Did the Framers of the US Constitution in 1787 genuinely wrack their brains to come up every possible power-constraining mechanism for citizens to use against an evil government? I don’t know. But, as I will argue below, any omissions on their part can be filled in by other mechanisms that are present in the Constitution. Don’t give up hope!
One huge omission at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 was the Founders’ failure to raise the question: What if some Americans become so wealthy that they can control government by bribes? Admittedly, they mentioned ‘bribery’ as a cause for impeaching presidents and other officers, but what if the potential impeachers (all members of Congress’ lower house) got bribed out of their minds?
As apparently they are today.
Another omission: What if one of the three branches of government grabbed for itself the right to be THE interpreter of parchmentese? The judicial branch did just that in Marbury v Madison in 1803. They declared parts of an Act of Congress (The Judiciary Act) unconstitutional, and this has bequeathed to these Justices, rightly or wrongly, the honor of being the interpreter. Such a role for the judiciary is not granted to them in Article III, which specifies all their powers.
After some recent behaviors of SCOTUS, I am no longer willing to let them have the last word on anything. They killed the Fifth Amendment by allowing a man to be strip-searched when arrested for a traffic violation (the Albert Florence case), they scrunched up the Fifth Amendment’s right to keep your castle (in Kelo v London), and they basically killed democracy with Citizens United, in 2010, by allowing SuperPACs to contribute limitless funds to candidates.
What Does Scotus (Supreme Court of the United States) Say about 9/11?
Owing to other travails that caught our attention here at GumshoeNews.com — not mentioning any names (vaccination, child trafficking by the Family Court, etc.) — I didn’t notice back in January 2023, that Scotus had outdone its previous treachery. (Yes, I said treachery). It told some 9/11 plaintiffs that they did not have the right to submit information about crime to a Grand Jury. How did this not make headlines?
Oh, never mind, we know why it did not make headlines.
Luckily for me, the Boston for 9/11 Truth group asked me to address them on September 21, 2023. (Which, I cannot fail to say, is the 12th anniversary of the execution by Scotus, of a good man, Troy Davis, at the tender age of 41. So sorry, Troy.)
Here’s the deal on the 9/11 case. You may recall Bobby McIlvaine, the father of a man who died in the lobby of the WTC. Dee McLachlan wrote about him here in 2014. He was trying to get the City of New York to do an investigation. Later, he became one of the plaintiffs in the federal case at hand.
All 9/11-related cases have been “required” to go to one US District Court, namely the famously corrupt SDNY, Sothern District of New York. ‘Our’ plaintiffs filed and were dismissed, as follows:
Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, et al. v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the
United States, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-8312-PGG, issued its Order dismissing Petitioners-Plaintiffs-Appellants’ claims on March 24, 2021. for lack of standing.
Don’t you love it? Then they filed an appeal. On August 5, 2022, the Second Circuit, Case No. 21-1338-cv. dismissed it also. The next attempt was to ask Scotus to adjudicate it.
Scotus gets thousands of “petitions for certiorari” every year, but it agrees to hear only hundreds. You may think that a 9/11 case coming before the Justices, twenty years after the event, was one of the hundreds they should take.
It contained a challenge to the NIST theory that fires had caused the Towers to fall. (NIST stands for National Institute of Standards and Testing.) The Lawyers Committee for 9/11 brought in the research done by scientists at University of Fairbanks, Alaska.
Having been dismissed at Appeals, the plaintiffs asked Scotus to answer four questions. But the Justices declined– they didn’t take the case. I’ll have to say this is really a shock. They dared to prevent citizens from approaching the Foreman of the sitting New York grand jury with the Alaskan data that upends the NIST finding, i.e., the party line. (Strictly speaking, the appeals judges had said that the US Attorney could not be forced to hand the stuff to the Foreman.)
I didn’t realize Scotus would have the chutzpah to refuse to grant certiorari. They answered the plaintiffs’ following four questions by saying “Hasta la vista, Sayonara, Toodles, and Would you mind dropping dead, thank you.”
The four questions, lightly abbreviated by moi, are:
Did the … Second Circuit Act Contrary to the Constitution When It Held that 9/11 Victim Family Members, … Needed to Assert Additional Harm Beyond a Violation of a Constitutional Right to Have Article III Standing to Seek Judicial Remedies.
Did [it] Act Contrary to the Constitution When It Held thatFederal Grand Juries Were Not Entities of the Federal Government to which the First Amendment Right to Petition Applies? [Personally, I don’t think the Grand Juries are entities of the government!]
