by Mary Maxwell, LLB, current candidate for US Senate in NH Primary

My lawsuit, Maxwell v Trump, is at the Appeals Court in Boston. In addition to its main argument about the unconstitutionality of the Iran war, I brought together the work of five scholars as exhibits. It is imperative that Americans right now become aware of, especially Trevor Aaronson’s book, The Terror Factory, in which he shows that so much of the FBI’s reports of terrorist incidents in America is, pardon me, BS.

But please read all five exhibits. I hope the judges take them into consideration.

Exhibit A. George Orwell on The Real Purpose of War

[Within Orwell’s 1984, is a smaller book written by “Emanuel Goldstein.” It contains this]:
“The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.... The primary aim of modern warfare is to [avoid] raising the general standard of living. (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party)...

In the early twentieth century, the vision of a future society unbelievably rich, leisured, orderly, and efficient ... was part of the consciousness of nearly every literate person...

It was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, ... disease could be eliminated within a few generations. ...

But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction – indeed, in some sense was the destruction – of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared.

If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.

Exhibit B. Laurent Guyénot on How Iran War Started

(From Guyénot’s May 19, 2026 article “Deep Trump” at radbodslament.substack.com)

Consider how the decision to bomb Iran was made last February, as explained by the New York Times in an April 7 article.... On February 11, a meeting was held in the White House Situation Room attended by Benjamin Netanyahu, accompanied by Israeli intelligence officers.

Standing before a screen showing Mossad Director David Barnea and Israeli military officials, Netanyahu presented his case for bombing Iran with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, demonstrating that it would bring down the Iranian regime and thus resolve instantly all the problems in the Middle East in one fell swoop, while making Trump the greatest man in history.

Seated across from him were President Trump, Secretary of War Peter Hegseth, Chief of Staff Dan Caine, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliff, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, as well as Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, unofficial negotiators. After Netanyahu’s presentation, Trump nodded and said, “It sounds good to me.”

The same group met again the next day, without Netanyahu but with Vice President JD Vance, ... A final meeting took place on February 26, including a few other people, such as advisor David Warrington, who discussed the legality of such an intervention. Trump concluded the meeting with these words: “I think we need to do it.”

In the meantime, Vance had had several phone conversations with Netanyahu, who was urging him to act quickly. The next day, February 27, Trump sent the following message from Air Force One: “Operation Epic Fury is approved. No aborts. Good luck.”

Exhibit C. Trevor Aaronson on FBI as Terrorism’s Agent Provocateur

(from Aaronson’s 2013 book “Manufactured Terrorism,” lightly edited)

After 9/11, the FBI was tasked with recruiting a great number of informants who could check on the lives of Muslims. As a private researcher I became interested in “Muslim terrorism.” My statistics show that in the ten years following 9/11, the FBI and Department of Justice indicted and convicted more that 150 people via sting operations. If these, the FBI not only led 50 of the terrorist plots but also provided all the necessary weapons, money, and transportation.

The justification? By catching a lone wolf before he strikes, federal law enforcement can take hi off the streets before he meets a real terrorist who can provide him with weapons. However, to this day, no example exists of a lone wolf who, unable by himself to launch an attack, met a terrorist and became operational. Granted, an Afghan-American named Najibullah Zazi, came close to attacking the NY subway in 2009, with a plan to place backpack bombs on crowded trains but he had international connections and the ability to carry out the work on his own.

When Obama became president in 2009 he used many sting operations. In three years, his DoJ prosecuted 75 terrorism sting targets. Obama embraced national security as a tenet of his office. He also engaged US military resources in the ouster of Libya’s Gaddafi, and conducted secret wars in Yemen and Somalia. The FBI has become effective in creating the enemy it is hitting.

If the Fort Dix Five, as the media later dubbed them, were terrorists, they were coerced ones – pushed along by criminals who had personal interests in their prosecution. (I know of a case where the informant got $100,00.) Dritan Duka said that in the aftermath of 9/11, Muslims could be arrested just for talking. Bakalli asked the Duka cousins wat jihad meant. It didn’t mean violence, they told him, it was a personal struggle against oneself and a struggle to lead a good life. Soon, the FBI arrested the 5 men and charged them with attempted murder and conspiracy.

The key to conviction was that the prosecution did not have to prove that the Fort Dix Five would do the murder, just that they talked about it. This is the crime of conspiracy. In closing, US Attorney Fitzpatrick told the jury “We don’t have to prove that they intended to kill.”

This goes against the landmark case Brandenburg v Ohio (1969). Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klansman, had given an inflammatory speech in 1964. He was prosecuted under an Ohio law of 1919 that prohibited advocating “unlawful methods of terrorism.” He appealed his conviction to the US Supreme Court where it was overturned – as the government cannot punish speech unless it is intended and likely to result in imminent lawless action.

Mehenna’s case is connected to this. Actually, the way prosecutors got around Brandenburg was by saying that Mehanna’s advocacy of Al Qaeda and violence provided ‘material support” to the terrorist organization which is against one of the new laws.

At his sentencing in 2012, Mehanna addressed US District Judge George A O’Toole, saying that he was the victim of a vengeful prosecution for his refusal to be an FBI informant. “I have spent the majority of four years in a solitary cell, the size of a closet, locked down for 23 hours each day.” Judge O’Toole, unmoved by Mehanna’s statement, sentenced the 29-year-old to seventeen years in prison.

Exhibit D. Terry Shulze on Magna Charta and the Rational Basis Test

(From “Review of Australian Law and Its Decline,” by retired barrister Terry Shulze, at GumshoeNews.com June 19, 2018, lightly edited)

A farmer asked my help as he suffered financially from an Egg Industry Act by New South Wales Parliament. I thus inquired if the law had a rational basis. In the US,an enactment may be invalid if it does not serve a purpose. This is traceable to Heydon’s Case of 1584 in England which searched for “the mischief which the statute was designed to remedy,” i.e., its raison d’etre.

The 1787 case of Bowman v Middleton, was about a 1712 Act of the Assembly which transferred a freehold from to another, without trial or compensation. The Court at page 254.8-held “that the plaintiffs could claim no title under the Act in question, as it was against common right, as well as Magna Charta, to take away the freehold of one man and vest it in another... without compensation, or even a trial by the jury.... That the Act was, therefore, ipso facto, void. That no length of time could give it validity, being originally founded on erroneous principles.”

This ‘rational basis test’ isn’t known by this name in Australia. However, in NSW, the validity of a law can be checked by its accordance with the Colonial Laws Validity Act. I gathered up some early cases, such as MacDonald v Levy (1833). Judge Burton recognized the duty of the judges as the guardians of the rights of the people. At page 49.0 he states,

“I look upon this clause as the great charter of the Colony, and at once yielding to the colonialists all that by the common law, or the liberal, and enlightened, and accumulated wisdom of our ancestors, has been provided for the protection of life, liberty and property, and for regulating the transactions of men with each other. All becomes by virtue of it “the justice and right” which the justices are sworn to do to all the King’s subjects, and is expressly provided in one of the clauses of Magna Charta.”

I (Shulze) found that Judge Wise, in Rusden v Weeks (1861) clearly supports the position of judicial review of legislation of the NSW Parliament:

“...as the supremacy of the law is the characteristic of every constitutional government, it becomes imperative duty of courts of justice, independently of all political considerations, to decide which is the law of the land.”

In general, the early judges (prior to Australia’s 1901 Federation) clearly considered that the people of NSW had fundamental constitutional rights,
that the courts could declare an Act of Parliament void, that the laws of the legislature must be reasonable and not inconsistent with the Constitution and that the fundamental documents, such as the Magna Charta, Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus Act comprised parts of the Constitution.

However, two things occurred in the latter half of the 19th century in NSW which perverted this thinking. One was a book “The Constitution of the Australian States” by RD Lumb, which said. “No colonial law was to be void on the ground that it was repugnant to the fundamental principles of English Law.”

The other was the reassertion of legal positivism in the form of “Parliamentary sovereignty.” South Australia’s Parliament had written to Queen Victoria, in 1864, bemoaning: “the danger and impolicy of leaving in the hands of the Colonial Judges the power to declare the Acts of this Parliament illegal... We, therefore, trust that Your Majesty will graciously relieve us from further suffering under this enormous evil... that it shall not be competent for any Judge in the Courts of Providence.

(The judges’ reply was “No.”)
I noted works of Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634). He had said, in Dr Bonham’s case “when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, ... the common law will control it, and adjudge such Act to be void”.

Coke also said, during the drafting of the Petition of Right of 1627, that “sovereign power is no parliamentary word. ... Magna Charta is such a fellow that he will have no sovereign.”

Did I win my challenge to the Egg Industry Act? Some say I did, insofar as a back channel to the NSW Parliament alerted someone to my plans and so they got rid of the Act. What’s more, they legislatively offered compensation. The small farmers in the industry couldn’t believe what happened – they were receiving money instead of being harassed. My client received 1.2 million dollars, of which I never saw a penny. (But earlier I was given a frozen turkey and 4 dozen eggs.)

Personally, I think the situation has further declined since 1985. I know not the reason why each judge takes their path regarding the independence of the judiciary, but it does appear from reading the various cases that, if the judiciary has lost its independence, it is a ‘self-inflicted wound’.

Exhibit E. Eutopia: New Philosophy and New Law for a Troubled World

by Cambridge University Professor Philip Allott, 2016

Note: Allott was for 13 years a legal advisor to UK Foreign office, an experience that inspired him to offer a new philosophy for International Law. See his Eutopia. The abstract of Allott’s 2002 book “The Health of Nations: Society and Law Beyond the State” says:

The human world is changing. Old social structures are being overwhelmed by forces of social transformation which are sweeping across political and cultural frontiers. A social animal is becoming the social species. The animal that lives in packs and herds (family, corporation, nation, state) is becoming a member of a human society which is the society of all human beings, the society of all societies.

The age-old problems of social life -- religious, philosophical, moral, political, legal, economic -- must now be addressed at the level of the whole species, and the level where all cultures and traditions meet and will contribute to an exhilarating and hazardous new form of human self-evolving....There will be new levels of human energy, creativity, intelligence, to serve the highest aspirations and the highest ideals of all humanity. We know that we will be writing a new page in the better story of human self-evolving.

— My full appeals brief is at www.ConstitutionAndTruth/Court

by Mary Maxwell, LLB, currently a candidate for US Senate

Think of these 5 nations and their official leaders: President Trump in the US, President Xi of China, King Charles III as Australia’s head-of-state, President Vladimir Putin of Russia, and Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

When you stop to ask yourself how the current war might go, you may think of the people of those countries, e.g. “the Chinese,” or of their comparative military prowess -- “Iran has been stockpiling drones for decades” -- or you may just picture the Middle East on a map.

But very likely you also think of the war in terms of the actual personality of the leaders. It’s only human to picture the decision-maker in war as a man who has a personal background, and who has made statements about his beliefs and his outlook.

In my Substack.com article of August 29, 2026, entitled The Human Brain Has Two Blockages, I tried to reveal some of the subconscious thinking of the warmakers – their masculine drive to win any fight, and their need to display fidelity to their ethnic or religious group.

My point above, about our attention to personalities, is presents a third confusion of issues. I personally believe the current war is a disaster and that we should identify ways to end it. Yet it’s unlikely that we will shed that habit of concentrating on leaders. Those leaders are the ones who “call the shots,” aren’t they?

Do the Peoples Matter?

Two of the “peoples” involved in the current war are the USA with a population of 340 million and Iran has 93 million. That’s a total of 437,000,000 individual human beings. Do the wishes of the people matter? How would those individuals even be able to figure out what is in their best interest? During World War I (from 1915 to 1918) I don’t think folks could have sorted through the factors – b=never mind that many factors were hidden.

If you were to guess whether the peoples of Iran and the USA would vote in favor of continuing today’s war, your guess may be way off. Until 2026 I would have imagined that Americans are so confident of their (ill-based) belief that US can defeat any nation. So, most of them would have given the green light. “Sure, get rid of those pesky Iranians.”

However, I inadvertently took a poll and found that anti-war feelings are now predominant. Starting in mid-June of 2026, I canvassed citizens as part of my campaigning for the Senate. I simply carried a sign that said “Stop the War Now,” and walked around in these towns in New Hampshire: Berlin, Boscawen, Canterbury, Concord, Conway, Gorham, Hanover, Lebanon, Manchester, Meredith, Nashua, Ossipee, and North Conway.

To my pleasant surprise I got smiles, empathetic looks, and words of encouragement. I got only three negative arguments, plus a loud blaring of a horn. (I think the driver meant “You idiot!” but possibly he was saying “You go, girl.”) In general, this anti-war sentiment increased my usual awareness of how difficult it is for a people, including Constitution-protected Americans, to pass their wishes up to the decision makers.

Wait! Isn’t that itself the really the big issue? How the hell are we going to know whether we should be fighting Iran? And don’t the aforementioned three brain blockages (masculine competition, ethnic loyalty, and belief in the competence of one’s leaders) affect every government undertaking, not just war?

Don’t worry, I’m not going to throw in the towel just because we have brain blockages. I’m not a student of Philip Allott’s philosophy of Eutopia for nothing. I believe, with him, that anything is possible if we put our minds to it.

What If I Carried My ‘Stop the War’ Sign in Tehran? [in Farsi: جنگ را متوقف کنید]

Naturally, I’m unable to do my campaigning on the streets of Tehran, and I don’t think they have “Freedom of Speech” over there. So it is silly for me to claim that I know how Iranians would ‘vote’ today. I do get the impression that Iranians must be proud that they have, thus far, come out the winner. Their armies have a kamikaze-like reputation, plus assurances that God will reward sacrifice. On the other hand, you can bet Iranian mothers of military sons are praying the whole thing would end.

Please allow me to quickly outline “the History of the Persians” and then bring it up to date with US Treasury Secretary Bessent’s claim that economic sanctions can bring us a victory.

Over 4,000 years ago, an ethnic group occupied part of what is now called Iran. By the year 500 B.C., their leader, Cyrus the Great, conquered a huge territory. (The sun never set, so to speak). They even beat the Greeks. Their religion was Zoroastrianism. However, by the late 600s A.D., they took up Islam, the religion that their Arab neighbor Muhammad had created. Its holy book, The Koran, was dictated by a messenger from God.

Some neighbors such as Iraq, once known as Babylonia, had become part of the Ottoman Empire, but Persia stayed independent as a monarchy. In 1925, Shah Pahlavi was on the peacock throne. In 1953, Iranian people elected a new leader, Mossadegh, who wanted to share oil wealth with the people. British opposed that intrusion on their control of oil and staged a ‘popular uprising’ against Mossadegh. (So what’s new?) Our CIA helped out, of course. We inserted Shah Reva Pahlavi and --according to him -- we taught his police, the SAVAK, amazing means of torture.

Now let me mention a few things about Iran since 1979, relying on just three books: Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard (Basic Books, 1997), Robert Dreyfuss’s Devil’s Game (Henry Holt, 2005), and Shirin Ebadi’s Iran Awakening (Knopf, 2006), assisted by Azadeh Moaveni.

Dreyfuss persuades me that the US decided not to continue supporting the Shah and, thus, escorted the radical Shi’ite leader Khomeini from Paris to Tehran. (Why ever not?) He then set up the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps which is still in power today.

A Global Power

I quote Brzezinski: “Hegemony is as old as mankind. But America’s global supremacy is distinctive in the rapidity of its emergence…. The Spanish American War in 1898 thrust American power far into the pacific.” (Ask the Hawaiians.) The fusion of American idealism and American power made itself fully felt on the world scene.”

Then we had the Cold War. Brzezinski himself was involved in providing training for Muslims in Afghanistan (recall the Mujahadin?) to counteract the Soviet invasion there in 1979. I mention this to drop a hint that not all Muslims terrorists are devoted to Allah. Some are mercenaries for US. And some stories about ‘Iranian terrorism’ are just stories -- as I show in my book “Inquest: Siege in Sydney.”

I note that the back cover of Dreyfuss’s book has a blurb from Salon.com: “The most clear history of the deadly partnership between Western powers and political Islam.” The description by the publisher says:

“Chronicling a history of double-dealing [what did I tell you?], cynical exploitation, and embarrassment that continues to today, Dreyfuss reveals a pattern that, far from furthering democracy or security, ENSURES A FUTURE OF BLUNDERS AND BLOWBACK.” [Emphasis added]. Dreyfuss wrote that in 2005.

Dear Reader, kindly remember that the point of this article is to get us to think about the citizen’s vote in any particular war. How can an American know what to vote for regarding the Middle East if it’s all a coverup for empire builders, actors, and money changers?

Women and Protestors

Now for Shirin Ebadi’s book. She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003. She had been a judge who founded the Center for Human Rights in Tehran, but by 2009 had to escape to the UK after 17 years of the IRGC’s religious tyranny. Her girlhood was secular, under the shah; it surprised her how Khoumeini’s arrival warmed people’s religious senses, including hers. In 1979 she had been thrilled by it, joining two million people on the streets. Later, things went bad:

“I read a spectacular piece of news – the introduction of the Islamic penal code would fundamentally transform everything -- the very basis of governance., the relationship of citizens to laws, the organizing principles and social contracts along which society is conducted.

“[Mush later] it was becoming apparent to educated Iranians that the revolution was veering in a vicious direction. Not only were the sympathies that had brought us out into the streets absent in many of the revolutionary processes, there was an appetite for violence that seemed only to grow.

“Those arrested on charges of plotting to overthrow the regime typically faced sophisticated methods of torture that did not leave telltale marks on the body. Sleep deprivation, mock executions, foot lashings. These methods replaced the cruder physical torture employed by the SAVAK, such as nail extraction and hot grills….”

By the 21^st century, the Revolutionary regime had become ridiculous in its curtailing of women’s rights. Now let’s jump over to the present to say that in 2026, the ruling Ayatollah Khamenei had thousands of prisoners killed. So yes, it’s true that there was some rejoicing when Trump had that guy assassinated.

(For the record: We torture people at Gitmo and at CIA ‘black sites.’)

The Nuclear Worry and Sanctions

If you must compose your vote for an Iran war (or diplomacy, or whatever), you will need to know how the US, and some other nations, have been strangling Iran for decades by way of “sanctions.” Part of it has to do with international agreements that restrict the spread of nuclear weaponry.

Sanctions can take the form of freezing the assets, including gold, that Iran is holding in foreign countries. It can also mean people from Iran are not granted visas when they want to travel. They are also closed out of the SWIFT system of banking that makes money transfers easy. Mainly it messes up import/export of Iranian goods.

Starting in 2006, the UN Security Council made resolutions to enforce some of these sanctions. We, and some European countries, did likewise, on the grounds that Iran had not lived up to its nuclear agreement. That is, Iran continued to enrich uranium, which indicates an intention to make a nuclear bomb.

Right now, I doubt there’ll be any UN Security Council involvement in sanctioning Iran. Russia and China are members of the top-table at the Security Council, which has a total of 15 members. Only the top (US, UK, France, Russia, and China) have veto power. China is a major trading partner with Iran, and Russia is seeking Iran’s help against Ukraine.

Also, as Professor John Mearsheimer has pointed out on Danny Haiphong’s YouTube channel, whole new alliances are being formed among countries that were dependent on the US’s protection. Iran’s 2026 strikes on the US bases there have made those countries realize that we can’t offer them protection going forward.

Victor Hanson’s Idea

It will be obvious, especially owing to President Trump’s fumbling (and also his promises to Israel) that the interests of various nations won’t get satisfactorily settled by violence or by cute military strategies. This is the century in which brains are needed as the situation is potentially so dire.

Prof Victor Hanson, a historian in California, has come up with a prospect for the tyranny in Iran to be curtailed. He suggests that Shah Reva Pahlevi’s son could form a Government-in-Exile. That is, Western nations could say that they give semi-recognition to this Shah to look out for the rights of Iranians in Iran even though he himself could sit in, say, Canada, or South Africa.

Hanson imagines that the regime in Tehran would get the message that it’s time to stop executing people for trying to participate in politics.

