top of page


I list three cases here:
1. Maxwell v Secretary of Defense et al (currently in First Circuit) seeking an injunction against mandatory vaccination
2. Maxwell v FBI et al (defeated at District Court) -- a civil RICO case, accusing the FBI of the Marathon bombing, in collusion with the Boston Globe, et al
3. Maxwell v Trump (a war powers case, defeated at the First Circuit), seeking an injunction against the nuclear bombing of North Korea

1. Maxwell v Secretary of Defense et al

United States Court of Appeal, First Circuit


No. 20 cv 01193 PB


Mary Maxwell, Plaintiff and Appellant


Lloyd J Austin, US Secretary of Defense,

Robert J Fulton, Acting Administrator of FEMA, 

Xavier Becerra, US Secretary of Health and Human Services,

Defendants and Appellees


On appeal from the US District Court, District of New Hampshire,

Filed Pro Se by Mary Maxwell, 175 Loudon Rd, Apt 1, Concord NH 03301.

Tel 603 848 3060. Email: MaxwellMaryLLB  


Dated June 20, 2021


Table of Contents


Table of Authorities

Statement of Issues

Statement of Facts

Summary of the Argument

Conclusion to the Argument

Particulars about Covid and the Vaccine



Table of Authorities


Baker v Carr (1963)

Katz v Pershing (2012)

Home Building v Blaisdell (1931)

Jacobson v Massachusetts (1905)

Laird v Tatum (1972)

Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife (1992)

McCullough v Maryland (1819)

Marbury v Madison (1803) 

Republican Party of Pennsylvania v Degraffenteid (2021)




Appellant sought, on December 5, 2020, an injunction against mandatory vaccination for Covid. She gave as her reasons a desire to have her Fourth Amendment rights protected (i.e., against invasion of her body), and a desire to have the Third Branch weigh in generally by stating that mandatory vaccination is unconstitutional. This, she thinks, would help restore the Constitution at a time when many Americans are saying “Government is now controlled by private individuals and entities – for example Bill Gates, Pfizer Pharmaceutical, or the International Monetary Fund -- for their own purposes.”


The District Court, on February 1, 2021 dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, saying that the Plaintiff did not state an injury that is imminent and irreversible, and not hypothetical, and that none of the three Defendants have to date ordered anyone to be vaccinated. Plaintiff’s choice of defendants was based on the US President’s stating on May 15, 2020 that his Operation Warp Speed would involve the military in the supply and distribution of the vaccine when it got FDA approval (which it did, on an Emergency Use Authorization basis, in December 12, 2020) and the President’s putting FEMA in charge of the overall response to Covid. DHHS is the department that oversees the CDC which delivers the recommendations for vaccination.


Plaintiff also pleaded that a “vaccine tatoo” may open up new types of surveillance that violate her Fourth Amendment rights to privacy.




Now that more time has passed since her December 5, 2020 pleadings, we see that the vaccination was voluntarily accepted by a reported two-thirds of the US adult population. There has not been any federal order mandating a vaccination. The 50 states have taken various positions. For example, Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts had mandated the Covid vaccination for all students age 12 -30, but he withdrew that in the face of public protest.  Overseas, some countries mandated the vaccination. In Israel, that mandating led persons to file a complaint with the International Criminal Court on the grounds that it is a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Convention to perform medical experiments without informed consent, and the Covid vaccines are experimental, having skipped the usual trials. By contrast, several state legislatures, such as Florida and Alabama, enacted laws to forbid businesses to limit their services to “only the vaccinated.”


In regard to surveillance, Rep Rush’s bill in the House (HR 6666) for “contact tracing” did not get reported out of committee, but many schools, buses, and other providers of service did ask citizens to register their name and phone number for purposes of tracing their contacts. Also, many businesses now ask people to indicate their vaccination status. Currently in appellant’s city, Concord New Hampshire, the mask-wearing order has been lifted but only for the fully vaccinated. A Texas court has ruled against employees of Methodist Hospital who claimed that the threatened loss of their jobs, if they did not get vaccinated is coercive. Judge Lynn ruled that is not coercive as they can get employment elsewhere.  By contrast, schools in Miami have decided that vaccinated people cannot come to school based on the newly discovered fact that a vaccinated person can “shed” spike proteins on the unvaccinated, causing harm.

Summary of the Argument


Appellant argues that the District Court erred in saying that “Maxwell … has failed to allege an actual or imminent injury in fact that confers her with Article III standing to sue.” The District Court has pitched its jurisdiction on the basis of a 2012 First Circuit case, Katz v Pershing, that in turn is based on Baker v Carr (1963) and Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife (1992). These hold that it Is not enough for an injury to be hypothetical. Appellant rejects those 1963-2012 precedents, saying that they do not control her case.  Although in some sense her injury is hypothetical, given that no member of government is coming at her forcefully with a vaccine, it would not be reasonable for her to have to wait until that scene eventuates, as she would then have no practicable way to seek a judicial ruling. The Katz v Pershing requirement is a Catch-22. 


Also, Appellant claims that, in part, her injury is already happening. She is fast losing her Fourth Amendment rights, along with all 330 million Americans who are losing many of their constitutional rights. Appellant has lived in four countries besides the US and is sharply aware that her security is a consequence of the existence of the US Constitution, which she takes to be a covenant among all Americans to stand up for one another, regarding the allocation of powers, and the Bill of Rights. The typical speaker on behalf of endangered rights is the Judiciary. Its voice is needed now, as the public conversation is more and more dominated by a media whose loyalties lie with various interests, not specifically the interest of the people. 


In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, in Marbury v Madison, “The very essence of liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury.”


The ruling in Jacobson v Massachusetts (1905) is often cited as the precedent on vaccination mandates. Now 116 years old, that ruling is out of date and needs to be overturned. Much has happened in science to cast doubt on both the efficacy of vaccines and the notion that the unvaccinated person can harm the vaccinated. While it is true that Jacobson was about states’ rights, it is widely misinterpreted to mean that the Fourth Amendment must bend to a public health emergency. The more appropriate ruling is that of Home Builders v Blaisdell (1931) in which the Court said: “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power…. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power … were not altered by emergency.” 


Certainly it was the very invoking of an “Emergency” due to Covid (in the wake of the World Health Organization’s declaring of a health emergency) that has flavored all actions by state, local, and federal government, in the period since March 2020. The vast majority of US citizens are under the mistaken impression that (1) the federal government is within its rights to judge health matters, and (2) that it is constitutional for a president to hold the Bill of Rights in abeyance while an emergency is occurring.


Still, the Jacobson ruling (which affirmed Massachusetts right to use its police power for health reasons) says: “Before closing this opinion we deem it appropriate … to observe … that the police power of a state, whether exercised directly by the legislature, or by a local body acting under its authority, may be exerted in such circumstances, or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases, as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.”  Mr Jacobson had been fined $5 for not accepting a vaccination.  The US Supreme Court said that he did have to pay the fine. He had not been threatened with forcible vaccination by the state. Perhaps if he had been, the ruling would have said “this is too oppressive.” Today there is no precedent available for instances in which a government holds a person down to force a vaccination on him.  Maxwell v Secretary of Defense could become that precedent.


There is also the harm of losing Fourth Amendment rights regarding privacy by way of a new kind of surveillance that the Framers could not have imagined. The potential for use of a vaccine passport, inserted under the skin, is very real. As Plaintiff stated in her pleadings, Bill Gates is working with MIT to develop a Microneedle Delivery System, a luminescent hand tattoo. The quantum dots could store data and be updated by transmission of new information -- such as one’s bank balance. It is a step in the direction of total surveillance. Cameras are everywhere now, and conversations get automatically recorded. In a dissenting opinion in Laird v Tatum (1972), Justice William Douglas, joined by Justice Thurgood Marshall said: 

“This case involves a cancer in our body politic. It is a measure of the disease which afflicts us. Army surveillance, … is at war with the principles of the First Amendment. Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm. But submissiveness is not our heritage. The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our heritage. The Constitution was designed to keep government off the backs of the people. …The aim was to allow men to be free and independent and to assert their rights against government.”


It is essential for the court to state what the law is.  In fact, in a culture that is today drowning in lies, judicial statements have the power of assertion of truth, a huge gift to society. Chief Justice John Marshall of the US Supreme Court wrote in Marbury v Madison, in 1803: “That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected.   The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, … they are designed to be permanent….… To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained …?   


“Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void…. This theory is … one of the fundamental principles of our society….


“… It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is…. We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding … intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.… [I]t is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts…. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it?… How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!”

Conclusion of the Argument

The District Court erred in dismissing this case on grounds of Baker v Carr and Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife.  Appellant argues that such are the times today that silence by the courts contributes positively to harm. As Justice Clarence Thomas recently wrote, in a dissent joined by Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, about a 2020 presidential election case, Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid (2021): “One wonders what the Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections…. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion …. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us.”

The Appellate court can overturn the dismissal. The District Court can easily rule, despite the precedents of Baker and Lujan, that the defendants must not mandate a Covid vaccination for Appellant. This would not entail judicial activism or writing new law. It would not even entail any nuanced interpretation of the Constitution.  The Fourth Amendment says it plainly: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated….”

The above also covers the requirement of redressability. The District Court judge of the US District of New Hampshire said that Appellant must plead for a solution that would redress the problem. An injunction, which also acts as declaratory relief, would give the redress sought.

