Amicus Brief: On Supreme Court Case #16-1464

I am wondering what the deadline is for these Friend Letters, and any editorial suggestions are most welcome.

Thoughts, Comments and Questions

The Supreme Court

1 First St. NE

Washington, D.C.  20543

   I would like to submit my whole website as 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.

   As indicated in Ex Parte Yarbrough (1885), the constitution assumes elections that are fair and not thrown, as by violence, bribery or indeed by foreign interference. As stated in Yarbrough, it is unthinkable that Congress have no power to pass laws to secure elections. 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 Court is the interpreter of the Constitution. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”…

View original post 2,613 more words

Stones: “Time Waits for No Man”: “No favors Has He”

Copied from the songmeanings site, where Replican1212 has an extraordinary comment from 2008.

Yes, star crossed in pleasure the stream flows on by
Yes, as we’re sated in leisure, we watch it fly
And time waits for no one, and it won’t wait for me
And time waits for no one, and it won’t wait for me
Time can tear down a building or destroy a woman’s face
Hours are like diamonds, don’t let them waste
Time waits for no one, no favours has he
Time waits for no one, and he won’t wait for me
Men, they build towers to their passing yes, to their fame everlasting
Here he comes chopping and reaping, hear him laugh at their cheating
And time waits for no man, and it won’t wait for me
Yes, time waits for no one, and it won’t wait for me
Drink in your summer, gather your corn
The dreams of the night time will vanish by dawn
And time waits for no one, and it won’t wait for me
And time waits for no one, and it won’t wait for me
No no no, not for me….

   Coming out of “Rocky Mountain High,” I see that the first sentence here is a shooting star. Sated in leisure, we wast time, when hours are like diamonds. Cat Stevens: “Lets all start livin’ for the one that’s going to last.” “All your money won’t another minute buy,” (Kansas). Incidentally, what a joke to think ill of Jaggar /Richards: look what fun he makes even of cheating, the injustices humans do, upon the argument that one must. Drink in your summer, gather your corn, the dreams of the night will vanish by dawn,” “indeed we are such stuff as dreams are made on.” And fame? The very ground of fame in our generations we seek to benefit and save by our legacy, even as the Stones do for us here, will be rolled up like a scroll! Indeed, and “Leave not a rack behind.” But “hours are like diamonds.” We cannot but underestimate the value of the gift of the fact that we are here at all to begin. Hence, loss, for which some are angry at God, is just less of the gift we never appreciated, as when our love was there (Dylan, “Tomorrow…).

Consider the Language of Ex Parte Yarbrough (1885), and Apply It to the Supreme Court Itself, (Which Has Article IV.4)

   It is of course difficult to base the revote case on precedent, because, (duh) the circumstance is literally unprecedented. But the language of the Yarbrough case, in which Yarbrough and others were convicted of intimidating a citizen from voting for a member of Congress in violation of  federal legislation, might well make one think that a foreign actor cannot turn a presidential election without the Supreme Court itself having something to say about the matter. In Yarbrough, the issue is whether congress has the power to punish violations of election laws under the Constitution, but we believe that the statements to the effect that the Constitution ASSUMES elections free of “violence, corruption or fraud” amounts to a precedent that pertains to the present case, #16-1464, to void the 2016 election due to Russian interference.

   Justice Miller states:

The idea that Congress has no power to secure elections from violence, corruption, or fraud by making appropriate laws is startling. The proposition that every power of Congress must be expressly granted in the Constitution has never been adhered to by this court. The Constitution itself recognizes this inherent inability to put into words all derived powers when it gives Congress the authority to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry out its functions.

 Another objection was advanced, that the right to vote for a member of Congress is not dependent upon the Constitution, but upon the law of each state, respectively. Even if that were true, the election would still have to be free from bribery and corruption. However, the right to vote for a member of Congress does flow from the Constitution, for the Constitution adopts the qualifications of the state for electing the members of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. therefore, the right does not depend exclusively on the law of the state.

