Have 6/9 SCOTUS justices been illegitimately hand-picked by Jeffrey Epstein's David Koch's and Jeffrey Epstein's UK royals' SCL's Cambridge Analytica's Mercer family's Federalist Society? Illegitimate government violating laws to be able to change laws to keep themselves in power, a Habsburg homage?

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY'S FEDERALIST SOCIETY IS FINANCED BY RUSSIA'S CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA LINKED TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S UK ROYALS AND LINKED TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S DAVID KOCH

A total of 6/9 Republican SCOTUS justices were hand-picked for nomination, confirmation, and/or appointment by an organization known as the Federalist Society.[2] 

"According to Amanda Hollis-Brusky, the Federalist Society "has evolved into the de facto gatekeeper for right-of-center lawyers aspiring to government jobs and federal judgeships under Republican presidents."^[8] It vetted President Donald Trump's list of potential U.S. Supreme Court nominees; in March 2020, 43 out of 51 of Trump's appellate court nominees were current or former members of the society.^[10]

In January 2019, The Washington Post wrote that the Federalist Society had reached an "unprecedented peak of power and influence." Of the current nine members of the Supreme Court of the United States, at least five are current or former members of the organization—Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett.^[1][11] Chief Justice John Roberts previously served as a member of the steering committee of the Washington, D.C. chapter, but denies ever being a member.^[12] Politico wrote that the Federalist Society "has become one of the most influential legal organizations in history—not only shaping law students' thinking but changing American society itself by deliberately, diligently shifting the country's judiciary to the right."^[13]"[2]

"The society's initial 1982 conference was funded, at a cost of $25,000, by the Institute for Educational Affairs.^[13] Later funding of $5.5 million came from the John M. Olin Foundation. Other early donors included the Scaife Foundation and the Koch family foundations. Donors to the Federalist Society have included Google, Chevron, Charles G. and David H. Koch; the family foundation of Richard Mellon Scaife; and the Mercer family.^[16] By 2017, the Federalist Society had $20 million in annual revenue.^[1]"[2]

Very unfortunately, many of these organizations and/or people installing 6/9 SCOTUS judges have been named in the operational book of contacts or "black book" of child kidnapper, child sex trafficker, and child rapist, Jeffrey Epstein, naming his child raping clients, associates, friends, financiers, and/or affiliates, but not naming all of them. All of the names in the "black book" can be verified here.

More simply, a cabal of global elite child rapists, global organized crime families, and/or their immediate orbit have installed 6/9 SCOTUS justices onto the Supreme Court of the United States, and that should trouble everyone, especially as they may not have been legitimately installed, as we will present evidence for below, and similarly, they may have defrauded and/or perjured themselves during their nomination and confirmation process, and similarly, they may have engaged in behavior that "immediately disqualified" them from office in a manner that Federal Society members hand-picking SCOTUS have specified are self-executive laws, requiring no court, in order to enforce the same, also addressed below.

Furthermore, after their ongoing organized crimes and illegitimacy were revealed, SCOTUS "justices" refused to be held accountable for the same despite laws requiring them to be held accountable for the same, and if not addressed, will create a precedent where no person has to follow the law and no one can be held accountable for violating the laws of the United States, also addressed later in this article.

Below is a print screen from the "black book" of child sex trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, specifying SCOTUS' Federalist Society's financier David Koch as named in Jeffrey Epstein's book of operational contacts.

The following names David Koch as a financier of the Federalist Society hand-picking GOP SCOTUS judges.

The following is evidence that Jeffrey Epstein's David Koch's Federalist Society is who hand-picked 6/9 SCOTUS justices, and they hand picked many of the judges installed by Jeffrey Epstein's Donald Trump, including judges who have heard Trump cases, as follows.

But David Koch isn't the only person named in the operational contact book of child kidnapper, child sex trafficker, and child rapist Jeffrey Epstein, as Donald Trump and his family are also named in that book as additional child raping clients, associates, financiers, and/or affiliates of Jeffrey Epstein, as follows.

Accordingly, Jeffrey Epstein's David Koch, financed the Federalist Society, who in turn hand-picked 3/9 SCOTUS justices installed by Jeffrey Epstein's Donald Trump, and 3/9 other SCOTUS justices, to created a Supreme Court majority financed and installed by Jeffrey Epstein's David Koch and Jeffrey Epstein's Donald Trump, which we might as well name the Supreme Court of Jeffrey Epstein, as follows.