Particulars about Covid and the Vaccine

In her 2020 pleadings, Plaintiff Maxwell offered eight grounds on which a citizen may question the push for a Covid vaccination. Some sound felonious; this strengthens her resolve to avoid taking the vaccination:

(1)  that the testing for Covid is unreliable, 

(2) that Covid cases aren’t being accurately reported,

(3) that the purpose of the Lockdown is apparently not for health but to terminate  

   national economies, 

(4) that the emergency vaccines have evaded standard safety testing, 

(5) that there is a little-understood connection between vaccination and DNA,

(6) that successful cures for Covid, such as Ivermectin, are withheld, casting doubt 

   on the sincerity of the race for a Covid vaccine, 

(7) that a vaccine tattoo may be used as a ‘passport,’ and 

(8) that scientific debate is being forbidden by censors.


Numbers 1-3 are now history. Numbers 4-8 are described here and via the Exhibits:

#4. FDA’s “approval” was not approval, only “emergency use authorization” with no testing.


#5. Manufacturers now acknowledge that the “vaccines” are gene-therapy, not vaccines.


#6. Prosecution is being sought in India for the government actions that prevented doctors from using the cures that had been successful even I 2020 for Covid. 


#7. More and more businesses, including airlines and restaurants, have started to demand presentation of a vaccine passport.

#8. the forbidding of scientific debate is a historic break from the norms of Western society in which the whole way of finding truth in Nature depends on hypotheses and critiques.


Respectfully submitted, 


Mary Maxwell, Pro Se


175 Loudon Rd, Concord NH 03301


Telephone 603 848 3060


Email address:




Publications critical of the Covid vaccine, exhibited here to demonstrate the broad context in which Maxwell v Department of Defense is placed.


Exhibit A.  “Inventor of Covid MRNA Vaccine Platform [Dr Robert Malone] Says FDA was aware of Dangers, Blames Lack of Long-Term Animal Trials.” Published at  coronanews123.wordpress. com


Exhibit B.  Physicians in Canada object to Ontario licensing board forbidding them to question or debate the official measures recommended for Covid. Published at


Exhibit C.  “Dr Michael Leadon, former Chief Science Officer and VP for Pfizer, Dr. Mike Yeadon [says] ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death’.” Published at April 7, 2021


Exhibit D.  “The Indian Bar Association Sued WHO Scientist over Ivermectin” by Justus R Hope, MD. Published at The Desert Review .com, June 7, 2021, updated June 10, 2021


Exhibit E.  Questions in the Australian Federal Parliament about Covid and Vaccines. At  Hansard, 1 June 2021 and 5 February 2021, at

Exhibit F.  Maxims Pertinent to This Case. General Principles of Law (Selected from the Law Dictionary, 1888 -- Wesley Gilmer’s 1986 revision of Wm. Cochran Cox’s 1976 edition) 


Directly contradicting Dr. Fauci’s, the FDA’s, and the media and medical establishment’s relentless campaign to inject as many Americans as possible with what are, at least until the end of 2022, officially experimental drugs, the inventor of the mRNA core technology has sounded the alarm …. Dr. Malone addressed a recent Japanese study which shows that the mRNA shot does not work in the manner intended. All new drugs have typically undergone three to six years of animal trials.  Introducing the topic, Dr. Bret Weinstein said  

“So I must say that this is a difficult topic for us to address. We all, I believe, are agreed that something very serious is afoot and the public is largely unaware that they have been placed into a kind of danger. And we also know that there’s a great deal of stigma directed at those who would explore these dangers. … They did not believe the spike was biologically active…. Now know the spike protein is very dangerous there. It is violent. …But if it did what the brochure on these vaccines says it should do, which is large in the membrane of the cells that are doing the transcribing, it would be a lot less destructive, right?”


Dr. Malone:“I think that’s fair. And you’re right. It’s not just the literature that the documentation about the vaccine. It’s the prior literature that was put out by the people that developed it that developed these clones. So they were they were aware that there was a risk of Spike being biologically active in having adverse events if it did not stay stuck to the cells that were transected, that got the RNA and made it OK. And and they used a genetic engineering method of putting a trans membrane domain on it to ensure that it stayed anchored and stayed put. And there they did limited, non-clinical studies to say looks like it stays stuck. We engineered it to stay stuck. They did. And and they published it. Here’s the thing…Is that that’s generally not good enough in a non-clinical data package…”

EXHIBIT B. “Declaration of Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth,” -- Objection to Ontario Licensing Board Advice of April 30, 2021.  From Canadian

We are a broad and diverse group of Canadian physicians from across Canada who are sending out this urgent declaration to the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons.  On April 30, 2021, Ontario’s physician licensing body, …issued a statement forbidding physicians from questioning or debating any or all of the official measures imposed in response to COVID-19.  As physicians, our primary duty of care is not to the CPSO … but to our patients. 

1. Denial of the Scientific Method itself: The CPSO is ordering physicians to put aside the scientific method and to not debate the processes and conclusions of science. We physicians know and continue to believe that throughout history, opposing views, vigorous debate and openness to new ideas have been the bedrock of scientific progress. Any major advance in science has been arrived at by practitioners vigorously questioning “official” narratives and following a different path in the pursuit of truth…. We also give notice to other Canadian and international licensing authorities for physicians and allied professions that the stifling of scientific inquiry and any order to violate our conscience and professional pledge to our patients, itself may constitute a crime against humanity.

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Statement on Public Health Misinform-ation (4/30/21): “The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted.” 

Exhibit C.  – Former Pfizer VP: “Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.”  Exclusive Interview at April 7, 2021

Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer's former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field, spoke with LifeSiteNews in a telephone interview. He said: 

 “But in the last year I have realized that my government and its advisers are lying in the faces of the British people about everything to do with this coronavirus. Absolutely every-thing. It’s a fallacy this idea of asymptomatic transmission and that you don’t have symp-toms, but you are a source of a virus. That lockdowns work, that masks have a protective value obviously for you or someone else, and that variants are scary things and we even need to close international borders in case some of these nasty foreign variants get in. 

“Or, by the way, on top of the current list of gene-based vaccines that we have miraculously made, there will be some ‘top-up’ vaccines to cope with the immune escape variants. 

“But what I would like to do is talk about immune escape…. Last year I thought it was what I called ‘convergent opportunism,’ that is a bunch of different stakeholder groups have managed to pounce on a world in chaos to push us in a particular direction. So it looked like it was kind of linked, but I was prepared to say it was just convergence. I [now] think that’s naïve. There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic. One of those two things is true because the reason it must be true is that dozens and dozens of governments are all saying the same lies and doing the same inefficacious things that demonstrably cost lives. 

“And they are talking the same sort of future script which is, ‘We don’t want you to move around because of these pesky varmints, these “variants”’— which I call ‘samiants’ by the way, because they are pretty much the same — but they’re all saying this and they are all saying ‘don’t worry, there will be “top-up” vaccines that will cope with the potential escapees.’ They’re all saying this when it is obviously nonsense.”

“I think the end game is going to be, ‘everyone receives a vaccine’… Everyone on the planet is going to find themselves persuaded, cajoled, not quite mandated, hemmed-in to take a jab. When they do that every single individual on the planet will have a name, or unique digital ID and a health status flag which will be ‘vaccinated,’ or not … and whoever possesses that, sort of single database, operable centrally, applicable everywhere to control, to provide as it were, a privilege, you can either cross this particular threshold or conduct this particular transaction or not depending on [what] the controllers of that one human population database decide. And I think that’s what this is all about because once you’ve got that, we become playthings and the world can be as the controllers of that database want it. 

“For example, you might find that after a banking reset that you can only spend through using an app that actually feeds off this [database], your ID, your name, [and] your health status flag.”

“And, yes, certainly crossing an international border is the most obvious use for these vaccine passports, as they are called, but I’ve heard talk of them already that they could be necessary for you to get into public spaces, enclosed public spaces. I expect that if they wanted to, you would not be able to leave your house in the future without the appropriate privilege on your app.

“And since I can’t think of a benign explanation for any of the steps: variants, top-up vaccines, no regulatory studies… it’s not only that I cannot think of a benign explanation, the steps described, and the scenario described, and the necessary sort of resolution to this false problem is going to allow what I just described: unknown, and unnecessary gene sequences injected into the arms of potentially billions of people for no reason….” 

Exhibit D.  “The Indian Bar Association Sued WHO Scientist over Ivermectin” by Justus R Hope, MD. Published at The Desert Review .com, June 7, 2021, updated June 10, 2021


The Indian Bar Association (IBA) sued WHO Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan on May 25, accusing her in a 71-point brief of causing the deaths of Indian citizens by misleading them about Ivermectin.  Point 56 states, “That your misleading tweet on May 10, 2021, against the use of Ivermectin had the effect of the State of Tamil Nadu withdrawing Ivermectin from the protocol on May 11, 2021, just a day after the Tamil Nadu government had indicated the same for the treatment of COVID-19 patients.”


Advocate Dipali Ojha, lead attorney for the Indian Bar Association, threatened criminal prosecution against Dr.  Swaminathan “for each death” caused by her acts of commission and omission. The brief accused Swaminathan of misconduct by using her position as a health authority to further the agenda of special interests to maintain an EUA for the lucrative vaccine industry.  


 Specific charges included the running of a disinformation campaign against Ivermectin and issuing statements in social and mainstream media to wrongfully influence the public against the use of Ivermectin despite the existence of large amounts of clinical data showing its profound effectiveness in both prevention and treatment of COVID-19….