   It is essential that a government such as ours have within its constitutional framework the authority to provide against these evils, or it will soon be at the mercy of combinations of brute force.

   While there are Federal statutes prohibiting interference with the right to vote, the execution of those statutes is now in the power of those benefiting from the corruption of the 2016 election. See my Amicus Brief (at 777) and previous blogs for an account of what happens when a citizen calls the Federal office to learn what these statutes might be, and that was before the inauguration.

Note* They told me to go read Tik Nat Han. So I did!

The Pauline Epistles: Known and Suspected Forgeries.

I have added some thoughts in the comments to this nice update on what the scholars are up to of late- MM

The Ancient World

By Pat Lowinger

Within modern Christianity there remains pervasive misunderstandings regarding the date(s), authorship and transmission of various portions of the New Testament.  One of the most prolific New Testament authors was the Apostle Paul.  Of the fourteen Epistles credited to Paul, the current mainstream consensus among scholars is that no more than nine are authentic.  The remaining five, some would argue seven, are known forgeries- falsely attributed to the Apostle Paul.

Origin and Acceptance of Paul’s Letters:

St. Paul Modern Orthodox Icon depicting the Apostle Paul

Current scholarship dates the earliest of Paul’s Epistles (First Thessalonians) to around 50 CE and the latest (Romans) at some point prior to 60 CE.  This isn’t to imply that there isn’t some room for debate.  For example, some scholars would argue that First Thessalonians wasn’t authored until 52 CE, but generally it’s excepted that the authentic letters of Paul were…

View original post 978 more words

#16-1464 to Void the 2016 Russian-U.S. Election

…On our news, we have only heard about how the CIA has Vlad directly ordering cyber attacks on the elections. And they talk about our response. #16-1464 is the Revived Re-vote case, to void the 2016 election due to Ruskies meddling to elect Donney and co.

   Elections are assumed by the constitution, fundamental, and, we say, “think the Supreme Court has nothing to say about it?” They say, “no precedent,” we say it is unprecedented. The case is based on Article IV.4, plus things said in the Classic and Yarbrough cases, which are about the suppression of the black vote. Federalist 68 indicates that the electoral college was to provide a remedy should some foreign power raise some “creature of their own” to the presidency. Mark Small has written up the case, and it is granted mandamus, with a response from the Trump-Russophiles due by July 7. For my Amicus Brief- which is a letter that any citizen is allowed to submit as a friend of the court, Amicus meaning Amigos, friends (in Latin rather than Latin-American). I tried to write only things I could add, without repeating much that is in the case. The truth is that when the Trump-Russians interfere with political association, speech and free political action, violating two clauses of the First and then the Fifth amendment liberty clause-when they do this, they leave a trail, and collusion is demonstrated in the very attempt to silence free opposition. This is a whole un-mined category which coheres with the other categories of evidence to “prove” what is by now so obvious the few doubt it: Russia elected Trump for us, and we do not know their full perfidious purpose even yet, but we do not want to find out! Hence we are asking the court to provide a remedy such as a re-vote. And if some think that this will cause “civil war,” to have a new election, we see who was against elections, we see that fascism rising is what will cause civil war, and we see the fourth clause of the second sentence of the Declaration as well, which means that we are not required to give up on republican or free self-government. My draft is at mmcdonald777Wordpress, with three sevens- my secret site where I tell the truth about my other site, and its more fundamental purposes. I am hoping for criticism and feedback on the draft before I print it, and send it in.

“Thomas Jefferson lives!”

– John Adams, July 4, 1826.