Chevron also financed the Federalist Society, and Chevron is a spin off company of Standard Oil, owned by the Rockefeller family, also named in the client book of Jeffrey Epstein, as follows.

The following is some evidence that Chevron, who financed the Federalist Society, is a derivative of the Rockefeller family's Standard Oil Company, in the context that the Federalists Society picked 6/9 SCOTUS justices, and in the context the Rockefeller family is named in the client book of child rapist and child sex trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein.

Keeping a tally of Jeffrey Epstein's child rape and child sex trafficking clients, friends, associates, financiers, and affiliates, that makes for David Koch and David Rockefeller each financing the Federalist Society who hand-picked 6/9 SCOTUS justices.

Next, moving onto the Mercer family who financed the Federalist Society, they also owned part of Cambridge Analytica, who conspired with and overtly furthered the treason, sedition, insurrection, elections fraud, terrorism, cyberterrorism, and/or other harm in 2016 to steal the US, UK, and/or Brexit elections and/or other harm with child trafficker Putin's Russia, Jeffrey Epstein's Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein's Trump family, Jeffrey Epstein's Trump Organization -- which met with the Russians June 9, 2016, to discuss how to traffic children from Russia to Jeffrey Epstein's Trump Organization and Trump family in the infamous Trump Tower Meeting. 

This of course links the Mercer family to both the child rape, torture, and/or trafficking operations of Putin's Russia, for which the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Putin, and/or links the Mercer family to Jeffrey Epstein's Donald Trump, his family, their organization(s), and/or Trump Tower, but not limited to the same. 

Because Cambridge Analytica was a spin-off company of SCL Group, which was directed by Jeffrey Epstein's UK and EU royal families, who were named all over the child rape operations contact book of Jeffrey Epstein.

This links the Mercer family to four different child sex trafficking and child rape operations via their aid, comfort, and adherence to Putin, separately to Russia, separately to the Trump family, and separately to the UK royals.

Keeping a tally of Jeffrey Epstein's child rape and child sex trafficking clients, friends, associates, financiers, and affiliates, that makes for David Koch, David Rockefeller, and the Mercer family each financing the Federalist Society who hand-picked 6/9 SCOTUS justices.

Next, they aren't the only financiers of the Federalist Society linked to Jeffrey Epstein, because both Google founders have each been linked to Jeffrey Epstein.[4][5]

Keeping a tally of Jeffrey Epstein's child rape and child sex trafficking clients, friends, associates, financiers, and affiliates financing the 6/9 SCOTUS justices, 3/9 of which Jeffrey Epstein's Donald Trump installed, that makes for,

(1) Jeffrey Epstein's David Koch;

(2) Jeffrey Epstein's David Rockefeller;

(3) the Mercer family (linked to Jeffrey Epstein's Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein's Trump's GOP Campaign, child trafficker Vladimir Putin, child raping and torturing Russia, and to the Jeffrey Epstein's UK royals SCL's Group's Cambridge Analytica -- all linked to the ongoing 2016 conspiracy to further treason, elections fraud, sedition, obstruction of justice, RICO, child trafficking from child trafficker Vladimir Putin's child raping and torturing Russia to Jeffrey Epstein's Trump Organization and/or family per the Trump Tower meeting June 9, 2016 -- and linked to the sanctions dropping for U.S. enemy Russia, and/or other harm, for example but not limited to the April 27, 2016 Mayflower Meeting, but not limited to the same); and/or

(4) Google (each of whose two founders are directly linked to Jeffrey Epstein), and/or others.

Accordingly, that one client, friends, associate, financier, and/or affiliate might randomly be associated with Jeffrey Epstein and child rapists and sex traffickers -- perhaps this is randomly possible. But four different individuals and organizations with 8 to 9 other links to child rapists and sex traffickers between them, that's what is known is statistics and the law as a pattern.

Accordingly, with reasonable basis, it is a reasonable inference that the child rape and child sex trafficking orbit of criminals Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell financed the Federalist Society in order to hand-pick judges who help this ongoing organized crime syndicate not just evade justice, but allow them to expand their organized criminal activities.

