Open Letter to Professor William Jacobson on his Critique of the Accusatory Jurisprudence of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
*N.B.: Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson debuts in queer Broadway musical knockoff of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ (Dec. 16, 2024) by Ryan King, Columnist for the New York Post.
|
About the Author—Professor Ellis Washington, J.D.—I went to Harvard Law School for 1 year (1988-89) with future POTUS Barack Hussein Obama, (b. 08/04/1961 – d. 09/29/2019), who was a secret descendant of the Rothschild Banking Cartel Family and a blood grandson of the German NAZI dictator, Adolf HITLER! – who was also a Rothschild – but I took the opposite path in Life—New World Order, Communism, Treason, Pedophilia and Satanic Ritual Abuse vs. Christianity, Conservatism, Protecting the Children & TRUMPism. I repeatedly refused to take the “Satan OATH” which is why I’ve been blacklisted since 1989 – for over 36 years—for my entire legal and academic career, yet I Fight on! Why? To avenge Harvard University’s original 1692 motto—Veritas pro Christo et Ecclesia {= Truth for Christ and the Church}. How do We the People escape the 150-year Rothschild Chattel Slavery systems (e.g., Birth certificates [= Birth Bond Fraud], Death certificates, Social Security numbers bought, sold and trading people’s identities like animals on Wall Street) and Rothschild Debt Slavery systems (e.g., IRS, Income Taxes, Death Taxes, Fiat or Counterfeit currency not based on Gold or Silver, but based on NOTHING! Cui bono?– Who benefits? Why are all national currencies of the world promiscuously printed at will by the Rothschild Central Bankers? Is it to fund perpetual False Flag Wars like — America vs. European Union, Israel vs. Gaza, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Lebanon, Russia vs. Ukraine, Taiwan vs. China, Rwanda vs. The Congo, Cambodia vs. Thailand, and throughout the world, while keeping the entire world enslaved inside an existential –Birth-School-Labor-Taxes-Debts-Retirement-Death cycle of the Rothschild Khazarian Mafia Matrix (1871-2021)? Further answers can be learned by reading, studying and sharing the Truth of my Critical Thinking blog that on Winter Solstice (21 Dec. 2024) surpassed 25 million views! @ EllisWashingtonReport. com, Facebook, Twitter/X—#JesusIsGod (Isaiah 9:6) #DCActof1871 |
For unto us a child is born [= JESUS], unto us a son is given [= CHRIST]: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father [Jesus = GOD], The Prince of Peace.
~ Isaiah 9:6 (written 740-700 B.C.)
Jesus said, I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
~ John 14:6
No one is more hated than he who speaks the Truth.
False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.
~ Plato
The Rothschild’s and Rockefeller’s use their front organizations to install their people in key positions in their governments to form a Shadow Government [e.g., “Deep State”, “Satanic New World Order”, ”One World Government”] that they control. ~ @EsotericBot
You have been lied to all of your life. History has been a [Big] Lie created by the [Rothschild Khazarian] Cabal for thousands of years for Control.
Prologue—Exposing the Most Radical, Reactionary Member of SCOTUS = Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, ‘A Critical Race Theory Warrior’
Dear Professor William Jacobson:
My name is Ellis Washington. I am a former professor of Constitutional Law, Legal History, Politics, Philosophy and a writer of 11 books. I recently listened to your July 10th appearance on The Jesse Kelly Show discussing recent SCOTUS decisions and the reactionary lone dissent by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as her Critical Race Theory and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion judicial worldview is becoming more acute and increasingly exposed by her colleagues on the Court as complete unhinged and inappropriate in interpreting the U.S. Constitution. I found your commentary very insightful, extremely amusing and legally and historically accurate. Below is a transcript and my analysis of your interview on The Jesse Kelly Show—
Jesse Kelly: It’s almost impossible to fire federal employees or at least traditionally it has been. And it may sound like not a big deal, but it’s a gigantic deal. The people you elect will get into office and the federal workforce can often times completely defy them. And you can’t fire these dadgum people. They’re like leeches. Is that about to change? I don’t know.
The Supreme Court just decided something. We better ask Bill Jacobson about that. Joining me now, founder of Legal Insurrection.com, Cornell University Law Professor, Bill Jacobson. Okay, Bill, what is this decision? What does it mean?