The brief cited US Attorney Ralph C. Lorigo’s hospital cases in New York where court orders were required for dying COVID patients to receive the Ivermectin. In multiple instances of such comatose patients, following the court-ordered Ivermectin, the patients recovered 


Advocate Ojha accused the WHO and Dr. Swaminathan in Points 60 and 61…:.

“The world is gradually waking up to your absurd, arbitrary and fallacious approach in presenting concocted facts as ‘scientific approach.’ While the WHO flaunts itself like a ‘know it all,’ it is akin to the vain Emperor in new clothes while the entire world has realized by now, the Emperor has no clothes at all.”


The brief accused the WHO of being complicit in a vast disinformation campaign. Point 61 states, “The FLCCC and the BIRD have shown exemplary courage in building a formidable force to tackle the challenge of disinformation, resistance, and rebuke from pharma lobbies and powerful health interests like WHO, NIH, CDC, and regulators like the US FDA.”


Dr. Swaminathan was called out for her malfeasance in discrediting Ivermectin to preserve the EUA for the vaccine and pharmaceutical industry. Point 52 reads,  “It seems you have deliberately opted for deaths of people to achieve your ulterior goals, and this is sufficient grounds for criminal prosecution against you.”


"The Indian Bar Association has warned action under section 302 etc. of the Indian Penal Code against Dr. Soumya Swaminathan and others, for murder of each person dying due to obstruction in treatment of COVID-19 patient effectively by Ivermectin. Punishment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is death penalty or life imprisonment." 


He further wrote, "After receiving the said notice, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan went on the back foot and deleted her tweet. … By deleting the tweet, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan has proved her mala fide intentions." The Indian Bar Association dared to initiate a landmark court case against a Public Health Authority (PHA) to call out corruption and to save lives. 


As the courts in the United States proved to be the life-saving force to ensure a patient’s right to receive Ivermectin, a court in India is now doing the same. . Perhaps this pathway will ultimately break the disinformation and censorship stranglehold around repurposed drug use to save lives. Maybe we will witness other countries following India’s example, both in medicine and in law.

Exhibit E.  Questions in the Australian Federal Parliament about Covid and Vaccines. Published in Hansard, 1 June 2021 and 5 February 2021, at

[At a parliamentary hearing on 5 February 2021 the following question was put by Tony Zappia, MP, Labor Party, of Makin South Australia.  The person answering is Adjunct Professor John Skerritt, Deputy Secretary, Health Products Regulation.]:

Q. Once you get vaccinated, will you have to be vaccinated in, say, 12 months time?

Dr Skerritt:  If you know the answer to that, could you tell us!  That’s the $64 billion question. And that, of course, is one of the primary questions that people following this epidemic are asking. We hope not. There are two possibilities: either the current vaccines don’t provide long-term protection per se, or there is antigenic or virus strain drift. It’ll possibly be a combination of both. So it may well be you’ll have to have Pfizer mark II in 12 months time because the virus, whether it’s the South Africa, Brazil or UK strain, will have changed enough that you’ll need a more efficacious boost in 12 months time. Or it could just be the inherent characteristics of a vaccine for a disease that you need to be boosted in 12 months time….”

[The following questions were put by Senator Malcolm Roberts and answered by Mr Edwards]:

Q. The vaccine only has provisional approval. Is it true that provisional approval is only possible where there are no approved pharmaceutical treatments available?

A. The provisional approval is possible where there is not a similar treatment available in that, for that group of patients. And so, if there’d been an approved vaccine, but say it had been on the market for several years, fully approved, then it wouldn’t have been possible to provisionally approve a vaccine, but at the time of the submissions of those vaccines, and indeed we have provisionally designated the Novavax vaccine as well and the Johnson & Johnson or Janssen vaccine, it is possible to provisionally designate and potentially provisionally approve those vaccines.


Q. How long before we know the intergenerational effects?

A. There’s no evidence at all from animal or human studies that the RNA vaccines, if you’re talking about them, incorporate into the genetic material of human beings. They wouldn’t have been approved for regulatory approval and that includes by much bigger regulators such as the FDA, if these bits of mRNA incorporated into the human genetic material. In fact, medicines that incorporate into human genetic material and are inherited are currently not permitted in most major countries, including Australia.

Thank you. How many times and how often would each of us need to be injected for the vaccine to be effective and for each time, for how long does the effect last?

A. … I think it’s very important that Australia knows that this is the start of our vaccine programme. It will almost certainly not be the end. There will be a need for boosters into the future particularly in relation to the variants of concern of which there are four now that have been designated by the World Health Organisation. …How long the two dose effect works is still, we don’t know. We know it’s at least six months because that’s the studies of, been looking at it for six months. It’s almost certainly longer than that for the original strain, but the variance of concern adds another complexity to it.

[The following question was put by Fiona Matin, PhD, MP, and answered by Dr Murphy]:

Q. The immunisation schedule for children up to four years is not necessarily consistent between states…. I’m wondering about the psychology … that having such transparency and information about associated risks will actually increase uptake of the vaccine….


A.  We love psychology. We are spending well over $23 million, I think, on a comms campaign, which is in three phases. The first phase is to get people confident about the registration process. They feature gentlemen in white coats and other people to assure people that our registration processes are as rigorous as anywhere in the world. 

[The following question was put by Mr Tony Zappia, MP and answered by Dr Skerritt]:

Q. Have there been any concerns raised, in respect to pregnancy and the vaccine?

A. Dr Skerritt: Again, it’s more a lack of data rather than any evidence of miscarriages and the like. … Some clinical groups are recommending that, if you’re not in a high-risk or high-exposure group and if you’re pregnant, you hold off until you have the kid. However, there are the examples of the US and the UK, where you’ve got a number of pregnant healthcare workers and both systems are under such strain. If you took every pregnant doctor and nurse out of the UK at the moment and told them to stay at home for nine months, you’d put the system even under more stress. …There hasn’t been any evidence—and I’ll check with Dr Cook that my statement is correct—of ill effects in pregnancy. It was more that, in clinical trials, it’s normal to exclude pregnant people.

[The following question was put by Mike Freelander, MD, MP and answered by Dr Murphy and Dr Skerritt]:

Q. …We’ve committed to helping our Pacific neighbours. When are we going to start rolling out vaccines to them, and will it predominantly be the AstraZeneca?

A. Dr Murphy: Obviously, AstraZeneca and then, later, Novavax, are the likely ones. DFAT have invested over half a billion dollars in a vaccine for the Pacific and they’re doing some advance planning with the Pacific countries at the moment….

Dr Skerritt … If you have two women in a village who miscarry two days after having the vaccine, you could lose whole villages and potentially half a country out of a vaccination system. We saw that in Samoa with the measles vaccine recently. In South-East Asia, the nature of our assistance will be different. They don’t need us to build a vaccine safety system for them, but, for example, the Indonesians have never seen a messenger RNA vaccine before, and they want high-level technical, scientific help with those vaccines. …

…the government, through DFAT, is also funding procurement that will essentially cover the full population of East Timor, Papua New Guinea and all the Pacific islands, and will cover a percentage of the population—and that percentage is a lower percentage targeted at vulnerable groups—in countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, we hope, and the Philippines.



Exhibit F.   Maxims Pertinent to This Case. General Principles of Law (Selected from the Law Dictionary, 1888 -- Wesley Gilmer’s 1986 revision of Wm. Cochran Cox’s 1976 edition) 

The niceties of the law are not the law.  Apices juris non sunt jura.

It is the duty of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction, i.e., to amplify the remedies of the law.   Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem.

He who has authority to do the more important ought not to be prohibited from doing that which is less important.  Cui licet quod majus non debet quod minus est non licere. 

Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall.  Fiat justitia, ruat coelum.

We should judge by the laws, not precedents. Judicandum est legibus, non exemplis.

Law is the dictate of reason.  Lex semper dabit remedium.

Law is a rule of right.  Lex est norma recti.

The law will always furnish a remedy.  Lex semper dabit remedium.

An evil custom should be abolished. Malus usus est abolendus.

Wretched is the slavery where the law is changeable or uncertain. Misera est servitus ubi jus est vagum aut incertum.

Odious and dishonest things are not to be presumed in law.  Odiosa et in honesta non sunt in lege praesumenda.

The reason of the law is the life of the law. Ratio legis est anima legis. 

Where there are many counselors there is safety. Salus ubi multi consiliarii.





Civil RICO suit     1:19-cv-01208 JD


Jury trial demanded.


I. Introduction


1. On April 15, 2013 two bombs went off during the Boston Marathon race. This crime was blamed on Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his younger brother, Dzhokhar "Jahar" Tsarnaev (hereinafter Jahar). Tamerlan was killed four days later. Jahar was wrongly convicted of the bombing and is currently on Death Row in Florence, Colorado federal prison, where he is not allowed to send or receive mail.


2. The FBI submitted a video of the brothers walking near the Marathon. It is clear that Jahar is carrying a grey backpack, in that photo, minutes before the bombing, yet the FBI presented a bomb- ripped backpack, of black color, as proof that Jahar did it.


3. A friend of the Tsarnaevs, Khairullozhon Matanov, was harassed by the FBI for making false statements, and was unfairly convicted and later deported. This was probably because he had information that would exculpate the convict. Another friend, Ibragim Todashev, who could have been a witness in the Tsarnaev trial, was killed by the FBI in his home in Florida, in May 2013, as is admitted by the FBI.