Did the … Second Circuit Undermine the Constitutional Independenceof the Grand Jury When It Refused to Enforce the Mandatory Duty Imposed Explicitly by Congress and Implicitly by the Constitution [5th Amendment] on United States Attorneys to Relay Citizen Reports of Federal Crimes to a Grand Jury, and Left to the Complete Discretion of the Department of Justice What a Grand Jury Is Allowed to See and Consider?
Did [it] Create a Clear Split Amongthe Federal Circuits When It Decided To Not Adopt the Ninth Circuit’s Rule that Ministerial Records of a Federal Grand Jury May Be Made Available to the Public? [Personally, I don’t think SCOTUS is ever forced to take a case as a way of settling inter-circuit discrepancy.]
Note: I am not saying that Scotus “ruled” against the plaintiffs. They chose NOT to rule. Four out of the Big Nine have to say Yes to accept a case. (But in my heart of hearts I know they “ruled.”)
Hasta la Vista, Marbury V Madison
It’s time to undo Marbury v Madison (1803). As I said, Scotus has recently shredded the parchment in, say, Florence, Kelo, and Citizens United. It misinterpreted clauses that no one had ever dreamed of misinterpreting. Those were positive decisions, while the refusal to “grant Cert” in this 9/11 case is technically a non-ruling. But for Scotus to fail to stand up for the citizens’ right to direct a grand jury is far out, man. It’s far, far out.
This must stop. Indeed, if we don’t stop it, we are ‘conditioning’ ourselves for more of same.
So where to look for other mechanisms? I note that there is certainly no constitutional requirement that every 9/11 case go to just one US District Court. Theoretically, even at this late stage, plaintiffs could bring their plaint to another US District Court. How about the one in Alaska, since as mentioned, the University of Fairbanks has provided the challenge to NIST?
(The wording of the case can be altered, to make it not identical to the SDNY adventure.)
But an even better idea is to forget the feds. The 50 states all have their own courts and their own supreme court. On the day of 9/11, there were casualties of men and women from nearly every state. This makes the courts of those states a proper place to go.
And since the gist of the filing is that the NIST decision is wrong, one could argue that the US government was wrong to assign blame to the alleged hijackers, as the fuel-fires from planes are insufficiently hot to melt steel. The sequelae to the US government’s mistake include Congress’ being railroaded into passing the Patriot Act, on September 14, 2001.
Mind you, I don’t think Congresspersons were railroaded; they are big boys and girls with responsibilities to their constituents. But the point is for state sovereignty to assert itself, based on damage done to that state’s citizens, via all the Patriot Act garbage.
In New York state, a plaintiff would also be able to re-open everything about 9/11 merely by claiming that she suffered from the aftereffects of the fall of the towers. One aftereffect was respiratory disease, suffered by many First Responders. Such a claim would lead to the question: What was in the air? Was it exploded cement? Or did it contain stuff that suggests nuclear weapons or Directed Energy Weapons?
My recommendation for a choice of state court would be Massachusetts. I hear you say, “No No, they botched the Marathon Bombing case.” I reply “No, no, that was a federal court with Judge George A O’Toole, Jr in the driver’s seat. Just go to a local court in, say, Worcester, Mass. Remember when Bruce Henry told us about the march from Providence Rhode Island to Worcester? (An article that got great comments.)
POSTSCRIPT: If Congress is feeling its oats, it can show its displeasure by impeaching all the Nine Justices. Or just 6, if 3 actually nodded to a granting of cert. Generally, that information is not public, unless a justice writes a dissent to the refusal.
Hope I haven’t given the impression that I don’t want courts to declare void a law that violates the Con. Of course I want everybody to do that. See the section “Denounce Nullables” in my book Prosecution for Treason.
But the legal fraternity has taken Marbury v Madison, smack dab, as the reigning truth that the US Con rests finally in the hands of the Nine (or the 35 if we go in for packing.)
How awful. Yet how typical of the human Brian to go in the direction of responding, in toto, to a small signal or symbol. I hereby declare Sept 21, 2023 as the day that the Marbury case stopped being the Sole Repository.
Why Sept 21? Because I am aggrandizing myself for having given the little speech on that day, about the 9/11 cert-denial. Also, as I said, Troy Davis. And just for titillation’s sake I now mention that Sept 21 is on the Occult calendar.
Hey you jerks out there who believe in the occult, get a grip, would you?
Note: Further to the matter of nullability. Most Murkins are still not clear on their right, as jurors, to use nullification to put paid to a bad law.
And which state governor has nullified a congressional law since 1798 when Virginia and Kentucky did so in no uncertain terms? Hmm. Seems a long time ago. But Sheriff Mack, on nearly the bicentennial of that show of idealistic force, won his case — UNANIMOUSLY — at Scotus. I am referring to Prinz v US (1997). It says state police can’t be mandated to carry out federal chores.