Prof. Wm. Jacobson: So, the Supreme Court granted a stay which means put a hold from federal district court in California which prevented the federal government from moving forward on a Trump executive order which called on I think it was 19 different departments to develop plans for large-scale layoffs. So, the district court stopped them from even planning to do anything which went up to the ninth circuit court of appeals which refused to grant a stay pending appeal. They then took it up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court 8 to 1 with Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting in a fairly fiery dissent and grated a stay.
And there’s many reasons why they granted the stay, but what we can discern from the short opinion as well as the opinion of Justice Sotomayor who agreed with them is what is the court below doing? All the executive order says is start planning. The executive order didn’t lay anybody off. So, a federal district court stopped them from even planning and therefore enjoined plans which didn’t even yet exist. And the Supreme Court said, “No, we’re not going to allow that to happen. This lower court order stayed. They can move forward with the planning.”
Unconstitutional Prior Restraint—Can the Democrat Socialist Party and the Political Left Stop President Trump’s Executive Policy Initiatives Before they are even enacted?
*N.B.: The two memes above and below explain the unconstitutional prohibition on speech (or in this case executive actions promoting his policy initiatives he campaigned on – a form of ‘speech’) BEFORE it is spoken or enacted under law or as executive or departmental policy. In the case above the Trump administration is exploring ways to balance the budget by cutting bloated and unnecessary bureaucrats from federal employment. The Democrat Socialist Party doesn’t like these proposed policy initiatives shrinking “Big Government” and thus they filed this lawsuit which has reached SCOTUS.
In other words as Prof. Jacobson stated above, “All the executive order says is start planning. The executive order didn’t lay anybody off.” Therefore, for the district court and the court of appeals to treat this case as if President Trump had the intent to layoff thousands of federal employees rather than initially exploring those possibilities is a classic violation of the constitutional principle of Prior Restraint of speech or proposed policy initiatives which is ipso facto unconstitutional.
Jesse Kelly: There aren’t going to be mass layoffs as of right now. All this said is you can start planning for mass layoffs.
Prof. Jacobson: Yes, Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from that.
Jesse Kelly: You said it was a ‘fiery dissent’. Why?
Prof. Jacobson: Because she used a lot of the sort of language she’s used before, very accusatory towards her colleagues, very accusatory towards the Court at ignoring what she called “the reality on the ground.” … The District Court Judge knows better what’s happening on the ground, which is of course just an absurd assertion. And she’s done that before. And the Court is once again ignoring the rights of different citizens, etc. And so it was just very accusatory towards the majority, towards the Court.
And one thing that was also in a sense accusatory against the two other liberals because both [Justices] Kagan and Sotomayor voted with the majority. And Kagan wrote a separate decision which clearly was directed towards Justice Jackson said look, basically, you don’t seem to understand. We don’t even have a plan to rule on. All the executive order did is say they could create a plan. Once we have that plan, then we can rule on whether it’s lawful or not. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. So, she felt the need…
How to Explain Cultural Marxism and Critical Race Theory Jurisprudence of Justice Jackson so that even a Fifth Grader can understand it
A lot of people use the expression, explain it to me like I’m a fifth grader, okay. That’s what Justice Sotomayor did for Justice Jackson. She explained it to her like she was a fifth grader in very simple terms that apparently Justice Jackson to the end was unable to grasp because she continued with her 10-page dissent which was really not grounded in anything. And this is what we’re seeing a lot from her. She gets very accusatory towards people who disagree with her. She gets very nasty towards them in her dissents. And we saw a couple of weeks ago, I think I discussed on your show, how Amy Coney Barrett lashed out at her…
This was a different case. This was the so-called “Birthright Citizenship” case… All the things that Jackson is saying in her dissent are contrary to 200 years of constitutional law. And now Sotomayor had to say something similar, a little kinder, but basically was, “Okay, Justice Jackson, I’m going to explain this to you like you are a fifth grader. Here’s why we need to grant the stay.” And that’s what is really astounding is that none of the other Justices, eight, including two liberal Justices, really don’t seem to have a lot of respect for Justice Jackson.
Jesse Kelly: … How does someone rise to the level of the Supreme Court Justice who apparently is so dumb even fellow liberals are marveling at what she doesn’t know?
