Amicus Brief: On Supreme Court Case #16-1464

The Supreme Court                                                                                       July 5, 2017

1 First St. NE                                                                                                   Case #16-1464

Washington, D.C.  20543

To the honorable justices of the Supreme Court of the United States: greetings.

   I would like to submit my whole website of arguments and my whole internet experience as evidence in a letter as a friend of the Supreme Court in deciding case #16-1464 to void the 2016 election due to Russian interference. After briefly presenting reasons that I believe the Court can and should void the 2016 election, I will add to the evidence presented things I have seen with my own eyes, so to speak, which might not otherwise be considered.

   As indicated in Ex Parte Yarbrough (1885), the Constitution assumes elections that are fair and not thrown, as by “violence, corruption, or fraud” such as bribery or indeed by foreign interference. As stated in Yarbrough, the idea that Congress has no power to pass laws to secure elections is “Startling.” We say that it is alike unthinkable that a presidential election be thrown and the Supreme Court have nothing to say about it. As stated in Marbury v. Madison, The Supreme Court is, among the branches of government, the interpreter of the Constitution. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” “A law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.” We suggest that it is also the province and duty of the Court to say what a legal election is, and a corrupt election can indeed be similarly declared void, with all effects and appointments following from it nullified. Even if the Court is disobeyed, as Justice Marshall later was in his Worcester v. Georgia decision, legitimacy is conferred by constitutional election.

   Before turning to things peculiar to my own circumstance and perspective, I will only add to the case as written by Mr. Small that General Hayden said that the Russian interference with this election is “The greatest covert operation in history.” He said this the same day that President Obama said that at the approval of the tyrant Vladimir Putin by the Republican party- then some 37%- “Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave.” Indeed, Hillsdale college has printed a praise of this tyrant, and has a luxury cruise headed for St. Petersburg as this case is being decided.

  Two days following the 2016 election, I contacted my Senator, saying that from an “actuarial” sense, of probabilities given the natures of things, the popular vote and the swing state vote appeared to show that the election result was fraudulent, and that I was getting a sense of a “White guy” conspiracy between the American racist elements and Vladimir Putin of Russia. Computer scientist J. Alex Halderman of the University of Michigan wrote a famous essay based on the topic, as he saw the same thing, even before the popular vote had been counted. I wrote him asking him to consider the spy-tech marketing system and targeted interference as the primary means by which this election was turned. (I am, in full disclosure, a fourth Amendment activist, and had predicted dire consequences of the suspension of the Fourth Amendment, directly to the FBI, even reporting a particular which later proved to be the case.) My attempts to contact Mr. Halderman, to the point of annoyance of the U. of M Computer science department, were unsuccessful, whether by his choice alone, his choice with comments from a third party, or by interference, I do not know. I also sent him a letter through the U. S. mail, so the complete lack of response is a bit unusual. I wanted him to help too, along with the U. of M law school, with finding a lawyer to pursue a case for the fact that I am spied upon in my living room without a shred of consent on three different tech instruments, and found that Microsoft, after “persuading” or compelling me to install Windows 10, had the Toshiba computer spying on me by camera and recording microphone and other unknown means, until a few weeks passed, I figured to suspect it, went into the settings, and turned it off. It was indeed on. Today, the Fifth of January 2017, I found and turned off camera and microphone from Twitter. What these companies are doing is public knowledge. A camera came on late one night and snapped a picture of me. Microsoft was accused (as on my blog), and publicly blamed the FBI (NPR). Information gathered from my Twitter account and my drugstore was lately used to knock me off the computer February 4, when I received a long string, in a message disguised as being from Brooklyn Dad, of many things I had said that angered Russia and the U.S. KKK. (This may be due to a separate threat made by Trump supporters on my Twitter account January 28, which I took to be not serious enough to file an ignored report, though I did ask the man for an apology, which I have yet to receive). The phone rang simultaneously, with what purported to be a marketer or a scam, telling me to “stop doing what I was now doing,” and go to a computer site to get 10,000$. (A later version of this message is recorded on my Assurance Wireless account, which goes through Manila.) Mr. Halderman was, as reported on WWJ (CBS radio news), framed by a foreign actor (perhaps Romanian or Eastern European) on Valentines Day. They hacked his e-mail and sent racist Valentines about the U of M campus as though these were sent by Mr. Halderman, according to the report. I called the Washtenaw police, who have partial jurisdiction in the case, but as usual was completely ignored.

   My internet security is, like 400,000,000 other accounts, handled by Kaspersky, a company centered in Moscow. Ostensibly Russian interference with me personally on the internet has also been noted on two instances involving the leopard, and one apparently Russian incident involving a Bear. I also received an invitation to study Black Magic in Spanish from a Satanic site that is likely unrelated, but was allowed to visit my website and, uniquely, to comment without their visit being registered in the statistics.