Invention: An Internet of Integrity

   I am astonished that no one starts up an internet of integrity. The Niche is wide open, entrepreneurs! Imagine tech that does not spy on you and use you for their profit. Soon the people will be catching on, so it may well be a bull market. Imagine a Twitter that does not sell fake followers, a WordPress that does not block search term access to one’s site awaiting an extortion fee. Imagine a government obliged to obey the Bill of Rights they swore an oath to uphold, and just not use the camera and audio in every computer to take paternal and tyrannical powers over every citizen. Imagine a nation that cared to secure elections more than short term profits, and a 2016 election that was not hacked by the Russians to run Donney up the flagpole and watch the slavish Republicans salute! Perhaps we would have had Bernie or Hillary v. Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz. Imagine if thee wee not a Russian hacking of U.S. hospital computers, and no Russian mob induced Oxy epidemic! We may have even had Ben Carson!

   And imagine an FBI that would admit to using the spy-tech and Russian assistance against ISIS and domestic terrorism, but made a terrible mistake in forgetting what it means to have risen through the ranks of the KGB-oops! Imagine a Congress that would regulate the internet and perhaps gun lobbies to boot, and oversee the federal executive agencies like it is supposed to, pursuing questions when these arise, rather than allowing the FBI/etc. to attack the one raising the questions.

   But that is what it means to be a Platonist, to bear the pain of knowing not that the best regime is unachievable- who cares?- but that all these evils are entirely avoidable if we would just stand up with a little integrity, even on the internet.

   So what if we set up such a thing, right alongside the old internet, now we have seen the flaws in that which will surely lead to disaster? And in the meantime, remember, the key to the discontents of modern tech is manual backup. Have they deported Emmanuel Backupez already? Senior Peace?

Chemical and Neurological Causes in Psychology

   As the account of chemical and neurological causes and cues has become fashionable, people take solace in the supposedly scientifically based idea that their mental illnesses are not “their fault,” but rather due to an involuntary condition that is like a disease. These things are caused by “chemical imbalances,” and here we will show you the neurons lighting up, and there tweak your dopamines and receptors for you.

   And did you think that when something occurs that is one’s fault, like murder or rape, there is not also a chemical and neurological process occurring in the brain? We are not in the least surprised, philosophically, that there is something going on on there! In fact, volition is very difficult to understand, but no scientist will have a chance or a clue if he does not also philosophize. The human soul is a great mystery, and we simply do not possess authoritative knowledge regarding the soul. Appeals to the “experts,”the “professionals,” are rationalizations and ways to avoid responsibility. I know, for I have seen the brains and faces of those who thus rationalize, and are unable to question first principles while they are hurting others.

   Again, I can tell you to read Plato, Phaedo, about 99, where Socrates discusses the materialists saying that the reason he is sitting in prison is that his legs are bent a certain way. No one reads this, not a single one I know has ever gone to this book directed by my blog, in over a year. We are no longer able to read or to desire to read, inquire and study, yet will take six figure salaries for doing more harm than good, because we are the experts, the “professionals,” whom everyone is obligated to trust like a medical doctor or a new priesthood. Perhaps we are too slavish to continue free.

   I am sue there is a chemical cause for the decline of the liberal arts, called Oxy, and a medical and material cause, called money. Hence it is not our fault, and next we will fight the stigma, and treat the neurological cause of sarcasm.

Note* A neurologist on NPR, who has done some truly interesting work on the brains of “psychopaths” and “sociopaths,” as we call this, said she studies neurons because she is “not a dualist.”  The assumption- a philosophical assumption- involved in this statement is absurd in many ways, and I would expect a Philosophy 101 student to understand what they are saying better than does this now famous neurologist. Matter and form are never separate, but this no more implies materialism than it would imply “formalism.” It is our minds that are darkened: we are like prisoners in a cave, and surely must ascend if we are ever to care for human beings. Anything else would be “unprofessional,” no?