II. Jurisdiction and Venue


4. This is the proper court because it is a federal RICO case under 18 USC 1961, and one of the predicate crimes is obstruction of justice, per 18 USC 1503.


5. The New Hampshire venue is proper because the plaintiff lives in New Hampshire and also because it is considered problematic to file the case in Boston where emotions run high on the subject of the Marathon bombing.

III. Parties


6. The plaintiff is Mary Maxwell, widow, age 72, who works fulltime as a law researcher and writer. She has a PhD in Politics and a Law Degree from the University of Adelaide, Australia.


7. She suffered stress and financial loss as a result of the Tsarnaev trial that occurred in April 2015, and devoted much of her work time in 2016 and 2017 to offering correctives.

IV. Statute of Limitations


8. The statute of limitations for federal civil RICO is four years. Plaintiff's injury and losses occurred from 2016 through 2019.


9. The enterprise to be identified in this case has existed from at least 2001 until now.

V. The Racketeering Enterprise


10. A racket, within the intent of the RICO Act, means organized crime. An example of this is a child-trafficking racket in which top members of schools, churches, adoption agencies, and hospitals start to do the opposite of what one would expect them to do -- protect minors from harm. They network secretly to achieve their criminal goals.


11. The racket related to the Boston Marathon bombing has to do with carrying out a psychological operation (a "psy-op") on the people of Boston via a terrorist incident.


12. A terrorist event may be used for three things -- to cause social fear, as a way for people to be rendered weak (and thus not challenge the power-holders); to set the stage for invasion of an enemy nation for having done the deed (in this case setting off two bombs on Boylston St, Boston, helps justify United States' crackdown on terrorists such as ISIS in the Middle East); and to pave the way for legislation that supports the security state, wherein all neighbors gradually become distrustful of one another.


13. The media are essential to this enterprise of psy-ops, as they are able to purvey the racketeers' narrative to everyone who watches television or reads a newspaper.


14. Police and lawyers, working within the enterprise, have the means of making sure the wrong person gets blamed for a so-called terrorist incident. Police can intimidate and/or arrest persons who create any obstacles to the enterprise's plans. Within a court case there may be falsified evidence (the production of which is a known skill of the FBI), tampering with witnesses or jurors, and other violations of due process.


15. Of the 11 Defendants is this case, the racketeers of the enterprise, only four are outside of the categories of media, law enforcement, and the legal profession, namely the Director of the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), MIT, Dr Wolfe, and John Doe.


16. The Director of BOP participates in the enterprise by being the custodian of Jahar Tsarnaev, keeping him incommunicado.


17. MIT, the site-owner of the place where Sean Collier was murdered, is included for having contributed a misleading video surveillance that was used against Tsarnaev.


18. Dr Wolfe, chief of emergency, Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, is named for giving an eyewitness description of Tamerlan's last moments of life that can't possibly be accurate.


19. A RICO case must show pecuniary gain. The Marathon bombing may have enriched the media, the security industry, and war-makers. But tricking citizens and their elected representatives gives an indirect gain to all members of the wealthy, powerful class.


20. John Doe, "high officer of the ruling cabal," is listed speculatively. To prove a RICO enterprise, one must show collaboration of criminal parties. But there probably exists a set of society's masters, imagined as "the cabal." Their man, "John Doe," may have worked behind the scenes, dictating the agenda to media, cops, lawyers, and others.


21. A theme of Jahar's trial is that he was motivated by Islamic ideology. This helped galvanize Americans against Muslims, with President Trump saying they should be barred from entering the United States, even if they had permanent residence status.

VI. RICO Requirements of Continuity and Relationship


22. A RICO suit must show continuity of the crimes involved. There had to be continuity at least from, say, January 2013 to plan the bombing, then publicize the false story, until the present time, in late 2019, when Jahar is holding his appeal in the First Circuit.


23. A RICO case must also show relationship. All eleven Defendants may have colluded. The doctor at Beth Israel Deaconess had to misreport Tamerlan's death, to suit the story of the Watertown shootout; the Director of the BOP keeps under wraps anything that Jahar might want to share with the public; MIT had to know what the enterprise required when its man, Matthew Isgur, was selecting surveillance footage, and so forth.

VII. Two or More Predicate Acts


24. For RICO, a minimum of two pertinent crimes, known as predicate acts, must have been committed. Plaintiff names the murder of Tamerlan as one predicate act, and the Public Defenders' refusal to let the jury know that Jahar's plea was Not Guilty as the other predicate act, an obstruction of justice. A spectacular crime allegedly occurred in Russia.

Maret Tsarnaeva says in her affidavit: "Dzhokhar's parents expressed willingness to engage independent counsel.... Mr Fick replied that government agents would obstruct independent counsel." And the Public Defenders shockingly warned "that, if their advice were not followed, Dzhokhar’s life in custody near Boston would be more difficult."

VIII. Injury to Business and or Property


25. Plaintiff has suffered distress and monetary loss resulting from the bombing of the 2013 Boston Marathon. For example, she sent a petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis to the District Court in 2016 and a follow-up on that to the Massachusetts legislature a year letter. The price of postage (sent from Australia) was approximately $20.


26. Plaintiff also lost valuable time from her business interests, in responding to the scandalous trial -- time she could have spent marketing some of her books and plays.


27. To produce a book on the matter, entitled The Soul of Boston and the Marathon Bombing, Plaintiff had to pay $1600 for printing it and spend $240 on postage to distribute copies. She also had major travel costs, for example going to Sydney to film the Youtube video "To Massachusetts Governor, Please Arrest the FBI."

IX. Facts and Allegations


28. The Marathon bombing was presented to the public as a terrorist incident, similar to many others in the world. Typically, these incidents are "false flag operations," blamed on the chosen enemy. A "patsy" is assigned to be accused of the crime.


29. Media immediately built up the excitement in Boston and emphasized both the personal tragedies involved and the human- goodness aspects of the day's events. This is a well-developed tactic; psychologists know that raising any emotion, sad or happy, will deepen one's impression of an experience. The media arranged to spotlight a Marathon amputee at a sports match waving the flag, with a slogan for the event: Boston Strong.


30. After the bomb crisis was over, on Monday, April 15, 2013, no news came out as to who did it. Then, on Thursday at 5:00pm, FBI leader Richard DesLauriers -- along with Senator Elizabeth Warren, Governor Deval Patrick, Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis, and many others -- held a press conference to announce that they had picked out two men, Suspects One and Two, that were recorded on a Boylston St surveillance camera.


31. The FBI said it did not know the Suspects' names, but that is a lie. The FBI had been in contact with Tamerlan for years prior to the Marathon. He was probably an FBI informant. Many immigrants are asked to be informants and are afraid to refuse.


32. DesLauriers then made a statement that cannot possibly have an innocent interpretation. He told the TV audience that the photos he had chosen are the only ones "the public should view to assist us. Other photos should not be deemed credible."


33. In other words, if you were holding in your cell phone a perfect shot of some other person planting the bomb, you should realize it is not to be given credence, even by you!


34. The brothers probably did not see this TV spot. But the psy-op story has them starting to act like fugitives. Allegedly, around 11:00pm, Tamerlan carjacked a parked SUV (sports utility vehicle), and its driver, despite his having his own Honda with him.


35. Carjackings are diagnostic of scripted events, as in the Brian Nichols case in Atlanta or the Martin Bryant case in Tasmania. Real fugitives do not add to their woes by taking a hostage who will only be a burden, and a witness, later. The media relayed a comical story in which Tamerlan said to the SUV owner, Dun Meng, that he had just killed a cop at MIT. Has there ever been a man who volunteered to a stranger that he was a cop killer? The Boston Globe expected people to believe that item on the basis of human nature -- a man wants to throw his weight around, to another man, pulling rank.


36. Next, all three persons in the carjacked SUV stopped at an ATM machine so Jahar could steal $800 from Meng's account. For purposes of the script, this beefed up the story that the brothers needed cash for their next stop -- Times Square -- to do more bombing. (Meng eventually said there was no discussion about a trip to New York, but the media had creatively carried it.)


37. The bank's photo of Jahar at the ATM machine does not look like Jahar. The carjacking probably did not happen at all, nor did the ATM heist.


38. Next, they reportedly go to a Shell station for gas. Meng makes his escape and thus, very conveniently, he is able to alert police to the identity of the bombers' SUV and the fact that it can be tracked. Thus the police see the car headed for Watertown. Members of the enterprise would no doubt have made advance plans for a drama in Watertown.


39. By now it's Friday morning, April 19, 2013, around 12:30am. Something violent occurs on Laurel St, Watertown but most likely it did not include the Tsarnaevs. The Enterprise may have arranged for two guys to start shooting at cops in the dark and even toss an explosive device. At least one cop, Rick Donohue, was seriously wounded. Plaintiff notes that the enterprise put all those lives at risk. Have others also died over this affair?


40. Soon the media spread a story that the younger brother, Jahar (but not saying his name) had tried to escape from the Laurel St shootout in the SUV and in the process ran over his brother. He allegedly sped away, then abandoned the car and was met by Officer St Onge, who did not kill or capture him. A capture would have been awkward for the enterprise, as it would have precluded the important Friday event -- a huge manhunt with military style trucks and soldiers, incredibly, entering homes with guns drawn.