In conclusion, I regret that this article passed over each historic moment so lightly. To compensate, here is a recent video made by my colleague James Perloff, who wants us to know that Sixty Minutes gave us a false impression of the Shah back in 1976:

Mary Maxwell’s would like to hear your ideas. Email: MaxwellMaryLLB@gmail.com

The Great War (Image credit: Frontier)

by Mary Maxwell, LLB, current candidate for the United States Senate

Dear People, whoever will listen,

It is possible to watch reasonable coverage of the Iran war on YouTube, with such academic speakers as Prof John Mearshimer and Jeffrey Sachs, journalists Max Blumenthal and Chris Hedges, and battle-smart Americans like Col Doug Macgregor and Scott Ritter. They are frequently interviewed by Judge Napolitano and Mario Nawal.

One finds oneself assuming that their focused view has in it some key to success, that is, ways to end the war. But you’d better not count on that. This war has two human-nature features in it, both of which suggest that decisions are being made ‘irrationally.’

Those two human-nature features are masculinity and group-loyalty. Both press the decision-maker to live up to his expectations of his competitive drive as a man among men, and his reputation for being an unwavering protector of his group. This indicates, to me, that a war could go on for a long time. When I say their decisions will be made irrationally, I mean compared to a cold calculation of what is the smartest move.

Pretend for the moment that there were no such thing as male humans. The all-female army for each nation is directed by female generals. And the US commander in chief in the White House is female. Those persons would not have a built-in urge for combat. They would not be excited by the sight of huge weaponry. They would not be thrilled to engage in an ambush of their predator.

Now pretend, instead, that it’s a typical contest of two all-male armies, but where the contenders have no significant difference in their ethnicity or their religion. The whole lot of them look alike. Each group may have pride in its country’s tradition, but not a sense of the other group being unfit for humanity. The only goal is to win a particular prize, such as land, or retribution for a prior insult, not to “save our people to live in all future generations, per God’s wishes.”

That’s my argument against expecting any of the current participants in the Middle East “action” to be rational. They won’t pull out their notebooks and apply such questions as “Have we really got a good chance to win?” “Is our favoritism with one of the armed groups going to mess up our alliances with others, down the line?” “Should we hold back out of appreciation of environmental values, such as a clean ocean?” “Are we spending money on armaments that will kill our economy back home?”

Mr Monster

That’s all I have to say about today’s war in terms of “men having a go” and about humans protecting their religion or ethnic tribe. If those were the main problems, I guess the solution would be to try to inject more rational factors into the decisions made on all sides.

But I think the danger posed by craziness really comes from an entirely different issue. I think we are all ignorant of a major Conspiracy that is very likely involved. I don’t know enough to make a tight case for it here, so I am instead going to sketch a Possible Alternative History of the Modern West.

Please look upon this as a thought exercise, OK? I am going to call the people at the top “the Monsters.” I don’t mean they dress like Frankenstein. They dress like you and me. Also, I don’t mean that they have a genetic trait for monster-class cruelty and deceit. They have the bad stuff all of us possess, which turns into monstrosity when circumstances invite it.

To make it simple, I’ll say that one guy, Mr Monster started the whole thing ages ago, and gradually picked up members. Often, membership was passed down through blood (as they say). It could increase when the Monsters encountered a whole ’nuther group that could be offered a deal to ally with the Monsters. Or maybe they noticed a very wicked individual and added him in as a paid helper.

Over time, especially by abstraction of money, the Monster group gained great wealth. Sometimes they gained wealth by having their daughters marry into royal families. Those royal families claimed large tracts of land as belonging to their ethnic group, yet they didn’t parcel it out to the population, they kept the title and leased out most pieces.

The Monsters team of planners looked for many ways to control whole populations. One of the rules of the game was: Break up any group that showed signs of becoming very strong. They would do this by starting internal fights over any topic. Another, related rule was to control gossip or “news” by planting specialists in every group.

Media and Unreality and Secrecy

Once radio was invented, it allowed every household to receive this fake news, sprinkled of course with some observable facts. (“It snowed today.”) Fashion trends could be encouraged by the media, just as the media (the Monster media) could design the ideologies of two opposing political parties.

Party membership could be assisted by bribes and/or intimidation. “Leaders” would be made into celebrities, and the people usually take any celebrity seriously. As soon as Monster people were “elected” to government position, laws could be passed to create any type of social and economic arrangement (including dire poverty!).

Having climbed into local religions and schools, the Monsters’ appointees made up an unreal world, one that everybody accepted as real. They designed the professions and thus when the people went to their doctor or their lawyer, they were in many cases going to persons who did not even realize they were carrying out a master plan. On top of this, the body of science and the justice rules on courts were made to serve the Monsters.

Rather recently, different countries set out to invent great weapons. It soon was noticed at the top that a full-scale war could be carried out by A against B with neither A nor B recognizing this outside control. Soldiers and sailors would believe they were sacrificing their lives for a “good cause.” The Monsters found this very amusing.

Corruption of “law enforcement” was a key activity and so was secrecy. The Monsters let all their members know that they would not hesitate to kill any who spilled the beans, and subsequently kept that promise.

Also, among their large spy ring, members were shown only part of the whole picture on a “need to know” basis. Even high-up Monsters were willing to run a fiefdom or an industry without needing to grasp the entire picture.

This Must Stop!

There is no need for me to add more details. I now return to the theme of this article. We watch on YouTube as intelligent people analyze the war. In their analysis they mention the male viewpoints of the players (“We must not lose and be humiliated”) and the alleged barriers posed by race and religion (“Muslims must do Such-and-Such but Israel might thwart them,” or vice versa).

Still, the irrationality of this World War Three is also a function of the hiddenness of the great Conspiracy. It is at least a good bet that the Monsters (who are not clearly identifiable -- it could be anyone) are directing the entire scene. If so, we are crazy if we call “conspiracy theorists” crazy.

Citizens need to hurry up and get on top of this. At the very least, they should be told that even if some bits of the foregoing Monster Scenario are dubious, embarrassment about discussing it is unwise. There is surely a crisis involving killing and economic chaos.

Just today, writer John Leake noted at the website “Courageous Discourse’:

“The reckless gamble with the existence of the American people and the peoples of Western Europe appears to be getting more dangerous by the day.”

I volunteer that my country, with its leader Donald Trump, be the one to wave a white flag, proffer an olive branch, sign the MOU of June 2026, or do whatever is reasonable, to stop this meaningless war.

If I am correct that a Monster is in full charge, then it must be that US President Trump is one of the Monster’s high members, or one of the Monster’s obedient servants.

Not in my backyard, Buddy.

Call it a day, would you?

-- Mary Maxwell’s website is www. Constitution And Truth.com. She is on the Republican ballot for the September 8, 2026 primary in New Hampshire, hoping for a January 3, 2027 entry into the United States Senate, where she will make a stink every chance she gets.

by Mary Maxwell, LLB, currently a Republican candidate for US Senate

I was born in the United States in 1947 and currently live in New Hampshire. In this article, I try to enumerate my powers, and yours, as a US citizen. (I also obtained citizenship of Australia by naturalization in 1993, based on marriage to an Australian, but here I am listing the powers I have as an American.) I won’t include my God-given powers, such as the power to walk, or to breathe, as those are shared by every human.

We all live in groups, and today the group that is taken for granted as very significant is the nation-state. (This is a fairly recent development -- for most of humanity’s past we lived in tribes.) So when I ask “What powers do I wield?” I am mainly referring to legal powers that have come about by my belonging to this particular nation-state, the USA.

When I say “legal” I mean things that have been proclaimed by “officials” of that nation. And since the United States is a federation of former states, I also wield powers today as a citizen of New Hampshire.

This article’s search for powers was inspired by something I read this morning on “social media.” Namely, a Canadian physician, Dr William Makis, who is trying to set up a cancer clinic in Florida, wrote that the clinic is being delayed by red tape and sabotage “and no one will help.” I tried to submit a comment “I can help” but it was blocked, as shown here:

The small print in red says “You are banned from commenting until 999 years from now,” so my offer did not get printed, at substack.com. I do not suggest that it was “Substack” that squelched me. They always printed my comments. Nor was it Dr Makis who blocked me, as his assistant assured me they know nothing about it.

Anyway, as I said, this episode caused me look at my “powers.” Frankly, my attempted promise to Makis was a bit brash -- I was offering to help without really knowing what that help might consist of. So I may as well start here, in the search for my powers, with the question “What could I have done for Makis, an/or his plan to open a cancer clinic?”

Yakking

Ah, the first thing that came to me, just now, is that I have the power to talk. I can yak on behalf of a cancer clinic. I can yak in opposition to the saboteurs, etc. But isn’t that just like the power to breathe, a natural gift that all humans possess? Hmm. What I really mean is that my natural power to talk is endorsed legally by my nation-state. Notably, I can talk freely in the USA, thanks to my First Amendment rights, compared to people elsewhere who, on supporting Makis’s proposed cancer clinic, may be sent to jail or at least be sent a message “Shut up.”

Oopsie, oopsie. I was sent a message to shut up, wasn’t I? Hmm. Who told me to shut up? Note: I support his/her right to disagree with me about cancer clinics. (I actually lust after intellectual criticism; my slogan is “Tear me to shreds.”) However, he/she actually prevented me from commenting. When I pressed the Reply button, the computer told me I was banned and deleted my remark “I can help.”

I suppose I could write (that is, yak with a pen or a keyboard) to the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, to ask him to use his police powers to counteract the harassment to which Dr Makis has often been subjected.

Or I could write to members of the state legislature in Florida and ask them to pass a law specifically supporting Makis-type clinics. (He uses two anti-parasitic medicines: ivermectin and fenbendazole). Or they could loosen the legislated power of the American Medical Association in Florida. I believe it is the AMA that has been controlling doctors in all 50 states for the last century or so.

I suppose I could write to Congress, asking them to dethrone Big Pharma. Presumably it is Pharma that has caused the problem for ivermectin, a cheap drug whose patent protection by Merck has expired. Also, I am able to stand near a local drugstore (CVS and Walgreen’s are both near my house), holding a big sign “I love ivermectin and fenbendazole.”

You get the idea -- one of my powers as an American is to communicate with officials and also with “the public.” It goes without saying that I can communicate in private with family or friends about anything. Even there, though, there’s the surveillance issue. Say I’m talking to a pal on the phone, and I mention that my toaster has broken. Minutes later, ads for toasters appear in my emails. So nothing is private. Henceforward, I might self-sensor during phone calls. I might not discuss my dislike for, say, a certain Congressman. Or for that matter, my dislike for my bank, as a bank has power to ‘lose track’ of my funds.

You know what I mean. My First Amendment rights do not fully protect me, since the power they grant is matched by negative powers. As many whistleblowers have discovered, someone possesses the power to wipe me off the face of the earth.

Going to Court

Now for my power to get something I desire by approaching a judge or jury. The American government provides private law and public law. We can ask a court to sort out a dispute of a private matter such as a contract. Every purchase-and-sale is a contract, according to legal tradition, so if I hired a garage-door company to install a door to my garage for $500, and that door falls apart, I can demand my money back. If the company refuses to pay, I can get the court to order them to pay.

It’s also a matter of private law if someone harms my reputation. I can sue her in court for defamation. The judge might award “damages.” Many kinds of hurt can be fought in court both through private law and public law. If someone threatens to tell a secret about me unless I give him $10,000 dollars, I can report the crime of extortion to police. The police may pass the matter to a county or state prosecutor who may punish him (but that does not result in any payment to me for my having suffered the extortion).

Can I go to court to challenge legislation as unconstitutional? Mais oui, Monsieur. I do it whenever I can scrape together the $400 filing fee. (Persons without $400 can file ‘in pauperis.’). In August 2020, as soon as I “saw through” the pandemic, I filed a lawsuit against three parts of the federal government: Defense, FEMA, and HHS. https://www.constitutionandtruth.com/maxwell-v-secretary-of-defense-et-al

It laid out the fraudulence of the PCR test for diagnosis, the amazing lockdowns of businesses, the rules about financing the research for vaccination, etc. The District Court dismissed it, and the Appeals court merely said “We agree with the dismissal.”

Over the next six years much has been said about the criminality of the Covid players (although none have actually got punished). I was thinking, wow, I’m the only one who opposed the propaganda earlier, but that’s incorrect. It has now been reported that thousands of Americans took their Covid complaints to court. The Defendants (the government, big pharma, and others) were not asked to give a reply!!! This flies in the face of the Seventh Amendment. Apparently, the judges in all 13 federal judicial districts were told not to adjudicate any such cases. (I figure that is criminal.)

Maybe I will file a claim of some sort against that. Oopsie, the Chief Justice and five other members of the US Supreme Court said (in 2024) that you can’t file against a president even if he commits crime, as long as he did it as part of his duties – his “official powers.”

Hmm. Well, don’t worry. I was able to go to court a week before President Trump attacked Iran this year, to ask for a restraining order against any unconstitutional war. The Appeals Court has allowed him until September 23, 2026 to give his reply to my complaint that a president is not legally able to make war until Congress declares war (except if we are attacked, but Iran had not attacked us).

Going to court is a really big blessing. You can go as an amicus curiae – “friend of the court.” I am an amicus in the Boston Marathon bombing case. Myself and two other amici recognize that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is innocent, but is going to be executed. I would like to send him the book I wrote about his case (“Stop Lying about the Marathon Bombing”), but he is forbidden to receive communications under the prison rule known as SAMS – special administrative measures. The idea is that if he is a terrorist (which he is not) he might use the phone or the mail to cook up some violent acts.

There’s also the power of RICO – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. I say “Use it or lose it.” Hence I filed a RICO case against the FBI, media, and others, for their part in the Marathon bombing That case died on the vine but could now be revived.

Campaigning

More powers: As an American citizen, age 18 and over, I can run for public office such as city council. If age 25 or over, I can run for US House of Representatives and have done so twice. If 30 and over, I can run for US Senate and have done so twice. If age 35 and over – sorry if I sound repetitive here – I can run for US President and have done so twice.

My efforts have been Campaign Lite. I cannot blame anyone but myself for failing to win office. Still, I am aware that the game is not as it appears. Almost all the persons who win have been given outside help. As far back as 1992, Jim Collier revealed key facts in his book VoteScam. These mainly have to do with media control.

Collier showed how a private group, composed of top newsmen from all the TV networks, got together and produced the names of winners and their vote totals, hours before (perhaps days before) the polls closed. The cheating was mainly achieved by “software.” You could say that the winners were really elected by those news organizations.

Eighteen years after that, the US Supreme Court made a ruling that not only didn’t “spread the wealth” to ordinary candidates, it virtually guaranteed that, to get many votes, a person must get the green light from large corporations and mega donors.

This ruling was in the 2010 case of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. It allowed “Political Action Committees” to give unlimited gifts, while individuals could donate only $1200 to their favored candidate. (The $1200 is now $3500, ahem.)

Some critics have referred to that 2010 ruling as unconstitutional. I refer to it as stupefying. Today’s New York Times has just reported that 14 megadonors have put 1.2 billion bucks into the midterms, so far. I quote:

“These are the billionaires who tower over Senate and House races. The corporations digging deep to increase their profits. The dark-money groups that want to keep their sources of cash secret forever.”

The forgoing categories have shown my “powers” -- to yak, to go to court, and to run for office. The several negative items that I inserted are a bit sad and we need to deal with those, pronto. K?

Cultural Participation

So far I have been talking about political opportunities. Additionally, my life as an American, and also as an Australian, has been blessed (extremely blessed, I’d say) with opportunities to simply participate in culture.

Maybe there are cultures where artists are discouraged from doing their thing, be it in painting, in music and dance, in architecture, or in ‘literature.’ But my recollection of the arts in America – especially in the 1970s – is one of magnificent upheaval of the old and creation of the new. Starting in 1983, at age 36, I became aware that I could write for the public.

My first article was in the Melbourne Age Monthly Review, concerning a 1983 book by Charles Lumsden and EO Wilson, entitled Promethean Fire. It was in fact about the origin of the mind. My field at that time was Sociobiologywhich was considered controversial, as one is not supposed to say “Biology is destiny”. (Never mind that it is, to some extent!)

I then wrote three books on that subject, and edited one composed by 18 sociobiologists. These were all published, painlessly, by university presses in the 1990s. In the 21^st century, however, it was a struggle to get my political books published. At one point it was explained to me that the mafia (!) was standing in the way. Eventually a naughty press, TrineDay, took three of my books, starting with Prosecution for Treason.

Since then, I have had to pay for the printing of my next dozen or so books, all political. Alas, I had learned about false flags, psy-ops, and mind control. That is, stuff publishers do not want to be connected with, as they may have to go a bit early to the cemetery. On some of these matters I was also involved in court cases, mostly in Australia.

In Oz, I also had the freedom to put on five plays at the Adelaide Fringe Festival. (When I tried to submit one recently, I was told “Sorry, it’s by invitation only.”) That’s awful.

I have not tried drama in the US but am encouraging others to produce “moot court” shows, which can be fun and informative. To protect yourself from libel, make sure the criminal du jour is already ‘history.” Example: Donald Rumsfeld. (I can help you if you want to put him on trial for 9/11.)

I have written “The Covid Mikado,” a spoof on Gilbert & Sullivan’ style of musical, but have no one available to stage it. So please let me know if you are interested. So far there is almost no threat of the Gestapo showing up at your door for singing a wrong song.

Overall, I have to say that despite all the above excitement, my accomplishments are No cruel inflictor of mind control has been arrested on my watch. None. (At least as far as I am aware). But there’s always next year….

Finally, I must salute New Hampshire. The motto of this state is “Live free or die.” In the early days of the Republic, the New Hampshire sense of community, and protection of freedom, was exceptional. As I like to say, everybody knew who owned the joint. The “Granite State” constitution goes so far as to endorse the right to revolt. (Don’t believe me? It’s in Article 10, still in force.)

Last week, during my campaign for United States Senate, I travelled to a very northern spot: Berlin, New Hampshire, for a Republican barbecue. Several local men got up to say their piece. Which feature came across more strongly -- their masculinity or their devotion to community? Both were stunning. I didn’t even know such things were still in existence. And there they were. It could have been 1776.

Rah, rah, North country! Go, strong men! Preserve our American powers – pleeeze.

-- Mary Maxwell’s website (not yet taken down, or even hit with graffiti) is www.ConstitutionAndTruth.com. Her email is MaxwellMaryLLB@gmail.com

Toffs’ Clinic, an imaginary picture by artist Dee McLachlan

by Mary Maxwell, LLB

Wow. Ana Toledo, head of Targeted Justice.com, has just published an article:

Mira!

Freemasons in France Convicted

On July 17, 2026, a specially composed Paris Assize Court delivered the verdict in the “Athanor” trial (named after a former Masonic lodge in the Hauts-de-Seine/Puteaux area near Paris…

Read more

23 days ago · 66 likes · 35 comments · Ana Toledo

-- about the imprisonment of two “Freemasons of the Lodge” in Paris. It reminded me of Lord Burton of Scotland who blamed Freemasons for the 1996 Dunblane massacre. Eight years ago I wrote about that in an article at GumshoeNews.com. I’ll republish it below.

I had proposed that toff child-killers get “sectioned” to a special clinic, Toffs’ Clinic. “Toff” is a British slang word for the upper class. The etymology has something to do with eating toffee that sticks to the teeth and makes a person talk funny. The Aussie vocabulary has a fairly close equivalent – plummy (you talk like you have a plum in your mouth). Americans don’t have a snarky word for the upper class as they pretend there is no upper class.

Now here’s my 2018 article:

The Housemaster’s Tale

From 1989 to 1991 Glenn Harrison was a Housemaster at a military school in Scotland, the Queen Victoria School — QVS – run for children of overseas British soldiers. Note: This is not the Dunblane school where 16 children and their teacher Gwen Major were gunned down in the gym on March 13, 1996.

At QVS, Housemaster Harrison saw bullying and suspected sexual abuse, especially as the boys were sometimes taken away for weekends. He tried to use the proper system – police, government, judiciary, royalty – to get help for the kids, but he kept hitting a brick wall. What does that tell you?

The QVS school he worked at is in Central Scotland – halfway between Glasgow and Edinburgh. It is nearby the town of Dunblane. Housemaster Glenn Harrison tells us that Thomas Hamilton, the alleged killer at Dunblane (who “turned the gun on himself” ) was also known to him, because Hamilton used to hang around the QVS campus.