Visit Juliethemadblogger and Takingthemaskoff- MM


Mark Small and the Revote Case: Federalist 68: Void the Election

   Supreme Court case #16-1464 asks the Court to void the 2016 election due to Russian Interference. Like the first case, brilliantly and beautifully written by Jeroll Sanders, this case is based on Article IV Section 4 of the constitution, which requires that the federal or national government protect the states from foreign interference. The attack on the election was like a foreign invasion, and these methods continue. We have barely begun to realize what is occurring and put a stop to the illegal and unethical things being done on the internet to control politics. Oh, you are surprised that such things occur, or will be done if not opposed or prevented?

   Attorney Mark Small of Indiana has written the Revived case, and bought in some more comprehensive arguments as to why the Supreme Court is the only recourse likely to be available, and why they have the power and to void an election and the duty to void this one. Between points 47 and 60, he is especially brilliant. Having demonstrated that impeachment is unlikely because the also likely helped the Republicans gain a majority in the Senate, Mr. Small notes the opinion of the Founders, as in Federalist 1, about party, and the “members of the Electoral College are not independently selected as the framers had anticipated, but are chosen by the same process” selected by the political parties. The Electoral College, as discussed in Federalist 68, was to be the last stop to prevent “foreign cabals” from afflicting us with a tyranny or tyrannical executive for their own advantage. The founders set up our voting for slates of electors, people thought most capable, who would then elect the president. Their explicit intention is that the electors not be chosen from pre-existing bodies, such as political parties. The Russian corruption of the Republican Party is all that was required for Putin to select our president for us, for his advantage and not ours, and they did this by effecting the vote in subtle ways throughout the Primaries. They ran Trump up the flagpole, and everyone kept saying, “well, he won the election…,” such is our reverence for the electoral process. They ran Trump up the flagpole, and all the Republicans saluted. The electors were chosen by party, and in 25 States were told that they were legally bound, just because the unconstitutional laws binding them have not been challenged yet. The explicit intention of the founders, as shown in Federalist 68, is that they be able to prevent  a tyrant, and it is obvious from one example that the state laws binding the electors are unconstitutional: say one elected were revealed, between the election and the inauguration, to be an ax murderer. Or say he were simply revealed, whether by ignorance or intention, to be in effect a traitor? Similarly, those who would like to abolish the electoral college, thinking it a vestige like the appendage little toe, have likely not read the Federalist papers.

   It is similarly obvious that the Supreme Court has the power to void this election. The alternative is to say that such a thing could occur and the Supreme Court could have nothing to say about the fundamental constitutional structure of elections. The Court and the constitution assumes that elections are, as said in the Yarbrough decision, free of bribery and corruption. The president derives his legitimacy from the Constitution, of which the Supreme Court is the fundamental interpreter. There is some question as to whether the president must always obey the Court, as raised by Andrew Jackson, but the powers of the president are only to execute laws enacted by Congress, and the Supreme Court determines whether those laws are constitutional. In our last flirtation with tyranny, Jackson simply defied the decision of John Marshall that he could not remove the (Christian, English speaking) Cherokee of Georgia, and enacted a national sin, the Trail of Tears. It is in fact precisely the Supreme Court that has the office of voiding the election, and it is likely that the Congress and the rest of the nation will obey the decision, as the president will no longer have legitimacy.

Left Out in the Rain: John Castel for Father’s Day

Source: Left Out in the Rain.

   I am trying to re-blog this beautiful piece again for Fathers Day. My Father is still alive, and I just walked two miles to call him from the phone at the country store. He now assures me I could not get into Canada because the police have my numbers, and it seems now that he is the one who told them what the Librarian’s assistant at Northville Public Library told him, with assurance, that I was “Schizophrenic,” because I reported to her a death threat that I received on the internet, and told her my best guess as to why I had received it. All Trump supporters know, because the trustworthy Vlad Putin has said, anyone talking Trump-Russian collusion is “Crazy’ and “Dangerous.” Where have I heard those words before? The library, my father, my uncle and my sister, who is charged with perjury, are all quite liable, though there is no way to hold anyone accountable, for slander and perjury, if one is poor. “Am I getting help?” my father asks, and I ask are you getting help? All that nice help available, “professional,” Expert,” like the help they gave Rosalie Kennedy, Lobotomies for their convenience, and you’re not gettin’ any? They did me more harm than just about anything that has ever happened to me in my life.” Ya, what happened when you all sent me to the “psychologist” in High school, for yelling at a firetruck? The Vice principle, Barbara Campbell, she was going fix me early, there in ninth grade, because they have knowledge, and are “professions,” paid to know and do such things to people.”Next time you want to help me like that, just don’t.” “Maybe next year by Father’s Day I’ll have a phone.”

