I am here to propose a Jubilee Year in 2026. We have thirty-three months to get it ready — the rest of 2023, plus ’24, and ’25. Not long enough, but it will keep us focused on the positive.
A biblical jubilee year is one that occurs every 49 years and has to do with preserving the land. That’s not what I’m proposing, though I did get my idea from that tradition.
What I want us to do is to focus on the future. At the moment, it’s only an intellectual exercise. Let’s inventory the good possibilities for human life. Sure, the bad stuff will also come into focus, as the counterpoint. But the project is intended to be positive. We are tired of horrors.
I dare nominate only my home country, the US, for a jubilee. But it’s patent that this country interacts with many others. I shall make it a rule that the jubilee search for “a better life” in US cannot include taking advantage of other nations.
In the 1960s, when in college, I read Ruth Benedict’s 1934 book, “Patterns of Culture.” She was in the pioneering group of anthropologists who visited “primitive” societies. When asked which societies are happy, she said the ones in which the reward for a person to do good for himself is well synchronized with the reward for him to do right by the whole society — or something like that. It seemed very clever to me.
My vision of the future will have a lot of the past in it. I believe we have a lot of the past in us. This is mainly good as it makes us human. Sometimes it’s bad because our traits may have suited the old days, say caveman days, but are a nuisance, or worse, today. Note: I will not be proposing that we change our genetic heritage by making chemical alterations to DNA.
I also will not propose that we rely entirely on our rational nature. Being an American enthusiast for the law and the Constitution, I am in the habit of using the old cerebral cortex, but that hasn’t gotten me very far in helping society. I’ll continue to encourage the expanding of our rationality somewhat, without suggesting that we count on it to move mountains.
I will also be upfront about the population problem. Today I saw a clip of Jordan Peterson say that it was terrible to encourage women to limit their reproduction, and he got great applause from the audience. However, at present, our species is overpopulated; we are unable to look after our habitat. When this happens in nature, as it often does, e.g., to bird colonies, a population crash takes place. Most members die.
We have managed to pollute even the Pacific Ocean, something that used to be considered an impossibility. Perhaps you are unable to detect serious habitat problems in the US, as most of us are protected by an artificial environment which seems comfortable enough. But all its bits and pieces come from nature and the stewardship of nature is virtually non-existent.
The late Russell Hardin put out a thesis many decades ago called The Tragedy of the Commons. The commons he referred to included such things as a pasture (e.g., the Boston Common, centuries ago) where people could let their cows graze. The “tragedy” consisted of the fact that each cow-owner may wish to put one more cow to graze on that Common, which will help his income, but if a hundred people do it, the Common will fail.
So how did that clever observation by Hardin engender a response or a solution? it did not. When we discussed it in academia, it was considered a serious subject, but later it drifted away. No one mentions the tragedy of the commons now. Yet those who are polluting oceans with their daily plastic bottles — me, for example — are doing something tragic. Unbelievably tragic.
Oddly, there is no longer an Academy where such problems could be raised. “Altruism” is supposed to be avoided as a topic. Note, though, that the pendulum might swing back. I wouldn’t rule it out. Ever since Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle made their name as thinkers, there has been an Academy. In fact, until the 21st century, it had prestige for its rigor of thought.
I said above that I must correct my prejudice toward rationality. Most persons do not crave intellectual argument. They crave food. They crave status. They crave sex. They crave an outlet for their talent or skill. They crave escape. And so forth. If a jubilee year is to be a goal that we can work towards, I imagine it will be worked-toward by each participant according to his/her preferences. And many will decline to participate, if that’s their preference.
Which brings me to the matter of who leads whom, and who makes the rules. Kind of a big issue, but if you want the jubilee year to be enlightening, I think it’s necessary to go right to the heart of the matter. Maybe some individuals are born leaders and some are born followers. That is kind of different from everyone being a potential leader.
Whatever evolved in H sapiens in regard to leadership, it could only have been for leading small societies. Thus, for Jubilee-planning, there is going to be a circumstance that is not biologically provided for, at least not directly. To wit, one person may have to lead millions or conceivably even a billion. And where the leader of a small society had under his command a bunch of, say, rebels, he did not have people that were raised in a different culture. Now he (or she) will.
Today’s leaders have many mixed groups under them. This is very significant in that it thwarts unity. Some human emotions are colored by group attachment. There are positive emotions, generally referred to as love, and negative emotions — willingness to insult or harm others. I assume they are controllable by a leader who can rely on symbols such as a flag or a mention of past heroes, which easily bring all the individuals into a state of imagined unity.
Note: Paul Craig Roberts said this on December 27, 2022:
“Countries that constitute the West are no longer nations. They are conglomerates of populations that have nothing in common. There are no common mores, no common values, no common religion. There are no unifying forces…. Democracy, free speech, and accountable government are being replaced by tyranny. Tyranny is the only possible outcome. A divided people — a Tower of Babel — cannot hold government accountable.”
Before continuing, here, to outline how an understanding of evolution can help us make good plans, let me point out that some Baddies are very much in that game already, using knowledge of evolution to aid wickedness. They can play us. They do play us. Just on the issue of unity, they can increase unity or stir up disunity quite easily by manipulating the symbols. I have often noted that soldiers who may oppose war policy can hardly get a listen from the American public, as the sentimental side of “sacrifice” is always pushed by the media. It grips the minds of the audience.
War, Wealth, and Mind Control
Ah, war policy. There is a very real possibility that the instigation of the two world wars, and many previous wars, was not “as advertised.” Tens of thousands of men can be sent off to deal in a horrific situation, on the belief that their work is for the sake of their nation when it’s really to benefit someone else. Two examples: a leader may start a war to increase his reputation at home (!), and he may start a war so that weapons manufacturers can try out some new weapons. In the novel 1984, British writer George Orwell went so far as to say that leaders would keep wars going endlessly, for no purpose other than to distract the population from looking at the wealth of the leaders.
Orwell, previously known as Eric Blair, was a graduate of Eton. Most likely he heard such ideas being mentioned as acceptable among the rich.