Prof. Jacobson: Yes, that is astounding. She is a Social Justice warrior. It’s coming through in her writings very clearly. Whenever people say, well is Critical Race Theory [CRT] ever going to infect the court system? I said, “If you want to read how Critical Race Theory is infecting the system now, read Justice Jackson’s dissent in the Affirmative Action case. It was total political verbiage, anything you might hear in a Social Justice course in college.” And, I think it’s a combination of her have the right politics for Democrats to get ahead and President Biden at the time said why he was picking her. He picked her because he wanted a Black woman on the Court. He wanted that first.
There is no question that she would not have been selected but for that racial gerrymandering by President Biden. So, that’s how she got ahead. She got ahead though favoritism. She got ahead through being a Social Justice warrior. She’s not a stupid person. I didn’t mean to suggest that. But she obviously lets her politics influence her legal analysis.
Remember in the birthright citizenship case, she criticized the Court on “getting hung up on all this legalese.” Well, wait a second, that’s your job as a judge. You’re supposed to get hung up on legalese. So, I think the main problem with her is that she’s not the brightest bulb in the theater, but she’s not a stupid person, but she got ahead through being a Social Justice Warrior. . .
Although I’ve been trying to bring the American Academy, and particularly the Ivy League Law Schools back from the intellectual abyss for over 40 years (1983-2025)(*N.B.: See my earliest published essays – Birth of a Conservative Intellectual–Part I (Jan. 1983) and Part II (Feb. 1983), I’m sorry I never heard of you Prof. Jacobson for though you may or may not be a Conservative(?), you certainly come across as being open minded, fair, and not a Cultural Marxist or reflexively reactionary against Conservative, Christian or Natural Law worldviews as most of your peers inside the Law Academy appear to be who to this day remain silent regarding all of my oeuvre—my 36 law review articles, 11 books and over 3,000 essays, articles, open letters, monographs, poems, and Socratic dialectical works.
Justice Jackson knows a lot about Critical Race Theory [CRT] and Diversity, Equity, Inclusion [DEI] and Cultural Marxism, but very little about blackletter Constitutional Jurisprudence
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson instructed on the basic rudiments of Constitutional Law by Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. ____ (2025) case excerpted below—
According to Google AI, “The specific case, Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. ____ (2025) was decided on June 27, 2025. Justice Barrett’s opinion, signed by all five other Republican appointees, emphasized that Jackson’s argument was at odds with “more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself”. According to The New York Times, this incident highlighted a growing tension and divergence of views among the justices, particularly between the conservative and liberal wings of the court.”
And don’t assume that Justice Barrett (a Trump appointee to the Court) with the other four Conservatives where the only ones trying to teach Justice Jackson proper Constitutional interpretation and to forsake unconstitutional practices like Lawfare, Leftist Activism, Critical Race Theory, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion [DEI], which are all derivative of Cultural Marxist Jurisprudence and ipso facto unconstitutional. No. Even Socialist Justices Kagan and Sotomayor have many times cautioned Jackson to not interpret the Constitution based on your power personal policy preferences (e.g., Leftist, Marxist, Feminist politics), but according to the blackletter text of the Constitution (as Leftist Justices see it) —
According to Google AI, here are some specific instances where their opinions diverged from the majority:
- Emergency Orders: The three liberal justices have expressed frustration with the majority’s decisions on emergency docket applications, which have often resulted in interim wins for the Trump administration. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, has even dissented from a stay order, stating that it effectively overturned a previous precedent set in the 1935 Humphrey’s case, which dealt with the President’s power to remove commissioners from independent agencies.
- Birthright Citizenship Case: In a case regarding President Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, penned a strong dissent. The dissent argued that the Court’s decision created a “new legal regime” that threatens fundamental rights. Justice Jackson, in a separate dissent, criticized the majority for its “complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts”.
- CPSC Commissioners: In a case concerning the President’s ability to fire members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented from the majority’s decision allowing the President to remove commissioners for reasons other than neglect of duty or malfeasance.
- Students for Fair Admissions: In the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions case, Justices Sotomayor and Jackson both wrote dissents against the Court’s ruling against affirmative action, which were joined by Justice Kagan.
- Trump v. CASA, Inc.: In this recent case, Justice Sotomayor (joined by Kagan and Jackson) strongly dissented, arguing that the Court’s decision was “nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution”.