   Turning to points not likely to be in the public view, I believe I saw conclusively that Donald Trump had committed election fraud in the 2016 presidential election. When Mr. Trump said, in public media, that if the election were turned, it could not be detected- I believe I saw that Mr. Trump was told that the election would be turned for him, and that this would be done in a way that could not be detected. I believe this because I also believe that Mr. Trump does not know that if the election were turned, it could not be detected. Yet he said this with assurance, just as though he had been told this very phrase by someone he believed. This sense is corroborated by the assertion of Mr. Trump that if he did not win, it would be due to fraud on the part of Mrs. Clinton, though he was then behind in the polls. Exhibiting overconfidence, their campaign spent very little money on television advertising in the “swing” states. He further accused Mrs. Clinton, in the national Enquirer the week before the election, of ties to Russia, and has strangely accused the Democrats of election fraud using fake voters. The judgement I make is from a consideration of characters and circumstances, from long study, and is of course not “certain” knowledge, which may be impossible on either side in human matters. In psychology, accusations often reflect something about the accuser. Most people do this involuntarily. But we, or rather, I, believe these are characteristic methods of lying used intentionally by both the team of Mr. Trump and Vladimir Putin, having seen the same on numerous occasions. We hold that these apprehensions are subtle but true, and while less than conclusive courtroom proof, plenty of reason to initiate some old fashioned detective work. We call the assertion that the means cannot be detected a “techie error,” and consider the assertion to be a great clue as to where one might look: Precisely at means thought by Putin and Russian computer scientists to be undetectable. How can this be done if the methods are “undetectable?” Covert operations are of course difficult to discern. One method is by observing what does appear, and trying to account for the appearances. One such method, that would be thought by “techies” to be undetectable, would be interference with the voters themselves, just as current marketing methods would do this, by passively collecting information and then targeting interference to where it is most effective and least detectable. This could be discerned, again, by old fashioned detective work: by approaching with an hypothesis what does appear, and checking to see if the hypothesis  is true, or, by looking for it.

   When I saw Donald Trump say that the method of turning the election could not be detected, I believed I saw for sure that someone told him this, as it is not within the bounds of his computer understanding. This seemed quite confirmed by the assertion of Mr. Trump that if he did not win the election, it would be due to fraud, though he was then behind in the polls and also confirmed by his counter-accusation of his opponent, Mrs. Clinton, of election fraud (See my blogs on the use of the mirror, both in general and in discerning the Trump-Russian-Breitbart method of dis-information). One Item of fake news, too, appeared in the National Enquirer, accusing Ms. Clinton of Russian ties in the week before the election, and my sister too confirms that this article had an impact on voters she has met. When I called the proper offices of the Federal Government, even before inauguration day, to ask about the law regarding election fraud, I was told to go read Tik Nat Han, and another time told that someone had told the receptionist not to speak to me. Another office told me that they only investigate election fraud by money received, or campaign finance fraud. I published a citizen’s arrest of Donald Trump for election Fraud, prior to inauguration day.

   It was similarly evident from particulars that Mr. Trump had not read the Constitution at all, and I guessed this and published it about two weeks before the Democratic party presented the Muslim man whose son had died in service to his country, the United States.

   While, according to our scenario or hypotheses, Russia worked to turn the election in every way they thought might be safe for them and effective, we believe the primary means was through what we call the “spy-tech marketing system.” As everyone knows but few appreciate properly, the Fourth Amendment has come just lately to be ignored, so that our government no longer seeks to uphold the security of citizens in their houses, persons, papers and effects, but allows all information to be collected and sold, ostensibly for “marketing” purposes. We believe, again from what does appear, that the FBI or a similar agency has used this information, that the FBI/etc. has also sought Russian assistance in spying to protect us from terrorism, and believe that one Russian security company handles four hundred million accounts while centered in Moscow (as is publicly acknowledge and even advertised). We do not consider it to be a great mystery how this election was turned, but rather to be obvious that it would have been turned given the coalescence of these circumstances: Russian intent, Russian computer superiority or temporary control of cyberspace, Trump priorities, our disregard for privacy and the new spy marketing tech, spying now on every citizen through camera and audio and other unknown means, right in the living room of each citizen. It would then remain only to run some algorithms and target some interference to turn an election. That is how Facebook would do it, and according to one report on NPR, that is how it was done recently in the Philippines. We consider it then to be obvious from deductive reasoning that Russia turned the 2016 election, and that for the security of our nation and for liberty, the 2016 election can and should be declared void.