Now this brings us to property and to money. In some animal species, there is “possession” of goods, however minor (a squirrel’s acorns, say). In humans, it is well accepted that I own my stuff and you own yours. As the opportunities for wealth-creation increase, a huge imbalance of possession follows. Today 1 percent of the world population is said to own 85% of everything. (I am not sure of that as fact.) Whatever we plan, in regard to a jubilee, must deal with that unhealthy situation.
As soon as a human possesses great wealth, he becomes concerned with keeping it. He may see the threat of losing it as equivalent to theft, and see the person who is eyeing his wealth as a thief that deserves constraining. Or deserves dispensing with altogether. I think our genes can adjust us, both to a situation where goods are shared or a situation where goods are fought over. There are plenty of instances of either, in history.
Money is the form of wealth that came about to replace barter. Coins were first used in 700 BC and paper money came about in Europe in the 1600s. Coins may have actual value as metal, but paper money relies on the existence of a guarantor. Right now, you probably have wealth that is entirely based on hope, hope that someone such as “government” will do the right thing.
Another thing about great wealth is that it engenders ecological damage. A corporation that sees a way to take in high profit by acting socially irresponsible toward, say, trees, is unlikely to worry about the long-term effect on society of that tree loss. Corporations emphasize the bottom line. Of course they don’t have to; they could emphasize social responsibility. A corporate leader could be honored by the public for protecting the environment — seriously.
Which brings us to the subject of reputation. It does seem that each human values his reputation highly. Any “knock” to it can be devastating. In today’s America we have a whole profession of smearers — the US military assigns thousands of “soldiers” to make comments anonymously on social media. They may either glorify a bad idea or bad person, or dump on someone who has a good idea. At taxpayer expense. How ridiculous.
And that brings us to the whole issue of mind control. All human relationships have been altered by the modern techniques of getting another person to want what you want him to want. I think we naturally exploit each other when we get the chance, and some exploiting arrangements become permanent, as with slavery. That’s bad enough, but getting into the other person’s brain, physically, so she will fulfill your orders, is to turn humanness upside-down. Isn’t it?
Consider of the incredible chutzpah of Yuval Noah Harari, “son” of WEF, saying, in 2021, that humans have no right to their mind. I note that Dr Jose Delgado had already said that, boldly, around 1980. There really is only one way to deal with such a theme and that is to oppose it entirely. You can’t take it on board in any way — that would be species suicide.
That is my Introduction to Jubilee Year, 2026. It will be the United States’ 250th anniversary, if the year 1776 is construed as the founding. A lot can be done in the next three years 2023, 2024, and 2025 to improve the human situation. Think back to Ruth Benedict’s insight: the happy society is one where rewards to an individual tie in with the behavior of the individual as a good helper of society.
Do your bit to create that kind of reality. All brains on deck!
Editor’s note: The early part of this article contains the true content of Brunson v Adams, abridged, with our author Mary Maxwell inserting herself as ‘Chief Justice Jane Doe.’ In the later part (under the photo of King Richard II), she speaks philosophically about the role of SCOTUS and presents options for solving the Brunson case. The pronoun “we” means the Court is speaking.
In The Supreme Court of the United States: RALAND J BRUNSON, Petitioner, v. ALMA S. ADAMS, et, al., Respondents. Decided [putatively] March 22, 2023
OPINION. Ms Chief Justice Jane Doe delivers the opinion.
This case came to us from a citizen petitioner “Brunson,” disturbed by the refusal of 385 members of Congress to investigate allegations that the 2020 presidential election involved fraud. His case was dismissed at the district court in Utah for “lack of standing.” At the Appeal level in the Tenth Circuit, Respondents argued that they have immunity. We have jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C.A. §1257(a).
Petitioner asks for speedy consideration as “This case uncovers a serious national security breach that is unique” and as it may involve the removal from office of several members of government. He cites these laws, among others:
Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law… or prohibiting . . . the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress … or hold any office… who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof….”
Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution of Utah; “All courts shall be open . . .which shall be administered without denial or unnecessary delay; and no person shall be barred from prosecuting or defending before any tribunal in this State, by himself or counsel, any civil cause to which he is a party.”
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This action is against 388 federal officers in their official capacities which include President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr, Vice President Kamala Harris, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Michael Richard Pence (“Respondents”). All the Respondents have taken the required Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and as such they are liable for consequences when they violate the Oath of Office.
Brunson complained as follows:
“Respondents were properly warned and were requested to make an investigation into a highly covert swift and powerful enemy seeking to destroy the Constitution and the United States. Respondents purposely thwarted all efforts to investigate this, whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated, therefore the Respondents adhered to this enemy. Because of Respondents intentional refusal to investigate this enemy, Petitioner Raland J Brunson (“Brunson”) brought this action against Respondents because he was seriously personally damaged and violated by this action of Respondents, and consequently this action unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.A. and perhaps the rights of every person living, and all courts of law.
“On January 6, 2021, the 117th Congress held a proceeding and debate in Washington DC (“Proceeding”). During this Proceeding over 100 members of U.S. Congress claimed factual evidence that the said election was rigged. The refusal of the Respondents to investigate this congressional claim (the enemy) is an act of treason and fraud by Respondents. A successfully rigged election has the same end result as an act of war; to place into power whom the victor wants, which in this case is Biden, who, if not stopped immediately, will continue to destroy the fundamental freedoms of Brunson and all U.S. Citizens and courts of law.”
Per Brunson’s opening brief and as outlined in Brunson’s said opposition (both not properly addressed by the lower courts) Brunson’s has standing and the trial court has full proper jurisdiction to rule on the merits of this case. And he says that
“Due to the uniqueness of this case, the trial court does have proper authority to remove the Respondents from their offices under 18 U.S. Code § 2381 which states ‘Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned … and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.’ A court adjudicating that the Respondents, who have taken the Oath of Office, to be incapable of holding their offices or who have adhered to a domestic enemy, means nothing without such removal of office.”
Brunson’s pleads that his “allegations against Respondents’ adhering to a domestic enemy, and committing acts of fraud are not protected by any kind of legislation of jurisdictional immunity. Essentially, acts of Congress cannot protect fraud, nor protect the violation of the Oath or that give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States Constitution or America….”