On December 11, this housemaster wrote to the parents of his 57 boys and warn them of the danger of bullying and abuse at the school. This responsible action led to someone throwing a stone at his window. Frightened, he went to the police. While he was not home another batch of police broke down his door at QVS with a sledgehammer and stole some of his papers.

I think the point of using a sledgehammer was to scare him, and the point of taking his papers, which they never gave back, was to deprive him of the evidence that was in those papers — for example, copies of his correspondence, pre-Internet, with this or that Minister.

Tim Minogue’s Chronicling of the Matter

Let me now summarize the article Tim Minogue posted about this at DunblaneExposed.info. My sources are the work of Tim Minogue and also of Sandra Uttley in her 2006 book, Dunblane Unburied, which is now out of print. [Oops, update 2026; the dunblaneexposed.info website has now disappeared.]

To begin, Tim Minogue learned that the Housemaster, Harrison, had taken many steps. After getting nowhere, in-house, with complaints to the staff hierarchy, Harrison visited the Central Scotland Police at Stirling. Those police rebuffed him by saying that the Queen Victoria School was under the Ministry of Defense, and “the Official Secrets Act.” The Housemaster then tried the Regional Council Social Works, again with no luck.

Once he was situated in a new job, at Baltasound, Glenn Harrison wrote more letters, this time to the Secretary of State of Scotland and to the Duke of Edinburgh in his role of patron of the Queen Victoria School. Nothing came of it.

I should have mentioned that people using the name “Friends of the QVS” would take the boys away for weekends. Harrison and his wife lived near the front gate so they could see flashy cars driving up on Friday night to get the boys. He says the boys would return looking stressed but with a lot of money.

British journalist Tim Minogue had, prior to the Dunblane mass murder, attempted to get legislation requiring members of the Freemasons to declare their membership if they were a parliamentarian or a judge. This seems to me a good idea.

Steps Minogue Took

In Tim Minogue’s own words here are the steps he took (emphasis added by me):

“[I wrote] to those legally responsible for the safety and wellbeing of the pupils in a private boarding school, the board of governors, which in this case of Queen Victoria School were Her Majesty’s Commissioners. The head commissioner is an ex-officio post held by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

“I wrote to my MP, the late Rachel Squire and asked her to ask the then Secretary of State, Mrs Helen Liddell (Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke), if she was aware of any group such as the ‘Friends of QVS.’

“My MP would not take on my concerns and suggested I contact the Secretary of State directly. By a return e-mail I was told by Mrs Liddell that this had nothing to do with her, as the matters I had raised “are devolved to the Scottish Parliament” and my letter had been forwarded to my MSP Scott Barrie!

“A reply to my letter was eventually sent to me by the Head of Home & Social Division of the Scotland Office who stated that the Secretary of State’s role at QVS was ‘purely formal’ and I should write to the Chief Executive/Headmaster of QVS.”

The Three Questions

Minogue did not get any satisfaction, and found those officials to be unaware that Hansard (i.e., official record of Parliament’s business) had contained information about the Housemaster’s complaints. So Minogue widened his search, this time writing to the headmaster of the school for the years 1989-1991 and all the commissioners at that time (like a board of trustees).

He also wrote to Lord Cullen (ahem) and Lord Robertson (ahem, ahem) whom the Housemaster had repeatedly said were visitors to the school. Following that, Minogue simply used the Internet to search the Dunblane Inquiry and found that three persons had said under oath that they knew of a Hamilton connection to the school:

Grace Jones Ogilvie, a neighbour of Hamilton, said she knew of him taking his boys’ clubs camping at Loch Lomond and at the QVS. Ian Steven Boal said that his friend Hamilton had got him a job at a QVS summer camp. Robert Mark Ure who lived across the street from Hamilton said his estranged wife had been at the firing range at QVS with her friend Hamilton.

Did Minogue get anywhere with the Ombudsman? No, because the police are one of the exclusions from the list of offices that ombudsmen can investigate.

Lord Burton

Most interestingly, Minogue was contacted by Lord Burton – the man who whistle blew that the massacre was Mason-related. I quote Minogue again (from the same article at dunblaneexposed.info):

“Lord Burton knew of my contact with The Housemaster and we had an exchange of views. I found him to be a pleasant, and I believe a decent man, but he was over-keen to protect his organisation and blamed the Speculative Society clique in the judiciary, and the police for a cover up ‘at the highest level’ of the Dunblane 1996 tragedy.

“He told me that a Scots Tory Law Lord and member of the Speculative Society had pounded his fist on his desk in the House of Lords to emphasize that he [Burton] should let the matter [of the Dunblane massacre] drop.” [Emphasis added]

Getting the downlow about the QVS from Minogue’s article has been quite a shock. My late adored husband George grew up near Dunblane and graduated Edinburgh. All the folks I’ve met through him are morally solid. I thought Scottish people had cornered the market on decency – and that, like Bobbie Burns, they scoffed at toffs.

Tim Minogue has now published a list of the Speculative Society’s members. Whew! Many judges. What do they think they are doing? All guilty of obstruction of justice regarding a serious crime. As Sandra Uttley had found in the early days of investigating, Lord Cullen had slapped a 100-year Closure order on the evidence.

William Scott, a concerned citizen of Dunblane, did his best to track down the fact that there was no statute authorizing such a lengthy sealing of records. Can you imagine.

Wait a minute. Why did Lord Cullen and his mates cover up the massacre? In order to keep pedophilia hush hush? Well yes, but it’s much worse than that. I speculate (pardon the pun) that the massacre was group-planned. Some people thought it good to send sixteen darling children to their graves. (I don’t know if satanism was involved.)

(L) Lord Cullen (R) Lord Robertson

Cullen, a law lord, “made his name” by running the Lockerbie case. He also ran a 5-year investigation of the North Sea oil spill known as Piper Alpha. I’ll bet both investigations were fraudulent.

I see that Lord Robertson has sued The Sunday Herald over the fact that a commenter indicated Robertson was responsible for the Dunblane massacre. It didn’t get a court judgement as the newspaper paid an out of court settlement of 25,000 pounds.

The Guardian wrote: “The case in 2004 forced internet publishers to re-double their efforts to ensure internet users posting on their message boards do not libel people.” Nonsense. Citizens must look around for murderers and they need to debate it.

By the way, Robertson was a Labor MP. Then, after being UK Defense Secretary for 2 years, was made a peer in 1991. Then he became NATO secretary general from 1999 to 2001. Hmm.

Heraldscotland.com, in June, 1996, reported that when Robertson’s son Malcolm, age 10, received a reprimand in 1983 from Thomas Hamilton for his non-attendance at club, the Dad looked into it and found Hamilton bizarre and said he ran the club like Hitler youth. Recall: many parents of QVS boys are UK military overseas.

After retiring from government, Robertson went to work for a defense contractor.

Toffs Did It

I believe that Thomas Hamilton was not the killer. He had no reason to cause his own death like that. Someone else did everything and threw Hamilton’s body onto the gym floor. You can see the trickiness of the case at various websites, and in Uttley’s book.

I say the persons who do the cover-up are the guilty parties. Some of them are guilty of the actual murder and others of the many steps taken to suppress evidence.

As we say in the trade: contra spoliatorum, omnia presumuntur. “Against the one who destroys evidence, all things can be presumed.”

In fact, denying that there is such a group as “friends of the QVS” is a clear sign of guilt that the friends do bad things. If they are doing good, wouldn’t they want to take a bow?

-- end of my 2018 article.

It’s Clinic Time

Can we please stop saying that various patsy-terrorists are nuts, and use basic diagnostic skills to see who is really sick? I claim they could be forcibly sent to a clinic. This is called “sectioning” after a section of the law that allows the freedom of nut-jobs to be curtailed, legally. For the Dunblane massacre miscreants, pick one of the islands off the coast of Scotland and set up a new clinic. Toffs’ Clinic.

Note: When I published this article in 2018, the first to comment was Don Wreford, himself a victim during his English youth, in the 1940s. He wrote:

“Systematic abuse is all part of establishments need for perversion, whilst we take time to look at the latest revelations it diverts our attention to the greater harm of the establishments ongoing repressive ideology that becomes a normal process that we all have to endure without end, the destruction of our planet and violence against people in terms of physical and mental torture.” How true!

I see that my 2018 piece, in Australia, ended with: “Mary W Maxwell has recently received threats and does not give a hoot. Everything is in place and nothing can stop her now.” Hmm. Yet I have never gotten anywhere with my decades of pursuing justice. I think I need to speed up a bit, don’t you?

-- Mary Maxwell’s website is ConstitutionAndTruth.com

Postscript: Years ago I made a video about the fact that a Scot named Scott proved that there is no law that would justify Lord Cullen’s sealing up of documents for 100 years:

(L) Justice Katanji Brown Jackson. Photo: Pepperdine University

(R) Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Photo: Constitutional Law Reporter

by Mary Maxwell, LLB, Appellant in Maxwell V Trump

I am presently a candidate in the New Hampshire Republican primary for US Senate. I believe the so-called Insurrection of Jan 6, 2021 was a psy-op, with the violence being carried out by ‘hirees,’ all in aid of collapsing the First Amendment. I believe President Trump lies persistently and that even this is a psy-op, designed to leave us feeling helpless. I am tired of the partisan name-calling and I consider the entire Congress to have failed us in recent years. I hope none of them will be returned to office I January 2027. My lawsuit, Maxwell v Trump, filed on February 20, 2026, seeks a restraining order against a ‘presidential’ war with Iran.

The 2024 Case of US v Trump

The Department of Justice (what a name!), prosecuted Donald Trump after he left office. He was charged with (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States [18 USC 371], (2) conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding [18 USC1512(k)], (3) obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding [18 USC 1512], and (4) conspiracy against rights [USC 241.1]. All of this had to do with the former president’s allegedly pursuing fraudulent claims about the 2020 election, encouraging Vice President Pence to upset the Electoral College ballots, ordering states to “do the right thing, and finally, adding encouragement to the rioters.

It is hard to know if he committed any crimes. The Senate had passed up its chance to “try” him based on the House’s Impeachment of him. (His Party had enough votes to agree on acquittal without even debating the matter for ten minutes). And then when the Biden Administration brought the case as a prosecution, there was no trial because the US Supreme Court made the decision, to be discussed here, that it could not try Trump for crimes if they were done as part of his “core” duty.

Had I been a juror when the aforementioned charges were made, I would have said he was innocent of all of them. Indeed,at the time, 2021, I published my opinion that the rioters’ appearance on Capitol Hill had the immediate and predictable effect of ruining Trump’s chances to correct the “stolen election” – many Congresspersons were all set on Jan 6, 2021, to challenge of the Electoral ballots per the Constitution (Ah! remember the Constitution?) but the ‘emergency’ shut that down. At the time, I also published that Trump’s pressuring Georgia was quite kosher -- and I’m a States’ Rights man!

The District Court denied Trump’s defense (about presidential immunity), so it went to Appeals at the DC Circuit, and then to the US Supreme Court which ruled, in 2024:

“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.”

I will now quote from Justice Sotomayor’s dissent (which shows how poor a job SCOTUS did) and then from Justice Jackson’s separate dissent (which emphasizes the frightening consequences). Both are of great importance. I am omitting the references but you can easily find them at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s Dissent, Joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson

“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for ‘bold and unhesitating action’ by the President, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.

… II

“The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.

“…the majority’s attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds. In any event, it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which is to create expansive immunity for all ‘official act[s].’ Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless.

“…Under scrutiny, its arguments crumble. To start, the majority’s broad ‘official acts immunity is inconsistent with text, history, and established understandings of the President’s role.

…III

“The main takeaway of today’s decision is that all of a President’s official acts, defined without regard to motive or intent, are entitled to immunity that is ‘at least . . . presumptive,’ and quite possibly ‘absolute.’ Whenever the President wields the enormous power of his office, the majority says, the criminal law (at least presumptively) cannot touch him. This official-acts immunity has ‘no firm grounding in constitutional text, history, or precedent.’ Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, (2022). Indeed, those “standard grounds for constitutional decision making,” id all point in the opposite direction. No matter how you look at it, the majority’s official-acts immunity is utterly indefensible.

A

“First, the Framers clearly knew how to provide for immunity from prosecution. They did provide a narrow immunity for legislators in the Speech or Debate Clause…. Second, some state constitutions at the time of the Framing specifically provided ‘express criminal immunities’ to sitting governors.’ If the Framers ‘had wanted to create some constitutional privilege to shield the President . . . from criminal indictment,’ they could have done so…. Third, insofar as the Constitution does speak to this question, it actually contemplates some form of criminal liability for former Presidents. … an official impeached and convicted by the Senate ‘shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,’ —including conduct such as “Bribery,” which implicates official acts almost by definition.

B

“The historical evidence that exists on Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution cuts decisively against it. For instance, Alexander Hamilton wrote that former Presidents would be ‘liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.’ The Federalist No. 69, …For Hamilton, that was an important distinction between ‘the king of Great Britain,] who was ‘sacred and inviolable,’ and the ‘President of the United States,” who ‘would be amenable to personal punishment.’

“At the Constitutional Convention,…. Delegate Charles Pinckney later explained that ‘[t]he Convention which formed the Constitution well knew’ that ‘no subject had been more abused than privilege,’ and so it ‘determined to . . . limi[t] privilege to what was necessary, and no more.’ ‘No privilege . . . was intended for [the] Executive.’

“Other commentators around the time of the Founding observed that federal officials had no immunity from prosecution…. James Wilson recognized that federal officers who use their official powers to commit crimes ‘may be tried by their country; and if their criminality is established, the law will punish. A grand jury may present, a petty jury may convict, and the judges will pronounce the punishment.’

“The majority fails to recognize or grapple with the lack of historical evidence for its new immunity.

“ ‘Long settled and established practice’ may have ‘great weight in a proper in- terpretation of constitutional provisions’ (quoting The Pocket Veto Case, 1929) .

“After the Watergate tapes revealed President Nixon’s misuse of official power to obstruct the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of the Watergate burglary, President Ford pardoned Nixon. Both Ford’s pardon and Nixon’s acceptance of the pardon necessarily “rested on the understanding that the former President faced potential criminal liability.”

“Subsequent special counsel and independent counsel investigations have also operated on the assumption that the Government can criminally prosecute former Presidents for their official acts, where they violate the criminal law. See, e.g., L. Walsh, Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters: Investigations and Prosecutions (1993).

“Indeed, Trump’s own lawyers during his second impeachment trial assured Senators that declining to impeach Trump for his conduct related to January 6 would not leave him ‘in any way above the law.’ They insisted that a former Pres- ident ‘is like any other citizen and can be tried in a court of law.’

IV. “Today’s Court, however, has replaced a presumption of equality before the law with a presumption that the President is above the law for all of his official acts.

“Quick on the heels of announcing this astonishingly broad official-acts immunity, the majority assures us that a former President can still be prosecuted for ‘unofficial acts.’ Of course he can. No one has questioned the ability to prosecute a former President for unofficial (otherwise known as private) acts…. This unremarkable proposition is no real limit on today’s decision. It does not hide the majority’s embrace of the most far-reaching view of Presidential immunity on offer.

“In fact, the majority’s dividing line between “official” and “unofficial” conduct narrows the conduct considered “unofficial” almost to a nullity. It says that whenever the President acts in a way that is ‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority,’ he is taking official action. [I believe that making war on Iran was manifestly beyond the president’s power -- MM].

B

“So how does the majority get to its rule? With text, history, and established understanding all weighing against it, the majority claims just one arrow in its quiver: the balancing test in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, (1983). Yet even that test cuts against it. The majority concludes that official-acts immunity ‘is required to safeguard the inde- pendence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch.’ [Oh my.]

“Compare civil actions: “In Fitzgerald, plaintiff A. Ernest Fitzgerald sued then- former President Nixon for money damages. He claimed that, while in office, Nixon had been involved in unlawfully firing him from his government job. The question for the Court was whether a former President had immunity from such a civil suit. The Court explained that it was ‘settled law that the separation-of- powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President …a court ‘must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’…

“In light of [various] considerable protections, the majority’s fear that ‘bare allegations of malice,’ … would expose former Presidents to trial and conviction is unfounded. Bare allegations of malice would not make it out of the starting gate. …

“I am deeply troubled by the idea, inherent in the majority’s opinion, that our Nation loses something valuable when the President is forced to operate within the confines of federal criminal law.

V … VI

“…Not content simply to invent an expansive criminal immunity for former Presidents, the majority goes a dramatic and unprecedented step further. It says that acts for which the President is immune must be redacted from the narrative of even wholly private crimes committed while in office. They must play no role in proceedings regarding private criminal acts. …

VII

“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents immunity for their official acts is deeply wrong. … The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

“With fear for our democracy, I dissent.

JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting.

“I also address what that paradigm shift means for our Nation moving forward.

I…

“To say that someone is immune from criminal prosecution is to say that, like a King, he ‘is not under the coercive power of the law,’ which ‘will not suppose him capable of committing a folly, much less a crime.’ 4 Blackstone *33. Thus, being immune is not like having a defense under the law. Rather, it means that the law does not apply to the immunized person in the first place. Conferring immunity therefore ‘create[s] a privileged class free from liability for wrongs inflicted or injuries threatened.’ Hopkins…

“It is a core tenet of our democracy that the People are the sovereign, and the Rule of Law is our first and final security. ‘[F]rom their own experience and their deep reading in history, the Founders knew that Law alone saves a society from being rent by internecine strife or ruled by mere brute power however disguised.’ United States v. Mine Workers, (1947) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment).

“We have long lived with the collective understanding that ‘[d]ecency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen,’ for ‘[i]n a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.’ Olmstead v. United States, (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

“JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR has already warned of the dire consequences that are likely to follow from the majority’s decision in this case. ..

“Here, I will highlight just two observations about the results that follow from this paradigm shift. First, by changing the accountability paradigm in this fashion, the Court has unilaterally altered the balance of power between the three coordinate branches of our Government as it relates to the Rule of Law, aggrandizing power in the Judiciary and the Executive, to the detriment of Congress. Second, the majority’s new Presidential accountability model undermines the constraints of the law as a deterrent for future Presidents who might otherwise abuse their power, to the detriment of us all.

“From this day forward, Presidents of tomorrow will be free to exercise the Com- mander-in-Chief powers, the foreign-affairs powers, and all the vast law enforcement powers enshrined in Article II however they please—including in ways that Congress has deemed criminal and that have potentially grave consequences for the rights and liberties of Americans.

IV

“[Because] …the risks (and power) the Court has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms, I dissent.

Conclusion [by MM]

The 2024 ruling in US V Trump was a big fat mistake. It cannot be allowed to stand. Like the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission, it truly destroys the Constitution. That case changed the limits on spending by Pac’s — Political Action Committee’s — to an unlimited amount. (This year alone, 2026, I have frequently read of corporations donating more than ten million dollars to a Congressional candidate.)

An easy method for changing a US Supreme Court rule is for the justices themselves to decide — sua sponte — to alter the judgment. Or, in a subsequent case, they can comment critically on their earlier choice of definition of “core powers.”

Trust me. We citizens cannot leave this precedent in place. It is very, very dangerous. I must also add that it is a real possibility that the ruling did not come from our Supreme court but was “sent down to them from above.”

I am not referring to the celestial sphere.

-- Mary Maxwell’s website is www.ConstitutionAndTruth.com

A friendly pull-over, Photo: tickethelp.com

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

Having lived in Australia (roughly 1980 – 2018), I wrote over a thousand articles for GumshoeNews.com. The one below was published on Dec 3, 2020. Lately there is a digging up of evidence against Anthony Fauci. I re-publish a few items for use by those researchers. I don’t plan to follow it myself as I am “tied up” with war making n Iran.

Some of my articles are directed at my cousin “Reginald.” In this case I made up a letter that he could carry in his wallet if Police hassle him about the lockdown.

Dear Cousin Reginald,

It makes me sad that so many Americans have tossed their Human Rights out the window because a snake in the grass by the name of Fauci has pulled a deceitful caper in connection with a worthless bureaucracy, the World Health Organization.

[My cousin, being a male, will like this better if there’s a slight whiff of the boxing ring.]

