a Constitutionally secured and congressionally un-abridge-able right to a redress of grievances, with their deprivation of substantive 7th Amendment justice between the government and the people, Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson No. 09–571 Decided March 29, 2011, "fraud upon the court" with Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10–98 Decided May 31, 2011, and denial of Due Process sin the Jane Crow era, 5each 8th Circuit Court of Appeals cases, 07-2614 David Jeep vs. Philip Jones, Sr.; Jeep, David, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 David Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America. !!!
Most of the 99% of Americans have not had the pleasure and are silently intimidated by the prospect of being dragged through our corrupt COURTS kicking and screaming!!!!!! I have been kicking and screaming for nearly 9 years. I have suffered through 411 days of illegal incarceration, 5 years of homelessness and two psychological examinations. I ask you to review 8th Circuit Court of Appeals cases, 07-2614 David Jeep vs. Philip Jones, Sr.; Jeep, David, 08-1823, 10-1947, 11-2425, 12-2435 David Jeep vs. Government of the United States of America. and the humble Petitions for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211."
 Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 410 (1971) " Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing."
 Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) "The opinion in these cases proceeds, it seems to me, upon grounds entirely too narrow and artificial. I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.
"It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul.""

References: §1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.