Here it is important to note that at least two of the SCOTUS 'justices', Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate hand-picked included Clarence Thomas, who was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill, and Brett Kavanaugh, who was accused of similar misconduct towards Christine Blasey, and who was separately accused of being present a gang rape of a young girl who was drugged and then gang raped, is who Jeffrey Epstein's Federalist Society hand-picked to claw back rights for women in the United States.[6]

In the case of Jeffrey Epstein's Federalist Society's Kavanaugh, "She said that, while his friend Mark Judge watched, Kavanaugh, intoxicated, held her down on a bed with his body, grinding against and groping her, covering her mouth when she tried to scream and trying to pull her clothes off.^[42][43] Finding it hard to breathe, she thought Kavanaugh was going to accidentally kill her.^[14] She recounted escaping when Judge jumped on the bed and toppled them.^[8] As corroboration of her account, Ford provided the Post with the polygraph results as well as session notes from her couples therapist written in 2012.^[8]

The therapist's notes do not name Kavanaugh but record Ford's claim of being attacked by students "from an elitist boys' school" who went on to become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington". The therapist's notes also say four boys were involved, which Ford attributed to an error by the therapist; Ford clarified in 2018 that four boys were at the party but only two were involved in the incident.^[8] Ford's husband recalled that she had used Kavanaugh's last name in her 2012 description of the incident, and that she said he might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.^[8] In an individual therapy session in 2013, Ford described a "rape attempt" that occurred in her late teens.^[8]

Kavanaugh denied Ford's allegations.^[44] Attorneys Debra Katz, Lisa Blanks and Michael Bromwich represented Ford pro bono^[9] in the process of going public with her statements about Kavanaugh.^[35][15][45] Democratic adviser Ricki Seidman, who helped prepare Anita Hill for her testimony against Clarence Thomas during his 1991 Supreme Court nomination hearings, was brought in to personally advise Ford in navigating a potential hearing.^[46]

On September 18, Ford's attorneys sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley requesting that the FBI investigate the incident before the Senate held a hearing on Ford's allegations to "ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions". The letter additionally noted the significant public support Ford had received, but also severe harassment including death threats, forcing her to leave her home.^[47] The same day, a crowdfunding campaign was created to defray Ford's security costs, surpassing its $100,000 goal in less than 24 hours.^[48]

On September 21, President Trump tweeted about Ford, saying that if Ford's allegations were true, either she or her parents would have reported them at the time of the event.^[49][50] Fortune called the tweet an attempt "to undermine her allegation"^[50] and Republican Senator Susan Collins—considered a key swing vote on Kavanaugh's nomination—said she is "appalled" by Trump's tweet, calling it "inappropriate and wrong".^[51] Trump's statements about Ford prompted sexual assault victims to start tweeting using the hashtag #WhyIDidntReport to share reasons for silence.^[52] Trump issued several more statements, including a tweet alleging that Kavanaugh was "under assault by radical left wing politicians".^[53] Trump's attacks on Ford were widely characterized as victim blaming.^{[54][55][56][57]}"[6]

People Magazine reported two other victims of Kavanaugh, who came forward and specified that he was part of a group of friends who would drug and gang rape young girls, "Attorney Michael Avenatti tweeted a sworn affidavit Wednesday of a woman who says she was a victim of a "gang rape" where embattled supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was present, and that she witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh "to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could be 'gang raped' by a train of numerous boys" and "Swetnick alleges that in 1982, she was at a house party when she became a victim of one of the “gang rapes,” and that Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge, “were present.”“Shortly after the incident I shared what had transpired with at least two people,” she alleges. Swetnick says that during the incident, she was involuntarily incapacitated and “unable to fight off the boys raping me” and believes she was “drugged using Quaaludes or something similar placed in what I was drinking” and "Swetnick also alleges that in 1981 or 1982, she “became aware of efforts” by Kavanaugh, Judge and others to “spike the ‘punch’ at house parties I attended with drugs and/or grain alcohol,” to lead to girls losing their inhibitions. She further alleges that she saw Kavanaugh, Judge and others ” ‘target’ particular girls so they could be taken advantage of" and "Swetnick also alleges that she observed Kavanaugh “drink excessively” at many parties during 1981 to 1983, “engage in abusive and physically aggressive behavior towards girls, including pressing girls against him without their consent, ‘grinding’ against girls and and attempting to remove or shift girls’ clothing to expose private body parts.”[7]