It’s well known, Reg, that the emotion of fear can knock out one’s reasoning capacity, so folks are in a panic. About what? They think it’s fear of the disease, but I’ll bet it’s fear of the loss of human rights. After all, it’s quite a shock for Americans to be told they can be forcibly vaccinated, right?

Walk with me, esteemed Cuz, through quotes from four doctors and two judges who have still got their brain bone connected to their mouth bone, OK? It’s now November, eight months after the psy-op started on March 23, 2020, so they’ve had time to publish their professional opinion.

1. An abstract from the British Medical Journal, November 13, 2020, says:

“Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate … diagnostics and treatments…. Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale….

“Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science….

“First, the membership, research, and deliberations of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) were initially secret until a press leak forced transparency. The leak revealed inappropriate involvement of government advisers in SAGE, while exposing under-representation from public health, clinical care [etc].”

(Are you with me, Reg? The BMJ was one of Cousin George’s most trusted sources.)

1. Dr Rod Hodkinson, FRCPC, of Alberta Canada, November 13, 2020, says:

“There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It’s outrageous. [Covid] should be thought of as nothing more than a bad flu season.

“Masks are utterly useless. There is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever. Social distancing is also useless because Covid is spread by aerosols which travels 30 meters or so before landing. I’m in the business of testing for Covid. I do want to emphasize that positive test results do not, underlined in neon, mean a clinical infection.

“All that should be done is to protect the vulnerable and to give them all in the nursing homes … 3000 to 5000 international units of vitamin D every day which has been shown to radically reduce the likelihood of Infection.”

1. Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, born 1946, is the retired Chair of Medical Microbiology at University of Mainz, Germany. His father was a Thai diplomat, so Sucharit was educated all over the world. He thought the lockdown was “out of this world.” Anyone who has studied PCR, he says, knows that a PCR test cannot be used to diagnose anything. Yet whenever the test was positive the patient gets labeled Covid. “It is criminal now to say that these are covd-19 cases.” (Reg, have you seen my new book Grass Court – it’s about prosecuting the crims – you know how I am.)

Bhakdi notes that John Ioannidis of Stanford wrote in a peer-reviewed article that was put on the WHO Bulletin – that this virus is no more deadly than a seasonal flu for people under age 70. “This is so little that there is no reason to do a lockdown or anything else.” Anyone who says otherwise is lying. The words at the end of a book that Bhakdi and his wife recently wrote are: “The time has come for Homo sapiens to stand up.” Too right!

1. Rashid Buttar, OD, was a surgeon in the US Army before becoming a local doctor in North Carolina where many of his patients are autistic children. He has had many conflicts with the medical establishment over the excellent alternative treatments he provides for autism. Thus he was able to smell the rat immediately (as I did, too).

Buttar says it is medically wrong to wear a mask. Also, the point of the 6-foot social distancing is to allow surveillance of individuals which is not possible when we crowd together – something he knew from his Army work. In a YouTube video of November 2, 2020, he warns “If we don’t act soon we are all going to be chipped like cattle.” This is true, Reg. The vaccine is not like the old polio shots. It’s a high-tech chip with all data about you on it.

Buttar adds: “With knowledge comes power.”

[Update, Buttar was later murdered by poisoning. He diagnosed it and reported it before death. See his song in my movie “Covid Mikado.):]

1. A Portuguese Appellate Court Ruled that the lockdown is unlawful

“Given how much scientific doubt exists — as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter — about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests’ analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician’s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or whether A, B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it.”

1. Retired UK Supreme Court Justice Jonathon Sumption, OBE, born 1948, said an online lecture about Rule of Law, for Cambridge University, “The British public has not even begun to understand the seriousness of what is happening to our country.” The website legalcheek.com notes:

“Lord Sumption wowed a virtual audience last night with a hard-hitting attack on the government’s coronavirus policies, accusing ministers of deliberately stoking up fear and acting with a ‘cavalier disregard for the limits of their legal powers.’ [He] warned that British society was becoming ‘totalitarian’ and argued that the government had no power to pass lockdown regulations under the Public Health Act.”

Wallet-Size

So there you have it. Reg. Four prestigious doctors and two judges. There are hundreds of protesting doctors. Just go to GumshoeNews for more details.

Below I have copied my letter to you, in smaller print (Garamond font 10) and removed any family references. It easily fits on one side of an 8×11 page. Fits in your wallet, to hand to cop when needed. Maybe put an icon of flag or an eagle on it, so the cop will know you’re a goody.

Another thing you could do is blow it up to font 15, which will fill 2 pages. Laminate them, wear them like a sandwich sign, front and back and parade around the street. But be sure to wear the mask, so the scared people will be able to come up to you and read it — at 6 feet.

I was moved to compose this for you, this morning, when police knocked loudly at my door. Luckily, they had made a mistake, got the wrong apartment number. But was I scared? Of course. Scared witless, as they say. I am well aware that the Day of Reckoning is at hand.

Still, Cuz, it wouldn’t take any massive courage to give this paper out to police, as you’d know that you would be helping them by spreading important knowledge. Yay!

THAT WAS THE END OF MY 2020 ARTICLE. AMONG THE COMMENTS IT RECEIVED, THESE MAY HELP SOME PHYSICIANS:

w3 December 3, 2020 At 11:16 pm

Actually, I have a little story. I got a “basal cell carcinoma” on my upper arm more than 20 years ago when I was under a lot of stress and the doc cut it out. Then I got another one same place more than 10 years ago and doc cut it out. Then I got another one too on the other arm, upper arm, the doc cut it out. After 3 of these I realised, that’s where they did the injections !!!

Reply. Mary Maxwell December 4, 2020 At 1:30 am

w3, I think it is known to veterinarians that shots cause cancers at the site, in cats. You could look it up; I do not have my research handy.

If you could go to my website http://www.constitutionandtruth.com

see the books page and download “Consider the Lilies.” i think it contains that information about cats. Vax for cats is possibly a racket.

Reply Famanda December 5, 2020 At 11:03 am

Try “nature’s scalpel” rather than a knife or Moh’s. Much cheaper, quick & painless. Beware tho’, it’s banned here I think..

karen A spitzer December 4, 2020 At 1:07 am

w3 I, too, had a Basal cell carcinoma removed from my upper left arm about 5 years ago with a Mohs Procedure. The cancerous growth was located exactly in the scar of my smallpox. vaccine which I received in the 1950’s.!!

[Jeepers. 70 years later??]

“If Oman gets in the way, we’ll bomb the [expletive] out of them,” Trump told Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst in a phone interview on Aug. 17.

AMERICANS, PLEASE WAKE UP. There is no need for you to feel “confused” about what is happening today. What is happening is the theft of your precious Constitution.

As I like to say, “You either have the Constitution or you don’t.” There is no partial way. You can’t have it for purposes of your Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury, for example, and not have it in regard to, say, the need for 2/3^rd Senate vote for treaties. It’s a package deal, thank God. A president can’t choose to violate any bit of it.

We Republicans should have stood up and screamed when Trump went to war on Feb 28, 2026 without a Congressional declaration of war -- per Article I, sec 8 of the Parchment (as I like to call it). How dare he? And how dare the 535 members of Congress not complain all in one loud chorus. How dare the Cabinet stay mum? Who do they think they are?

I am the Plaintiff/appellant in Maxwell v Trump, asking First Circuit court to intervene, but the Defendant/appellee, our president, has until Sept 23 to file a reply! We can’t wait that long. Pleeeeze pay attention. And I hereby absolve all Republicans (as I sprinkle you with holy water) from any prick of conscience about blaming DJT. “Saving Donald” has not got priority over saving mother Earth. Right?

And please pass this letter to any news outlet. EVERTHING IS AT STAKE. The Oman thing has to do with Trump’s plans to seize the Strait of Hormuz. He says he will bomb Oman, which shares the coast with Iran, if the Omanis get in his way. (When I lived in Abu Dhabi, from 1988-1993, my kitchen window looked out on Oman, a small country with many nomads.)

Phone the Congressional switchboard. They will connect you to your Rep. and or senator. Outside of hours, leave a voice message. Seriously. 202 224 3121. Need a way to remember the number? 224 is “Capital 4” and 3121 is, musically, “mi-do-re-do.” And everybody knows that 202 is the area code for Washington DC (or “the late Washington, DC” if we don’t’ watch out).

Trump has also discussed nukes lately. I will now post 3 videos that are shocking. The first is by a former member of National Security, Mr. Malcolm Nance (as interviewed by Mario Nawfal on YouTube), who gets emotional. In the second video, Glenn Diesen talks to retired Col Doug MacGregor. You may think the colonel is exaggerating, but even if he is, he’s still well within the ballpark. And finally one from X by a former leader in Greece, Mr Yanis. (If you’re wealthy, watch that one first.)

(Just the first 12 minutes will do.)

(or any of Doug’s many YouTubes)

/video/1 (Mr Yanis, yay!)

Or follow me at MaxwellM.substack.com. I am currently a candidate for US Senate and need any help I can get, though it’s only New Hampshire folks who can vote for me in the Sept 8 Republican primary. My email is MaxwellMaryLLB@gmail.com

I want to say this again: ACT NOW. I do realize the normal way to deal with a big worry is to say “Calmie downie. It will work itself out. America is a safe place. Blah blah.” No, no. Please forsake that tried-and-true path as it is not pertinent to the Iran war.

And when you go to alert friends and family, may I suggest you start off with: “I just read something by a nutter named Mary but I want you to hear what she says just in case by some small chance she is right…”

Thanks.

(L) Hedley Bull of Oxford (R) RJ Vincent of London School of Economics

by Mary Maxwell, LLB

AI has just given me this definition of ‘ontology’: “An ontology is a digital map that groups data and ideas into categories so computers can understand them.”

I don’t think so.

I think ontology means asking “What is real?” Remember when Descartes said “I think, therefore I am.”

“Look, Mary” (I hear you say) “just because you fancy yourself a Smarty Pants does not mean you know which things have the best claim to being real.”

OK, OK, there is room for disagreement. Ah, I just went to Google Scholar (which brings up abstracts from journals). Get a load of what Dale Jacquette says: “It is only by understanding pure philosophy that we can come to understand the nature of being, what it means for something to exist.”

Forget it. I only want to talk about the reality of the Middle East today. Every person over there, and most persons here, are feeling totally anxious. I have just watched a YouTube video by Susan Kokinda about “the Board of Peace.” (She leads a group in Michigan called Promethean Action.) Then I watched Patrick Wood, a finance expert give a 180-degree different description of the Board of Peace. (He was being interviewed by Cornelia at FlashlightProductions.substack.com .)

The result is that I feel sorry for college kids who are not given what we oldies were given: a lot of facts AND guidance to how to make sense of it all. On a single evening, they might watch videos that “teach” all of the following:

1. How Iran is using a strategy of harming our ships, even by causing such low morale that a sailor has jumped overboard. (They say that being at sea for 8 months is torture.)

2. How Israel is driving a million people out of their homes in South Lebanon.

3. Whether Trump is doing all this to distract from the Epstein files.

4. How much petrol and diesel is left and whether this will shut down all industry.

5. Whether last week’s primary wins for Democrats augurs a coming Socialism.

6. Why the Houthis are hitting Yemenis (with consequences for Saudi’s)

7. How Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi just created a mini-Nato.

8. Whether Trump really means he will annex Greenland to the US.

9. Whether US Treasury Secretary Bessent is doing the right thing by ordering heavy sanctions. (These make it hard for some nations to engage in trade,)

10. Whether Canada has lost free speech and why we suddenly see Flock Cameras.

Etc, etc.

WAIT. WAIT. WAIT. You can’t choose which to believe, if you don’t trust the person proposing one plan or another. Our culture in the 21^st century has become full of lies. The powerful don’t get punished for that. Nobody says “Stop lying or I’ll shoot you.” (Compare our dear nuns saying “Plagiarize your exam and I’ll flunk you.”)

The result of that, is all the claims sound somewhat untrustworthy. Plus, you are supposed to believe what your own leader says, or be considered disloyal. Plus, even if you agree that a certain claim sounds valid, we all know that the positions of the players are constantly changing due to new victories or defeats.

Perception of Reality Needs Moral Input

Right now we don’t have the institutions that used to be bulwarks of morality – the clergy, the “pillars of the community,” and academia. (Jewish Scholars were a particular treasure.) One factor that has got in the way is the sudden great difference in wealth. We all “understand” that a billionaire can, and does, do outlandishly anti-society thing. It would not even occur to us to correct this problem by taking away his wealth.

At her substack today, the brilliant Caitlin Johnstone says “Capitalism trains us to blame each other for offenses.” For example, she offers:

“Notice how “blame the individual” never applies in these cases [where billionaires do wrong]. If you want these individuals to be treated like a problem, then you’re a radical. You’re an extremist. You need to be put on a terrorist watch list. You and your friends need to be monitored and infiltrated by federal police. When it comes to those who prop up and profit from the system, blaming the individual is strictly prohibited.”

And: “Jailing an impoverished man for periodically shoplifting to survive? That’s fine; he should have behaved himself. Jailing a billionaire for buying elections and poisoning our planet? That’s evil. Shame on you for even thinking that.”

Hmm. See? Caitlin is always forthright about evil actions, and about the hold that powerful people have over us. When we should scream, when we used to scream, we now shut up, thanks to surveillance. Possibly if a considerable number of people screamed today, moral thinking could return.

Add to this that it is foreign to us to compare our morals with those of our enemy. We make it a point to say he does not have morals. Maybe he is a terrorist, a jihadi, a born killer. We don’t have any basis or experience of him to let us measure how much bad he is going to do. I look upon this as an issue that follows from our instinctive dual-morality. (Recall Reinhold Niebuhr’s theory.) And it feels positively shameful for us to show admiration of a foreigner who has hurt us, even if we deserved it.

Ah, that reminds me of another cause of our living with very mixed up morality – sex! I mean gender. The male is truly burdened by his inclination to maintain his pride in all circumstances of rivalry with his peers. Showing weakness is prohibited, but this mans we cannot today live up to the MOU – Memorandum of Understanding -- that US President Trump signed with Iran’s surviving leaders. And within the army itself, our guys are going nuts over the fact that their leader does not care about their fate.

The Board of Peace

Allow me to compare the two aforementioned videos about the Board of Peace. In one of them, Patrick Wood says that we see here a phantasmagorical move by Trump. He has issued Executive Order number 14375, dated January 16, 2026. Wood says it “allows” Trump to grab land, such as Gaza and Cuba, with no legal excuse. He simply says he can do it, and the wording of the EO means he is entitled to have board members enjoy diplomatic privileges.

Conversely, Susan Kokinda is all accepting of the plan I mentioned involving Treasurer Bessent. He is slated to squeeze the hell out of Iranians by bank sanctions. The plan is for America to suffer relatively little from oil tie-ups and in fact will become the manager of the straits of Hormuz. Kokinda’s view of Trump is all-forgiving of his blatant lies. I would like to believe that her scheme is reality, but Trump’s amorality prevents me. As for Wood, I only hope his interpretation of the EO 14375 as a veritable proclamation of Empire is incorrect.

The Solution

To repeat: young people do not know how much fun we had at their age when college taught us that here are methods for determining the right and wrong of international affairs. I say we have to take a slightly different approach now. We’ve got to tell the silly males to step aside. Or at least instruct them to abandon their pride for a wile.

I recommend that we cast our eyes on our own sins in international matters. We have grabbed every resource we could grab. That’s easy to do when we can bribe or blackmail or intimidate a foreign leader to let us buy metals or crops or whatever at a huge bargain. And we were the Bretton Woods creator that, in the end, bequeathed the governance of many nations to IMF.

I propose that we, the proles, should make a clear case for the fact that our top dogs (call them the billionaires, the Epstein class, whatever you like) treat us the same as they treat our “enemies.” And therefore they are our enemy.

A few chores are thus revealed — we must talk about INTERNATIONAL MORALITY. Recall the hit song “Give peace a chance”? Start by laying out the positive value of peace and of kindness and of protecting the land, sea, and air.

My PhD thesis said all of that is impossible. I wrote it in the ’80s under the influence of Hedley Bull and John Vincent of Oxford (I was in Australia, Bull’s birthplace). My book got published by State University of New York Press as Morality among Nations (1990).

When Hedley Bull (1932-1985) knew he was dying of cancer, he asked John Vincent to replace him as my helper. John then got a sudden cancer and died young. (1943-1990). It is my belief that they both were bumped off because they were going to push their own students into talking about -- God forbid! -- right and wrong. John Vincent’s book is called Human Rights in International Relations. Hedley’s is International Anarchy: A Study of Order in World Politics.

Back to ontology. I say our moral behavior (being good) is a common form of reality. We have an endocrine system to help us get a hormone flow for generosity. Similarly, our immorality (being evil) is also a form of reality. It springs both from the necessary selfishness of an individual’s life, and from the loss of structure in 21^st century society.

As I said, ontology gives guidance. How about a Cartesian update: “I moralize, therefore I am.”

Here’s some good news, the book by Philip Allott, The Health of Nations: Society and Law Beyond the State (2002), has been uploaded in full by some philosophers, to the Internet. And what ho, the 2025 Hedley Bull prize has been awarded to Luis Schenoni for his work about 19^th century Latin America, entitled Bring War Back In. He said:

“Winning the ECPR’s Hedley Bull Prize is a deeply humbling honour. I take this recognition as not only about my work, but also about the urgent need to re-examine how we understand war in international politics.” [Emphasis added]

Marquam Nature Park, Photo credit: Wikipedia

by Mary Maxwell, LLB, current candidate for US Senate, in NH primary

Pretend we have a current president named Dionysus Smith, and in the past we had a female US president, named Graciella Pink. Imagine that it has recently come out that many years ago they jointly murdered someone. President Pink was in her last year of office when it happened. Dionysius was a professional musician in an orchestra, never imagining that he would eventually be a US president.

The event took place years ago, when Pink and Dionysius were close friends. One night they decided to kill a homeless person in the park, in Maryland. Both used knives to slay the guy, and together they wrapped the body in a garbage bag and then dumped it in a river.

Both Pink and Smith were sober and not on drugs. She was age 45 he was age 49. Now we learn that Pink’s Secret Service bodyguard, Sam, was there too. He did not participate in the violence; he acted as a watchman to see that no person came along that night, at either the park or the river.

Sam did not feel guilty, as he had regularly been at her side to watch out for the safety of this female president. It was his job. Granted, he was also told to wash Graciella Pink’s dress, which was bloody, and to wash Dionysius Smith’s pullover. He was aware that such hiding of evidence made him an accomplice.

Over the years he hushed it all up, as he feared the anger of his wife and kids if it came out. Today Sam is very old and has chosen to blow the story open. What! A current president is a murderer, and a past president is also a murderer? And it was not for a cause, it was ‘just a lark’?

Dear Reader, perhaps you are thinking one of the following commonsense thoughts: 1. No one will bother about this event because it’s in the past. Although there’s no statute of limitations on murder (or anything connected to it, such as the laundering of telltale garments), it’s a “dead issue.” People will prefer to forget it.

2. You may predict, however that Smith, the current president, will resign, or be pushed to resign, as it’s disgraceful for him to continue as president.

3. Maybe you’re under the impression that a 2024 US Supreme Court decision more or less said “We don’t prosecute presidents.” Thus, you may think the case can’t be dealt with by a judge.

4. I bet you’ll say that Sam should not be prosecuted, owing to his age, and because it’s silly to pick on the least culpable of the three participants.

Now I want to confess that the above story is just me setting up a scenario for discussion. I want to state many things that are available for us to deal with the crimes of presidents. I’ll go over several laws, and ways in which laws are handled.

This gig is to help us know what must be done about both Pink and Smith.

Constitutional Authority

The US Constitution has 7 Articles and 27 Amendments. Most are about the limited powers of government. The actual parchment specifies only a few crimes, for example piracy and counterfeit. Later, Federal crimes grew to include many things, such as drug dealing.

Note: In the United States, the making of law is always done by legislators, whether federal or state. The president has zero authority to “make” a law. His so-called Executive Orders can only cover areas in which he, or she, already possesses the relevant authority. I look upon most EO’s as invalid, except, you know, “July Fourth holiday, on a Sunday this year, will move to Monday the fifth.”