“Turning now to the doctrine of equitable maxim created by this Court, this doctrine stands in direct conflict of the doctrine of the object principle of justice. The doctrine of the object principle of justice is couched by the supreme law of the land, and sets in motion to provide our court system to be the most just, limited, highly effective and easy to understand, and infuses our court system to be the most highly respected and dearly admired court system greater than the world has ever seen. Jurisprudence requires this Court to revoke the doctrine of equitable maxim that it created and to instill the doctrine of the object principle of justice more thoroughly throughout the entire court system in America.”
“Voting is the greatest power an individual can exercise in a Republic; it is Brunson’s personal voice and the way he can protect his personal constitutional protected rights. When the allegations of a rigged election came forward, the Respondents had a duty under law to investigate it or be removed from office. An honest and fair election can only be supported by legal votes, this is sacred. It is the basis of our U.S. Republican Form of Government protected by the U.S. Constitution. The … avoid[ing] of an investigation of how Biden won the election, is an act of treason and an act of levying war against the U. S. Constitution which violated Brunson’s unfettered right to vote in an honest and fair election and as such it wrongfully invalidated his vote.”
_______ [Reminders to Readers: This article is fanciful. The real SCOTUS has not yet ruled on the Brunson case.]
This Court does not find much to quarrel with in regard to Petitioner’s rights. Every citizen has a right to vote in a free and fair election. Nor do we dispute Brunson’s right to get redress from a court of law. We do not agree that 18 USC 2381 gives the judiciary any authority to remove Respondents from office.
We would remand this case to the United States District Court for correction of the dismissal on the jurisdictional ground of standing, and for adjudication, but as the matter is complex and is historic we have chosen, instead, to keep it here. We have resorted to treating it as a case in Equity and have adjudicated it in chambers.
It is time for us to act sua sponte, to alter some of our doctrines. Article III of the United States Constitution sets limits on what we can do; we must strictly observe those limits. We must also respect any federal or state legislation that is not unconstitutional. We do not, however, have to obey our own doctrines. And we do not have to bend to common law insofar as our decision today is new common law.
This Court takes judicial notice of this nation’s distrust of the courts which has been increasing for the last two or more decades. The people are also distrustful of the two other branches of government, the legislative and the executive. We are obliged to do what we can to restore the status quo ante. Brunson said in his pleadings, that the object principle of justice “infuses our court system to be the most highly respected and dearly admired court system greater than the world has ever seen.”
We divide this ruling into reasonings on equity, oaths, military commissions, accountability and immunities, the balance of power, truth, and constructive remedies for this case.
Equity. When the United States was founded in 1776, it was taken as accepted that the common law of England was part of our culture. The Constitution, written in 1787, assumes this, for example, the Seventh Amendment says suits will be tried “according to the rules of the common law.” English law, since the fifteenth century, has a court of chancery in which the rulings could be creative to provide justice where the law did not contain a remedy. That court was also known as Equity and the American colonists were familiar with it from the writings of Coke. It issued injunctions and could also order the setting up constructive trusts.
England’s Judicature Act of 1873 abolished the court of Equity but made it a specialist division of the High Court. This abolition did not affect American law. Nevertheless, Equity has mostly fallen into disuse here, except in bankruptcy court. In the Brunson case at hand we revive Equity. While Congress can, to some extent, legislate on practices of the court, it is inherent in the judicial function to apply principles of equity in appropriate cases. During the nineteenth century, the principles of equity, especially of protecting the weak against the strong, were much used in conjunction with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, to limit the mergers of corporations.
The question arises: Can equity be applied to criminal law as well as civil law? Yes, as in the use of restraints against employers for the physical protection of workers against violence. It is inherent in the court to protect the peace. The method used is to enjoin a party to act equitably. Effectiveness depends in the conscience of the defendant. Edwin Mack, writing in April 1903 in the Harvard Law Review on “The Revival of Criminal Equity” showed how equity changes with the social times:
“The reign of Richard II found England in a turbulent and restless state. Politically it was a time of weak sovereigns; economically it was a period of transition and reformation. Manorial authority was breaking down and the power of municipalities and guilds was lessening. Highwaymen and rioters made trade and travel hazardous; powerful barons overawed the local courts. … Thus many of the suits of this period, though involving property rights, in fact were instituted to preserve the peace and prevent crime.”
Today, in the twenty-first century, we have heads of state who are weak insofar as they are obeying someone other than the people. We are currently reconsidering our decision in Citizens United as it has, by strengthening the ‘rights’ of corporations, altered the political landscape in an undesirable way. Economically we are undergoing a period of rapid transformation owing to technology’s advancement. We have not yet addressed this, but many cases in appeals today have to do with technology’s pressure on the upholding of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of personal privacy.
The power of the fifty states has fallen to a low level, something we ruled against in Prinze in 1997, saying that states are not required to take instructions from federal agencies.
Thus, as in the reign of Richard II, courts are cognizant of where society is headed. This court must respond to what Petitioner Brunson sees as alarming trends today.
Oaths. In his pleadings Petitioner said “Essentially, acts of Congress cannot protect fraud, nor protect the violation of the Oath or that give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States Constitution or America….” That is correct — legislation that mandates crime is null. In general, the enforcement of oaths of office has not been handled by courts. We would normally consider it to be excluded from our jurisdiction by the doctrine of ‘the political question’ — the two political branches should deal with it. The power of the oath as used in sworn testimony has an ancient heritage; it was a calling down of God’s vengeance on anyone who broke it. Lycurgus in the Athenian assembly cried “The Oath is what holds democracy together.” In medieval times, an oath given by a person testifying in court raised the status of his testimony’s reliability. The office-takers oath should be seen the way, too — “My word is oath” but customarily it is not. We may be partly to blame for this and are grateful that Brunson’s case brings it to our attention. He emphasized that the oath binds the legislator or other officer to fulfill their duty. He goes so far as to say that violation of the oath is treason against the Constitution.