Here it is important to note, and likely as a result from trying to expose this and/or other similar behavior, that Michael Avenatti later become the prosecution target of Jeffrey Epstein's weaponized U.S.  government, and they convicted him and took his law license away, for trying to negotiate a settlement for one of his clients, which may have been spun as extortion and/or other crimes, and in the context that Virginia Thomas linked groups also financed by David Koch, specifically via Donor's "Trust", engaged in conduct involving stalking and entrapment of the perceived enemies of their network.[8][9]

Accordingly, this is who Jeffrey Epstein's Federalist Society and Jeffrey Epstein's Donald Trump needed on the Supreme Court, someone they could count on who shared the same values as Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, and where like Epstein and Kavanaugh, Trump has also repeatedly been accused of raping children and others, including at least one member of his family.[8][10]

So none of this is a "radical left" attack on innocent people, but rather just the opposite, networked conservative radicals, child rapists, rapists, traitors, seditionists, insurrectionists, and RICO obstructors of justice, conspiring to overthrow or steal elections, in order to install those loyal to them over the criminal justice system, in order to both evade justice, and to expand their ongoing organized crime syndicate -- is a reasonable inference, supported by many more facts, in what looks like the United States of Jeffrey Epstein, because that is where the facts lead us. [8]

But just because SCOTUS "justice(s)" have been accused of (organized) crime(s) in the past, doesn't mean that they engaged in organized or other crimes recently, correct? 

EVERY GOP SCOTUS JUDGE EXCEPT FOR CLARENCE THOMAS COMMITTED TO STARE DECISIS OR FOLLOWING THE LAW OR PRECEDENT DURING THEIR NOMINATION AND/OR CONFIRMATION, IN A MANNER THAT MAY HAVE RESULTED IN VIOLATIONS OF THE FALSE CLAIM ACT, PERJURY, GOVERNMENT FRAUD, AND/OR OTHER CRIMES, AS THEY HAVEN'T ALWAYS BEEN FOLLOWING STARE DECISIS, AND NOW ARE BEING CALLED OUT FOR THE SAME, IN WHAT LOOKS LIKE PERJURY, FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS, GOVERNMENT FRAUD, AND/OR OTHER CRIMES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ATTACKING THE FALSE CLAIM ACT AS THE SAME RELATES TO WHISTLEBLOWERS ATTEMPTING TO PROTECT THE USA

During their nomination and confirmation hearings, every GOP SCOTUS judge, under oath, except for perhaps Clarence Thomas, committed in one way or form to follow legal precedent, also known as stare decisis, in order to later deceive the US government into providing them at least something of benefit to them, including but not limited to being confirmed onto the Supreme Court, in what legal experts are now specifying is perjury, but where deceiving the government by making false claims is also government fraud.[12]

In a similar manner, each SCOTUS took (an/two) oath(s) prior to being a SCOTUS justice where each of them promised the following, "The text now reads: "I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." This office, much more specific and lengthy than the original, is now used by every federal office investiture except for the office of the President. Appointees to the Supreme Court Bench must not only take the oath listed above, but a second oath. This statement is called The Judicial Oath. The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the federal judiciary. The Act set the number of Supreme Court Justices at six (five Associate Justices and one Chief Justice). It also mandated that for the Supreme Court Justices to begin serving, they must swear a second Oath of Office. The original text of this was: "I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." This oath was used until 1990 when the Judicial Improvements Act replaced the phrase beginning with "according to the best of my abilities..." to "under the Constitution." This language proved reasonably more effective in tying the decisions of the judiciary to the authority of the United States Constitution. Frequently, Supreme Court Justices have elected to take a Combined Oath which brings the two affirmations together in one statement".[15]

Note that the SCOTUS oath does not read, "I will conspire to not defend the Constitution of the United States, but instead I will incrementally and radically attack and erode the same for the benefit of all enemies, foreign and domestic". That isn't what SCOTUS has sworn an oath to, but that is how SCOTUS has been behaving.[8]

The same is the subject of now two different Congressional and DC Attorney General investigations, by Sheldon Whitehouse and by Brian Schwalb.[16][17]

To help cover-up the same, Jeffrey Epstein's and Russia's SCOTUS attacked the False Claim Act provisions whistleblowers in a manner that may allow them to cover-up prejury, false claims, government fraud, and/or other crimes.[13][14]

More simply, it appears that Jeffrey Epstein's and Russia's SCOTUS is changing the law in order to weaken the defense of the United States against organized crime involved in defrauding taxpayers, and/or to allow themselves and/or others to evade serious prosecution -- as only organized crime and traitors would do -- not patriots who adhere to their oaths of office and sworn statements, later violated en masse.

