Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: Is the United State Deliberately Committing Judicial Murder?

Jim Fetzer As it happens, John Remington Graham, B.A., LL.B., a retired professor of law, who remains qualified to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States, submitted an amicus curiae brief on behalf of three citizens of the United States, James Fetzer, Ph.D., Mary Maxwell, Ph.D., LL.B., and Cesar Baruja, M.D., on behalf of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who had been tried and convicted of the Boston marathon bombing. In this brief and its accompanying appendix (initially submitted to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, subsequently to the US Supreme…

‘Finish him’: Liberals celebrate with glee as Supreme Court REFUSES to hear Alex Jones’ appeal in Sandy Hook case

RT [Editor’s note: From the point of view of scientific reasoning, Alex Jones is pretty good at Puzzlement and Speculation, but weak at Adaptation and Explanation. I would have liked to support him, but he has not been receptive. During his video deposition in Connecticut, for example, he said he had never read Nobody Died at Sandy Hook (2015). He has been on both sides of the question, claiming that no kids had been killed on some occasions but that kids had been killed on other. The evidence is simply…

ALTERNATIVE TO VIOLENCE: A SOLOMONIC SCOTUS STEPS UP?

America Can We Talk Let’s be clear:  the chances that the Supreme Court will do anything but punt relative to any of the election fraud claims still pending before it, are the proverbial ‘slim to none’. The totalitarian left has leveraged the January 6 Reichstag fire into a compelled unity of rage against Donald Trump for inciting riots (even though evidence keeps accumulating that the assault on the Capitol was planned and set up and began being executed before Trump even finished the speech said to have caused the riots).  …

Trump’s Legal Team Considering Alternate Options After Supreme Court Rejects Texas Election Suit

BY MIMI NGUYEN LY Attorneys on President Donald Trump’s legal team, Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis, shared on Friday that the team is considering filing separate lawsuits to district courts in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of a lawsuit from Texas to challenge the 2020 election results in four battleground states. The two attorneys also called for courage from the courts to allow hearings on the lawsuits. Justices on the nation’s highest court late Friday denied the Lone Star state’s request to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. They opined that Texas lacked…

Robert Madsen, A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit

By Robert Madsen Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing away with security measures.  Further, according to the U.S. Constitution, the legislature (representing the citizens) of each state has absolute authority and responsibility for how presidential electors are chosen; the will of legislature being expressed through state law. Texas claims that the violations of election law in these states created an environment where…

All ballots after Nov. 3rd are NULL AND VOID; Texas files lawsuit with SCOTUS to nullify rigged elections in FOUR swing states

By PatriotRising Today’s Situation Update covers the bombshells now getting catapulted into the election battle, with a legal analyst revealing that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled in 1997 (Foster v Love) that all ballots received after midnight of Election Day are null and void. This means the vote stuffing, early morning rigging and subsequent ballot “discovery” schemes by the Democrats are all unconstitutional and therefore null and void. It also means that all the swing states which simultaneously paused their ballot counting on the evening of Nov. 3rd, deliberately allowing post-election ballot…

Vivian Lee, Christine Blasey Ford: Credible or Complicit?

BY VIVIAN LEE September 30, 2018 Revised and updated September 16, 2019 The word of the moment is “credible.”[1] Immediately following the Senate hearings on September 27, 2018, The New York Times published several online editorials as to why we should “believe” Christine Ford and not Brett Kavanaugh. The lead editorial is still posted there: “Why Brett Kavanaugh Wasn’t Believable and Why Christine Blasey Ford Was.”[2] This was echoed on the front-page of the print version on September 28, showing two huge photos side by side: a stoic-looking Ford with her…

Marc Theissen: The Kavanaugh debacle cost the Democrats the Senate

Marc Thiessen Brett M. Kavanaugh must have been smiling as the returns came in on Election Day, because it is now clear that the Democrats’ campaign to destroy him will go down as a massive blunder. It failed to keep Kavanaugh off the court. It cost Democrats their chance to regain control of the Senate. And it gave Republicans an expanded Senate majority that will allow them to confirm an even more conservative justice next time around. Today, Kavanaugh sits on the Supreme Court hearing cases. Meanwhile, Democratic Sens. Heidi…