We are constrained by our authority to rule only on the written law of the land. In Article II, section 3, the Constitution states: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Brunson does not identify an enemy other than to say, when blaming 285 Congresspersons for failing to investigate election fraud: “Respondents were properly warned and were requested to make an investigation into a highly covert swift and powerful enemy … seeking to destroy the Constitution and the United States.” That is overblown. The Respondents were not asked to investigate a highly covert swift and powerful enemy, as such. Petitioner should present his case of alleged treason to law enforcement. It may then come to us for judgement.
Military commissions. The Brunson case is causing great excitement in the population. Although Brunson himself does not mention military intervention, the people are conversing on social media about this case. Many seem to believe that if the United States government is collapsing or is illegitimate, owing to the very issue of election fraud in 2020, the military is authorized to step in. There is no such provision in the Constitution. The military is under Congress’ control, per Article I, section 8. And the President is its commander in chief, per Article I, section 2. Logically, if all three branches of government relinquish their duty to govern, some other force will take over. It could be a criminal gang. It could be a military takeover, given that soldiers are armed. But that is not provided for in law.
The rumor is that statutes or jurisprudence have allocated a role to military tribunals for the conviction of traitors. Our rulings on military tribunals are found in Ex parte Quirin of 1942, Hamdi of 2004, and Hamdan of 2006. The current statute that reflects that jurisprudence is The Military Commissions Act of 2009. The question was: Who has the authority to ‘bring to justice’ persons who can be shown to have betrayed the nation? The military always had the role of trying its members for crimes, as specified in the UMCJ, Uniform Military Code of Justice, and since Quirin it has had the right to try a foreign enemy found on US soil. We endorsed President Roosevelt’s order to execute German saboteurs, during war, who were caught in the US. We said, in Quirin, “there is a class of unlawful belligerents not entitled to [POW] privilege… And by Article 15 of the Articles of War Congress has made provision for their trial and punishment by military commission, according to ‘the law of war’.”
In 2006 in Hamdan, we said that prisoners at Gitmo have some due process rights even though they are foreigners, but that military commissions could not be set up without statutory provision. Congress then provided The Military Commissions Act. This does not encompass trying American civilians for treason or any other crime, as the normal courts exist for this. In 2004, in Hamdi, we allowed a military commission to deal with two US citizens, Hamdi and Padilla, who were charged with fighting against the United States — we said they could be dealt with as “enemy combatants.” This is not the same as trying a US soldier under the UMCJ in which he can, of course, be charged with treason. Hamdi gave up his US citizenship in exchange for going free, and Padilla’s case was transferred to civilian court. If today a member of government is chargeable with a crime, he is to go through the same procedure as any criminal. There is no need for a military commission. We note, however, that The National Defense Authorization of 2012 Act, signed by President Obama, provides for indefinite detention of enemy combatants, whether or not caught on the battlefield.
Accountability and Immunity. The proper behavior of elected officials, with regard to governmental issues, is normally expected to be enforced by public pressure. If an elected politician acts unaccountably toward her constituents, they can refuse to return her to office. If it is an appointed person who is doing a bad job, the public can pressure the elected official who appointed that officer. Apart from duty fulfillment, the normal laws apply to all Americans — a mayor or a president caught stealing will be charged with theft. In the case of a sitting mayor or president, the public may prefer that the indictment be put on hold until the person has left office, but as we said in Nixon, there is no need for that delay to occur.
One often hears that an official cannot be sued or arrested no matter what they do, based on “immunity.” It is true that the Eleventh Amendment gives sovereign immunity to a state and its officials, but this is not against criminal charges. It is against lawsuits. Traditionally all legislators are protected from having to pay out for making a bad law and judges are protected from suit for the judgments they render. It was not ever thus: In the Code of Hammurabi, dated 1770 B.C.E., a judge could be made to pay damages and also be expelled. Brunson’s case goes to the heart of the matter of immunity. A member of Congress can reply to the accusation that she did not pursue the investigation of election fraud by saying she took the fraud-talk to be unfounded. Undoubtedly legislators are free to make such decisions. Perchance Brunson’s sketch of 385 Congresspersons getting the sack was meant to dramatize the moment. The accusation of election fraud is dramatic, but we must not focus on the drama. Petitioner wants justice for his rights as a voter; it is this court’s task to adjudicate that.
The Balance of Powers. It is proper for us to engage in maintaining the Constitution as such, and we have occasionally ruled in a way that had this as its primary goal. One vital part of the Constitution is the balance of powers. The Framers, using Montesquieu’s model, took many steps to check one power against another, the main one being Congress’ power to limit a president’s actions by impeachment. Judicial review is one of the powers by which the judiciary can put weight against legislative overreach. We can, and occasionally do, declare a state or federal law unconstitutional.
Many critics have complained that the balance of power has moved in recent decades to give most clout to the executive branch. Admittedly this court has had a policy of judicial deference. Thus when a citizen sues, or tries to sue, for the Presidential snatching of Congress’s power to declare war per Article I, section 8, clause 11, the court dismisses the case. Many illegal wars have thus occurred. Even when Congress files the suit, as Rep Ron Dellums and 56 colleagues did in 1991, to prevent what came to be known as “Operation Desert Shield,” the court of Washington DC ruled that the case was not ripe because Secretary of State James Baker might yet find a diplomatic solution. If a neutral party looked at our record, he would say that we did not bring in the Constitution’s main caution about war, which the Framers so carefully provided.
The balance of power is not just the three branches but the other two players in the Constitution: the states and the people. In regard to war, a state brought suit, Massachusetts v Laird, in which we had original jurisdiction, to question the use of its National Guard troops in the Vietnam war. We did not adjudicate; we declined to hear it. That was an exceptional case however, as the balance between state and the federal power is mainly tipped by the states’ unwillingness to challenge. Unconstitutional laws are unchallenged by a state as the law is a way to receive federal finding. When a suit is brought, we dismiss it by observing that the state was not coerced.
In regard to our holdback on throwing the book at the executive branch, we now must take a deeper look at the role played by the Department of Justice, which is under the executive’s command. Two structural conflicts of interest stand out. One is the fact that wrongdoing within that branch cannot be addressed; the FBI is not going to arrest, say, the Attorney General or the president. The other conflict has to do with a citizen who is being prosecuted by the Department of Justice. She has to accept the evidence procured by the FBI as there is no way to dispute it — the government runs the labs and is secretive. If she is penniless she may also have to accept a Public Defender. That defender is an arm of the court, which as seen in the Tsarnaev trial, is a flagrant moral hazard.