While these instances highlight disagreements and corrections of the majority, it’s also important to note that the three liberal justices do not always align perfectly. For example, in the case regarding President Trump’s plans to make cuts to the federal workforce (Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees), Justices Sotomayor and Kagan sided with the majority, while Justice Jackson issued a vigorous dissent.
However, the general trend indicates a shared concern among Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson about the Court’s increasing conservatism and the implications for constitutional law and civil liberties. They have used their dissents to articulate their concerns, expose what they see as flaws in the majority’s reasoning, and highlight the potential negative consequences of the Court’s decisions.
Epilogue—Some Historical and Cultural Marxist Origins of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Critical Race Theory Jurisprudence which is just Socialism Big Lies in Black Robes
*N.B. See, my magnum opus law review article, The Deconstruction of American Law and the Apotheosis of President Donald J. Trump (Dec. 9, 2023), that has a subsection titled, ‘A. Background Narrative—Professor Derrick Bell: The Father of Critical Race Theory and the Poison Pill of Marxism’. It is in this section where I do a legal and historical analysis tracing the origins of then then little-known legal theory promulgated by Harvard Law Professor Derrick Bell, Richard Delgado and two or three others in the late 1980s not as
a scholarly vehicle to foment legal justice to underserved “Minorities”, but as a Trojan Horse to pervert, deconstruct, and destroy America’s original jurisprudence and political philosophy created by America’s Constitutional Framers called Natural Law, Natural Rights, Common Law and which is currently referred to in modern day law academic circles as Originalism or Textualism.
My Early Trump Years of Epiphany and Destiny—1988-89—Trump’s Art of the Deal based on The Art of War by Sun Tzu
From May-Aug. 1989 I was a Staff Editor on the Michigan Law Review and had personally edited many Critical Race Theory [CRT] works including those written by Professors Derrick Bell, Richard Delgado, David Luban and others when this “new” legal philosophy was in its infancy. If Justice Clarence Thomas is a child of Natural Law, then Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a child of CRT = Cultural Marxist Jurisprudence = Communist Jurisprudence.
{Picture above} Donald Trump’s famous appearance on The Oprah Winfery Show (April 25, 1988) where he, like an Old Testament prophet of antiquity, alone boldly preached the Gospel of Tariffs and Neo-mercantilism (like America’s Founding Fathers did in the earliest generations as a country on the economic ascendancy from—1790-1930s) as the only rational means for America to regain her sovereignty as a Republic and to reclaim her place as the #1 economic Superpower country in the world.
*N.B.: Until recently virtually every economist in America and throughout the world thought Trump’s Neo-mercantilism and singular, uber-aggressive Tariff philosophy would doom America to fall into a perpetual Great Depression 2.0. . .
These know-nothing, academic, economic Poindexters were all WRONG and once again Trump was RIGHT! Thus, April 1988 was since the publication of his magnum opus, THE ART OF THE DEAL (Nov. 1987) based on the iconic war strategy writings of the ancient Chinese General, strategist, philosopher and writer, Sun Tzu (544 BC – 496 BC), THE ART OF WAR, was one of my earliest introductions to the Man, the Myth, the Legend who would eventually against all odds become the greatest President of the United States of America—Donald J. Trump — a Man whose intellectual and indominable genius would forever change my intellectual worldview. See essay, 1988—Year of Destiny when I discovered that Trump was a Singular Genius Championing Tariffs Alone since the 1980s.
See generally, my law review article above for more background history of the CRT Movement and my editorial work on the Michigan Law Review in the summer of 1989. The picture of me was in late Aug. 1988 when I was leaving my home in Detroit, Mich. to drive to Cambridge, Massachusetts (via Canada and upstate New York!) to attend the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Harvard.
Later in Jan. 1989 at the behest of my Harvard Law School friend, Leon Betchet (2L), I took 2 elective courses in the Law School, one class, The Apartheid Legal System in South Africa, was taught by the noted Civil Rights Legal Scholar, Professor Randall Kennedy. In March 1989 I won an open Staff Editor position on the Michigan Law Review where I served from May-Aug. 1989. *See, 87 Michigan Law Review Nos. 6, 7, 8 (1989), and to this day was the best and most intellectually fulfilling job I’ve ever had in my LIFE… at $6.00 an hour! The journal cover of Vol. No. 8 is pictured to the right and in my opinion was the most important and substantive journal of that legendary trilogy of law review journals I helped edit that record-breaking year in the history of the Michigan Law Review (Founded in 1902).