  What impenetrable ignorance! What are the assumptions? There are no such thing as death threats? Trump is surely a righteous fellow? Our psychology is based on scientific knowledge? where shall we start? But speech assumes that truth and justice are these issue, while these have decided that it is rather power that will be the issue. These people literally do not know what they are saying, but are willing to act with the gravest consequences for another without the slightest self-examination. They did not need Socrates. They already knew. They already have certain knowledge, so it is only a question of power-Tyranny. I am forbid, of course, speech to explain or unravel any of the false assumptions at the root of my family members joining to have me committed on perjurous charges, demonstrably intentional lies. They had to say I was “dangerous,” in order to force me to get “help,” so they did. I am the least “dangerous ” person anyone knows and this might occur to anyone with the slightest reflection. They have disregarded perjury, and their delusions are the only delusions doing any harm, and I the only one harmed. You see why I wanted to move to Canada? Thanks, dad, for making that too impossible. This is tyranny, and these the effects of tyranny when it takes hold in a nation. Go on, plug your ears like a four year old. When I take over your life and liberty and harm you on the basis of my delusions of knowledge which I refuse to examine, you have me get some “help.” Till then, if you can’t help me, leave me the f alone, as our fundamental law- which you have never cared to read let alone study and consider-requires you to do.

   Someone told my father something like, Oh, that is a sign of “mental illness,” that they deny they “have” it and need “help.” Lets see, this means that those who are not ill deny it, and those who are ill deny it, and then there are those who admit it, like “i have bipolar disorder…” as though they or some doctor even knew what that meant. That means that literally everyone is mentally ill and needs to be drugged!! I was told this by a worker at Promedica. She had given a speech saying that literally everyone needs psychiatric drugs. She later denied saying it, but I heard her ague this, just before I walked out. Perhaps a truth serum is in order.

   These slanders, which apparently began with a Librarian and whoever told the librarian to say that, my Uncle and whatever Trumpsters helped him, my sister who is always up for bilious shadow fighting, whom they used, and perhaps my mother, for whom I care, and who becomes angry if I try to explain the simplest things. They have endangered me now three times especially, when I was considered a “danger” by police and might have been shot by the smallest error, such as holding a coffee cup. No one would be charged, and no one will be charged if they use the police to murder me- a petty fancy way to cay out a death threat, now fashionable in the Philippines- my fault for knowing it and caring, “abnormal,” since no one else knows or cares. Justice is abnormal, as is the examined life. No one can say what it is I have done wrong: I have spoke, and they did not like what I said. I have said not a single thing that is not true, nor a single thing I do not have a PERFECT right to say. Thanks, family.

   Our generations are broken, in part by this slander and the stigma which makes others assume that if someone said such a thing it must be true. And they do not care, literally, if I am shot or receive a chemical lobotomy for political opinions.

   Thanks Senator Stabenow, because I presented her plenty of reason to raise a question regarding a certain executive agency. And I have it on report of an official, one who knows: his son works now for the CIA: “They do that,” he said. Now I believe they do that. They do whatever they want, especially to hide their own crimes, because there is no oversight, and anyone who tries to whistle blow or hold them to account, even for using women or love in spying on a student who refused to join the CIA, So check and see if they did that to me, and issued a death threat because I raised the question. What? We have certain knowledge that all who say such things are, what did Putin say, “Crazy,””Dangerous.” Check and see if they did that to you, then.