As to the balance between the people and the executive, one may again look at a war case. In 2003 on the brink of the United States’ wholly unconstitutional invasion of Iraq, desperate soldiers and their parents asked, in Doe v Bush, for emergency attention of the court. At the First Circuit, Judge Sandra Lee Lynch recognition of Article I section 8 went only this far: She wrote “An extreme case might arise, for example, if Congress gave absolute discretion to the President to start a war at his or her will… Plaintiffs’ objection to the October Resolution does not, of course, involve any such claim.” But a neutral observer may say that it did. Most recently in the Covid pandemic, our balancing of the power of the people as against the government has been near nil. Cases were lost at levels so we were never pressured to announce agreement with, or overturning of, our 1931 ruling in Blaisdell which said that emergency does not add any new power “or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved.” Maxwell v Secretary of Defense, concerning mandatory vaccination, should not have been dismissed at the district court. In hindsight, we would do it differently.
There is, however, as Professor Louis Fisher states in his 2019 book Reconsidering Judicial Finality, a balancing against the court’s power that arises through public opinion and scholarly criticism. In the long run an unacceptable judgment by the court gets overturned on compulsory flag-salute, publicly requested legislation, as happened in such cases as Leoles v Landers on compulsory flag-salute, Korematsu on internment of Japanese, and Goldman v Secretary of Defense, on the wearing of a yarmulke. Fisher says, rightly, “the concept of judicial finality is fundamentally at odds with the principles of democracy, self-government, and liberty.”
Truth. Truth is essential to the carrying out of the law. If everyone lies, for her own selfish interest, no coordination can occur, no social order, only violence. It was recently revealed that the power that has been curtailing freedom of speech is none other than the United States government in a conspiracy with Twitter, Facebook, and so forth. How can one make truth emerge where the nation’s own weapons is set against it? The late Robert Steele reported:
“I managed a false flag event for the Central Intelligence Agency overseas. I have personal experience with ‘legalized lying’ whereby ostensible orders ‘from the highest authorities’ mandate lying to the Court and lying to the media and the public, in support of national security objectives. Individuals ordered to lie are offered both full immunity and severe penalties if they fail to lie as ordered.”
It is illogical that ‘national security’ can require that the United States collapse for lack of truth. The court system itself would be first to fall under a scheme of ‘legalized lying.’ Lying to the court is perjury and is a crime. It may be that national security itself is one of those lies.
Generations from now, people will wonder how the brilliant Constitution, the holy Scripture of Americans, was nor protected. It could be that there is an enemy. Petitioner Brunson boldly states this, without defining it. JG Olsen wrote a February 23 2023 article entitled “Illusions and the Business of Control” that may shine light. For Olsen the enemy is the Globalists who have weaved everything onto their web. He says:
“We can see, from the coordinated control of official misinformation, from the globalist corporate industrial and retail entities everywhere, from the commercialization of every type of service and the banning and persecution of competitors, that by now everything is woven into the Globalist’s web, and their interests are controlled from the center of their web, no matter how many strands flow outwards from the center, it all connects.”
In adjudicating the Brunson case, it is this court’s duty to take judicial notice of this interpretation of reality.
Constructive remedies for this case. Having now thought about equity, oaths, military commissions, accountability and immunities, the balance of power, and truth, we turn to constructive remedies for this case. We have chosen to act as a court of equity in adjudicating Brunson. We cannot avoid taking the case at all. In 1821 in Cohens v Virginia we said “We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” Yet under the court of law there is no place for some of Brunson’s propositions. As noted, Equity expanded twice in the past when circumstances called for it. We believe today is a third time.
Brunson’s case is against Adams et al, Adams being the first-named of the 385 Congresspersons who failed to do what Brunson says was required of them. Petitioner cites a 1877 claim of election fraud in which legislators were asked to investigate and did so. Of course the 1877 action is not binding on today’s Congress. What is binding is that Congress follow Amendment Twelve of the Constitution, as coded in 3 US 15, and it did so, quite perfectly, on the night of January 6 and early morning of January 7, 2021. It debated the Electoral ballots of two states and then voted on these with a majority approving them. Constitutionally, Biden became president legally. The election of many presidents may have occurred by ballot harvesting, software tampering, or other methods of dishonesty.
Congress established a committee to investigate the violence that occurred in the Capitol building on January 6, 2021 with an eye to blaming President Trump for inciting it. There are two reasons to question the accuracy of the committee’s work. One is that they did not use the two major presentations about vote fraud — the movie entitled Two Thousand Mules by Dinesh D’Souza and the two-hour documentary by Mike Lindell. The other reason for doubting accuracy is the overtly partisan nature of the committee or indeed partisanship itself. We cannot make rulings on how a party should act as there is no mention of Party in the Constitution. A political party is a private club.
Citizens looked to the courts for help but even the courts were overtly partisan. Sidney Powell, author of the 2014 book Licensed To Lie, concerning DoJ prosecutors, helped six Republicans file a lawsuit about the 2020 election. They asked Detroit judge Linda Parker to decertify Michigan’s election results and impound voting machines. The judge dismissed the pleading, calling it “stunning in its scope and breathtaking in its reach,” and also said it was “fantastical” and threatened to have Powell disbarred.
Justice Cardoza said a jurist “is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles.” There are centuries-old principles germane to the court of equity, one of which is that we must find a remedy. “Ubi jus, ibi remedium.” We must find an equitable remedy for Brunson. He has brought to us his plea.
Brunson wants us to remove from Congress 385 persons, plus the current President and Vice President and former Vice President Mike Pence. He also wants us to reinstate the Former president Donald Trump. In the court of equity we can go outside the black-letter law and construct a remedy. But the removal of people from office is not supportable. First, it’s highly unlikely that we would be obeyed. Second, although Brunson has an eager following of patriots, there are millions of people who would be horrified. Third, they would be stirred by the media who may call our judgement insurrectionist.