TWO OF THE MOST CONSERVATIVE FEDERALIST SOCIETY CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SCHOLARS SPECIFY THAT SELF-EXECUTING LAWS EXIST THAT REQUIRE NO COURT TO ENFORCE AND SPECIFY THAT THESE LAWS "IMMEDIATELY DISQUALIFY" OTHERS FROM PUBLIC OFFICE AND FUTURE PUBLIC OFFICE

As specified by William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulson of the Federalist Society, there is abundant evidence that Trump "immediately disqualified" from office by violating self-executing laws, which require no court to enforce.[18]

"Two prominent conservative legal scholars determined that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision in the Constitution barring people who engaged in insurrection from office. Professors William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — both members of the conservative Federalist Society — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in an article set to be published next year in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, according to The New York Times."When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was," Baude told the outlet. "People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: 'We're constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what's really going on here.' And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add." The professors' conclusion, he said, is that Trump "cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6."

While a law review article is not going to stop Trump's campaign for the White House, it could boost lawsuits arguing that he is ineligible for office under the U.S. Constitution. A New Mexico judge last year removed a county commissioner, Couy Griffin, after finding that he was disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars any person who took an oath to support the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" or gave "aid or comfort" to insurrectionists. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which plans to file a similar suit seeking to bar Trump. "There are many ways that this could become a lawsuit presenting a vital constitutional issue that potentially the Supreme Court would want to hear and decide," Paulsen told the Times.

Noah Bookbinder, CREW's executive director, explained that disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is "not a punishment." "The constitution sets out qualifications for the good of our republic," he tweeted. "Just like a 30-year-old would be disqualified from being president, Donald Trump disqualified himself when he incited insurrection." "You will get violence": Leading democracy expert says Donald Trump is not running to win election. The article similarly notes that Section 3 is "self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office."

The article argues that there is "abundant evidence" that Trump engaged in an insurrection, citing his efforts to change vote counts through threats and intimidation and urging his supporters to march on the Capitol. "It is unquestionably fair to say that Trump 'engaged in' the Jan. 6 insurrection through both his actions and his inaction," the article said. Steven Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern and Yale and a founder of the Federalist Society, called the 126-page article a "tour de force." But James Bopp Jr., an attorney who represented members of Congress whose candidacies were challenged under the provision, told the Times that the scholars "have adopted a ridiculously broad view."

Bopp successfully defended Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., in a case where a judge found that she had not taken part in or encouraged the Jan. 6 attacks after she took her oath of office on Jan. 3. But a federal appeals court ruled against a key argument in his defense of Rep. Madison Cawthorn, though that case was rendered moot after he lost his 2022 primary. The article argues that the "full legal consequences" of Section 3 "have not been appreciated or enforced." "It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications," the article says.

"Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as 'aid or comfort,'" the article's abstract said. "It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election."

Calabresi told the Times that election administrators must act. "Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them," he told the outlet, adding that they may be sued if they refuse. Trump is also facing prosecution for his role in the post-election scheme but that case and Section 3 address "completely separate questions," Baude told the Times. "The question of should Donald Trump go to jail is entrusted to the criminal process," he said. "The question of should he be allowed to take the constitutional oath again and be given constitutional power again is not a question given to any jury."

Accordingly, ANYONE, including SCOTUS, members of Congress, Presidents, CEOs, and/or ANYONE else is "immediately disqualified" from their office if they fail to uphold the rule of law and/or U.S. Constitution, in a manner that never needs to see a court, because the same is self-executing Constitutional law. So beyond impeachment, the Constitution does specify other ways to remove corrupted judges, SCOTUS, Presidents, members of Congress, without ever seeing a court to ensure the same -- is a reasonable inference.

