Treachery and Cowardice Against the Constitution at Harvard Law School
| About the Author—Professor Ellis Washington, J.D.—I went to Harvard Law School with future POTUS Barack Hussein Obama for 1 year (1988-89), but I took the opposite path in Life—New World Order, Communism, Treason, Pedophilia & 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 for 30+ years—for my entire legal and academic career, yet I Fight on, Why?—For Harvard’s original 1692 motto—Veritas pro Christo et Ecclesia {= Truth for Christ and the Church}. To escape the 150-Year Rothschild Chattel Slavery systems (e.g., Birth certificates, Social Security numbers bought, sold & traded on Wall Street) & Rothschild Debt Slavery systems (e.g., IRS, Income Taxes, fiat/counterfeit currency based on NOTHING, printed to fund false flag wars) of the Rothschild Khazarian Mafia Matrix (1871-2021), read and share the Truth of my Critical Thinking blog with the Youth that’s nearing 20 Million views @ EllisWashingtonReport.com & on Facebook — #JesusIsLord #DCActof1871 |
uthor—Professor Ellis Washington, J.D.—I went to Harvard Law School with future POTUS Barack Hussein Obama for 1 year (1988-89), but I took the opposite path in Life—New World Order, Communism, Treason, Pedophilia & 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 for 30+ years—for my entire legal and academic career, yet I Fight on! Why?—For Harvard’s original 1692 motto—Veritas pro Christo et Ecclesia {= Truth for Christ and the Church}.
To escape the 150-Year Rothschild Chattel Slavery systems (e.g., Birth certificates, Social Security numbers bought, sold & traded on Wall Street) & Rothschild Debt Slavery systems (e.g., IRS, Income Taxes, fiat/counterfeit currency based on NOTHING, printed to fund false flag wars) of the Rothschild Khazarian Mafia Matrix (1871-2021), read and share the Truth of my Critical Thinking blog with the Youth that’s nearing 20 Million views @ EllisWashingtonReport.com & on Facebook — #JesusIsLord#DCActof1871
“The one mile radius between MIT and Harvard is the center of the center of the Deep State. Every evil starts in the one mile radius of MIT and Harvard, and I know these guys and have figured it out.”
~ Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai
[On his Inauguration Day, 20 Jan. 2009] was Obama leading an insurgency Against the United States? – “Insurgency is the organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify or challenge political control of a region.”
~ QAnon Post #3882 (24 Feb. 2020)
1st Court Packing Plan vs. 1st State Packing Plan
In 1937, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45) attempted and then seemingly backed away from his Court Packing Plan to add 6 more hand-picked Justices of his choosing for the singular and treasonous purpose of having the Court rubber stamp his unconstitutional and Socialist New Deal Programs – a Constitutional Conspiracy that, up to that time the so-called “4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse” had successfully blocked. As an expert in Voting and Election Law, I have for decades written essays, law review articles and books exposing this unconstitutional Treachery launched by the Democrat Socialist Party dating as far back as the 1850s to essentially make following the U.S. Constitutional “a suicide pact” to quote Justice Robert Jackson – a real common sense Liberal who, even by the late 1940s, expressed his disgust in the case, Terminiello v. Chicago 337 U.S. 1 (1949) by exposing how the Democrat Socialist Party and their institutions had infiltrated and co-opted was openly engaged in Hegelian Dialectic – using one part of the Constitution to essentially deconstruct or destroy the other part and from the ashes of a New Progressive jurisprudence embodying an Evolution Atheism, Eugenics Racialism and Marxist Anti-Capitalism would simultaneously put to death the Biblical and Moral foundations of what the Founding Father’s Original Intent that bequeathed to U.S. on our Independence Day – July 4, 1776 onward—especially the Rule of Law, Natural Law, Natural Rights.