(Same for a presidential “signing statement” when he signs a law that Congress has passed. Sure, let him rant on, but his signature to that law makes every bit of that law effective. During Bill Clinton’s administration, the Court also clarified that when signing a law, the US president cannot do a “line veto” -- saying, as it were, that he is signing for everything except the bit about the whatchamacallit).

State Law

Is state law justified by the US Constitution? Yes, the states came first. In 1787 their delegates sat in the Philadelphia Convention and agreed to yield some state powers to Congress, to the President, and to the judiciary. They kept for their state, the right to do anything that the Constitution did not expressly forbid to them to do. The states are sovereigns and their prerogatives, as claimed in the 9^th an 10^th Amendments, are huge.

So we can ask right now, did the murder in the park fall under the federal list of crimes (which are easy to find at 18 USC), or state crimes? I think it is a state crime, for Maryland to deal with. Almost surely Maryland has legislation about homicide.

But even if it didn’t, there is a thing called “the common law.” When a lawyer wants to find it, she goes to case law (aka jurisprudence), including what was written before our 1776 Independence. We quietly inherited English jurisprudence, wholesale, as a British colony. Only if Maryland has specifically legislated that homicide is NOT a crime, would killing be allowed in that state.

“Court” Law

Courts cannot make new law but they do offer interpretations of existing law that may push it in one direction or another. The Framers of the Constitution did not mean to leave us puzzled about who has authority for what. The court’s responsibilities are spelled out in that document.

We often picture the court as a law enforcer. “Oh, you’re planning to embezzle some funds? Watch out, the court will get you.” Not really. The tapping of the gavel that sends you to prison may seem to have come from the court, but it came from a prosecutor who caused charges to be brought against you in the first place.

Note: I’m not talking about civil cases here, that is, lawsuits. Those are not usually brought by a prosecutor, but by a citizen or an organization. You can march straight into the office of the Clerk-of-Court and file a case, say for a broken contract. Both plaintiff or defendant can argue the law and yes, it will be a judge that makes the decision, or a jury if the plaintiff has demanded a jury trial.

As for you trying to get jail time for a violent person who hurt you, no. You can only go to court to seek a payout, known ‘damages’ — which doesn’t cause him to go to jail. Separately. though, you can report him to police.

Who Will Deal with Pink and Smith?

In this article I created a model case that involves a sitting president and a former president. I want to show that their rank does not give them any special protection from the law. Pink was in office before the relevant SCOTUS decision, Trump v US, and even when it did appear in 2024, it protects a president from prosecution only for his/her official deeds. A murder in the park would in no way garner such special treatment.

Let me mention two other famous events. During Nixon’s presidency he refrained from handing over some evidence of a crime that he could be accused of, known as Watergate. It had to do with a break-in at his political opponent’s office. SCOTUS said “Sorry, you have to hand it over” — just like any citizen. We all have to cough up whatever the court subpoenas.

Then there was Clinton’s presidency where a woman wanted to sue him and the Court told her “You have to wait till he is out of office.” I think that was wise, as we need our president to be concentrating on his work. The plaintiff did not lose her chance to sue; it was merely delayed.

Now, how should former president Pink and sitting president Smith be dealt with? The state of Maryland should recognize a duty to get the case rolling against Graciella Pink. Normally, a court likes to do a double whammy where two people worked together. Yet it would be reasonable to forgo that practice, and undertake the indicting of Pink alone. (Lex est dictamen rationis — law is the dictate of reason.)

Note: The Bill of Rights calls for a trial to be preceded by an indictment. That’s done by Grand Jurors; they are tasked with finding if there is at least enough evidence to warrant a trial. The Grand Jury’s work is conducted in secret, to guard against ruining the name of a person who has been accused by mistake, or by a troublemaker.

When a case is federal, the US Attorneys direct the Grand Jury-ing. For specific crimes, such as drug running, the FBI may be involved. In the 50 states, it will be the state’s Attorney General, or District Attorney of a county, whose prosecutors do this. Having then been indicted, the person goes for a trial by a jury of his peers. The Magna Carta of 1215 says so, and it is still in force.

A Side Issue: Impeaching Smith

Note that the trial of Pink will be of great interest, since her co-criminal is sitting in the White House. Indeed the likely thing is that it would all be so scandalous, that Dionysius Smith would be pressured to resign. Granted, the US House of Representatives could impeach him. They would probably impeach him for a misbehavior other than the murder in the park. Any misdemeanour can suffice for an impeachment.

Next, the Articles of Impeachment would be delivered to the US Senate. During President Donald Trump’s second impeachment, the Party controlling the Senate, viz, the Republicans, opted to vote against convicting him, without further ado -- that is, without discussing the allegations. As you know, the so-called conviction in an impeachment case is not a conviction for crime.

I wish the Senate had run an impeachment trial, as it involved the so-called Insurrection of Jan 6. My view is that Trump is innocent of that, but how can I argue for him with no evidence? Since partisan ‘weaponisation’ of the law has become commonplace, we are all disadvantaged.

Back to the park-murder, it could have begun by a civil action, leaving till later any work for prosecutors or Attorneys General. Namely, Sam could have come forward with a cry-baby lawsuit. He could claim that President Pink did him wrong by ordering him, as her bodyguard, to witness her crime and then have to swallow it all his life, for his own protection (and to avoid divorce.)

Don’t think that couldn’t happen. It could. Sam has access to the courts as an aggrieved citizen. I forgot to say earlier that he might have been able to angle a deal, getting immunity from prosecution for his willingness to testify against criminals.

A final point about sitting president Smith. He should not try to pardon himself. (Nemo judex in causa sua — No man can be the judge in his own case.)

My Hand

I now reveal my hand to show that “Pink” stands for many of our previous presidents, perhaps all of the five still-living ones: Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden and Trump. As for “Smith,” he must stand for our actual sitting president, Trump. Naturally, I do not accuse Trump of going to the park to murder a homeless person. But I do see him doing other crimes. Lawyers have identified many of them lately, on social media. So why are we hamstrung about this?

I think the reason people choose not to notice a leader’s crimes is that to do so is very frightening. “Who will protect us?” Also, we tend to assume that there’s some very high-up mechanism for arresting a prestigious official.

Americans have forgotten that no one is above the law. There has been an astounding relaxation of the rules for officials (and billionaires). The practice of impunity – failure to punish – has turned our national life upside down. Please pay attention to this silly development!

The Constitution says, verbatim, “The President… shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” I recommend President Trump arrest himself for fraud -– he fraudulently claimed that he had legitimate power to start the war in Iran. Clearly he has no such power, and has caused men to die unwarrantedly and, thus, unfairly.

To repeat: my murder-in-the-park example was not a true story. There was never a President Dionysius Smith who killed a homeless man. But today’s sitting president has – correct me if I’m wrong – caused the wrongful death of at least 18 soldiers.

Can their families file a lawsuit for wrongful death? Generally, United States law does not allow any member of the military to claim damages for injury or death. Of course that is sensible --- they’re supposed to face all risks to help us defeat the enemy. Protecting one’s society valiantly has been a male duty for millennia.

But no one has a duty to obey illegal orders.

Question: If a president has gone to war in a way that defies the Constitution, what is the status of the whole war? Is it “illegal”? We don’t really have any tradition with which to analyse such a thing.

Since February 20, 2026, I have been running a case in federal court, Maxwell v Trump. It asks for a Declaratory judgment as to the requirement that Congress declare war. Sadly, President Trump is allowed until September 25^th to file his reply. (My response to that delay is “Apices juris non sunt jura” – the niceties of the law are not the law.)

How many wrongful deaths will take place between today, August 13, and September 25? How about fifty thousand?

Oh, and would it be asking too much for Congress to show up and fulfil its constitutional responsibility? Please? Pretty please? Pretty, pretty please?

-- Mary Maxwell’s website is ConstitutionAndTruth.com

by Mary Maxwell, LLB

Dear Readers, please listen to this 2.5 minute video of “Carolina in the Morning,”

The lyrics are by Gus Kahn. It was composed by Walter Donaldson in 1922, hence is out of copyright. This version was sung by Al Jolson almost 80 years ago.

I am looking for volunteers to sing it, using my new lyrics for a song called “Millions of Lives at Stake.” If you want help with this musical production, please email me at MaxwellMaryLLB@gmail.com. You can go a capella, beat, Gospel or whatever. Thank you. This is my protest of the US war with Iran.

Title of song: “Millions of Lives at Stake”

All will come asunder, from our February blunder

In the land of oil.

What could be as crazy as a Congress that’s so lazy

It abjures all toil.

1.///// When our elected leader, signs an M.O.U.

Americans think he means it.

I did. How ’bout you?

Then he gets all surly, when the dew is pearly, early,

Sending missiles galore.

Other nations join the fray, and so the price we’ll have to pay,

Might be World War.

^^^Pay attention, citizens, and do what you can.

Demand the best from every woman and man.

Imagine our reputation, if we “destroy a civilization”

In the mooooorning.

*******

2. /////When you look at history, back to ancient times,

Tribes notice very quickly. All of the other side’s crimes.

Spoiled their de-salination? They’re gonna feel temptation

To shoot some darts.

We see that tribes are ganging. Oh, wouldn’t they love a hanging,

They don’t lack smarts.

^^^Some-thing makes me want to say, to any soul near

Crimes of war get punished, so we’d better feel fear.

You know they’ll quash immunity. And it’s curtains for impunity!

In the moooor-ning.

*****

3.///// Bets are now against us, as we made mistakes,

Are there any politicians, whom you take to be fake?

God didn’t give the U.S.A., a blanket right to have its way,

No ifs, ands, or buts.

It’s time now to be brothers, we’ll all be facing hunger,

No matter what.

^^^^^If we get Aladdin’s lamp for only a day, make Feb’ry twenty-eight go away.

Then we’ll start a fresh new climb, with solidar-i-ty and spine

in the moooooorning.

(Readers, I don’t like making humor about this very unhumorous situation, but I’m searching for ways to state the issues without getting all political. As soon as I heard Al Jolson sing, the verses popped outta me. Maybe we could get a band to play it.)

Note: the ex-choir director in me added these markers:

///// means: Use Jolson’s tune for “when the morning glory”.

^^^^^ means: Use his tune for “If I had Aladdin’s lamp.”

(L) A 1968 book by Suzanne Caum (R) William f Koch, MD (1885-1967)

by Mary Maxwell, LLB

Child trafficking and the suppression of cures for cancer are two crimes that I worked on revealing for many years. My books haven’t made much of a dent, but suddenly, thanks to Congressional hearings widely watched on social media, the barrier has been broken. People are now interested.

I am referring to hearings on the Epstein files and a one-day hearing on Dr Fauci’s misbehavior in Covid pandemic. So far, the suppression of cancer cures is not on the table. So now I will republish an item I wrote (in Australia, at Gumshoenews.com) on July 7, 2024 about Koch’s cure. (It does not include the recipe of the cure.)

The article was intended to celebrate the 75^th – mind you, the 75^th – anniversary of the day in 1949, “when Suzanne Caum walked into Dr William Koch’s office in Detroit Michigan and got cured, almost instantly, of debilitating arthritis. Three weeks later she sold her crutches.”

Later, in 1968, she wrote a highly referenced 700-page book, Cancer Cures Crucified.

We need to concentrate on the cruelty of these activities, not merely chalk them up to greed, conflicts of interest, party politics or whatever. They are cruel. The public really needs to hear about this. Even today there is major reluctance, by those in the know, to open their yap and talk about the cruelty -- deliberate cruelty -- that is involved.

Dr William Frederick Koch (not to be confused with his uncle, Robert Koch, who created “Koch’s postulates”) was born in 1885. He got his MD degree from Detroit College of Medicine in 1919, when he was 34 years old. The reason for the lateness of graduation was that he had already had a career as a biochemist.

In 1917, he accomplished his first cure of a hospitalized woman’s malignant tumor of the liver. Almost immediately the “authorities” were onto him. They offered to buy his cure, which he had named glyoxylide. He refused to sell. (I assume they would buy it to suppress it, not to publicize it.)

Here is just one of his many the many cured patients of Dr William Koch (I’m paraphrasing Caum’s pages79-84):

Mr John K weighed 200 pounds, was a laborer at the automobile factory [in Detroit, natch]. He entered hospital in September 1941 and by February 1942 was given a colostomy. Was down to a hundred pounds with a huge tumor sticking through his abdomen, a piece of which they cut off, mainly to relieve the horrible odor. Record: “Henry Ford Hospital. Dr Fallis: The tumor shows metastatic carcinoma of the colon.... This is entirely a hopeless case.” Sent home April 1st, 1942. On the way home, stopped at Koch’s clinic and got a cancer-cure shot. By late July he weighed 175 pounds and was back to work.

The Vow

Now back to Ms Caum. She had heard about Koch’s cancer cure from the community, and also knew of his successful treatment of mastitis in cattle. In fact, the provincial government of British Columbia commended Koch for that particular contribution to Canada’s farming economy.

Caum also seems to have been sincerely religious. On the way to her appointment of July 7, 1949, she vowed to God that if Koch relieved the pain of her arthritis, she would “devote her life and energy to binging this treatment to others” (page 8).

Boy, did she stick with the program. Many pages in her book, Cancer Cures Crucified, are taken up with transcripts of court cases. We’d never have known the courtroom tactics involved, in pounding down on the curing doctors, if she had not bothered to tell us.

I do believe Caum’s work will come into play in prosecutions against some of the connivers in the 2020-2024 pandemic. Hopefully it happens before the next pandemic, predicted by Bill Gates, comes into force -- complete with Lockdowns and re-education camps for people who distribute misinformation.

The FTC

The article at hand will emphasize one particular factor in the persecution of Dr Koch, viz., the way the FTC Federal Trade Commission brought him to court. William Koch’s cure has to do with oxygenation of blood, and accords well with the theory of Otto Warburg who won the 1934 Nobel Prize for his ideas about oxygenization.

Readers have heard me natter on about the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution which enables legislation in the area of interstate, but not intrastate business. The wording in Article I, section 8, Clause 3, is: “Congress shall have Power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States.... “

“Commerce” means buying, selling, and transporting goods. Going by what was debated at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the point of “regulating” commerce among the states was to make sure one state was not obstructing business in another state. There were no railroads until 1827, and no trucks until 1910; goods were made and sold locally. But with the growth of the United States, and wheeled transport instead of horses, goods made in one state could be marketed in a distant state.

Thanks to the work of the muckrakers (reformers), Congress gave the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC, power to enforce honesty in labeling. If you said the package that you are selling, interstate, contains 10 pounds of potatoes, it had better contain 10 pounds of potatoes. The FTC was allowed to seize rotten meat in transit.

David (Dr Koch) against Several Goliaths

A valuable part of Suzanne Caum’s book shows us the energy that the FTC expended doing things, mostly illegal, to persecute the good doctor. (Australia is good at that, too. See my 2023 book “Society Is the Authority: Law and the Russell Pridgeon Case”.)

A quick list. Harassment of Koch began in 1917 when he did his first cure (which he says was accidental!) On a later case, the “baddies” got a Grand Jury in Michigan to indict Koch by telling those grand jurors that Koch was a crook and as soon “as the indictment was made,” they would reveal the evidence against him. [!] (Read that again.)

In 1942, the indictment was sent to police in Koch’s then-home of Delray, Florida where, on Good Friday, he was arrested. He was taken to a jail cell that was, shall; we say, Fecal City. He got bail of $10,000 which was illegally high in Florida. Later he was tried (for “falsely” claiming that his product could cure cancer), and this ended with a hung jury.

In 1946 he went through the same routine. The most crucial support he got was from the head of the DOW chemical company, who averred that Koch was a genius!

Outside forces included his cured patients being threatened with death if they testified; a most helpful Dr Arnott of Canada being summoned to be a witness against Koch (and was almost extradited when he refused); a spy moving into the house in back of Koch’s office; and a suspicious death of a helpful bureaucrat. Check this from page 196:

“One juror was a little crippled woman who was reportedly beaten into submission in the jury room.... [This] was corroborated by another juror.”

During preparation of the FTC’s file, “officials” marched into the hospital that harbored an essential proof of Koch’s work, in the form of the biopsy of a patient, Mrs Trapp. They took it away, and never admitted that it was they who showed up to collect it.

In other words, the familiar litany of how a government, because it wears the badge, can cancel all of a citizen’s rights to a fair trial. Would that we all had a Mrs Caum to dig for it and express it in a rational way.

Long story short, the FTC invoked a cease-and-desist order against Koch Laboratories, Dr. Koch, and his brother. It legally required the parties to discontinue use of allegedly false advertisements. Today’s COVID sleuths should have a glance at this law, still in force: See 15 USC 52(a):

“It shall be unlawful for any person... , to disseminate, ... any false advertisement—(1)m By United States mails, or in or having an effect upon commerce, by any means, for the purpose of inducing, ... the purchase of food, drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics; ...”

Koch more or less stopped feeding the cure to other doctors, although for a while he was welcome in Brazil where the government wanted him to cure patients — until the US interfered down there, too. In 1948, TIME magazine did for Koch’s theory what the MSM did for ivermecin theory. A complete smear job, taken seriously by the whole population.

Can the Bureaucracy Prosecute?

Finally, Suzanne Caum did a very good job of exposing the way in which the FTC could, legally, be almost the prosecutor itself. It had the authority to hand to the judge and jury its facts, even if they were based on “experts’ opinions” which are not facts. And it could legally -- I am using that term in a devil-may-care fashion -- decide to NOT put into the file some pieces of evidence that were fabulously in Koch’s favor.

For now, I do not know if the recent SCOTUS case, overturning “the Chevron doctrine” will prevent federal agencies from having such outrageous powers. If yes, that may help us a lot with matters Covid.

In sum, best wishes to the late Suzanne Caum, and massive thanks to her for never backing down, and for fulfilling her beautiful vow.

Postscript regarding the Commerce Clause

I can say from my experience with the Boston Marathon bombing case (in which I am an amicus curiae) that US prosecutors bring charges against a person by claiming that the crime committed is federal when “interstate commerce” is involved. The involvement can be hilariously minor. Dzhokhar “Jahar” Tsarnaev was accused of causing property damage on Boylston St, Boston, therefore the state (Massachusetts) could have prosecuted it. The excuse for federalizing it was that the Marathon brings in spectators, as tourists, from all over the place.

Note: One of the charges for which Jahar was convicted is that he murdered a cop, Sean Collier, at MIT. The jury must have been bamboozled on that one, as there is no evidence. I say it’s not too late for Massachusetts to retry him. Surely Jahar won’t claim “double jeopardy” since he is on Death Row. And doesn’t the late MIT cop Sean Collier deserve better justice than to have his death made a convenient tool?

What could the Framers of the US Constitution have been thinking in that hot summer of 1787 when they offered to protect each state as a republic? They wrote in Article IV:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

What if any state gets taken over by thugs, or by extremists fostering some sort of a cult, or by a subtle band of thieves who are able to nestle inconspicuously into government positions?

Oops, I just hopped over to Google scholar (source of links to journals), and typed “Guarantee Clause, Article IV.” I am dismayed to read, in a 1993 article by Edward Stelzer, that the US Supreme Court considers cases about this clause to be non-justiciable under its doctrine of “the political question.” But I like Stelzer’s heading: “Bearing the Judicial Mantle: State Enforcement of the Guarantee Clause.” Yipee!

Instead of analyzing the jurisprudence, or lack thereof, regarding Article IV, let’s look more generally at the means available for someone, anyone, to crack down on the depriving of a state of a republican form of government.

Imagine that the people, most of whom would like to be freed from the burden of maintaining a great lie, are held in a sort of psychological trap based on fear. Question: Can other states run in and save that state? Can you personally, right now, march in and do something? If armed forces of that state yell “Stay out,” could you invoke Article IV? The answer must be Yes because there it is in black and white. The Framers of the Constitution didn’t put it there for no reason.

Legality and Constitutionality of Defying Authority

I believe we are biologically geared up to obey. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Edward Carrington in 1788, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Who has the guts to face a man wearing a badge and carrying not only a gun but the respect of most of the people? It’s difficult — but it has been done.

Anyway, you are “wearing a badge” when you act in defense of the Constitution. And the Constitution has higher authority than bad (nullifiable) laws. At the time of the founding of the United States, people took a position on the subject of blind obedience to authority. The proper authority in 1775 was King George III of Britain.