41. Meanwhile, the allegedly run-over man, who isn't Tamerlan, perhaps a "stooge," is still at Laurel Street. (In one variation on this story, he was dragged 40 feet.) Reportedly this man acts aggressively with cops despite his injuries. Sgt John MacLellan was close up and saw this man bleed to death. (He said "unless I'm mind controlled.") MacLellan later figured it was Tamerlan. There hadn't been. any way to identify the participants during the Laurel St shoot-out. The FBI later said they did it by testing the corpse's fingerprints.


42. That unidentified (bled-out) man's corpse was dispatched in an ambulance, yet Dr Wolfe says he supervised "Tamerlan's" final moments in hospital and blood was transfused. In court Wolfe testified: "multiple injuries, probably, we believe, a combination of blast, potentially gunshot wounds." Nothing about run-over wounds or drag marks (road rash). And it is odd to say the wounds were only "potentially" gunshot.


43. The real Tamerlan appeared, as can be seen in two different films, at about 1:05am (around 20 minutes after the run-over man's body was taken by ambulance). The scene is Mt Auburn St. A cop in a phosphorescent yellow jacket has the real Tamerlan pinned to the sidewalk. Tamerlan yells "Podstava" -- Russian for "I've been set up."


44. The brothers had probably come to Watertown on their own, under FBI instructions. A "pal" of Tamerlan's seems to be on the ground with him; maybe he had lured him to the right place. Lawyers did not call that person to court.


45. The Podstava video was reportedly filmed by a Mt Auburn resident named Big Headphones who posted it on Youtube shortly after.


46. This man, the real Tamerlan, may have been stripped naked as a precaution that he could be carrying explosives. He was then escorted into a police car. Anyone can see this on CNN's Youtube video, originally broadcast live as news. CNN man Gabe Ramirez is standing nearby and narrates to the audience that "It may be Suspect 1."


47. Tamerlan's relatives agree that the man pinned down on the sidewalk who yelled "Podstava" is Tamerlan, and the naked man getting into the car is also Tamerlan. It is obvious that the naked Tamerlan has no blood on him and is not making any gestures of pain. He is healthy. This raises the question of how he subsequently died in custody.


48. Five hours later, at 6am, residents of Boston got a robo call telling them to "shelter in place," that is, not to go out. The reason given was that a 19-year old terrorist (Jahar) was on the loose. This is theatre.


49. It made possible a rare scene for Americans: an army-like group rode down the residential streets and forced their way into any homes, even where the homeowner came to the door and assured law enforcement that all was well. Some people were made to stand in their front yard for hours, in Watertown.


50. Excitement was high in Boston, too. Trains and buses were cancelled for the day at the request of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. A governor who was not in on the enterprise's psy- op plans would more likely have kept transportation normal.


51. The RICO enterprise in which the Defendants were engaging, on that occasion, has to do with controlling the public. The unconstitutional, warrantless raid on people's homes had the desired effect of giving citizens the impression that the United States Constitution is no longer able to shield them. After all, if a raid happened once it can happen again. And it must now be "acceptable."


52. Recently, on December 2, 2019, The Boston Globe's editor Kevin Cullen wrote an article headlined "After a few years of respite, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is about to invade our consciousness again," referring to the upcoming Appeal. Of course, it is not Tsarnaev, but the Globe, that will be invading our consciousness again, telling us where we stand.


53. On December 3, 2019, an investment website, Stock Daily Dish, had the headline "Defending the world from terror: Fascinating pictures show anti-terror police in action around the world." The article said "Some of the photos document training exercises, while others show the reality of operations in Boston following the marathon bombing in 2013 and in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in 2015. ... [They] show the innovative tactics being used to combat new terror threats and the advanced weapons technologies being deployed." Perforce, we are expected to take this all as a given, as the new norm.


54. Governor Patrick's shelter-in-place order was lifted at 7pm, Friday, April 19, 2013. At that time, a resident of Watertown, the late David Henneberry, went outside for a smoke. Henneberry's house had been spared from the police raid earlier in the day. Henneberry noticed that the cover on his drydocked boat was loose. So he got his ladder to climb up and look inside. He saw blood and a body. His wife called 911, which led to the discovery of Jahar in the boat. Probably the "going out for a smoke" was choreographed. Without it, the media would have no blood-stained boat wall confession saying "I bear witness that there is no God but Allah." (Were those blood marks ever tested for identity?)


55. A police helicopter used thermal imagery and saw that a person in the boat was still warm, but not moving. Jahar may have been unconscious from being drugged. He could hardly have climbed into the boat with no ladder. And was it his blood on the floor? The police then "went wild," shooting 228 bullets into the boat. This was technically not necessary. The enterprise's plan may have been for Jahar to die, like his brother.


56. In scripted terrorist events, or school shootout cases, it is the norm for the gunman to be shot dead by police, even though police need only taser someone to render them harmless. Alternatively, the mass shooter "turns the gun on himself." That is the desired ending, as it eliminates a man who may otherwise reveal how he actually got there.


57. When Jahar emerged from the boat, dazed and bloody, someone may have tried to slit his throat. CNN's Anderson Cooper interviewed Jeff Campbell of the MBTA Transit Police, whose members are in an SOG (Special Operations Group). Campbell said "I did see a throat injury. To me it looked more like a knife wound." No follow-up on that.


58. Jahar was then taken to Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital and operated on. In between surgeries he was interrogated by a team that interrogates high-value suspects at Guantanamo Bay military camp. Interrogators did not record anything Jahar said, but they told the public that he said this or that, and that he asked "Where is my brother?" In 2019, photos of an alleged notebook he scribbled on, in the hospital, were publicized.


59. The team announced that they believed Jahar's alleged statement that he had no further accomplices in the outside world, so it would be safe for Boston to resume normal life. This is an unusual way for interrogators to behave. Why trust a mass killer?


60. The next day, Saturday, a district attorney came to the hospital to charge Jahar with one count of murder. When discharged from hospital, Jahar was sent to Fort Devens to await his trial. He waited two years. We don't know if they made life "difficult" for him.


61. On April 16, 2013, the FBI zoomed in on three of Jahar's friends, as though to make sure they did not have a chance to talk to the public in a way that would support Jahar's innocence. Certain FBI agents are trained to intimidate citizens, standardly threatening them with criminal charges however inappropriate. Rule of law be damned.


62. In the vicinity of Tsarnaev's dorm room at University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, two students from overseas were arrested for lying to the FBI or throwing evidence away. One was Dias Kadaebayev, the other was Azamat Tazhayakov, friends of Jahar.


63. In July 2014, before Jahar had a trial, those two students were tried and found guilty, and sent to prison. Upon release, three years later, they were deported.


64. Jahar 's best friend, Stephen Silva, appears to have been set up on drug charges, and imprisoned. The authorities then gave Silva a chance to testify against Jahar in regard to ownership of a gun, and in exchange for that testimony Silva was sentenced in December 2015 to "time served."


65. Robel Phillipos, Jahar 's classmate from Cambridge Rindge and Latin, was accused of lying to the FBI -- by saying he was asleep when Dias and Azamat went into Jahar's room. An appearance in court by former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, as a character witness for Robel, did not prevent conviction.


66. Another friend, Khairullozhon Matanov, a taxi driver, remained free until 2016 but then was arrested, and has since been deported. He had stated that he dined with the two Tsarnaev brothers at Satwas Restaurant on the night of the Marathon, April 15, 2013, and that Tamerlan was bearded. A beard on Tamerlan challenges the validity of the video that shows the brothers walking singe-file at the Marathon with Tamerlan shaven.


67. An aunt has suggested that the photo may date to 2012, not 2013, since Tamerlan, for religious reasons, had grown a beard in 2012 and never removed it. In other words, FBI's all-crucial video of the boys may be no proof that they even attended the Marathon.


68. Matanov's prison time was spent in Plymouth Prison where he was teargassed in his cell by the authorities. He says that before his arrest, the FBI engaged in stalking him on the Freeway, causing dangerous driving, and also that a helicopter was used to track him.


69. Thus, for purposes of RICO, we can discern a coordinated effort to make sure no one could speak on behalf of Tsarnaev when he came to trial in 2015. Then, after he was tried and convicted, Jahar became unavailable to anyone who may want to ask him some questions. The trial judge put him under SAMs, special administrative measures.


70. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is enforcing the SAMs on Jahar as though he were a terrorist who may somehow commit crimes from his prison cell. But there is no worthy evidence of Jahar's being a terrorist or of his preaching religion to anyone.


71. The inclusion of the director of the BOP in the list of RICO Defendants is meant to show how many factors have to be monitored in a psy-op. All normal freedom of a client to choose his own attorneys has been denied to Tsarnaev as he cannot phone or write to any attorney except the ones appointed to him, the court- appointed Public Defenders.


72. Administrators of Plymouth prison must also have been alerted to prevent Matanov, SAMs-free, from contacting the press with allegations about Tamerlan's beardedness.


73. Although Plymouth Correctional Facility is county-run, the US Marshals were super- vising Matanov. When asked for information about his treatment, the US Marshals office said it could not be discussed as it is a "security-related matter." How can that be?


74. The persons in the enterprise must be aware of how the human brain tends to shut down when matters related to a foreign enemy are presented. People will side with the

authorities of their own group, unquestioningly, rather than feel doubt about their leader. Rarely do Americans question the torture that their government practices today, such as at Gitmo, preferring to think there must be a real need for it.


75. Matanov, now deported, seems to have acquired a lot of money. There may have been a payout in exchange for his silence or an agreement not to sue for mistreatment.