Allow me here to give exceeding gratitude to three colleagues of mine at the Michigan Law Review who were very kind and solicitous to me and aided my intellectual, academic and legal scholarly growth in the Law—
David Meyer, Editor-and-Chief of the Michigan Law Review (1989) current Dean and President of the Brooklyn Law School. He taught me the basics of how to properly and comprehensively critically read and review, citecheck and edit a law review manuscript for preparation to be published in the law review. 33 years later, it was David that served as my primary impetus and inspiration for my law review article titled, The Deconstruction of American Law and the Apotheosis of President Donald J. Trump (Dec. 9, 2023).
Greg Heller, Managing Editor of the Michigan Law Review (1989). Greg was always friendly and available to offer help to me in performing my duties as a Staff Editor and kindly wrote a letter of recommendation after I left the Michigan Law Review which I used to further my academic career. However, my initial reason asking for this letter of recommendation from Greg was to get admitted as a law student into the University of Michigan Law School where I already had a graduate degree (M.M., Dec. 1987).
However, tragically and ironically the then dean of the Law School — Lee Bollinger–> (current President Emeritus at Columbia Law School) — a self-described ‘Champion of Affirmative Action, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion,’ who as the defendant in two landmark Civil Rights cases that sought to end Affirmative Action practices in undergraduate and graduate schools as de facto racial discrimination, ironically upheld the Leftist, unconstitutional brand of racial discrimination called Affirmative Action which in an earlier essay I called “Affirmative Action = Affirmative Slave Chains” (RenewAmerica.com, Oct. 2013). Why do Conservatives hate Affirmative Action? Because like DEI or Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, these “remedies” feign to help Blacks and Minorities, but instead makes us perpetual victims (not victors) of racial discrimination where our achievements will forever contain the ‘Scarlet A’ not of Adultery as in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s literary classic The Scarlet Letter (1850), but this time that ‘A’ = Affirmative Action which = Affirmative Slave Chains —
- Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions…
- Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions…
- Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), is a landmark decision[1][2][3][4] of the United States Supreme Court ruling that race-based affirmative action programs in most[b] college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[5] With its companion case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)[6] and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which validated some affirmative action in college admissions provided that race had a limited role in decisions.[c] *Source: Wikipedia
Unfortunately, the then University of Michigan Law School Dean Lee Bollinger did not have that same attitude, justice and solicitude for a Black intellectual Conservative like me who more than most students there had proven that he was a worthy student to be admitted to the University of Michigan School of Law. Bollinger’s cruel and hypocritical actions towards me in 1989 would cripple my legal and academic career for over 36 years from which I have yet to recover again in this Life.
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”
~ Dr. Thomas Sowell (as quoted in Ellis Washington, “Affirmative Action = Affirmative Slave Chains” [2013])
Nevertheless, my love for America transcended any hatred or disappointment about my aborted career as a lawyer and law academic. Why? Because as a Christian Jesus Christ is my #1 aspiration in all things. Secondly, I will always love America. And that love would not allow me to give up the fight to preserve our American Republic founded under Natural Law, Natural Rights, the Common Law which is the Original Intent of the Constitutional Framers which is enshrined in Harvard University’s 1692 motto —
See, Sec. G: Open Letter to Columbia University President Emeritus Lee C. Bollinger, in 8 Open Letters—Reply to President David Meyer on the Apotheosis of President Donald J. Trump (Dec. 3, 2023).
Erik G. Light, Executive Editor of the Michigan Law Review (1989). Erik was my initial contact person who was tasked to fill the Staff Editor position because the original person had to resign due to a family crisis. Thus, Erik posted the job notice at the law school which included arranging a grueling 3 hour test on Blue Book Rules. Therefore, I, along with other 2Ls and 3Ls law students at the University of Michigan who had outstanding grades took this test and I had the highest score even though at that time I had never taken a law school course and wasn’t even a student at a law school. I won that Staff Editor position literally from ‘off the streets.’ March 1989 — This was perhaps the last time I would feel that I earned a high position based completely on my abilities without any racial considerations pro or against me.
- *N.B.: For more background narrative about my time as a Staff Editor (perhaps the first Black member) on the Michigan Law Review, See Essay Letter to Megan Brown – The First Black Editor-in-Chief of the Michigan Law Review (Oct. 19, 2019).