Instead, we can make recommendations for voluntary compliance. We do not know if the election of Biden was correct. But we do know that many people are certain it was incorrect. We recommend that Biden, who is already under suspicion for several crimes, step down. It would be a generous move. Kamala Harris would automatically become president, and a new vice president will be appointed, following unprecedented popular, nonpartisan involvement. The House and Senate can then have a good look at their members. It is perfectly constitutional for them to expel a member by using a 2/3 vote. No proof of anything is required and there is no appeal. This will quickly reduce the number of congresspersons. The states will have to replenish the supply. Harris can appoint any new cabinet members, if 2/3 of the Senate concurs.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote, in The Gulag Archipelago:
“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”
The real news keeps flooding in. Today, more videos. The mainstream media keeps ignoring the real war, the chemical terrorist attack, and the assault on the human race.
Get ready folks, they are preparing to put you in your paddock.
The first video: Panic in HOLLYWEIRD, Epstein, Obama, Ukraine, Pipelines, DeRAIL, SMART cities (28:30 min)… PRAY!
A young girl speaks out at around 38 min.
Situation Update: “Chemical weapons attack on USA, Byedin visits Ukraine but not Ohio. Russia conducts nuclear attack drills. Judy Byington update, Brunson petition, Russia finds more Adrenochrome factories in Ukraine, and Pentagon behind covid-19. North Korea launches barrage of test ICBMs; another earthquake in turkey, pipe bomb found in Pittsburgh and Oxfordshire protests the 15 cities, and more.
Max Egan and the Consolidation of Power. And the next phase of the End Game.
When we just can’t get anywhere, thanks to judicial corruption, we will have to fight with what we’ve got. I hereby contend that when a book has sufficiently put forth the truth, in a case where the authorities have blatantly lied or hidden the facts, the book suffices to close the case.
Here are 10 books that do that job. To be included in this list, the researcher had to have given consideration to the government’s false story and used sufficient evidence to refute it. He (or in two cases, she) had to have exhausted all the means available to prove the point. In this concise list, the claim of each book will be expressed in one or two sentences:
Remember the Liberty, by Phillip Nelson (2017). An American spy ship was attacked by Israeli planes deliberately, to sink the ship and kill all crew. The US wanted this to happen and has covered it all up since 1967.
And Nothing Happened, by Steven Ross (2008). Many doctors have found good cures for a range of diseases but aren’t allowed to promulgate them, even today.
The Federal Siege at Ruby Ridge, by Randy Weaver (1998). The FBI’s attack, killing Randy Weaver’s wife Vicki and his 14-year-old son Sam, was unprovoked and unjustified. The fact that this book is self-serving to its author does not ruin the case.
The Worst Interests of the Child, by Keith Harmon Snow (2016). In Connecticut there was collusion by a doctor and a lawyer (later appointed to judgeship) to take a 6-year-old boy from his mother and place him with sexual-abuser dad.
Another Nineteen Legitimate Suspects, by Kevin Ryan (2013). There are many Americans who played some part in the 9-11 attack on the NY World Trade Center, such as by giving false reports, or by selling their stock in airlines before the event. None have been investigated.
The Terror Factory, by Trevor Aaronson (2013). So-called terrorists are often recruited by the FBI and used in a sting to create a disaster. Even when the court knows the big picture, it still renders a verdict of guilty on the hapless individual.
Killing the Messenger, by William McBride, MD (1994). The man who discovered the cause of children being born without limbs was persecuted in court for 21 months, led by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, for his sin of exposing the dirt of Big Pharma.
Surviving Evil, by Karen Wetmore (2014). For thirty years, the Vermont State Hospital carried out “terminal experiments” for the CIA, in which about 100 persons died, per year. LSD was one of the drugs used for murder.
American Assassination, by Four Arrows and Jim Fetzer (2004). US Senator Paul Wellstone from Minnesota was murdered in 2002 by the crashing of his own plane. The likely reason for this was his anticipated objection to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.
Boots on the Ground at Dusk, by Mary Tillman (2008). Pat Tillman’s mother proves that his death was ordered by an official and carried out by a fellow soldier in Afghanistan.
Note: All of the above call for indictments of the apparent suspects.
Books with More Than One “Find”
In the above-named ten books, there is only one thesis being developed by each author. In this next list of ten books, the author covers several topics of which I pick out only one for your inspection. And I am softening the criterion for inclusion: the author does not have to have exhausted all the means available to prove the point. Rather, he (and in one case, she) writes on a topic which is generally clouded by official secrecy.
Terry Reed’s Compromised (co-author John Cummings, 1995) pins the 1980s crime of CIA-drug importation into US on William Barr, and names Edwin Meese’s bank account as the receptacle for the money.
James Macgregor and Gerry Docherty’s Prolonging the Agony (2017) establishes that the UK government created a boat-sinking in which Lord Kitchener would be killed since he was critical of the trickery behind WWI.
Fritz Springmeier’s Bloodlines of the Illuminati (2019) states that Benjamin Franklin, who was head of American Freemasons and a member of the Hellfire Club in London which was planning to bring in the New World Order of Satan.
Anthony Kubek’s How the East Was Lost (1963) invokes the now-deleted testimony of General Patrick Hurley, who told the US Senate that certain American diplomats undercut the US policy of supporting the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek and assisted the rise of the Communist Party.
James Perloff’s Truth Is a Lonely Warrior (2013) lists the number of government leaders — 21 Sec’ys of Defense, 19 Sec’ys of Treasury, 18 Sec’ys of State — who belonged to the private Council on Foreign Relations, which places global authority over the US.
Chalmer’s Johnson’s The Sorrows of Empire (2004) says: Guaranteed, the ongoing expansion of the US empire will cause a loss of our Constitution as the Pentagon-ish presidency fully eclipses Congress.
Richard Belzer and David Wayne’s ‘s Hit List (2013) names dozens of people ‘taken out’ because they knew something that contravened the narrative about Lee Harvey Oswald. “Six high-level FBI officials — all connected to the investigation of the JFK assassination — died during a six-month period in 1977, right when they were scheduled to testify before the Congressional Committee.”