   The fact of interference with our efforts is further confirmation, and an indication of the guilt of Russia and those assisting the Russian efforts for partisan reasons. I received what I understood to be a death threat while working to publicize case #16-907. While commenting on the letter of a collaborator to the President of the United States, I was removed to a screen of apparently Russian pornography, followed quickly by a scary face and four words, two of which were “assassin” and “assassinate.” This was reported to the proper police, and I was stopped from working. There was in fact a great deal of interference with that case, and that fact further corroborates our contention.  That is, Trump Russian collusion in the suppression of the press and the right of peaceable assembly is evidence of guilt, just as obstruction is evidence of guilt in what is being obstructed. I reported this threat to the Sheriff when it occurred. The case was denied without giving a reason. I learned it was remanded to the appeals court by calling a news radio station, which never did report on the case. Cut off from the internet after another attack on February 4, I learned that the case was denied when I was in the back of a police car, seized for mere speech, on the perjurous complaint, of relatives who are Trump supporters, and one who is influenced by others in the Trump organization. The accusation was filed “under penalty of perjury,” saying that I was a “danger.” There is of course no evidence that that is true, but I was arrested and served 20 days for speech and mere political speech, having violated the rights of no one, nor done a single thing that I do not have a perfect right to do. A principle article of the perjurous complaint was that I imagined I was “working on” a Supreme Court case, which happens to be true. I was then working to publicize case #16-907, and would have submitted an Amicus Brief, which every citizen has a perfect right to do. For this accusation, charges of perjury have been filed. While held for 20 days without ever speaking to a judge, I repeatedly stated that I was held for mere speech, and had neither said nor done a single thing that I do not have a perfect right to say and do. From phone text message conversations with these relatives, the truth can be demonstrated in court. Charges have been filed, but not a single thing done to address an accusation of perjury in such a matter. After about ten days, I was evaluated by an independent psychologist, confirmed by two other psychologists, and released by a judge, because indeed they had no reason to seize me twenty days prior. I have not even said a single thing that is false, let alone violated the rights of any fellow citizen. The fact that I can ague the same, while they cannot, is presented as indeed proof of my sanity. But the stigma generated by such an experience is indeed quite effective in preventing a citizen from political action.

   In the mean time, this second revote case was presented April 12, and due to the lack of press, I only learned of it during the present month, which is June. The stigma resulting remains, along with almost unbelievable poverty, and effects the reader even now, so that the substance of what one says will be discredited. Vladimir Putin himself is quoted on Public Radio saying that those asserting Trump-Russian collusion are “Crazy'” and “dangerous,” the very words he used. This is an old, well known Russian method, and the stigma is very convenient. As Leo Strauss writes , even the philosopher can appear to the people as mad (On Tyranny, p. 208), and hence can always be presented as mad- people cannot understand what he says without inquiry, and will not inquire. Neither the people nor our “psychiatry” are able to tell the difference, as both lack a theoretical distinction between even genius and madness, between which there is proverbially a “fine line.” A fine example is the accusation that I think the T.V. is watching us, and therefore am mad. When the truth is demonstrated, no one apologizes). But for the reason of such interference alone, #16-1464 ought be considered, and the recourse requested reconsidered. Citizens have been prevented from working to publicize a Supreme Court case, and prevented from assembly and writing an Amicus Brief, by unknown Russian and Trump supporting actors. No executive agency will inquire into the truth of this matter or provide the protection needed for free political action. Liberty itself is drawing to a close due to the Russian interference in the U. S. election.

   We believe that since the U. S. constitution assumes elections free of foreign and domestic interference, and indeed suggests recourse as described in Article II and in Federalist 68 and Article IV section 4 should the national government fail to protect the states from foreign interference, as may have been impossible due to our dependence upon Russian computer superiority and the betrayal of this trust in opposing a supposedly common enemy, and the failure of the Electoral College to provide the remedy suggested in Federalist 68, likely by similar means of surveillance and targeted interference, and the difficulty of impeachment due to the corruption of the races for key Congressional offices required for impeachment to work properly, the Court should declare the election of 2016 to be null and void, or else declare the winner of the popular vote to be the winner of an hypothetical Electoral vote. A Re-vote can be ordered. Failing this remedy, we ask that the Electoral College reconsider, as intimidation is reported to have occurred, and the Electors were told falsely and contrary to the Constitution that they were not free to vote as they thought best regardless of the most extreme revelations regarding a candidate between the voting and the meeting of the college, as is false, an unconstitutional deception, and contrary to the explicit intention of the purpose of the college as described in Federalist 68.

                                                         Sincerely,

                                                         Mark A. McDonald, PhD

 

 

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Amicus Brief: On Supreme Court Case #16-1464

  1. My favorite spelling error, to the Supreme Court, is “ague” which means fever, for argue, because the r does not work right on this laptop. But, with the exception of some capitals, coming out of reading the Declaration, where every proper noun is capitalized, and maybe 3 sentences of repetition of points that indeed bear repeating, I did ok. This morning, the ordering of the paragraphs became clear, and, not knowing the deadline, nor trusting fortune to grant another opportunity to extreme poverty, I sent it. Many can spell better, but do you know one who could write a better letter on comprehensive matters who has no money and is not being paid?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s