THE ORGANIZED CRIMES OF THE GOP's SCOTUS THAT ALREADY IMMEDIATELY DISQUALIFIED THEM

As being investigated by both Congress and the Attorney General for DC, most if not all of the SCOTUS justices have been caught engaged in bribery, and/or other organized crimes, and for which an illegitimate SCOTUS is now posturing they can't be held accountable for, which isn't true, and so they are lying to the public about the crimes they committed that made them ineligible for public office in an immediate manner, the moment they began to conspire with others to further those crimes.

Samuel Alito has been caught receiving bribes in a manner that immediately disqualified him from public office, and then falsely claimed that only SCOTUS can regulate SCOTUS to obstruct justice for his own removal.[21]

Even Justice Kagan has specified the false claims that SCOTUS can't be regulated is false, specifying SCOTUS is "not imperial", but in doing so has also proven the obstruction of justice of those like Alito who claims, and paraphrasing, SCOTUS doesn't answer to anyone but SCOTUS. [20]

Neil Gorsuch has been caught selling property to a law firm involved in 22 SCOTUS cases, immediately further disqualifying him from public office, given that he had to violate stare decisis with perjury to get his job, and thus acted outside of his scope of office, and thus outside the protections of his office. [19]

Clarence Thomas has received bribes from billionaires with matters brought before him by them in a manner that immediately disqualified him from public office, and members of the Senate have specified the conduct is likely criminal, thus justifying the investigation of the DC Attorney General.[22]

In a similar manner at Clarence Thomas received bribed through his family members, specifically his mother and his nephew, John Roberts' wife has received $10 million in quid pro quo manner involving attorney selections, in what could easily be construed as a bribe by proxies, or an ongoing conspiracy to bribe in a manner that immediately disqualified him from office, "Jane Roberts—wife of Chief Justice John Roberts—made over $10 million in commission as a legal recruiter for the nation’s top law firms, according to a whistleblower complaint covered by Insider. “When I found out that the spouse of the chief justice was soliciting business from law firms, I knew immediately that it was wrong,” Kendal Price, who filed the complaint and once worked alongside Jane Roberts, told Insider. At least one of the firms that Jane Roberts received a commission from reportedly later had a case before Chief Justice Roberts. Price is calling for public scrutiny of Jane Roberts’ income, given the influential position of her husband, Insider reports."[23]

That was on April 28, 2023, and a few months later, SCOTUS positioned themselves and/or others to attack and erode stare decisis again and attacked whistleblower complaint effectiveness, incentives, and duration in yet again what seems like criminal misconduct immediately disqualifying SCOTUS justices from office for conspiring to obstruct justice for their own removal, based on whistleblower complaints organized against them specifying their conduct which immediately disqualified them -- a reasonable inference.

In a similar manner involving bribery of SCOTUS by real estate for Gorsuch and Thomas, Barrett was also involved in a shady deal that could easily be considered bribery, immediately disqualifying her from office. [24]

Since these ongoing bribery and/or other criminal conspiracies, these and other justices have been dismantling the law in order to protect the ongoing organized crime syndicate of Jeffrey Epstein, after having been installed by the Federalist Society financed by the organized crime syndicate of Jeffrey Epstein -- is a reasonable inference. 

It doesn't take a genius to figure out was is going on here. Jeffrey Epstein's organized crime syndicate financed a group John Roberts led a chapter for, who hand-picks SCOTUS and other justices to help obstruct justice for ongoing organized crime, and they committed perjury into to deceive the government into providing them SCOTUS seats, then they engage in ongoing organized crime themselves, and though not thoroughly described in just the articles above, most of these justices had those bribing them or their family members bring business to their courts. Res ipsa loquitur malum in se (this natural evil speaks for itself).