Anton Chaitkin’s Treason in America (1990) tells of Teddy Roosevelt’s rise to the presidency upon the assassination of McKinley. Roosevelt’s and JP Morgan’s International Harvester Company took control of all farm machinery in US, making a joke of Teddy’s nickname “trust buster.”
Alex Constantine’s Jackals (2016) reveals the CIA’s Safari Club’s footprint in the unrest in Costa Rica, the funding of UNITA in Angola, and the Afghan “freedom fighters,” including bin Laden, and how Edin Pauley taught GHW Bush to launder money through corporate subsidies to be used to finance political campaigns, including Nixon’s.
Elana Freeland’s Under an Ionized Sky (2018)
Reminder: Most books in that second list contain many more finds than the one I selected.
Books by Mary W Maxwell
Finally, here are eight books of which the author is Mary W Maxwell, me. The first three are of the single-theme type; for the last five I pick out a single ‘find.’ My criteria for inclusion are as strict as for the first ten books — requiring that I exhaust the possibility of the government story being correct. (Note: It was pathetically easy to do.)
Unreality: Sandy Hook Messes Minds — The 2012 school massacre did not really happen.
Inquest: Siege in Sydney — The 2014 hostage-taking by a Muslim was a psy-op, Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson died.
Port Arthur: Enough Is Enough (co-author, Dee McLachlan) — Martin Bryant did not take any part in the 1996 killing of 26 people.
Reunion: Judging the Family Court — Australian judges are maliciously participating in child-trafficking, even as we speak.
Consider the Lilies: A Review of 18 Cures for Cancer — Vaccines have been a scam from Day One (i.e., Dr Jenner in 1798).
Fraud Upon the Court — the 2011 execution of Troy Davis took place despite Georgia judges and Supreme Court judges knowing the conviction was wrongly obtained.
Deliverance — The 1996 massacre of children at Dunblane, Scotland was arranged by pedophiles in high positions.
Boston’s Marathon Bombing — Tamerlan Tsarnaev was murdered in FBI custody.
Note: The above author was at all times trying to elucidate the authorities’ blocking of the legal system.
Reviewing the Deaths in Those 28 Books
The purpose of this article is to make a case for some sort of laypersons’ tribunals. We need to knock down the legalist walls of Jericho. Consider, for starters, how many “unresolved deaths” got listed above; these included leaders: Lord Kitchener, Senator Wellstone, President McKinley, and citizens: Sam and Vicki Weaver, Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson, and Pat Tillman, plus persons in custody: Troy Davis and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
There were the unnamed persons within mass deaths, such as the 3000 at Vermont State Hospital, the 16 at Dunblane, the 26 at Port Arthur, 34 crewmen of the Liberty ship, and 50 whistleblowers regarding JFK. Plus amorphous groups, as suggested by mention of the WTC disaster, the deaths that followed from drug importation, or from the terror incidents cooked up by the Terror Factory. Not to mention all the harm done by suppression of cures, child trafficking, drug importation, or the nation’s submitting to global rulers.
How are these deaths handled? Often the courts blame the wrong guy for a murder, or police misrepresent it as a suicide, or they blame a terrorist, or they say it’s impossible to figure out who did it. Yet my authors didn’t have much trouble adding up two and two to get four. Let’s stop letting this business get sidelined. “We can do it.”
I venture to say there are 3 Rules of Thumb that the powerful use to kill people: 1. Kill a potential witness, 2. Kill a critic or a challenger, 3. Kill to cause distress in society, and 4. Kill to rub out an undesirable group. (As for the “terminal experiment” deaths reported by Karen Wetmore in Vermont, that gave doctors some knowledge of the endurance of the human body, these just reveal the utter unworthiness of people in the eyes of the “owners.”)
As you can see, Rules 1, 2, and 3 are meant to deflect attention away from the sinfulness of the powerful — they do know when they are sinning! It’s pretty embarrassing to think how we let them get away with it. Isn’t it time we stopped being thwarted by the way their own ‘judicial’ employees shut us up?
Slouching Towards Jericho
So here is my Jericho proposal. We knock down the walls with books. The 28 books listed above are not a universe — I grabbed whatever was on the shelf at my home. Of course we mustn’t grant that any old book will qualify. It should be in one in which a (preferably disinterested) party has made a clear discovery as to the way the issue has been wrongly dealt with thus far, thanks to “power” interference.
And where is this Jericho? It is wherever you wish to set it up. Our Fifth Amendment says:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital … crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.” The phrase ‘grand jury’ at the time the Constitution was written (1787) meant a group of citizens acting under authority of their own elected foreman. No further amendment was ever ratified to change this arrangement.
Get creative! Use books as your weapon — they even pass through a metal detector. Or if they don’t, you can memorize them. What a weapon that would be!
Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, Jericho, Jericho,
Playing the role of illegitimate president Joseph Biden, actor Arthur Roberts, one of many Biden doppelgangers, delivered a State of the Union Address rife with lies and quarter-truths to an audience of body doubles hired to applaud his imagined accomplishments. White Hats at U.S. Army Cyber Command who scrutinized the address estimate that 30% of attendees were actors, look-a-likes, or even clones, a clever array of facsimiles to confuse and trick the public.
Body doubles are nothing novel. Throughout history, world leaders and political zealots from Adolph Hitler to Joseph Stalin, from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Barack Hussein Obama, have employed a bevy of doubles to escape capture or assassination. According to one source, seven “fake” Clintons were caught between 2016-2020 before the military finally homed in on and apprehended the authentic one. And in May 2021, an actress wearing a Nancy Pelosi mask spoofed a Marine reconnaissance platoon, proving that even rudimentary cosmetics could fool trained observers.
Recent technological discoveries, however, have White Hats convinced that Deep Staters—particularly those named on sealed indictments—have upped the ante and are now using transformative technology—clones and holography—to replicate not only themselves but also the good guys, to offer a semblance of unity between Democrats and Republicans.
The discovery of cloning labs in Missouri and Alaska opened White Hats’ eyes to a broader reality, a Cyber Command source told Real Raw News. A portable holographic generator found at the Missouri site could project a lifelike image of a limestone cliff without producing a beam of light perceptible to humans. The visible light spectrum is the segment of the electromagnetic spectrum that the human eye can view. More simply, this range of wavelengths is called visible light—380-700 nanometers.