76. The enterprise must make it possible for particular prisoners to get roughed up, or even killed. Matanov wrote: "I fell down, my hands are on my back with the cuffs.... They jump on me so badly one of them stick his finger to my right eye, it's swollen right now full of blood."


77. The enterprise also makes for a corrupt police system. At Plaintiff's lecture of January 23, 2018, at the Watertown Public Library, Watertown Police Sergeant John MacLellan, who was the supervisor on duty at the scene of Henneberry's boat, at 8pm on April 19, 2013, was asked why so many bullets were aimed at the boat. He said they were not his cops doing the shooting; they were "outside agencies."


78. Sgt Maclellan also mentioned at that lecture that there was a female witness to the killing of Sean Collier who came forward to his office, via her father, but whose statement was not pursued because of the other pressures of the night. That contradicts all protocol and common sense.


79. Sgt MacLellan also said that he had tried unsuccessfully to identify "the other naked man," not Tamerlan, so he could apologize to him. One would think police could obtain the man's identity from either the CNN photographer or from the FBI whose agent was pictured next to him. Apparently MacLellan isn't allowed to interfere with the enterprise.


80. National Geographic is most likely a CIA proprietary (judging from its ability to enter foreign countries). It is named as a Defendant here on account of its role in creating a major piece of false evidence, a video called Inside the Hunt for the Boston Bombers.


81. A segment of that video, called White Hat, was used to persuade Bostonians that Jahar placed a bomb-filled backpack on the ground and then detonated it from his cell phone. Viewers were repeatedly shown this video on TV. But, as the credits of the film admit, this National Geographic video was all filmed in Phoenix Arizona, starring Alex Karavay as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. It is a re-enactment, and not a truthful one.


82. The video gives the impression that the real FBI agents shown in White Hat are examining a real surveillance video taken on Boylston St. FBI man Richard DesLauriers narrates: "It was a video that shows a crowd that was watching the Marathon and we identified one individual in that crowd" (meaning Jahar, who was wearing a white baseball cap). But no, in White Hat they were watching the Arizona re-enactment.


83. Another real FBI man, Agent Jeffrey Sallett, says, "There is no magic bullet to get the identity of this man." But that was a lie. The Boston FBI office clearly knew, and later admitted that it knew, the Tsarnaev family. Sallett was the head of FBI in Chicago and is now chief of the FBI's Public Corruption and Civil Rights section.


84. Governor Patrick also appears in the White Hat segment stating "It was chilling ... to try to imagine what kind of person enables that kind of destruction of innocence." But Patrick was formerly a US Attorney; he would have dealt with many instances of destruction of innocence and not found them chilling. But this is part of theatre, directed at people's emotions to make them fall in, to believe a fiction about what was happening right there in their own Copley Square.


85. National Geographic's production and promoting of White Hat may constitute a crime of obstruction of justice. Every jury member would have seen it on TV in the lead-up to the 2015 trial. Everyone "understood" that Jahar had been caught on camera committing a crime (placing the backpack on the ground). But no, he hadn't, and he didn't.


86. Not mentioned in this RICO suit are the producers of the very deceitful movie Patriot's Day, but that was not released until after the 2015 trial of Jahar. Its function may be to reinforce in citizens minds the fact that there is "no doubt" as to what happened at the Marathon and after. "We all agree."


87. Also not mentioned in this RICO suit are the services of groups who spread disinformation, although the enterprise does depend on their existence. UK journalist Feliks Garcia said "US government spent $500m [half a billion] on fake Al-Qaeda propaganda videos that track location of viewers."


88. Senator Rand Paul and Rep Tulsi Gabbard sponsored a bill named "The Stop Arming the Terrorists Act." They said their own country was funding the organization known as the Islamic State. Like the Boston bombing, that funding can be a false flag designed to make Americans hate a foreign group (Muslims) so that the weapons industry can thrive.


89. One story about the Tsarnaevs is that they frequented terrorist websites such as "Inspire" which teaches folks how to make bombs. German scholar Elias Davidsson traced thus type of propaganda to MEMRI, a Zionist group, and Jihadology run by Aaron Zelin.


90. A professional propagandist, Martin Wells, told The Independent, UK, that US Marines would take his CDs and drop them into houses they were raiding, to cast a terrorist reputation on the house's residents. So, when we hear that the FBI "found" Inspire magazine on the Tsarnaevs' computer, there's not much reason to believe it.


91. For an enterprise whose goal is to change everyone's minds about their world, by creating a new false reality, it must follow that the new reality can't coexist with the normal practice of reasoning and debate. Instead of arguing the points, the enterprise dishes out slogans and entertainment, and incessantly spotlights social conflict. Meanwhile, children are not longer taught, in school, to tackle a problem intellectually.


92. The whole structure of society would need to change to suit the enterprise. Producing false statistics regarding a scientific experiment, or denying that major events in history even happened, would start to become normal. There would be no standard for judging anyone's claims. Civilization can be revoked. Humans can be remade into machines. Alternatively, as Plaintiff requests, we can break up the enterprise.


93. At Jahar's trial in 2015, four of the Defendants played major roles: the Prosecutor -- US Attorney Carmen Ortiz, two Public Defenders -- William Fick and Miriam Conrad, and the FBI. The main malfeasance of the Prosecutor was to proffer false accusations. The main malfeasance of the Public Defenders was to go along with the Prosecutor rather than defend their client. In the opening statement for the defense, Defender Judy Clarke said "It was him."

And despite the US Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in McCoy v Louisiana, which ruled against public defenders proclaiming a clients' guilt to the court against his wishes, Jahar has not had an opportunity to put that ruling to his own use. Almost cert- ainly he does not know that he now has a sure right to a new trial, as Mr MCoy got, in McCoy v Louisiana, since no one is able to write to Jahar about this. Albeit, Jahar may at this point have lost the mental capacity to choose an attorney who would actually help him.


94. The main malfeasance (actually criminality) of the FBI was to furnish dubious material evidence, and to round up Jahar's Tsarnaev's local friends and kill Tamerlan's friend Ibragim Todashev, preventing them from being defense witnesses. The FBI also took part in the crucial deceit of National Geographic's White Hat as mentioned in 82 above. And, the FBI bombarded the public with the video of the brothers walking single-file, with Jahar, "Suspect 2," carrying a grey backpack -- yet simultaneously proffered a black backpack as proof of Jahar's guilt. A true absurdity that went unnoticed by any lawyers.


95. The Prosecutor had to persuade the jury that Tsarnaev did all the things the story says he did, starting at the Finish Line of the Marathon. That is, he had to learn how to make a bomb, to obtain the ingredients, to plant the backpack at the site, to detonate the bomb by cell phone, to go to MIT campus and kill Officer Sean Collier, to steal money from Dun Meng's account at an ATM, to shoot at cops on Laurel St and throw an IED, to hide in a boat and write a confession on the boat wall, and to tell interrogators in the hospital that there were no more accomplices.


96. The Defenders could have, but didn't, punch many holes in the prosecution's story. Some easy targets were: 1. Tamerlan's carrying the January receipt for pressure cookers in his wallet until caught with it three months later, at the shootout, 2. Tamerlan being identifiable from his high school diploma that was found in his car, 3. the need for a second gun (for which they went to MIT to steal Collier's), 4. the fact that the eyewitness, Nathan Harman, never claimed to have seen Jahar attacking Collier, 6. the fact that Sgt Henniger's knowledge of the FBI swarming MIT wasn't queried, 7. the brothers' need for a second car (which caused the carjacking), 6. the changes in Meng's story as to what the brothers said, 8. the lack of resemblance between the ATM thief and Jahar, 9. the lack of any dashcam photo of the Laurel St shootout, 10. one brother running over the other, 11. inconsistent stories about being dragged by the SUV, 12. the acceptance of unclear reports from doctors as to "Tamerlan's" condition at the hospital,

13. Officer St Onge failing to capture Jahar, 14. complete omission of evidence of the Podstava video, 15. lack of curiosity about the naked man, 16. the delay in discovering that the boat's wall had a confession on it, 17. the impossibility of writing a neat statement on a fiberglass wall with a pencil, 18. the ridiculous wording of pious sentiment by a non-religious teenager, 19. the oddity of the hospital interrogation ending in a statement that there were no other accomplices out there, 20. the acceptance of law enforcement's right to shoot 228 bullets at the boat which would likely kill the suspect, 21. no follow-up on Jeff Campbell's observation of a knife wound on Jahar's neck at the boat side.


97. The most stunning suppression of information that occurred at trial was the lack of attention to an affidavit sent to court by the brothers' aunt, Maret Tsarnaeva, a lawyer. Maret was present during one of the 13 visits that the Defenders made to the Russian Federation before the trial, and has sworn that Public Defender William Fick refused to look at the Podstava video she offered him. That video shows Tamerlan being arrested at Mt Auburn St at 1:05am, which negates the whole story of the boys being in a Laurel St shootout 25 minutes earlier, and corrects Sgt MacLellan's mistaken belief that it was Tamerlan who bled to death. Also, Maret's affidavit says that Mr Fick, at that meeting, got angry when she asked the Defenders to consider others who may have been the real Marathon bombers. This would have taken the heat off her bereaved family.


98. Paragraph 97 is proof to any American that the Marathon bombing incident is surreal. The entire Department of Justice has become corrupted because some of its members are in on an enterprise that creates wars and seeks complete control of the people. "Justice" as a value is longer promoted. Due process is considered entirely dispensable. The members of the enterprise want us to move into an era in which the Bill of Rights means nothing and where no citizen can expect to get justice.