My crime is to study politics in the USA, the freest nation that ever was, and perhaps to know and speak. For this, they have destroyed any semblance of family life for me, and there is no recourse: It is fine with everyone, like Flint drinking water.

Leo Strauss on Solitude

…the philosopher cannot possibly desire to rule. His only demand on the political men is that they leave him alone…(p.207)

   That’s why I yell at my cats- even the “gentleman,” Mr. Black, my “best animal,” “Leave me alone!” If I were a true and full philosopher, I would likely never yell (and they would never listen (Republic, opening), though they do not anyway). And that’s why Justice Black (or Frankfurter?) said, “the right to be left alone is the right most prized by civilized man,” and why the U.S. Declaration, setting rights above duties, is so excellent.* It allows for the Holy Spirit: it is the house without a roof, open to the sky. All men (universal sense, which of course includes women, not of course, qua women, but qua men) have the faculty developed in the philosopher: The philosopher embodies and shows the excellence of man, hence, “all men are created equal-” equally endowed with rights, as Lincoln explains in his speech on Dred Scott. So here, Strauss continues,

   …The philosopher cannot lead an absolutely solitary life because legitimate “subjective certainty” and the “subjective certainty” of the lunatic are indistinguishable. Genuine certainty must be “inter-subjective.” The classics were fully aware of the essential weakness of the mind of the individual. Hence, their teaching about friendship: the philosopher is a philosopher in need of friends.

                                                                                      On Tyranny, p. 208

Tyrants, of course, cannot have friends.

  It is irony itself that the tyrant is surrounded by flatterers and bigger and smaller fish. Some he depends upon to mirror his prestige, while others he depends upon for safety. Meanwhile, the philosopher must hide away in the woods like Merlin to keep mankind from tearing themselves to shreds if they encounter him, who is by nature a gadfly.

   The philosopher too is one of the many, a citizen like any other, with the peculiar advantage that he is one of the few who can speak. There are very few substantial letters to congresspersons, amplifying the voice of those among the people that are able to speak of things that mater. Most, of course, cannot.

   Athens killed Socrates the Philosopher, and Plato and Xenophon wrote Apologies of Socrates, arguing of course that this should not have occurred. Xenophon wrote that fa from being punished for not believing in the gods of the city and for corrupting the youth, Socrates was deserving of honor. Socrates, required to tell the truth because he is in court, said he deserved free meals in the Prytanium like an Olympic victor.

   Honor, which the philosopher does not seek for its own sake, in the sense of recognition, is needed for his own protection. It is also good for men to look to and esteem things truly honorable (Leo Paul S. de Alvarez).

   Had Athens honored rather than judicially murdered Socrates the philosopher, Greece might have become an autocthonous nation, more than a match for Persia and the Imperialism of Alexander that destroyed Greek liberty avoided.

   But you see that since the madman and the philosopher are indistinguishable to the folks in the neighborhood, many things follow. The Constitution supersedes the “Michigan Mental Health Code,” which is unconstitutional when it seizes a man for mere speech because others are so deluded and self-interested that they imagine him a danger, and act upon this delusion rather than allow him to explain. And the case is important enough to pursue to the ends of the earth. They live like slaves because they fear death, and like the Miller in Grimm’s goat story, will do things so base as to destroy the value of their having lived at all. It is no grave dishonor to be considered mad, nor to lose all one’s friends as Odysseus did while having done or said not a single thing wrong. They could not restrain themselves from the cattle of Helios, or, their ignoble self interest proves them incapable of philosophy. But then Odysseus sees, gets to see, Nausikka.

   This leaves open the possibility that there was no outside influence in what caused my family- people I have known for fifty years- to hurt me so badly I will likely never be reconciled. “…But a sin against the Holy Spirit…” And what do you think the context indicates He is talking about?

Note* So long as one does not violate the rights of another, “society” is required by our fundamental law to at least leave him alone.