It was decided that he was doing a bad job. Here is an abridged version of “where we told him he could go”:

“IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

“The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, …

“[And] that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Please stick with me through this article’s material. If you think it is hard to follow, that’s because it is inherently stacked! We have a subconscious loyalty to our tribe. As Americans the tribe means America. We can join up emotionally whenever someone tells us that X or Y is the enemy, but when we hear compatriots criticize our nation or its leaders, we get defensive.

So, today, when it is a fact that Americans are harming us, we are not well prepared to try to rouse our countrymen against our countrymen! (Note how cleverly Jefferson, penning the Declaration of Independence, construed the king as enemy.) Let me give two historic examples of internal conflict — the Whiskey Rebellion of 1792 and Hurricane Katrina of 2005.

In western Pennsylvania some producers of whiskey disagreed with being taxed. They fought against tax collectors even to the point of tarring and feathering. I quote from history.com:

″On September 11, 1791, excise officer Robert Johnson was riding through his collection route in western Pennsylvania. [They] stripped him naked and then tarred and feathered him before stealing his horse and abandoning him in the forest.”

President George Washington called out the militia, I presume with Congress’s say-so per Article I, section 8, Clause 15, and rode out with 12,000 troops to put down the rebellion. He justified this with the following section of a now-repealed law:

“Whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed in any state by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings … it shall be lawful for the President to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state shall refuse or be insufficient… it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States shall not be in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto as may be necessary.”

I have bolded the phrases most relevant to us today. There is a large combination governing us, sub rosa. You could call it “the Establishment.” It seems to include corporations, part of the military, finance, medicine, and astonishingly Academia. These must be the organizers of hoaxes. They are doing us in. It’s up to any citizen to think of ways to get around their terrific combined power.

An example is Hurricane Katrina. Very likely this terrible event was geo-engineered. Part of the plan was for a precedent-setting federal takeover, but Louisiana Gov Kathleen Blanco held firm against President Bush’s efforts to nationalize the Louisiana Guard. I mention it because the president did bow to the law!

Getting the Baddies

Trust me when I say it’s all about getting the baddies. I’ll repeat that sentence: [The solution] is all about getting the baddies. How do I know that the solution is not about spreading love, or electing a different Party’s leader, or undergoing some transhumanist alteration? I know because I can see how clearly it is the baddies who “do in” our otherwise good system.

The problem is that we don’t get the baddies. We don’t charge them with crime. We “forgive” them. It is natural to forgive members of an elite group. We subconsciously prefer to do that. After all, it’s natural to be embarrassed about their wrongdoing. We automatically rationalize it. “It’s not there. All is well.”

Wouldn’t you agree that today’s policemen are completely un-motivated to chase after the people who do hoaxes? It is part of their training to keep on chasing after small-time criminals. Where there is a huge crime going on, such as the CIA’s importing of crack cocaine in the 1980s, or Big Pharma’s giving injections of poison, cops are told to send the matter upstirs to specialists in the force. That specialist specializes in cover up. No worries of the coverup includes killing a whistleblower or two. That’s show biz.

Back to the Guarantee Clause in Article IV

The US Constitution can be interpreted not only as black-letter-law but as incorporating — and thereby solidifying — society’s values. Indeed, the US Supreme Court has often made its ruling based on the spirit of the dear parchment. Article IV’s guarantee clause promises that if a state stops being a republic, society will come to the rescue of the people of that state.

The clause can readily be interpreted to mean: “Hey, we, your Founding Fathers were not born yesterday. We’ve seen human nature for what it is. We know it would not take much for a secret group to use its wits to cancel the people’s right. They’d install their own little tyranny — and scare everyone by shows of ruthlessness — just like ol’ Machiavelli said in 1532.”

Therefore, your response to today’s takeover of the US by the globalists can deploy the heartfelt message of Article IV in new ways. In my 2021 book Keep the Republic, Kill the Takeover, I listed methods that are already on the books as to legal ways of reacting. Here are some that most people aren’t aware of.

— citizen’s arrest for felonies that have been or are about to be committed

— law of outlawry for persons who are beyond the law (it is open season to kill them)

— the ability to hold, without criminal charge, a person who has information we need, per the federal Material Witness Act

— the ability of citizens to form a grand jury to investigate and, if appropriate, indict any criminal

— the duty of cops and soldiers to disobey illegal orders

— the ordinary law of self-defense: If someone is about to kill you or seriously injure you or a person close to you, you may use force, including lethal force, against them.

— your right to start a truth commission or committee

— your state’s right to nullify an unconstitutional law

— your right to file a lawsuit, including a civil RICO suit.

Swearda God, all of these are enshrined in black-letter-law.

-- Mary’s interest when she made the video above, in 2015, was the Boston case where FBI did naughty things. She then wrote a book entitled “The Marathon Bombing and the Soul of Boston.” (It’s on the shelf at the BPL.) A subsequent revision is downloadable here: https://gumshoenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/MaryMaxwell_StopLyingAboutTheMarathonBombing_.pdf

President’s 71st birthday party, in Hueytown, Alabama, June 14^th, 2017, with the author and a jazz musician

by Mary Maxwell, LLB

Dear President Trump,

You email me every week, often starting with the words “I thought of you when I boarded Air Force One.” Some of your letters ask me to explain why I, a Republican, have not made a contribution lately. I have wanted to tell you why, but as soon as I get to the bottom of your email, I see that there’s no way for me to turn the page without giving what my mother used to call d’argent.

I’ve decided to give you d’argent, maybe 50 bucks, so that I can tell you MY STUFF, and I will also walk a copy to the Post Office. PLEASE LISTEN BECAUSE I CAN ACTUALLY BE OF HELP TO YOU.

THREE REASONS TO END THE WAR IN IRAN

Yesterday I attended a play in New Hampshire (“Cabaret”), and stood outside holding up my sign “Stop the war in Iran.” Most of the audience were Seniors, about 70 of them. Some ignored me but most gave a signal of agreement or a word of encouragement. Only one guy, God love’m, spoke against me because “Trump is working very hard for us.” I asked “How?” He said “The president stays up late every night, working for America.”

Nice idea, but I do not see anyone working for America effectively. To do so would mean withdrawing from this stupid and horrendous war.

President Donald, you are a guy. That is a problem. Guys don’t think the way we gals do. In the matter of war, or ecological destruction, a female has the instinct to stop such insults on life itself. But the poor ol’ males are burdened by pride, competitiveness, and the sheer need to respond to a whack with a bigger whack. You, and your male coworkers, are going to have to devalue the pride, the competing, and the urge to whack, OK? I’m not saying go take Estrogen pills. I’m saying listen to the 50% of the human race who are female. Their ideas are more sensible on this subject.

Here are my three reasons to end this particular war:

1. It is causing environmental destruction and there really is no excuse for that. We are living on God’s bounty and who are we to turn that bounty into rubble? By the way, Isfahan in Iran is considered a city of great artistic beauty, and I have heard briefly on the news that you attacked Isfahan.

I did not google to find out more, because I’d rather not know! Why would you destroy a beautiful city? By the way, it was during your predecessor’s term in 2022 that the Nord Stream pipeline was blown up. I have yet to hear anyone complain or even discuss the way that would have damaged Nature. Such actions are outrageous, unforgivable.

2. This war is killing, wounding, and bereaving a lot of people. I have been without my spouse for 26 years, so I know something about the permanence of it all. His death was not military, however. Today if you (yes, you) cause a death of a 25-year-old, that takes away his next 50 or even 70 years. I hear you have already caused many such deaths of Americans, and numerous foreigners. And just think how many mourners there are!

In the past, it was a great honor for US soldiers and sailors to die for their country, but sorry, there’s no particular honor in dying for a meaningless war. Oh, one soldier reported, back in March 2026, that his Commander said they were dying for Christ. Nice try, old chap, but I don’t think so. They are dying because of our brainless international set-up. (If you need help with this, The UK’s Prof Emeritus Philip Allott will oblige, I’m sure.)

So that is my first two, very ordinary uncomplicated reasons. Now look at #3.

3. You should end the war (preferably in the next 48 hours) because a whole species – the 8 billion of us – is being disadvantaged by the fact that an American president looks like he does not know what he’s doing. This is a top reason to give up on the “I’m gonna put Iran in its place” theme. Nobody is fooled by that. You already said on Day One that you had no plan.

Is there somebody you should be angry with for sending you astray? Go ahead, be angry. It looks funny to see you mumbling excuses or trying to justify your role in this war. My mother would have judged you to be “tilting at windmills.” I’m not sure what that expression refers to, but we can all see what you are NOT doing and what you should do.

You should, first of all, own up to your error. A goof is a goof is a goof. It’s natural. Everybody makes mistakes. Right now the Cabinet members, who should be telling you to jump ship, are all caught up in trying to re-interpret your error for you. They say things like “Better to deal with Iran now than later when they get nukes.”

By the way, Prof Jeffrey Sachs, who is no slouch, says Iran already has a nuke or two. And I, who likewise am no slouch, say nukes are small beer compared to Directed Energy Weapons. Not to mention CERN!

The New President

We are looking for a new president, a new leader who will give strength to this nation. I believe that “new” president should be you. Rather than removing you from office, which would be yucky, the future could be almost miraculous, with you coming to the fore for Peace.

Mr Trump, during your early years I lived overseas and never even heard of Trump Tower. Or its namesake. But by May 2017, I was in US. The reigning president, you, seemed quite OK. I even attended a birthday party for you that year (photo above). We Republicans were happy for you.

Come to think of it, the big “I hate Dems/ I hate Repubs” thing had not yet become noticeable. Then in the last 9 years it has all but made Congress impossible. And – surely by someone’s design – it has made patriots get silly and nasty. We are all suffering. We’ve lost our freedom and dignity. Joy has gone missing. (Remember joy?)

D.J.T. COULD BE THE HUMAN BEING WHO TURNS ALL THAT AROUND.

Mind, you’d need a whole new Cabinet. May I offer some names? Candace Owens for FBI Director. Peter McCullough for Health Advisory (but no one at FDA, as that is an unconstitutional entity). Col Douglas Macgregor for Sec’y of War. Some rootin’ tootin’ intellectual (I don’t know any) for Education Advisory (that, too, is an unconstitutional department.) For Sec’y of State you could pick your niece Mary Trump, who has a lot happening in the cerebral area.

Treasurer: no contest, it’s Catherine Austin Fitts. Dep’t of Love (not kidding): Marianne Williamson. Attorney General? I would pick a man with rabbinic training who knows how justice gets made. I would be willing to be his assistant, his ‘page,’ as it were. I know the law more biologically than anyone in town, and am very punishment-oriented. Journalist advisory? a condominium of Max Blumenthal and Waj Ali would be fun. Anti-trust guru: Zephyr Teachout.

What a bunch! My God. You could conquer the world. But don’t forget Items 1 and 2: You must protect the environment (no fracking, sor-ree), and I’d want you to spend your own money replacing any desalinization plants you wrecked in the Middle East, as thirst is a curse.

Hunger is also bad and I dread the food shortage that is bound to occur in the USA if you don’t withdraw from this war soon. As for dead soldiers you can never, never compensate. You can only express extreme contrition.

President Trump, here is a version of Hail to the Chief which I found on Scoutsongs.com:

Hail to the Chief we have chosen for the nation,
Hail to the Chief! We salute him, one and all.
Hail to the Chief, as we pledge cooperation
In proud fulfillment of a great, noble call.
Yours is the aim to make this grand coun-try grander,
This you will do, That’s our strong, firm belief.
Hail to the one we selected as commander,
Hail to the President! Hail to the Chief!

It’s a lot nicer than this song from the Marsh family 6 months ago. It’s about “Empire” and got 2000 positive comments:

I know you are worried about the people who have “guided” you. They are a bunch of dead-heads. Please tell them “the time has come.” You could arrange some sort of conditional amnesty for many of them. If you were to do that, folks would say “We haven’t seen such an amazing man in decades.”

For millions, suffering would end almost instantaneously. We could dream of the future again! This is not a joke. What is needed is for the nonsense of the last 50 years to get undone.

I am asking you to do that. Cry if you need to. Take a rest if you need to. But first pick up the phone and instruct the Pentagon to turn the war off.

As for Bibi, he can’t harm you. He has been properly indicted for crimes against humanity and there’s no way he can avoid prison at the Hague. All Jews will understand that, when Israel gets the chance to calm down, as soon as people stop attacking it.

Because the IDF was so willing to televise its Gaza genocide, it is now visible that the plan was to reduce everyone’s moral sense of right and wrong. We have, almost trance-like, accepted that a nation’s leader can go wild on killing.

Now we un-accept it. It’s bye-bye time for that stuff. Please help us fulfill that dream.

Note: I am, regrettably, the plaintiff/appellant in Maxwell v Trump, a case against you over the unconstitutionality of starting a war without Congress’s approval. It’s really the members of Congress – most from the Party that begins with ‘R’ -- who must bear responsibility for abdicating their role.

Just bawl them out, poor intimidated things, K?

Finally here is Isaiah 40, parts later copied in Brahms’ Requiem:

“All people are like grass,
and all their faithfulness is like the flowers of the field.
The grass withers and the flowers fall,
because the breath of the Lord blows on them.
Surely the people are grass.
The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God endures forever.”

You who bring good news to Zion,
go up on a high mountain.
You who bring good news to Jerusalem,^[c]
lift up your voice with a shout,
lift it up, do not be afraid;
say to the towns of Judah,
“Here is your God!”
See, the Sovereign Lord comes with power,
and he rules with a mighty arm.
See, his reward is with him,
and his recompense accompanies him.

A voice of one calling:
“In the wilderness prepare
the way for the Lord^[a];
make straight in the desert
a highway for our God.^[b]
Every valley shall be raised up,
every mountain and hill made low;
the rough ground shall become level,
the rugged places a plain.
And the glory of the Lord will be revealed,
and all people will see it together.
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

[“Denn alles Fleisch” gets happy around 9.0 minutes.]:

Dutch farmers revolt. Photo from Thetp.org

A friend wrote to me today to say that James Madison may have fiddled with the Notes of the Philadelphia Convention, intruding his own bias. I was unaware of this but I suppose one should always look at “official documents” with an eye to their containing the bias of their author. (Or out-and-out lies, or whatever.)

This made me think, in our dear 250th year of Independence, that I have long heard that Thomas Jefferson may have done a bit of pilfering of the Dutch Declaration of Independence of 1581 when composing ours of 1776. I then looked it up and found a website, Declarationproject.org, that gives an English translation of the Dutch, as in a book by Oliver Thatcher, from 1907.

I have now chopped it to half its length. The purpose of my publishing this is to remark on how it seems that finding fault with a ruler, or oppressor of any kind, is likely to take such a form as a Declaration that lists things we want to put an end to and/or to punish. The Dutch called theirs the Act of Abjuration. “To abjure” means to solemnly give up what was previously accepted as legal or correct, especially if it had been part of an oath.

At the same time, I want to show that we have to be careful today of persons who want to persuade us to give up our Constitution. Many years ago, some Americans were caught having set up a COG -- a Continuity of Government proposal -- to replace the official Order of Succession. No doubt there is a still existing COG and it won’t be nice. BEWARE!

So here is the text from the Netherlands, for your perusal. Note: a slash mark indicates a major deletion by me.) 1350 words, all up:

The States General of the United Provinces of the Low Countries, to all whom it may concern, do by these Presents send greeting:

As it is apparent to all that a prince is constituted by God to be ruler of a people, to defend them from oppression and violence as the shepherd his sheep; and whereas God did not create the people slaves to their prince,/

oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their ancient customs and privileges, exacting from them slavish compliance, then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view. And particularly when this is done deliberately, unauthorized by the states, they may not only disallow his authority, but legally proceed to the choice of another prince for their defense.

This is the only method left for subjects whose humble petitions and remonstrances could never soften their prince or dissuade him from his tyrannical proceedings; and this is what the law of nature dictates for the defense of liberty, which we ought to transmit to posterity, even at the hazard of our lives..

Now thus it was that the king of Spain after the demise of the emperor, his father, Charles the Fifth, of the glorious memory (of whom he received all these provinces), forgetting the services done by the subjects of these countrie)/

did rather hearken to the counsel of those Spaniards about him, who had conceived a secret hatred to this land and to its liberty/

that it was more for his Majesty’s reputation and grandeur to subdue the Low Countries a second time, and to make himself absolute (by which they mean to tyrannize at pleasure), /

having first, under the mask of religion, endeavored to settle new bishops in the largest and principal cities, endowing and incorporating them with the richest abbeys, assigning to each bishop nine canons to assist him as counselors, three whereof should superintend the inquisition.

But, notwithstanding the many remonstrances made to the king both by the provinces and particular towns, in writing as well as by some principal lords by word of mouth; and, namely, by the Baron of Montigny and Earl of Egmont, who with the approbation of the Duchess of Parma, then governess of the Low Countries, by the advice of the council of state were sent several times to Spain upon this affair. And, although the king had by fair words given them grounds to hope that their request should be complied with, yet by his letters he ordered the contrary, soon after expressly commanding, upon pain of his displeasure, to admit the new bishops immediately, /

This being come to the knowledge of the people gave just occasion to great uneasiness and clamor among them, and lessened that good affection they had always borne toward the king and his predecessors. And, especially, seeing that he did not only seek to tyrannize over their persons and estates, but also over their consciences, for which they believed themselves accountable to God only. Upon this occasion the chief of the nobility in compassion to the poor people, in the year 1566, exhibited a certain remonstrance in form of a petition, humbly praying, in order to appease them and prevent public disturbances, that it would please his majesty (by showing that clemency due from a good prince to his people) to soften the said points, and especially with regard to the rigorous inquisition, and capital punishments for matters of religion./

did, by the advice of Spanish council, declare all those who were concerned in preparing the said remonstrance to be rebels, and guilty of high treason, and to be punished with death, and confiscation of their estates; and, what is more (thinking himself well assured of reducing these countries under absolute tyranny by the army of the Duke of Alva), did soon after imprison and put to death the said lords the ambassadors, and confiscated their estates, contrary to the law of nations, which has been always religiously observed even among the most tyrannic and barbarous princes./

Alana, then in France, writ to the Duchess of Parma), to annul all the privileges of this country, and govern it tyrannically at pleasure as in the Indies; and in their new conquests he has, at the instigation of the council of Spain, ...sent the Duke of Alva with a powerful army to oppress this land, who for his inhuman cruelties is looked upon as one of its greatest enemies, accompanied with counselors too like himself./

contrary to all its ancient customs and privileges; and, the more to manifest his designs, he immediately garrisoned the principal towns and castles, and caused fortresses and citadels to be built in the great cities to awe them into subjection, /

The others, better acquainted with Spanish hypocrisy, residing in foreign countries, were declared outlawed, and had their estates confiscated, so that the poor subjects could make no use of their fortresses nor be assisted by their princes in defense of their liberty against the violence of the pope; besides a great number of other gentlemen and substantial citizens, some of whom were executed, and others banished...

To treat these countries as new conquests, he began to alter the course of justice after the Spanish mode, directly contrary to our privileges; and, imagining at last he had nothing more to fear, he endeavored by main force to settle a tax called the tenth penny on merchandise and manufacture, to the total ruin of these countries, the prosperity of which depends upon a flourishing trade,/

to gain the German troops, who were then garrisoned in the principal fortresses and the cities, that by their assistance he might master them, .., to force those who would not join with him in making war against the Prince of Orange, and the provinces of Holland and Zealand, more cruel and bloody than any war before. But, as no disguises can long conceal our intentions, this project was discovered before it could be executed;/

All these considerations give us more than sufficient reason to renounce the King of Spain, and seek some other powerful and more gracious prince to take us under his protection; and, more especially, as these countries have been for these twenty years abandoned to disturbance and oppression by their king, during which time the inhabitants were not treated as subjects, but enemies, enslaved forcibly by their own governors./

that he might the easier execute his plan rigorously, by subduing them one by one, which afterwards plainly appeared by certain.... Thus, by rendering us odious to all, he might interrupt our commerce, likewise reducing us to despair, offering a great sum to any that would assassinate the Prince of Orange.