99. The acronym RICO stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. The Defendants must be held accountable for their participation in a radical change to our political system. And what better way to do so than to make them account for the particulars of the event known as the Marathon bombing.

100. What will posterity think? It is only a matter of time until everyone knows that the Boston case is a false flag. Similar bombings elsewhere, from London to Mumbai, have now been outed as false flags. Naturally it is difficult to prosecute powerful officers. But the American people have a means to sort things out without having to wait till all the players are dead. They have the law. The RICO Act of 1970 was originally intended as a way to circumvent the problems of arresting Mafia criminals; it has since expanded. It has been used in civil actions as a means of performing quasi-private prosecutions, to benefit the nation. RICO's concept of racketeering solves many puzzles of the Marathon case.

X. Possible Additional Defendants

Other media outlets, other doctors, other law enforcement person, other US Attorneys and Public Defenders could possibly be added to the list of Defendants. The three Attorneys General who have kept Jahar Tsarnaev quiet under SAMs are Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, and William Barr. They could be named as individual defendants.

XI. Prayer for Relief 

Plaintiff asks for injunctive relief, monetary damages, and declaratory relief thusly:


1. For the Appeals panel to be enjoined to stay the case against Tsarnaev, and for him to be freed from prison.


2. For the state Medical Examiner to be ordered to carry out an inquest into the deaths of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Sean Collier, Martin Richard, and the man who bled to death in view of Police Sgt John MacLellan, on Laurel Street Watertown, in the wee hours of April 19, 2013.


3. For Gabe Ramirez of CNN to be ordered to explain the filming of naked Tamerlan climbing into the police car at 1:05am on April 19, 2013, and to furnish the identity of the other naked man who was filmed standing against a wall with an FBI man beside him.


4. For Deval Patrick, Richard DesLauriers, and Jeffrey Sallett to be ordered to explain the statements they made in the National Geographic film White Hat.


5. For Matt Isgur, expert of MIT's cameras, to be ordered to explain why he omitted the crucial five minutes in the video he complied as evidence of Sean Collier's death.


6. For Carmen Ortiz to be ordered to explain why Sean Collier's car was destroyed.


7. For Richard Serino of Emergency Services to be ordered to state why his Power Point talk in 2008 suggested the Marathon Finish line as the place where a bombing may occur.


8. For William Fick, Judy Clarke, and their workers Jane and Olga, to be ordered to tell what they said to the parents of Tsarnaev on numerous trips to Russian Federation.


9. For MIT police Sgt Henniger to be ordered to say what he knew of the FBI swarming the MIT campus in the afternoon of April 18, 2019, and why he suppressed it.


10. For the Court, at its discretion, to seek prosecution of any person who may have committed crimes such as perjury, in connection with Jahar Tsarnaev's 2015 trial. And to seek indictments of any who committed the crimes at the Marathon Finish Line, or at the boat side, but with offers of amnesty for those who will swiftly report the truth.


11. For the Defendants to be ordered to pay $22,000 dollars (trebled, as punitive damages) to Plaintiff for her financial losses connected to the Marathon case.


12. Declaratory relief under RICO could issue, say, from a judgment that The Boston Globe wrote up the Marathon bombing and its sequelae according to the enterprise's agenda, both to establish a myth about Islamic terrorism coming to Boston, and to persuade Americans that they no longer live in that City Upon a Hill where, as Massachusetts Governor-to-be John Winthrop said, aboard the Arbella, en route hither in 1630:

“Now the onely way to avoyde this shipwracke and to provide for our posterity is to followe the Counsell of Micah, to doe Justly, to love mercy, to walke humbly with our God, for this end, wee must be knitt together in this worke as one man, wee must entertaine each other in brotherly Affeccion, wee must be willing to abridge our selves of our superfluities, for the supply of others necessities. Soe shall wee keepe the unitie of the spirit in the bond of peace, the Lord will be our God and delight to dwell among us...soe that wee shall see much more of his wisdome power goodnes and truthe then formerly wee have been eacquainted with. Therefore lett us choose life, that wee, and our Seede, may live; by obeyeing his voyce, and cleaveing to him, for hee is our life, and our prosperity.”


Respectfully submitted,  

Mary Maxwell, PRO SE

Note to readers: Some items conflict with the text of this book, which was written later (e.g., the timing of the boat discovery) but I cannot alter the pleadings. My lawsuit fizzled out when I failed to respond to a magistrate’s letter. The Post Office declared it was undeliverable at my home address (on December 17, 2019), yet I did receive Christmas cards that week at home.  I could resubmit it. Anyone is welcome to imitate it. All defendants were served a summons with a copy of the pleadings.

3. Maxwell v Trump

 I will now first print my objection. to the district court's dismissal (which you can

 also see me read at the Video page), and below that I'll print my

 appeal brief. At no time was the defendant asked to submit a counter argument.


Number 18-1127


MARY MAXWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant
DONALD J TRUMP, President of the United States, Defendant-Appellee

On Appeal from the United States District Court of New Hampshire


Re: Maxwell v President of the United States      Civil action 1:17-cv-00628-JL


US District Court, District of New Hampshire                     December 11, 2017


I hereby submit my objections to Magistrate Judge Andrea Johnstone’s recommendation to Chief Judge Joseph N Laplante that my case be dismissed.


Justiciability and Jurisdiction of My Case

My filing meets the US Constitution’s requirement regarding “cases or controversies” as I am dealing with a major controversy.  Could anything be more major than a president usurping the Congress’s grant of the power to make war?


The fact that the courts have developed doctrines, namely, standing, ripeness, mootness, and the political question, is not enough to obviate the Framers’ intent. The Third Branch is tasked with entering into this dispute. Nothing in the Constitution bars them.


Here I ignore “ripeness and mootness” and be concerned only with doctrines on which the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of my case: the political question and standing.


The Political Question

It is reasonable to hold that the two political branches, the Legislature and the Executive, have sole responsibility for making domestic law and policy and foreign policy. But the Judiciary always plays a role in “sorting out” — when needed – different parts of the Constitution. The US Supreme Court’s greatest moments occur when doing just that.


The Constitution’s balance of powers is a massive force for “domestic tranquillity.” In Hamdi, Rasul, Hamdan, and Boumediene, SCOTUS did the needful to curb the presidents’ claims to a newly concocted, unconstitutional “plenary power,” in foreign affairs.


If the two political branches are erring, who is available stop them? Congress can stop a president from erring by impeaching him, or just by threatening to do so. Of course that’s an event to be avoided if possible, as it would “shake up the population” and maybe weaken us internationally.  Better the court should apply the needed discipline simply by a ruling.


In my case, the judge would only have to say: “President Trump is hereby ordered to obtain Congress’s authorization before waging war, and to obtain Congressional approval for the policy of pre-emptive nuclear strikes.”


For all we know, the current president and many current legislators may be strongly wishing the Judiciary would say precisely that.  A sad fact of life today is that none of us really knows who may be pressuring the president or Congressmen. Let the people shield them!


We can’t rest on textbook descriptions of our democracy, which say that politicians answer mainly to their constituents. I don’t know anyone who thinks that. But who should force reality to conform to that textbook definition — to make representatives answerable to the people? We citizens, and any officers of government, should do it. We can use the ballot box, plus education and communication, to correct the behaviour of the Legislature.


But some Congresspersons want to prevent that! For example, they passed a law, as part of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, that deleted the prohibition of spending federal money to propagandize the American public. It’s legal now to use any psychological skills of the propagandist to dis-educate folks about a particular political candidate or about the meanings in the Constitution’s text. Hence we are turning to the courts for help.


Was There a Gradual Change in the Law?

I belong to the Federalist Society and participate in their Teleforums. Recently a speaker (a professor) said that it’s not clear who has the task of deciding on war. I said “Yes, it is very clear, in Article I, section 8.” He said “There is no jurisprudence.” I said “Yes, there was jurisprudence, up to the Steel Mills case in 1952, saying it is Congress’s job.”


The speaker then said that there hasn’t been any jurisprudence since that ruling. I don’t know if he is technically correct. There were 22 cases filed between 1952 and 2006 when I researched this in 2006. Probably I missed some, and since 2006 there have been others.


All were dismissed. None was appealed to the Supreme Court, very few even went beyond the district court.  So is the professor correct to say “There has been no jurisprudence”? I am inclined to think that the dismissals are a kind of ruling. Every one of them said, in effect, “We will not enter into this matter. We choose not to enforce Article I, section 8.”


Sixty-five years have passed – two generations — since the steel mills case (Youngstown v Sawyer). During that period, as all the world knows, the United States has engaged in many military operations, usually without Congress’s nod, i.e., the people’s nod.


An exception is the fact that in 2001 Congress passed the AUMF – Authorization for the Use of Military Force.  The Act was passed on September 14, 2001, that is, 72 hours after the World Trade Center was attacked and when Americans were told that Afghanistan was the attacker (or more specifically that Afghanistan was harbouring the mastermind, Bin Laden, a Saudi national). We all panicked. Who could think straight?


In any case, since the professor at the Teleforum thinks there’s been no jurisprudence – and he takes that to mean there has been a gradual acceptance of a presidential prerogative for war-making — I must deduce that the Judiciary has acted pro-Executive branch!


The judicial branch by its silence, when asked 22 or more times to make a ruling on Article I, section 8, has created the “acceptance” to which the professor referred. Twenty-two rulings of “We won’t rule” must surely convey something. I don’t think it conveys that 22 Mary Maxwell types brought non-justiciable cases.