THE LEGITIMACY OF THE NOMINATION, CONFIRMATION, AND/OR APPOINTMENT OF REPUBLICAN SCOTUS JUDGES AND/OR OTHER JUDGES IF APPOINTED, NOMINATED, AND/OR CONFIRMED BY INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD IMMEDIATELY DISQUALIFIED THEMSELVES FROM OFFICE BY WAY OF SEVERAL OR ONGOING CONSPIRACIES TO COMMIT TREASON, INSURRECTION, AND/OR OTHER CRIMES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ITS RULE OF LAW, AND/OR ITS PEOPLE CALLS 6/9 SCOTUS JUDGES AND MANY OTHER JUDGES, AND THEIR OPINIONS, RULINGS, CHANGES IN LAW INTO QUESTION AS POSSIBLE OVERT FURTHERENCES OF AN ONGOING ORGANIZED CRIME SYNDICATE OVERTHROWING AMERICA

Criminal conspiracies do not require defendants to know one another, nor to know the specific conduct of one another, but rather each conspirator only needs to overtly further some part of the ongoing conspiracy in a manner that serves a common purpose or meeting of the minds.

Republican Prescott Bush conspired to aid, adhere to, and comfort an enemy of the United States and/or its allies by having organizations he was associated with finance the treason of Jeffrey Epstein's UK royals' Edward VIII's (a Freemason) and Hitler's conspiracy to fall France, by leaking French defense intel to Hitler, in order to bomb Britain into submission, in the context they all had shared family, business, and/or organized crimes ambitions they sought to further.[8]

The Republican administrations of G.H.W. Bush and Reagan allegedly engaged in and/or overtly furthered criminal conspiracies involving the treasonous giving aid, comfort, and/or adhering to not just one but two enemies of the United States, Iran, and the Contras, and thereafter stacked SCOTUS and the U.S. judiciary.[8]

The SCOTUS majority G.H.W. Bush and the GOP stacked then unlawfully overthrew the 2000 U.S. elections who installed G.W. Bush, in Florida, where Jeb Bush was Governor, whereafter the Republican administration of G.W. Bush overtly furthered the conspiracy of the Saudis and Bin Laden family on 9/11 by sending the air guard away from the East Coast around New York, perhaps sending some up as far as Alaska, while organizing "games" for a similar plot as 9/11 on 9/11 to create confusion, and then the 9/11 Commission was clearly a botched attempt, much like the botch Durham report, to cover-up all of the same, by excluding well known facts, to be able to employ a false narrative to the American people -- is a reason able inference.[8]

Then G.W. Bush stacked SCOTUS and the judiciary, and clawed back the rights of the American people, while directing American taxpayer funds into the coffers of his family's companies, and the coffers of those who financed the GOP, in a similar manner Trump did with COVID, whose intentionally failed response and intent to infect murdered over a million Americans, and cost $16 trillion in taxpayer funds.[8]

Then Trump, the GOP, Russia, Cambridge Analytica, and/or others conspired to give aid, comfort, and/or adhere to U.S. enemies, specifically 9/11's Saudis and Russia, whereafter Trump stacked SCOTUS, the judicary, and changed laws.

As specified by Jeffrey Epstein's AT&T's CNN, “Judge Amy Coney Barrett, once confirmed, will be one of three current Supreme Court justices who assisted the legal team of then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush in the Florida ballot-recount battle that came down to a single vote at the Supreme Court. The court’s December 12, 2000, decision cutting off Florida recounts tore apart the justices and the nation, and the case hovers in the air today as America approaches the November 3 presidential election. Other current justices benefited from the decision giving Bush the White House over Vice President Al Gore, as they eventually became Bush appointees to the bench. Conversely, a pending judgeship for one of the current members was derailed by Bush v. Gore – temporarily.

John Roberts

Roberts flew to Florida in November 2000 to assist Bush’s legal team. He helped prepare the lawyer who presented Bush’s case to the Florida state Supreme Court and offered advice throughout.

Roberts also faced a singular personal challenge during the 36-day ordeal that extended from the November 7 Election Day to the court’s late-hour December 12 ruling. Then in private practice, Roberts was preparing to argue before the justices in a separate business case on November 29, and within days in December, the baby boy he and his wife had planned to adopt was born.

After Bush became president, he nominated Roberts to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (the Senate confirmed him in 2003); Bush then elevated Roberts to the chief justice position in 2005, to succeed William Rehnquist. During his Senate confirmation hearing, Roberts declined to reveal his view of the justices’ 2000 decision, saying a disputed election could come to the court again.

“Obviously, the particular parameters in that case won’t” return to the court, he said, “but it is a very recent precedent, and that type of decision is one where I thought it inappropriate to comment on whether I think they were correct or not.”