Returning back to my analysis of CLS and CRT. It is critically important to understand that Critical Race Theory is derivative of CLS or Critical Legal Studies which Wikipedia states, “is a school of critical theory that developed in the United States during the 1970s.[1] CLS adherents claim that laws are devised to maintain the status quo of society and thereby codify its biases against marginalized groups.”[2]
CLS like CRT was an outgrowth (or hydra tentacle) of an earlier iteration of Cultural Marxism from the early 1900s brought to America by Jewish academics of the so-called the “Frankfurt School” who found a home in America’s Ivy League schools—particularly at Columbia University, Harvard, Princeton and Cornell. Also Critical Legal Studies (CLS) which like CRT originated in large part from the professors at Harvard Law School like — Duncan Kennedy, Karl Klare and Roberto Mangabeira Unger.
My most celebrated book which in 2002 was accepted into The Royal Archives by Queen Elizabeth II titled, The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law (Roman & Littlefield, 2002) and has a Chapter 9: ‘Critical Legal Studies: A Natural Law Analysis’, that goes into great legal, historical and philosophical detail (with many detailed endnotes) about the intellectual origins and political outcomes CLS has had in modern academic discourse in the fields of Law, Policy, Sociology and Philosophy in particular.
“Liberalism and all of its iterations–Cultural Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, Pragmatism, Globalism, Darwinism, Eugenics, Feminism, Nihilism, CRT, Social Justice, Antisemitism, Wokism, etc., will always fail, because it will always collapse upon the weight of its own immorality.
~ Professor Ellis Washington (circa 1990) *See generally, The Damnation and Deconstruction of Harvard University–Part II (06-03-2025)
Therefore, Prof. Jacobson I am sending you 8 essays and poems I did on my old intellectual mentor, retired Chief Judge Richard A. POSNER of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (1981-2017), who reigns as “The most-cited legal scholars of all time by both legal journals and by the Supreme Court.” Nevertheless, rather than being a good thing that the overwhelming consensus in the law academy is that Chief Judge Posner is #1, on the contrary, in my opinion Chief Judge Posner was the quintessential, modern-day, intellectual Founding Father of anti-constitutional Judicial Lawfare, Liberal Activism and Cultural Marxist Jurisprudence—
v Essay & Poems on Chief Judge Richard A. Posner–Part I
vEssay & Poem on Chief Judge Richard A. Posner–Part II
vEssay & Poem on Chief Judge Richard A. Posner–Part III
vEssay & Poem on Chief Judge Richard A. Posner–Part IV
vEssay & Poem on Chief Judge Richard A Posner–Part V
vEssay & Poem on Chief Judge Richard A. Posner–Part VI
I also did an essay series containing 8 Open Letters to 8 Ivy League Law Schools that I hope you find interesting. One of the schools included in this open letter is your present institution, Cornell Law School (See, Sec. F. Open Letter to Cornell University President Martha Pollack (29 Dec. 2023) in —
And my companion law review article to the work above titled—
v The Deconstruction of American Law and the Apotheosis of President Donald J. Trump (13 Oct. 2023)
Finally, in 2010, about 15 years ago I was asked by the Rutgers Law Review in collaboration with The Donovan Nuremberg Trials Collection at the Cornell University Library called, “The Nuremberg Trials Project” to conduct an extensive, scholarly document review explaining and analyzing an original, declassified World War II document (dated July 16, 1945, but discussing Nazi Family and Inheritance Law Policy before 1933 and post-1933) from the Office of Strategic Services (OSS: 1942-45) the precursor organization to the CIA. That law review article can be found at—
v Ellis Washington, Nuremberg Project: Social Darwinism in Nazi Family and Inheritance Law, Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, Vol., 13, Fall (2011).
Professor Jacobson, I will be sure to read some of your writings contained in your biography at Cornell Law School. I see that you are an expert in Securities Law. My son, Stone Washington, is currently a Research Fellow at The Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. and often writes articles on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), SROs, FINRA, the CFPB, in addition to other federal financial institutions. I will encourage him to contact you for I am sure he would be honored to meet you one day and learn from your great knowledge on Securities Law and on other subjects. And thank you very much for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
/s/
Prof. Ellis Washington, J.D.
Critical Thinking Blog: www.EllisWashingtonReport.com
Category: Uncategorized