The wars involved in the 22 cases were in Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Persian Gulf, Iraq, Kosovo, Iran/Syria.  Some of these, such as Grenada, caused no American deaths, but most did.  The Vietnam toll was 55,000 US soldiers.


I will now show that although all the cases get denied on grounds of justiciability, there are still valuable opinions from judges saying that such problems are justiciable. (I mean in addition to the authority of Youngstown v Sawyer, which is still the precedent.) I will mention Doe v Bush (2003) and Massachusetts v Laird (1971).


Doe v Bush (2003)

One case made it to the 1st Circuit appellate court for our region. It was dismissed for lack of ripeness. The complaint, by soldiers and parents of soldiers, was that the imminent invasion of Iraq by the US would be a violation of Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. The appellate judges said:


“Entrusting such decision making power to the president in the context of the present case – where the president is asserting determination to use that power in an unprecedented fashion, for offensive war of an extraordinary kind – would profoundly alter the constitutional structure.  The disastrous consequences cannot be overstated.  Liberty is always at stake when one or more of the branches seek to transgress the separation of powers. (Clinton, supra, Kennedy, J., concurring, at 450). Never could liberty be more threatened than when the president, or Congress, or both together would alter the separation governing the most momentous and dangerous of the Constitutional powers.” [Emphasis added]


Even though they said all that, they upheld the dismissal. They ruled on March 13, 2003 that the case was not yet ripe. Five days later President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq.


Massachusetts v Laird (1971)

One case “made it to the US Supreme Court,” Commonwealth of Massachusetts v Laird(1971) — but that is because when a state is the plaintiff, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. So, just as my humble case is under threat of dismissal, so did the Commonwealth of Massachusetts get a dismissal (on the basis of justiciability). However, Justice Douglas wrote a dissent, in which Justice Harlan concurred. It said:


“we have never ruled, I believe, that when the federal government takes a person by the neck and submits him to punishment… the complaining person may not be heard in court.  The rationale in cases such as the present is that government cannot take life, liberty, or property of the individual and escape adjudication by the courts of the legality of its action… Today we deny a hearing to a state which attempts to determine whether it is constitutional to require its citizens to fight in a foreign war absent a congressional declaration of war….  The question of constitutional war is neither academic nor political… it should be settled here and now.”  [Emphasis added]


In sum, I disagree that my case should be dismissed on the political question doctrine.



The doctrine of “standing” is long overdue for repair. Who’all is a court made up of? I say it is made up of society. In small societies that have a village chief, people gather to hear two “litigants” state their arguments. It will be obvious who “wins,” as the people gathered around will create a ruling of some sort. The chief will but enunciate it.


Since 1787 we have lived in a large society where the presence of the public is not feasible in that way. But no matter — we have centuries of English law, and then American law, to stand in, as it were, for the people. The court today is the people; the court is, also, the law.


Do I mean that the people and the law are the same thing? Yes, more or less. The law contains our values. It stands for how our society apportions power. Then we set up various governmental structures to apply the law. It would be ridiculous to say that the people do not have “standing” to question the law. They own it. No one else owns it.


I hope the day is not coming in my lifetime when people have to “take the law into their own hands” — although they should, if there be no one else willing to do it, such as police.


Magistrate Judge Johnstone has recommended that I do not have standing.  The soldiers in Doe v Bush were granted standing – but it would be better for soldiers if the challenge is made not by them but by a citizen. It must be extremely awkward for troops to challenge the president, as it goes against the grain of patriotism.  It could even cause a mutiny.


Concrete Injury

In recommending that my case be dismissed, the Magistrate Judge has pointed to the 2002 decision in Mahorner v Bush (at the District of Columbia District Court) that “plaintiff’s allegation that [plaintiff] will suffer an increased chance of losing his life if [the President] initiates a military conflict … amounts to nothing more than speculation.”


I suppose any prediction of anything – that it will rain next month – can be called “nothing more than speculation.” True, I don’t know for sure that President Trump intends to do war. He did do war in April of this year by striking Syria, so it is not at all far-fetched to say he’ll do it again. He has often talked about striking North Korea, even with nuclear weapons. “The public” now believes (correctly or incorrectly) that we will go to war soon.


I do not ask that President Trump be prevented from making war, or from using a pre-empt-ive nuclear strike. I only asked that Article I, section 8 of the Constitution be adhered to.


(Speaking personally, I think it would be good to have a pre-emptive strike policy.)


My claim that I may be injured is not a “speculation of the future.” I am injured right now by the anxiety created by President Trump’s threats. In the 1950s when I was growing up, “atomic war” was widely held to be the greatest worry of the American people. It colored everything; it dictated policy. It is not silly to worry about it today.


I grieve over the possibility that our magnificent biosphere could be ruined by radiation. We have already caused ‘untold’ damage by using depleted uranium in the Middle East. Our president should not have to shoulder the huge responsibility of making up his mind as to whether the people want him to use “nukes.” Their representatives in Congress must set that policy. Failing that, a stroke of a judge’s pen could set things right.


Constitutional Protection of the Balance of Powers

My pleadings said, in Section V. Request for Relief:


“Plaintiff asks the court to enjoin President Trump from making war without Congress’s say-so.  Plaintiff claims she is entitled to this relief in that she will likely suffer injury related to war. She is also entitled to live in the safety that the Constitution provides by way of its balance of powers.” [Emphasis added]


I lived in great peace from 1947 to 1980 (at which point I moved overseas, for marriage). It was so wonderfully reassuring to know that we had a Constitution and loads of citizens eager to protect it. How I pitied countries that did not have such a marvellous invention!


I am now back in the US and I can barely find that Constitution. All of the rights in the Ten Amendments are being eroded.  Sometimes they are eroded by the US Supreme Court, as in the Albert Florence strip-search case. It also may be that new generations don’t even know about the Constitution, so can hardly be on duty to support it.


As argued above, the reluctance of the Court to adjudicate key cases and controversies is terrible. It is blatantly political. We want the court to be the protector of the Constitution. I have a PhD in Political Science; I see all the power moves involved. Accumulations of power harm society. We need the court to act firmly on the side of law, not power. (Note: although I asked for injunctive relief, the court could give declaratory relief.)


Captain Nathan Smith

My claim of injury is somewhat like that of Army Captain Nathan Smith who in 2016 filed a case, Smith v Obama, that has now been changed to Smith v Trump. While on duty in Kuwait he was bothered by the fact that he’d taken an oath to protect the Constitution, yet was participating in an illegal war. He wants the Judiciary to sort that out. The DC District Court has so far dismissed him on the political question and, amazingly, on standing.


In 1973 Congress passed the War Powers Act in response to the Vietnam War. The Act allows a president to engage in war for 60 days. If by the end of 60 days, he has not obtained Congress’s say-so, he must pull out of the war action within 30 additional days.


As Professor Louis Fisher, author of Supreme Court Expansion of Presidential Power: Uncon-stitutional Leanings (2017) notes, the War Powers Act was breached by President Obama when he stayed in Libya for more than 60 days, did not seek Congress’s approval, and then continued to stay past 90 days, indeed for months, offering no legal justification for this.


So Libya was an illegal war on the face of it. Captain Smith could have been caught in it. The war he was actually in is the one against ISIS, which is illegal for the same reason.


Besides dismissing Smith on the political question, the district court said he lacks standing – as, unlike the soldiers in Doe v Bush, or the draftees in Massachusetts v Laird, he went to war voluntarily. (Indeed he vigorously opposes ISIS.) Smith v Trump is now in appeals.


Nuclear War and the 21st Century

Sixty-five years on from the Steel Mills case, a lot has changed in the world. Most nations, including the US, have yielded more of their sovereignty than was expected. Citizens often don’t know who the boss is, who is making decisions, or what “they” have in store for us.


Do we know what guides President Trump? His personal background is in business, and many of his Cabinet picks are CEO’s of the largest corporations. We’re not looking at Thomas Jefferson here. But is there a citizenry that can carry the legacy of the Republic forward? Yes. The 22 persons who brought civil actions are among those who care.


The military industrial complex is hugely powerful. The campus known as “the Pentagon” is now occupied mainly by members of the defense industry, not military officers. What are their motivations? What is their “foreign policy”? Do they wish for nuclear war?


The ability of other nations to strike us is overwhelming. In such an environment it is particularly harmful for the courts to abandon their custody of the Constitution. I’d go so far as to say that the Constitution is our most solid weapon against “the enemy.”


If all Americans, including, especially, members of government, would stick by the parchment, they would be sticking by each other – no small thing in this scary world.


Unless these old eyes deceive me, the eroding of the Constitution is part of a well-planned attack on the United States. “World government” may be behind it, but it looks American-based to me. Who would do that? Frankly, I think whacko’s do it. Some say the powerful are committing sins for selfish benefit. I disagree. They are just whacko.


If we have gone off the track from a good path that we were on, we can now go back and reclaim it. The courts are perfectly placed to assist the nation in this endeavour. There is a well-established maxim: Lex semper dabit remedium — The law will always furnish a remedy. And: Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem — A good judge enlarges his jurisdiction.


In the Great Republic, access to adjudication in life-or-death matters can’t be blocked by “doctrines,” such as standing, political question, or non-concrete injury.


“A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”


Respectfully submitted, pro se


Mary Maxwell, 177 Loudon Rd, Apt 203,

Concord, NH 023301.     

bottom of page