Jim White

So is SCOTUS making Amendment XI one that REMOVES the right of a Citizen of a State to take the State to SCOTUS for "original Jurisdiction." WRONG. Hans v. Louisiana merely agreed with Amendment X, States rights to control their own financial obligations. See usareset.net/forum/viewto...

Congress can impeach Justices and it can convict and remove them. Lots of checks available to Congress that are not available to other branches. Read the Constitution PLEASE. It is obvious that MOST (NEAR ALL) lawyers have not studied it enough to know what it really says and how it works.

PLEASE, please, please QUIT calling the Government branches co-equal. THEY ARE NOT. CONGRESS by INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS is MORE-EQUAL. President can veto but Congress can override the veto. Congress can declare war, not the President. ...

He's trying to deal with the fact that SCOTUS has INTENTIONALLY and WRONGLY cited Hans v. Louisiana as making Amend. XI forbid Citizen of a State v. Their State "original Jurisdiction" SCOTUS cases. IT DOESN'T. See usareset.net/forum/viewto.... It's an Amend. X States Rights case--financial control.

I wouldn't vote for Whitmer as President because as Governor she's proven that Michigan agencies can define their own (erroneous) arithmetic, ignore Michigan law, and Michigan courts can ignore such wrongs. And she won't do anything about it! See usareset.net/forum/viewto...

Hi Leah, what has he (or you for that matter) done to insure that Amendment IX and Amendment VII are honored by State (say Michigan) Courts and Federal Courts? Are correct arithmetic, valid logic, and understanding law in plain English rights or not? Inquiring minds want to know.

They are contributing to things causing a slow shift in the thinking of the typical MAGA thus dropping Trump's polling numbers and moving politics toward more Democrat wins (AKA Republican losses) in 2026 and beyond. Voting Republicans out of the House and Senate in 2026 can help "We the People."

Too much emphasis on "government" issues at SCOTUS. What about "little guy" emphasis, something non-SCOTUS followers can understand. E.g., Correct Arithmetic, Valid Logic, Understanding law in plain English (all per Amendment IX and brought in from English Common Law). My 22-387 case is an example.

Agreed. SCOTUS has already enshrined incorrect arithmetic, invalid logic, misreading plain English, and discarding at least Amendments VII and IX as VALID LAW when done (at least) by a State. See usareset.net/forum/viewto... for one example. You lost already but YOU can lose MORE if you don't act.

FALSE! Judges and Justices don't even have to find something unConstitutional. They can AND DO simply ignore whatever they want such as incorrect arithmetic, invalid logic, the clear words understood in English of statute or Constitution ...

"But Congress may ..."

Past the point of disgusting!

Excellent article. I've looked at most of the cases and my take is early Justices not only missed the Petition Clause, they ignored Amendment IX which incorporated the other rights of Englishmen. The early Justices just flat got the Constitution wrong (or they simply were grabbing POWER). Thanks

Buy the book. Read it. Sure, the author has a bias -- but that doesn't mean the facts are wrong. They are well detailed. Bottom line, Representatives SHOULD impeach several Justices and the Senate should convict them. Ignoring the Constitution IS BAD BEHAVIOR, i.e., not "good Behaviour."

2/2 Your document is useful too (thanks) but difficult to use behind the SCRIBD nonsense which is why I posted my documents to the usareset.net forum (usareset.net/forum/) which dispenses with the nonsense. I only sign up for things I want to participate in and that don't have ridiculous nonsense.

1/2 I have 30 days yet in which to file. I find givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/R... (Sovereign Immunity and the Right to Petition: Toward a First Amendment Right to Pursue Judicial Claims Against the Government by James E. Pfander, Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 91, No. 3) very useful.

I've now posted the most current relevant documents in a website of mine at usareset.net/forum/viewto... and in particular the current last "Taking SCOTUS to Court, Appeal Stage" entry. I've looked at your Scalia cites but didn't find them on point. Elsewhere I cite him re State/Federal checks.

1:23-cv-01248 6th Circuit, Western District of Michigan, James White

I'm in the process of preparing a Reconsideration Motion and will generally be insisting that "sovereign immunity" was NOT a Constitutional concept, the OPPOSITE was. Thanks

I have a current suit going but against SCOTUS. They have totally abandoned their checks and balances over States and are permitting (if not actually encouraging) States to violate the U.S. Constitution. In addition to your suit EVERYONE needs to encourage their House Rep to impeach all 9 Justices.

Please use your brain and study the PDFs linked at usareset.net/forum/viewto... and tell me what you think. Has SCOTUS, irrationally, removed our Amendment VII rights? Thanks @dennis74.bsky.social

Absolutely true. But how are you actually doing anything to FIX it? I've got multiple lawsuits pending but the courts, so far, simply ignore justice and even simple reading of law. Correct arithmetic...irrelevant. Valid logic...irrelevant. Replacing "Congress" with "Supreme Court"; ha!

The three branches of the US government are not and were never meant to be coequal. CONGRESS was always to have MORE power than the other two. Senate Republicans particularly have THROWN IT ALL AWAY. With a KING the Constitution is DEAD. State checks on SCOTUS also were KILLED off by SCOTUS & v/v.

SCOTUS was drunk on its own POWER many years before Mr. Leo, the ravages are just more frequent now. Amendment IX right to understanding law in plain English; gone. "In all Cases in which a State shall be Party, [SCOTUS] shall have original Jurisdiction"; gone. "But Congress may...remove"; gone.

We lost MOST of our rights long ago when courts relegated Amendment IX to near oblivion. Do you realize that courts DO NOT have to support correct arithmetic, valid logic, or reading law in plain English even though we had those rights BEFORE the Constitution! See usareset.net/forum/viewto...

Another significant difference between SCOTUS considering State court cases vs Federal court cases is that apparently long ago they signaled that States could ignore the Constitution at will with no requirement that they support their State position. Certiorari DENIED being practically a given.

@leahlitman.bsky.social Congrats on being quoted. I generally agree with your positions but, aside from a book, what are you DOING to aid in the fix? Supreme Court reform I think would best start with 45 Justices reviewing cases in panels of 3. See more at usareset.net/forum/viewto... last paragraph

Since 1925 SCOTUS has also given itself the power to ignore the Constitution's "In all Cases ... in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction" and to just DENY certiorari without comment. Justices BELIEVE they are "above the law" the Constitution be damned.

Having been subjected to the Michigan Courts and the Federal Courts for over 7 years now I can say definitively that "judicial coups" have a LONG history in the lower courts. Having STUDIED SCOTUS decisions I also KNOW they have a long history there. For example Circuit 6 says Amendment IX is null.

You're nuts (or ignorant). Lower courts have been abusing their power for years knowing that the higher courts will rarely even get the opportunity to review the lower court's "abuse of power" decisions. Apologies in advance if you're offended.

It's worse than you think. Even SCOTUS clerks deny "In all Cases ... in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction" (incorrectly) claiming Hans v. Louisiana, which is a very clear "state sovereignty" case, not U.S. Constitutional. Breaking state/federal checks!

The Michigan Supreme Court and SCOTUS remind us how judges and Justices simply ignore the Constitution by NOT making decisions. See my case 22-387 for one example. Correct arithmetic, valid logic, and understanding law in plain English are NO LONGER GUARANTEED by the U.S. Constitution.

No it's not. A personal loss of over $700 is not funny and it's even less funny when you understand that MSU (and Michigan) were aiming to get over $1000 from me.