So, having no hope of reconciliation, and finding no other remedy, we have, agreeable to the law of nature in our own defense, and for maintaining the rights, privileges, and liberties of our countrymen, wives, and children, and latest posterity from being enslaved by the Spaniards,.... Know all men by these presents that being reduced to the last extremity, as above mentioned, we have unanimously and deliberately declared, and do by these presents declare, that the King of Spain has forfeited, ipso jure, all hereditary right to the sovereignty of those countries,/

And whereas, upon the motives already mentioned, the greater part of the United Provinces have, by common consent of their members, submitted to the government and sovereignty of the illustrious Prince and Duke of Anjou,... they shall provisionally use the name and title of the President and Council of the Province.

Moreover, we order and command that from henceforth no money coined shall be stamped with the name, title, or arms of the King of Spain in any of these United Provinces, but that all new gold and silver pieces, with their halfs and quarters, shall only bear such impressions as the states shall direct. We order likewise and command the president and other lords of the privy council, ... as we hold them discharged from henceforth of their oath made to the King of Spain, pursuant to the tenor of their commission, that they shall take a new oath to the states of that country on whose jurisdiction they depend, or to commissaries appointed by them, to be true to us against the King of Spain and all his adherents,/

we shall grant new commissions under our hands and seals, unless any of the said officers are accused and convicted of having acted under their former commissions against the liberties and privileges of this country or of other the like maladministration./

And to cause our said ordinance to be observed inviolably, punishing the offenders impartially and without delay; for so it is found expedient for the public good. And, for better maintaining all and every article hereof, we give to all and every one of you, by express command, full power and authority. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals, dated in our assembly at the Hague, the six and twentieth day of July, 1581, indorsed by the orders of the states-general, and signed J. De Asseliers. [bolding by MM]

C O M M E N T

I am not trying to send a sneaky message here about our current American situation. (In my opinion, the last thing we should entertain is an abjuring of the United States Constitution!) As I said, we have been told that Jefferson may not have been quite the sweetie pie he is made out to be -- same for any of the Founding Fathers. I don’t mind if Tom deliberately imitated the Dutch Act. The foregoing text demonstrates that people do know when they have been oppressed and they find whatever words they can find, to prioritize their rights over their king’s claims to virtue and legitimacy.

Insha’allah I will have more to say on this during our 250th Anniversary Year. (For us of Irish stock, “insh’allah translates as “God willing” or deus volens.) By the way, speaking of God, I vaguely suspect that the World War III which began on February 28, 2026, is something known in Biology class as a “population crash.”

— Mary Maxwell is curretntly a candidate for the United States Senate in the NH Republican Primary, Sept 8, 2026. Her website is ConstitutionAndTruth.com. She wants to hear your criticism.

by Mary Maxwell, LLB

Mr President, as you may know, I am running for public office this year. Specifically for United States Senate. I am a Republican who does not have much good to say about you, but where I can identify some point of agreement between us, I mark it down, as in the letter I sent you on July 19, 2026.

Oops, I did not actually send it — I only posted it on MaxwellM.substack.com. Sir, I would have sent it to you by email, as you frequently email me asking me to talk to you, but when I turn the page of your emails, I see that I can’t proceed unless I make a donation.

Perhaps you do not even know of the notices that your staff sends out in your name. Some of them start with “Mary, just as I got aboard Air Force One, I thought of you...”

I bet you haven’t really thought of me, but please think of me now as I can be your assistant for the Haiti situation.

Let’s talk about the Haitians who are now living in the US on temporary visas. I agree with the Supreme Court’s June 25, 2026 ruling that holders of TPS can be sent home, based on the original statute’s having designated the TPS program as temporary. TPS=Temporary Protected Status.

OK, OK, I think that is not a wrong decision. But I think actually sending this group of people home is wrong. And that decision is up to you. The law says the Dept of Homeland Security will decide. And I’ve read that the deportation of person who hold Temporary Protected Status will start this week. DON’T DO IT! Please reconsider.

The Two Earthquakes

In 2010, Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In 2010 Haiti suffered an earthquake that left a quarter of a million people dead and many homeless in the population of 10 million. Somehow both Hillary and her husband Bill got appointed to a Commission to help deal with the disaster. They have been massively criticized by Haitian people for taking advantage of that disaster. (“Disaster capitalism”; see Catherine Austin Fitts on this as regards the Covid lockdowns.) The photo of a protester shown above was taken by AFP in 2016, outside Hofstra University where you were debating HRC just before your election.

Personally, I think the 2010 earthquake was man-made. We have known how to do it for a long time and there are always enough bad guys to do such things. (Think Lahaina’s DEW.) I have zilch evidence for my claim about the earthquake in Haiti, except I read the next day that the US Army had been stood down from helping. “Standing down” is a main trick in the Trick Book of false flags, of which I am at least a semi-expert.

That makes me wonder if the 2026 earthquake near Haiti was also man-made. But never mind, it does not matter for purposes of the new deportation situation. Here is my pitch on that:

The judicial branch of government has done what it’s supposed to do – interpret the law – but either of the other two branches can play a role. The legislative branch could write new law, describing ways to decide when a TPS should be lifted – or how much warning notice the TPS folks should be given. And you, as head of the Executive Branch, can have DHS hold back. That is what I am asking you to do.

News reports say you will deport up to 350,00 Haitian residents of the US who are here on a temporary basis. Namely they were given “TPS” – Temporary Protected Status because their applications to enter US were based on a crisis in Haiti. Each of those persons should have known that their future was likely a Caribbean future. We did not trick them into thinking it was permanent. Fine.

But you can now show kindness. You can show that it is not reasonable for them to be suddenly sent home at a time when the situation in Haiti is again poor. There is no legal DEMAND for them to go, based on the Mullin v Doe ruling. The granting of the TPS required special legislative wording in the first place. Fine. It said that the DHS could return TPS holders to their origin. Fine. But nowhere does it say that a president should click his fingers and say “Amscray” when he feels like it.

I have heard you say “I have Article Two [of the Constitution], so I can do whatever I want.” Needless to say, that is a non sequitur. I personally have taken you to court in Maxwell v Trump to prove that you cannot do whatever you want in the matter of warmaking. But here, yes, you do have legal grounding for a mass deportation of Haitians. You don’t have a reasonable ground, though. You can do it as a would-be dictator, a show-off, a male-who-does-not-lack testosterone, etc. But is that what you want?

I Love Haitians

Sir, This is starting to look as though I am advising you to do what will best suit your political needs -- i.e., go easy on the Haitians to raise your reputation (which could use quite a bit of raising). Yes, that is the nature of my advice in this instance.

But now let me put another pitch. We need those Haitians here. It seems that typical employment for TPS Haitians has been care-giving field, and they are good at it. I know three Haitians personally (one is in Canada) who are really top-of-the-crop persons. Very honest, very helpful, very modest. None happens to work in nursing homes or helps disabled kids, but the three I know are kind in general.

I make the assumption that it’s cultural: Haitians are nice. Period. And the ones in the care-giving industry are paying tax on their wages; they are not moaning for a handout. So that’s another feature, they are hard-working.

Hmm. I’ve just thought of another PR reason why you should support them. Our famous declaration of independence took place 250 years ago in 1776. Soon after that, in 1791, the people of Haiti – then a French colony known as Saint-Domingue – said Hey, let’s try that!

At the time, the only industry was sugar-cane and coffee plantations and people worked long hours in the sun. They were all slaves. But they figured out how to take a stand, and turned on their masters. (I may be inaccurate saying they got the word from us up north; we still had slaves till the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863.)

Over the next centuries the people in Haiti had to cope with complicated foreign interference and lately IMF interference. (Did I hear you say “and Clinton Foundation interference”?) It’s a miracle they survived all that.

People who are culturally kind, politically insightful, and courageous in the face of getting clobbered are a treasure, are they not?

Good. I am bringing this article to an end without having mentioned a certain word, you know, the one that rhymes with pace, grace, trace, and face. The writer of the opinion in Mullin v Doe, Justice Alito, did refer to it. But it is unAmerican to even think about pace, grace, trace, and face. At least it was in my day, and I am as old as you (almost). We are all equal in the eyes of God.

President Trump, do you want to do something that will really put you in the golden book? Don’t just delay the ousting of the Haitians. Write an Amnesty Order specifically for the persons who were given Temporary Protected Status. Yell “Welcome, you’re home now!”

Then you can add this, as written by Emma Lazarus, a Sephardic Jew, who wrote The New Colossus, later engraved on the base of the Statue of Liberty. Please say it aloud:

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddles masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me.

I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door.”

Postscript

I just opened today’s newspaper of my NH capitol city, The Concord Monitor, and lo and behold what do I see? (as written by Rebecca Beaulieu, July 28, 2026):

“We must dismantle the United States’s immigration system as it exists today. The Department of Homeland Security has been far exceeding their scope of power and is killing more people every year. We have to start over from a place of human dignity and respect. This is especially true because the U.S. government is responsible for the conditions that are forcing people to leave their homelands around the globe. For decades, U.S.-backed wars and bombs have caused death and destruction all over the world.

“U.S. intervention in Central America has made living conditions unbearable, forcing families to flee looking for safer places to raise their children. …[Etc.]. If we want people to stop migrating to the U.S., the answer isn’t restricting people’s ability to move — the answer is ending wars of mass destruction.”

Trust me, President Trump, The Concord Monitor is no radical paper. Suggest you invite Rebecca Beaulieu to the White House and seek her ideas about “endless wars of mass destruction.”

Thanks for listening!

by Mary Maxwell, LLB

I am desperately trying to make people notice what is going on in the Middle East. We are only at the beginning (Day 146, 21 weeks) of the specific Iran-USA war. It should be stopped. The whole thing is ridiculous, in regard to its supposed “cause.” Nevertheless, it is happening bigtime.

Thus, on any given day, the players are reacting to one another’s moves. Men being men (author rolls her eyes), much of their reaction has to do with pride and with competition. I am not going to discuss that here as this article only to be a useful chart of what laws are now on the books.

Before we start, I’d like to eliminate half the audience (not literally, OK?). I ask you to please make a choice up front here – are you the A type or the B type.

Type A will be those persons who think “War is war is war, and yeah, it’s bad --but there is no point trying to pick out particular soldiers or decision-makers and accusing them of crimes.”

Type B are persons who, after a war, may want to express their revenge or disgust, and/or who hope to perform such a memorable punishment on individuals that this may deter future war criminals.

Disclosure: I am more of an A than a B. I think war is war and I wish we would find a way of not doing war (e.g., by not making it a source of huge profit for weapons manufacturers). Still I’m notoriously B-ish. For me, life is most satisfactory within a legal structure that can produce justice. Also I want to be punished if I or my elected brethren have attacked any desalination plants.

Note: The US Constitution provides for us to face up to the existence of “the law of nations.” Article I sec 8, Clause 11 tells Congress to deal with this, and Article II allows the US president to make treaties “provided two-thirds of the senators present concur.”

Sources of the Laws Regarding War Crimes

First, just a simple list. I’m writing this as an American and can’t cover all possible sources. I’ll mainly list International Law sources and relevant US domestic laws.

Chronologically, there are three international-law sources: The Hague Conventions of 1887?, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (plus later additions thereto), and The Treaty of Rome of 1998 which produced a new court, the ICC – International Criminal Court. Of course there is also the UN Charter of 1945 which gives circumstances under which one nation can justifiably attack another nation.

The US’s domestic sources of war-crime law are the Hague and Geneva, as mentioned, plus a specific legislative act of 1991: the War Crimes Act. The US is not a party to the ICC. I omit the Nuremberg trials since that was a case of ‘victor’s justice’ – the victors being the Allied Nations (who no doubt committed some war crimes but did not get called on the carpet). Likewise, the Tokyo Tribunal that tried 24 men will be omitted.

Also note: The United States is one of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council and can veto any decision made by the UNSC.

The Geneva’s are sometimes called International Humanitarian Law. Some private organizations get involved: The International Red Cross is private, yet it has a charter from Congress that gives it entry into battlefields. (Ahem.)

Our Amazing 1996 Domestic Law

In 1996 we made law for our own miscreants. Since this was done while the Rome Treaty was being prepared, I suspect that its purpose is so that we Americans would not have to be subject to foreign rule. I personally approve of that. Here is the opening statement:

“Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.” — 18 USC 2441

Folks, we don’t honor that law. I can’t cover it here. Maybe I’m wrong but I think it is as good as non-existent. No, wait, non-existent would be much worse. This gives us a big head start.

We also have, at 18 USC 1091, provisions for punishment of genocides carried out by Americans. Heck, we have almost everything we need. Let’s use it. The threat “I’ll wipe out a whole civilization tonight” might qualify.

Limiting the Laws To Be Discussed Here

I have, in my hand, a 615-page volume, dated 2013, entitled “International Criminal Law, Documents Supplement,” fourth edition. You don’t want me to hit you with 615 pages, do you? Here are the things I will omit:

-- all laws that cover behavior secondary to the commission of the war crime, such as limits on how nation-states can house prisoners of war,

-- all discussion of the ICC’s laws on genocide and the original 1947 Genocide Convention

-- any analysis of what occurs politically in the making of, and carrying out of, these laws. For example, a UNSC Resolution about Afghanistan and Iraq, says in its introduction, “Reaffirming also its unequivocal condemnation of the terrorist attacks which took place in New York, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001.” (0h, come on...)

The Four Specific Missions of the ICC

Type A people complained from the very first day of the ICC’s existence, July 2, 2002, that it would punish Third World miscreants but not, shall we say, whites. That is perhaps true. Or maybe we should say “would not punish parties protected by Uncle Sam.” On 24 November 2024, the ICC indicted Benjamin Netanyahu for crimes including the use of starvation on civilians in Gaza. The ICC issues arrest warrants but depends on the member states – 124 of them – to haul the criminal to the Hague in the Netherlands. Netanyahu visits the US with impunity.

Here are the four types of crime that the ICC claims to have jurisdiction over: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. You may ask why they bother to double up on genocide and war crimes that are already covered in the Hague and Geneva conventions. Ah, but those did not provide a courtroom other than in the person’s own country.

Note: for the first several years of the ICC’s existence, they did not operate on the fourth crime: the crime of aggression. This should get much more attention than it does – it really means that one country should not be aggressive with another. Here is the official wording, as found at ihl-databases.icrc.org:

Article 8bis - Crime of Aggression [all emphasis added]

1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;

(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;

(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;

(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;

(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;

(f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State; [??]

(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.

As anyone with two eyeballs can see (or maybe just one eyeball), the US and Iran have both engaged in aggression per the above list. (Re item (a), I had in mind Venezuela and the proposal to grab Greenland.

There’s Got To Be Something Better Than This

It is possible to imagine a several-stage development of our history, as regards “international affairs”:

Stage 1: Genghis Kahn. Anything goes.

Stage 2. Hague Conventions. Don’t kick the wounded.

Stage 3. ICC. Make indictments and issue arrest warrants.

Stage 4. (licking my chops): Work it out constitutionally, in advance.

Stage 5. Give peace a chance.

As regards Stage 5, it sems that, culturally, we have not really tried to get beyond our natural inter-group aggression. In my article yesterday, entitled “Have I Got ‘Treaty’ News for You!” I showed how Harry Hinsley was ‘struck’ by articles by Benjamin Kidd, and how Crook observed that our civilization is showing signs of abandoning the acceptability of conquest.

I also quoted from Philip Allott who really knows his onions when it comes to the human capacity for inventing something new when it is needed. Allott does not lay out the particulars of how we might come to be less aggressive internationally -- he just says “You can do it, yes you CAN do it.”

Finally, I would like to quote now, from the 615-page Documents book, an item on Arab law that shows that “Christianity” is not the only path to neighborliness. I lived in the United Arab Emirates for 5 years and never saw anything wrong with the people, the Emirati. Nor with the Muslims of neighboring countries who worked there. I would go so far as to say that I found them to be nicer than us. [WHAT???]

League of Arab States Arab Charter on Human Rights,2004

(unofficial translation, courtesy of ohchr.org – extremely abbreviated):

Based on the faith of the Arab nation in the dignity of the human person whom God has exalted ever since the beginning of creation, and in the fact that the Arab homeland is the cradle of religions and civilizations whose lofty human values affirm the human right to a decent life based on freedom, justice and equality,

In furtherance of the eternal principles of fraternity, equality and tolerance among human beings consecrated by the noble Islamic religion and the other divinely- revealed religions,

Being proud of the humanitarian values and principles that the Arab nation has established throughout its long history, which have played a major role in spreading knowledge between East and West, so making the region a point of reference for the whole world and a destination for seekers of knowledge and wisdom, …

Rejecting all forms of racism and Zionism, which constitute a violation of human rights and a threat to international peace and security, recognizing the close link that exists between human rights and international peace and security, …

The present Charter seeks, within the context of the national identity of the
Arab States and their sense of belonging to a common civilization, to achieve the following aims:

1. To place human rights at the centre of the key national concerns of Arab States, [helping the individual] improve his life in accordance with noble human values.

2. To teach the human person in the Arab States pride in his identity, loyalty to his country, attachment to his land, …and to instill in him a culture of human brotherhood, tolerance and openness towards others, …

3. To prepare the new generations in Arab States for a free and responsible life in a civil society that is characterized by solidarity, founded on a balance between awareness of rights and respect for obligations,…

4. To entrench the principle that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.

Article 2

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination and to control over their natural wealth and resources,[!!!!] and the right to freely choose their political system and to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples have the right to national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

4. All peoples have the right to resist foreign occupation.

Article 3

1. Each State party to the present Charter undertakes to ensure to all individuals subject to its jurisdiction the right to enjoy the rights and freedoms set forth herein, without distinction on grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religious belief, opinion, thought, national or social origin, wealth, birth or physical or mental disability.

3. Men and women are equal in respect of human dignity, rights and obligations within the framework of the positive discrimination established in favour of women by the Islamic Sharia, [true; I felt protected and honored] …

Article 5
1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. 2. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

Article 6

Sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes. …Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence.

Article 8

1. No one shall be subjected to physical or psychological torture or to cruel, degrading, humiliating or inhuman treatment. 2. The commission of, or participation in, such acts shall be regarded as crimes that are punishable by law and not subject to any statute of limitations.

Article 10

1. All forms of slavery and trafficking in human beings are prohibited and are punishable by law. No one shall be held in slavery and servitude under any circumstances.

Article 14

7. Anyone who has been the victim of arbitrary or unlawful arrest or detention shall be entitled to compensation.

Article 24

Every citizen has the right:

1. To freely pursue a political activity. 2. To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

Article 25

Persons belonging to minorities shall not be denied the right to enjoy their own culture, to use their own language and to practice their own religion. The exercise of these rights shall be governed by law.

Article 34

1. The right to work is a natural right of every citizen. The State shall endeavour to provide, to the extent possible, a job for the largest number of those willing to work, while ensuring production, the freedom to choose one’s work and equality of opportunity without discrimination of any kind on grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, language, political opinion, membership in a union, national origin, social origin, disability or any other situation.

Article 38

Every person has the right to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, which ensures their well-being and a decent life, including food, clothing, housing, services and the right to a healthy environment. The States parties shall take the necessary measures commensurate with their resources to guarantee these rights.

6. The States parties shall enable persons with disabilities to make use of all public and private services.

Article 41

1. The eradication of illiteracy is a binding obligation upon the State and everyone has the right to education. 6. The States parties shall guarantee the establishment of the mechanisms necessary to provide ongoing education for every citizen and shall develop national plans for adult education.

Article 45

1. Pursuant to this Charter, an “Arab Human Rights Committee”, hereinafter referred to as “the Committee” shall be established. This Committee shall consist of seven members who shall be elected by secret ballot by the states parties to this Charter.

[See?]

*****

In the UAE, the Cabinet includes a Minister for Tolerance and Co-Existence, Sheik Nahyan bin Mubarak al Nahyan.

So there.

May saints be praised.

-- Mary Maxwell’s website is (wouldn’t you know it): ConstitutionAndTruth.com. She is currently the appellant at the First Circuit in a case about the Iran war: Maxwell v Trump.

Photo of Harry Hinsley (far left) and two fellow cryptoanalysts in 1945. NationalArchives. gov.uk

by Mary Maxwell, LLB

Fasten your seatbelts. I have some surprises for you.

This article is about one nation being respectful to all other nations. What!