“If you shine a normal flashlight on a wall, you can see an expanding light cone. The lens on the generator shows no visible light, just the intended projection,” our source said.
Specialists who tinkered with the device found that it had a database of projectable images—a contemporary two-story home, a waterfall, and a group of armed sentries displaying basic motions such as holstering and unholstering sidearms, each with an audio component. Asked whether it held “blue beam” projections like extraterrestrials or Christ, he said nothing that elaborate was on the machine, but added that the database is modifiable.
“We’re seeing next-level tech. It’s not the stuff of Star Trek, but it’s getting there. What we saw of the SOTUA is proof of that,” our source said.
He mentioned that the row of generals, which included Berger and Milley, was produced holographically, saying whoever programmed the emitters must not have been military because there were detectable flaws in the uniforms that no lifer would make. He wouldn’t specify the mistakes.
“We don’t want to help them fix the gaffes,” he said. “Besides, we know where the real Gen. Berger is, and he certainly wasn’t there. The administration is trying to present a unity that doesn’t exist in reality.”
Equally concerning, he said Cyber Command is convinced that the Speaker of the House present at the SOTU was unequivocally a clone. White Hats who examined clones of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Nancy Pelosi taken from the Alaska lab discovered imperfections beyond what’s been previously reported—flat feet and missing molars. This time, they refused to expound on the “imperfections” to avoid tipping their hand.
“We have to keep certain things close to the vest, the situation is dire, and the Deep State has eyes and ears everywhere,” he said.
Asked why Biden is still using body doubles when clones and holograms are available, he said, “We don’t know. But we’ve seen no evidence of that and we damn sure know Arthur Roberts is a primary Biden double. He was coached on Biden’s mannerisms, but we’ve seen inconsistencies in speech and gait, and all signs point to Roberts right now.”
Even Biden’s speech, he added, was a fake: Cyber Command said the Artificial Intelligence program ChatGPT wrote it, though some passages were rearranged to make the vernacular sound more human.
“A great unmasking will come soon,” he said in closing.
Russian Special Forces in Ukraine have intercepted a refrigerated tractor-trailer that was hauling refined Adrenochrome from Ukraine to Warsaw, Poland, where the shipment would have been loaded onto planes headed for the United States, a Russian FSB agent, Andrei Zakharov, told Real Raw News.
As reported last month, the FSB claimed that “Deep State” Adrenochrome manufacturers in the United States became so fearful of military retaliation that they set up shop in Eastern European countries, especially Ukraine, sympathetic to the criminal Biden regime. In January, Spetznas rescued 50 imprisoned, emaciated children from an “Adrenochrome farm” near Shostka, Ukraine. Their captors had so frequently drained their brittle bodies of blood and adrenal fluid that their survival depended on being kept in a medically induced coma, fed intravenously. Zakharov said that five of the 50 have perished due to wounds sustained in captivity.
Under Putin’s orders, the FSB has since launched a widespread initiative to track and eliminate Adrenochrome manufacturers, sellers, buyers, middlemen, and anyone involved in the production and export of a pharmaceutical cocktail Putin has called “the devil’s work.” Zakharov said that the Russian president had formed an “Adrenochrome taskforce” comprised of special agents and handpicked Spetznas to tackle the growing crisis.
The task force scored a victory on Sunday, capturing an 18-wheeler filled with chilled Adrenochrome that could have reached the shores of the United States. The intercept reportedly took place along P94–a roadway stretching from southern Ukraine to Brest, a border city and checkpoint with points of egress leading to Warsaw, Poland—and included at least a dozen Spetznas and FSB operatives.
Zakharov wouldn’t say how they learned of the shipment or why the team seized the truck on the highway instead of at its departure point, but he did say a cargo manifest identified the truck’s contents as Penicillin and other injectable antibiotics. Ukraine’s principal exports are agricultural products, not medicine.
“If we are slaughtering Ukrainian citizens, as Zelenskyy says, why would he send medicine out of the country? It Makes no sense. The trailer had no medicine, only Adrenochrome poison,” Zakharov said.
Spetznas held the driver and a passenger at gunpoint while inspecting the truck. According to Zakharov, the task force has been trained to visually identify Adrenochrome without laboratory tests. Whether an infusion or an injection, the liquid is slightly viscous, scintillates when exposed to sunlight, and has an almost imperceptible red tint, Zakharov said.
The truck’s occupants, Ukrainian citizens, wouldn’t cooperate and were shot on the spot as war criminals, per Vladimir Putin’s standing orders.
“These filth deserve no mercy,” Zakharov said. “They are agents of evil.”
He added that the task force took samples for chemical analysis before torching the semi.
The manifest said the shipment was to be taken to Warsaw International Airport and loaded aboard an Atlas Air cargo plane bound for Dover AFB in Delaware.
Note: We have yet to confirm this story through domestic sources. In the past, Vladimir Putin has shared details on Adrenochrome interdictions with President Trump. We hope that our Mar-a-Lago sources hear of such a conversation, and if so, we’ll update this story as appropriate.
Correction: We intiially called Dover an airport. It is an AFB. We have corrected the article text.
As is obvious, we have for the last two months had issues with the website—running slow or returning error pages. We have been working with the host as well as a developer to remedy these issues as quickly as possible. It bothers us as much as it does our readers.
Over the last few months, we’ve upgraded the server twice, first to a more powerful Virtual Private Server and then to a dedicated server. Both should accommodate the traffic RRN receives.
We’ve also had to deal with constant denial of service attacks on the server, but we have made improvements that greatly mitigated the frequency of these attacks.
Our developer believes a comment plugin may be responsible for many slow-downs, so we have disabled it until we can know for sure if it’s responsible, as we monitor the server over the next day or so.
If the plugin is not the issue, we will continue working on the server until we isolate and remedy the issue.
As a last resort, we may have comments hosted offsite on a platform like Disqus, that intergrates seamlessly with our site. This would be a last resort, as they are expensive and have their own terms of service.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.