Brett Kavanaugh

He was also in private practice in 2000 and helped the Bush legal team. He wrote on a 2018 Senate questionnaire that his work related to recounts in Volusia County, Florida.

In an interview with CNN in Washington after the justices had heard oral arguments but before they ruled, Kavanaugh said the justices were concerned about “the arbitrary, standardless nature of the recount process in Florida.” He dismissed a question about political differences, saying, “I don’t think the justices care if it’s Bush v. Gore, or if it were Gore v. Bush. What they care about is how to interpret the Constitution and what are the enduring values that are going to stand a generation from now.”

Barrett declines to commit to recusing herself from a Trump election case

After the election, Bush hired Kavanaugh to be a counsel and then staff secretary. In the West Wing, Kavanaugh met his future wife, Ashley, who was Bush’s personal secretary. Bush appointed Kavanaugh to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, where Roberts had first served. In 2018, Trump elevated Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

During Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation hearings, Democratic senators referred to his involvement in the Bush v. Gore litigation, but they did not ask him about the case.

Amy Barrett

Barrett wrote on the questionnaire she submitted to the Senate for her Supreme Court confirmation review, “One significant case on which I provided research and briefing assistance was Bush v. Gore.” She said the law firm where she was working at the time represented Bush and that she had gone down to Florida “for about a week at the outset of the litigation” when the dispute was in the Florida courts. She said she had not continued on the case after she returned to Washington.

During her hearings this week, she told senators she could not recall specifics of her involvement. “I did work on Bush v. Gore,” she said on Wednesday. “I did work on behalf of the Republican side. To be totally honest, I can’t remember exactly what piece of the case it was. There were a number of challenges.” Separately, under questioning from Democratic senators, Barrett declined to commit to recusing herself from any Trump election case. Trump has speculated that the Supreme Court could face another major lawsuit over the November presidential contest. “I think this will end up at the Supreme Court,” he said last month. “And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices.”

Clarence Thomas

He is the only remaining member of the five-justice majority that resolved Bush v. Gore. Thomas joined the unsigned opinion that said Florida had run out of time to recount disputed ballots without violating the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The decision cemented the state’s late November certification of a 537-vote margin for Bush over Gore (from nearly 6 million ballots cast) and gave Bush Florida’s decisive electoral votes.

Thomas, a 1991 appointee of Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, also joined a concurring opinion with Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia, finding additional constitutional flaws in a Florida state Supreme Court decision that had allowed the recounts to continue.

The day after Bush v. Gore was handed down, Thomas kept a previously scheduled meeting with high school students at the court. He told them the weeks preceding the decision had been “exhausting” but that he believed the process showed “the strength of our system of government.” He said politics had not been involved in the decision.

Jeb's role in 2000 Florida recount

It was at this session that Thomas happened to reveal for the first time a “personal reason” for his habit of not asking questions at oral arguments. Born in rural Pin Point, Georgia, Thomas said he spoke with a Geechee dialect and was self-conscious as a child: “I just started developing the habit of listening,” he told the students.

Thomas is the only justice in the past 20 years who has cited Bush v. Gore as precedent in any subsequent case, with a footnote in a 2013 solo dissent. The court in 2000 had deemed its decision “limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."[25].

But if G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush, Donald Trump, and/or others overtly furthered treason plots against the United States, our people, and/or our rule of law, in a manner that immediately disqualified from office, then the 6/9 SCOTUS justices they installed that were hand-picked by Jeffrey Epstein's Federalist Society, along with many other judges, and their pardons and clemency, and their changes to law, can't be legitimate.

Because people who are immediately disqualified from office can't legitimately use their offices to install, nominate, appoint, nor confirm SCOTUS justices, judges, nor can they nor hire, nor give pardons to, nor give clemency to, nor give contracts to, anyone in any legitimate manner, nor can they exercise any legitimate executive privileges, nor receive any related benefits nor intel briefings after they leave office, but not limited to the same.

Maybe all of this is why John Roberts feels the need to let the public know that SCOTUS is legitimate, when it is not? Maybe this is why Alito falsely postures SCOTUS can't be held accountable, when they can be? Maybe this is why they have been dismantling the laws that can hold them, Trump, the GOP, Jeffrey Epstein, and/or others accountable for decades of crimes against America and Americans?

As with every article we publish, this article is also subject to the legal disclaimer at the bottom of every page.