In general, ordinary citizens don’t understand, and don’t try to understand, what goes on among nations. Possibly diplomats know the ropes, but most of us relate to foreign policy, and war only as a News item. We ask “What’s the latest?”

Understandably, there’s a reluctance to believe anything we hear about International affairs, since the ‘source’ of the information is likely biased. Another obstacle is that each nation may express what it’s doing in words that do not correlate with reality – i.e., they lie. Note: Each nation probably has delusions, itself, about what it is doing.

In this article, I will ignore those problems in order to jump quickly to discuss what I see as a normally huge barrier to “international morality.” Yesterday, on Judge Napolitano’s podcast, the host and a guest were discussing America’s rights (and fears) in connection with the ongoing war with Iran. Someone then wrote on the Chat page: “Iran has rights, too.” It looked funny to see that there. How the hell are we ’Murkins supposed to care about Iranians?

For the first part of my career, I researched evolutionary biology, and for the second part I worked in the field of law. I noticed that little in the way of international law has the ring of morality to it, in the way that much of domestic law does. Domestic law is largely about justice; it’s about two adversarial parties, or competing parties, having to bow to the moral notion that something is right or wrong. A judge judges the case, based upon well-accepted principles of law. These are often pure, biological instincts here. They have to do with altruism and reciprocity.

In 1945, the first mega-law for international actions got written as “the United Nations Charter.” Soon enough, in 1948, members of the UN General Assembly made a resolution called The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It had no teeth but was a definite inspiration around the world. Subsequently it took until 1966, not a great length of time, just 18 years, for treaties or multilateral conventions to be forged out of that Declaration. One expanded into the ICCPR, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Another, not signed by the US, covenanted various “social and economic rights.”

Those treaties don’t directly have teeth, but courts of any member state can make use of them domestically. And now, since 2002, there is an International Criminal Court , the ICC, authorized to deal with certain crimes by governments. It has teeth -– it can convict a person and call for his delivery to the Hague for whatever prison sentence he has received.

These do appear to be developments in international morality – hurrah! But what I wish to discuss here is that, generally speaking, it is psychologically very hard for people to get involved in justice outside of their own nation. People feel embarrassed if they stick up for any nation whom their own nation is busy hurting. And, very predictably, their local friends will turn on them for being “disloyal.” They will say “Come on, get in line, we need to win – you are harming your own people.”

OK. That makes sense (sort of). As theologian Reinhold Niebuhr stated, in his 1932 book Moral Man, Immoral Society, an individual wants to do right –- we have a conscience for that. But a society wants to do wrong. It wants to raid the tribe whose resources look raid-able. It may even find it strategically best to wipe out that whole tribe. “Rah! Rah! We are great. They’re subhuman. Cha-aa aarge!”

(You know I’m not exactly talking about the aggressive society of the Yanomamo in the Amazon forest, as studied by anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, right?)

When I got down to writing my PhD thesis, which is published as “Morality among Nations,” I had no trouble noticing that we all do this. Your church-going neighbors probably do NOT think we are conscience-free raiders — they might naturally transfer a Christian theme of “love everybody” to international matters. They might even think the US, far from being a raider, is a Good Samaritan 24/7. (No, seriously).

Sir Harry Hinsley

Excuse me but I am in a big hurry today, with nuclear war being threatened. I want to come away from my self-satisfaction of being the oh-so-clever sociobiologist who penetrates the mysteries of human psychology from our jungle days. Today I want to kick this theory (Moral Man, Immoral Society) off my desk. I want to replace it with something a bit more mature, a bit more clever. Let me try a mini-revolution.

This is supported by a letter I discovered a few months ago, among my papers. I was trying to clean house, as I had recently had to clear out my sister’s house after she died. I wanted to keep only the correspondence that would mean something to my survivors. Luckily, up popped a letter I had totally forgotten about, sent to me in 1989 by Sir Harry Hinsley (1918-1998). He is the author of Sovereignty (1986), and had worked at Bletchley Park as a code breaker during the war. I had asked him to advise on my PhD material.

Pretty sure he typed this letter, as we did not have desk computers in those days. So I was grateful to him for providing a lengthy quote, which I’m now pleased to share with you. It is prefaced by:

“Dear Mrs Maxwell … your pages recalled to me, some of the work of Benjamin Kidd, in particular two articles he wrote in 1907-8 in Rivisita di Scienza which struck me when I first saw them. They were the subject of a book on Kidd by DP Crook, C.U.P., 1984 which you would find interesting if you can get a hold of it. A short quotation reads:

“We live in the presence of colossal national armaments. And in a world, therefore, in which we are continually met with the taunt that force is still everywhere omnipotent. It may be perceived, however, that beneath all outward appearances a vast change has been taking place. In the ancient civilizations, the tendency to conquest was an inherent principle in the life of the military state. It is no longer an inherent principle in the modern state. The right of conquest is indeed still acknowledged. In the international law of civilized states.

“But it may be observed to be a right becoming more and more an impracticable and impossible right among the more advanced peoples. Reflection, moreover, reveals the fact that the right of conquest is tending to become impracticable and impossible not, as is often supposed, because of the huge armaments of resistance with which it might be opposed. But because the social consciousness has been so deepened in our civilization that it is almost impossible that one nation should attempt to conquer and subdue another after the manner of the ancient world.” [Emphasis added]

Thus, Kidd in 1907, and Crook in 1984, and Hinsley in 1986, have all GRADUATED us out of evolutionary kindergarten. Thank you, Sirs. We should duly have our picture taken in caps and gowns.

Philip Allott’s “Society of Societies”

That said, we should also look at the work of Philip Allott, Professor of International Law, at the University of Cambridge. I have often quoted the ‘incentivizing’ book he wrote in 2016, entitled Eutopia: New Law and New Philosophy for a Troubled World. Yes, that’s Eutopia written on the 500^th anniversary of Sir Thomas More’s Utopia. It is not about history. I’d say it’s about neurology – how can we get those neurons to perk up and face the big empty future.

Allott does not exactly call the future ‘empty.’ Rather, he means “Nothin’ can stop us now.” He repeatedly urges the young to realize that the human world is no more ‘finished’ now than it was at any other point in time. There is no reason for history-making to halt. Why would there be? The same human brains that made all the past discoveries (including philosophical ones) are right there smack in the middle of your cranium.

Today in keeping with my mention of Kidd, Crook, and Hinsley, let’s dwell on a different tome by Allott that came out in 2002. It’s title, which I hope gives you pause, is: The Health of Nations: Society and Law beyond the State. The front page says:

“The human world is changing. Old social structures are being overwhelmed by forces of social transformation which are sweeping across political and cultural frontiers. A social animal is becoming the social species. The animal that lives in packs and herds. (family, corporation, nation, state...) is becoming a member of a human society, which is the Society of all human beings, the Society of all societies.” [Emphasis added]

Frankly, the concept of a society of societies does not exactly trip off my tongue. And in all the blather on Internet about the current war in Iran, we can safely say that “a society of societies” has not tripped off the tongue of any of our leaders. But don’t let that stop you. One’s own society can look after its people’s lives as a whole. So isn’t it reasonable to say that any person in any society can “look up” and see something of a higher, created entity? How’s about correcting Niebuhr’s “immoral society” to “belatedly moral society, living in happy social company with the many other societies”?

Philip Allott served on the Law of the Seas Conference, whose last session ran from 1978 to 1983. Think about it, Young People. One of the established rules of international law is that no nation owns or controls the high seas. This should have prevented the war-adapted use, by Iran, of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

I ask you to talk that up with your buddies. Ask what they think we could do about such things. Please go out to the highways and the byways and force them to come in. I’ll be waiting to hear that one of you has prevented any futherance of the horrible destruction in the Middle East. Thanks!

You can contact me at MaxwellMaryLLB@gmail.com.

Fox News photo of Trump being congratulated for helping World Cup

by Mary Maxwell, PhD

Dear President Trump,

Greetings from sunny New Hampshire! I am a Republican candidate for the United States Senate this year. Back in 2020, in the NH Republican Primary, I was your fellow candidate for the presidency. You got 128,000 votes and I got 925 votes. Not bad.

I am very Republican and very – verrry – constitutionalist.

In my opinion, the Jan 6, 2021 thing was not an insurrection. No way. People have a right to protest and I saw, on TV, that police opened the door to greet citizens entering the Capitol Building. I am quite the investigator of (other) psy-ops and the Jan 6 photos of men scaling the walls and breaking windows looked to me like Central Casting at its best.

Someone said you urged people to “deal with” Vice President Pence. I doubt that you did, and anyway it would have been irrelevant. The task was for him to receive the 538 ballots from Electoral Colleges at 1pm, and have Congresspersons inspect them. The press had forecast, the previous day, that Senator Tommy Tuberville and maybe 130 Congresspersons were planning to follow the law by challenging some dicey Electoral ballots.

The alphabetical list went unchallenged for the first two A’s: Alabama and Alaska. Then, at around 1:30pm, a Rep challenged Arizona. Per the law, it requires a person from each chamber to co-sign any challenge. No senator stepped forward, so that one was lost. There were plenty more in the pipeline, but at that moment the “rioters” arrived. The legislators adjourned till 8pm, and when they reassembled all 538 ballots passed muster. (Unfortunately, in my opinion.)

I just want you to know that having a break-in, or a riot -- or whatever -- did not, and could not have, worked in your favor. I’d also like you to know (as I am trying to cozy up to you here), that I sent my ‘testimony’ on that matter to the Fulton County Court and I have also spoken on YouTube in support of your searching for 11,000 missing votes in Georgia. It not only wasn’t wrong for you to try to find missing votes, it was your duty.

I regard Biden’s presidency as having been terrible.

OK. That’s the end of my cozying up. (Or maybe I’ll come back to it later.)

Fact is, I filed a lawsuit against you on February 20, 2026, in the US District Court of New Hampshire. A DoJ attorney named Bridget Davidson is handling it. The point was for me to get an injunction against your making war on Iran without Congress’s necessary say-so. The district court dismissed my case and I now have it in Appeals in Boston.

By the way I always have trouble understanding the relationship of the Department of Justice to the Court. In every city that has a federal court, the DoJ is in the same building as the courtrooms. It looks vaguely like a conflict of interest. In criminal cases, the accused person has a DoJ prosecutor working against him and one feels that that prosecutor is “in touch” with the judge. I do not in any way blame you for this; it has been going on since the 1880s.

I do blame the Obama administration for the fact that the Tsarnaev case was assigned to a Public Defender, Judy Clark, against the wishes of the Defendant. Even there, since the court appointed her as public Defender, how can she (or any PD) not want to please the judge? Note: Clark said in her Opening Statement “It was him.” No joke, she said that.

By the way, Mr President, please give Dzhokar “Jahar” Tsarnaev a pardon. He is on Death Row and is plainly innocent. I have authored a book to that effect. Jahar’s 33rd birthday was last week. Can’t even send him a card as he is under SAMS.

My poor, beautiful America.

Frankly, Mr President, I am doing you a favor by suing you over the Iran war, to enforce the Constitution. Your apparent devil-may-care approach to the parchment seems whacky. You have even said, on the record, that Article II gives you “the right to do anything.” Can you read? Article II lays out your privileges and responsibilities very precisely.

The Founding Fathers were keenly aware that a sole person should not be allowed to decide on war, as he might, for example, work to please a foreign county instead of the United States. Oops. You clearly said that your Iran decision was prompted by Bibi.

Let’s pretend it turns out to have been a wonderful decision — that would not make it OK for you to have followed Bibi (or anyone else). We need our president to work for us, us, us. He or she must wear a brain that is the brain for the whole country. Not easy, I know, but if you do it you will be a hero.

Come to think of it, you can also be a hero by helping the world. Show some understanding that “the world” has needs too. All humans need peace. At the moment there are 8 billion people. In my opinion that number is too high. We should have held back on births a long time ago. Well, we didn’t. The planet is getting wrecked. Which is not to say we should have a kill off. Let’s instead have a big love-in.

Today everybody is scared. Your niece, Mary Trump, never misses a chance to tell us that you are scared and have always been scared, because of your Dad. Is she right? By the way, she is extremely intelligent and rational which makes me think you probably have that in your blood, too, but have been deprived of chances to exert it. Well, here’s your chance.

The Dems are a huge part of today’s US population. You would do them a favor by helping Mary Trump’s brother who seems to have got chopped out of Grandpa’s will. Folks would fall on the floor if you did that. It would be so Uncle-y. Or to put it another way, it is part of the case against you (which Dems really get off on) that Mary criticises you day and night. Behind her sarcasm, though, she often expresses sympathy for you. Really.

Come to think of it, you could make her Secretary of State. Or Psychologist General. We should not have a Surgeon General, by the way. That position sneaked in with the cat, as I explain in my 2013 book Consider the Lilies. A lot of things sneaked in with the cat.

You would do wonders by cleaning up the agencies. Some people say you have done so. If I get persuaded of that, I will duly credit you. But mainly the thought of Elon having the personal data of all 340 million of us, thanks to DOGE, totally puts me off DOGE. And the fact that Elon, like yourself, does not know what a gem the Constitution is, puts me off.

Listen. Over a few thousand years of human life, there were tribes who had their man of authority. Then came civilization and with it the ability for a leader to start worrying that his underlings might harm him. Hence he hired (or enslaved, why not) some bodyguards who scared the living daylights out of the public.

Oddly, in our colonial days the whip was not used much, so I don’t know why we revolted against a small matter of tea tax. But we did, and this made it possible for ordinary folk to get the notion of “combined power.” It made us swell with pride.

Here, Sir, is the prize. It’s written on parchment and starts with the words “We the People.” Most likely it depends on a Christian understanding of justice, or at least a form of logic in which the “occasions of sin are identified” and people are taught to avoid them. The Constitution does this in many of its articles and amendments.

May I give you an example? Recently you asked the Senate to confirm your appointment of your ex-lawyer, Todd Blanche, as Atty General. This request needs to be refused. Every man and his dog knows that the relationship between a lawyer and his client continues for life, at least in the sense that the lawyer can never divulge things he knows about the client.

It goes to show how corrupt the American legal system is that attorneys did not all scream “No way.” I now scream it by asking you to withdraw that request. It will work against you if Todd gets confirmed. And it’s a slap in the face to our heritage.

Be brave. Be republican. Be disciplined. Do “the right thing.”

Please show us that you understand why people don’t appreciate your ballroom caper. Just put yourself in the People’s shoes. That will help everyone, even Americans not yet born!

I will add a second letter tomorrow or so. You really could make Mt Rushmore, but not the way you’re going. Pay attention to me. I am the same age as you and have been around the block. You are goofing up. Everyone says you want glory. You yourself say you want glory. Maybe it’s doable.

Bon chance, Monsieur President! Please excuse my tone of voice, above. It’s all so urgent. I beg you to have a go at some new thinking….

Yours sincerely,
Mary Maxwell

by Mary Maxwell, LLB

I assume that God created the universe. God must be much greater than we standardly assert, as Nature is so brilliant in its workings. There are over a million animal species and we are but one of those species, good ’olHomo sapiens – wise man (ha!).

I wish we’d get a lot wiser, immediately, as it looks like we are going downhill fast and make take many, or even all?, of those other species along with us.

I have just been listening to a Zoom lecture by Judy Hodgkiss, author of “The Right to Pursue Happiness.” I have not read her book yet but will order it forthwith. The zoom is part of a series by Promethean Action group, aimed at young activists. (Yay!)

The beginning of the lecture emphasized the little-known role played by German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, and English Henry St John, 1^st Viscount Bolingbroke, in our colonial history. Viz, those two men influenced our Founding Fathers’ choice of the words “inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

God-given Rights?

But here I state my disagreement with those famous words, and indeed with the common statement that our rights are God given. I do believe that our ability to fight for ‘rights’ is God given. Everything that’s in “human nature” came to us through Nature which came from the Creator. Some of the qualities that make it possible for us to ultimately attain rights are: pride, survival instinct, aggression and rationality.

Really, I don’t think our political conversation should refer to “God-given rights.” It may even be wise to get rid of the word ‘rights’ altogether. At most, I’d be willing to see it applied to the list of rights being referred to. “I have a right to sue the manufacturer of a bicycle that cause me injury.” Or “I have a right not to be treated as a low-class person.” “Or, I have a right to vote.”

But doesn’t it empower us to say that rights are God-given? Very often it has empowered us, at least emotionally. It enables us to say to someone “My Daddy is bigger than your daddy.” It thus enables a slave to look down on his master. It may let us picture the metaphorical Judgement Day on which God can say “OK, sinner, you deprived a whole town of rights and now it’ll be hell to pay.”

Still, there really are big dis-advantages to treating a right as a gift, rather than as an achievement. Such a picture gives us no guidance as to when or how to rebel against fellow humans when they selfishly deprive us of the said ‘right.’ Instead we are left to mourn our loss of what God gave us. Or, more likely, we go into denial about the fact that the right is presently nowhere to be seen. (Right to privacy, Anyone?)

Come on, we can do better than the Founders (with appropriate thanks to them for getting the ball rolling). We can say “God gave us our humanity, with all its potential.” Then we can concentrate on what we might be doing with this thing, this humanity, and using our capacity for reason to develop plans for “happiness.”

In fact, various religions have been doing so for thousands of years. Even outside of religion, people manufacture “ethics.” None of the 19^th century anthropologists encountered a human group that lacked rules. All took a position on this or that behavior being right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable. All tribes list punishments. All probably had terminology for “the social good.”

I, myself, living millennia after The Flood, have a veritable obsession with the subject of right and wrong. I am mighty distressed that it has gone out of fashion to threaten punishment to those who are harming us. In 2024, I basically fainted when I heard that the US Supreme Court gave a sort of advance pardon to all who hold high office.

The wording in the syllabus of that case, US v Trump, is:

“Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”

[For the record: My personal opinion of Trump’s guilt in US v Trump is that he was not guilty anyway.]

Holding Accountable

Ah, just now I riffled through a good book by Tom Mueller, Crisis of Conscience (2018). It’s about how to be a whistleblower. The opening quote of Chapter 1 is from the little-known documents of the Continental Congress, which sat before we got our current Congress:

“Resolved, that it is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States… to give the earliest information to Congress or other authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers or persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge. – Legislation of July 30, 1778.”

It has a distant ring to it, doesn’t it? Note: Those legislators did not invent it wholesale. The common law of England that came over on the Mayflower in 1620 had laws about holding people accountable. So did early laws, made after the US Constitution arrived. In 1948, the USC (the United States Code, not the University of Southern California) codified “misprision of felony” as a crime, as follows”:

“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

Holy moly, how many times have you committed that crime!

It’s at 18 USC 4. (Title 18 contains all federal crimes. Easily googleable.)

Just in case you feel confused by the fact that the US Supreme Court, in Trump v US, ruled that presidents are not accountable, don’t be confused. It’s the five Justices who were confused when they so ruled. They should now rule sua sponte (spontaneously) that the Great Republic has rule of law, 24/7, with no complete immunity for anyone including Supreme Court Justices.

(Honestly, it’s becoming embarrassing to be American, isn’t it? Many foreigners now hate us, and, worse, many feel sorry for us!)

Back to our rights: Judy Hodgkiss, author of the aforementioned book, includes, as part of our “right to the pursuit of happiness,” the right to listen to music. Of course you can only enjoy this right if the music first exists. (Her group, Promethean Action encourages the arts today.) I look upon our talent for music as natural. So call it God-given if you wish, but to me it did not drop from Heaven as a single gift -- it’s part of human nature which also includes plenty, seriously plenty, bad stuff too. We can use the rational part of human nature to sort these things out.

Here Comes the Preacher

Just as I was writing this article, an email popped up on my machine (very old girl here; I still refer to my computer as a machine). It’s from Frank Schaeffer, who used to be a preacher. Well, once a moralist, always a moralist. He goes at JD Vance rather harshly. Indeed, extremely harshly, given our climate of non-punishment where Anything Goes.

Let me know in Comments, please, if you think Frank Schaeffer has a “right” to talk this way:

It Has to Be Said.

JD Vance: Unforgivable Moral Failure.

Politics requires compromise. It does not require selling your soul…

Listen now

a month ago · 84 likes · 12 comments · Frank Schaeffer