In Jan. 2020 there was an unsigned Student Note published in the Harvard Law Review titled — “Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation” with the outrageous proposal of adding 127 NEW STATES in Washington, D.C. (representing the 127 “neighborhoods” in the District of Colombia) while concurrently getting rid of Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution, where the Constitutional structures and requirements of 2/3rds of the Senate and House and 3/4ths of the States vote required for any new amendments to the Constitution would be nullified not by We the People but by a treacherous, surreptitious oligarchy of nameless faculty members at Harvard Law School cowardly hiding behind an unsigned Student Note. This proposal is Outrageous!
An example from the Harvard Law Review student Note reads like the psychopathic rantings and ragings of Robespierre who infamously declared during the height of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution – “There are no crimes, only criminals.” An excerpt from the student Note reads as follows:
| While a step in the right direction, these proposals are inadequate. To create a system where every vote counts equally, the Constitution must be amended. To do this, Congress should pass legislation reducing the size of Washington, D.C., to an area encompassing only a few core federal buildings and then admit the rest of the District’s Show More as states. [127] These states —which could be added with a simple congressional majority — would add enough votes in Congress to ratify four amendments: (1) a transfer of the Senate’s power to a body that represents citizens equally; (2) an expansion of the House so that all citizens are represented in equal-sized districts; (3) a replacement of the Electoral College with a popular vote; and (4) a modification of the Constitution’s amendment process that would ensure future amendments are ratified by states representing most Americans… *N.B.: See n. 127 – JENNIFER COMEY ET AL., URBAN INST., STATE OF WASHINGTON, D.C.’S NEIGHBORHOODS 3 (2010) (identifying 127 neighborhoods). |
America, the proposal by the Harvard Law Review Note to increase the number of States by an additional 127 bringing the number from 50 to 177, is a patent example of Treason and Liberal Fascism WRIT LARGE! ! What the SWAMP CREATURES AT HARVARD LAW JUST PROPOSED IS… TREASON (featuring Wayne Jett) who opened the interview by SGTReport with these prescient words regarding Harvard’s Machiavellian intent to subvert and deconstruct our Republic –
| “It would in every practicable respect amount to a complete tearing down and demolition of the existing Constitution of the United States of America. I mean that’s what it amounts to if their plans and proposals were carried forward and put into effect the Constitution and the United States would no longer exist as a Republic of the nature that we have enjoyed to the extent we have enjoyed it to this point in time.” ~ Wayne Jett, Historian, Writer |
Here is a transcript of the SGTReport.com interview of Historian Wayne Jett regarding the section about Harvard Law School’s State Packing Plot beginning @9:16-19:36 —
SGTREPORT: “The real reason why I wanted to have you on today is to talk about your article from Jan. 22, 2020 titled—HARVARD LAW PLOTS: Constitutional Ingenuity Or Subversion? And the reason for that is that I think it’s very serendipitous that I just had on Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai and he said this . . .”
DR. SHIVA AYYADURAI: “We have fake science, fake problems pushed out to the fake media and I think that’s why my running for Senate is (and winning is important) because Massachusetts – the one mile radius between MIT and Harvard is the center of the center of the Deep State. Every evil starts in the one mile radius between MIT and Harvard . . .”
SGTREPORT: “. . . Alright Wayne, your article here, “HARVARD LAW PLOTS: Constitutional Ingenuity or Subversion?” Talk to us about that because I think it’s real interesting that Dr. Shiva just said that on my show recently.”
WAYNE JETT: “. . . I was practically shocked and it’s hard to do that these days but on Jan. 10th Harvard Law Review’s latest edition came out and it had a Law Note in it. Now being from a law school I can tell you a little background on what a Law Review is all about. It’s not the funny pages; it is a serious business. It is the face and the reputation of law school. Certainly, each law school attempts to use its law review not only to help the profession within its state or its constituency, but also to reward the best that it has. The people on the editors of the Law Review are usually the top dozen or so top students in the law school. And so, they look to that as a means of increasing their prestige – It’s no funny business… It’s not just the students doing whatever they wish; they are closely supervised by professors; usually the professors with the expertise and the particular area on which a Law Note is written…”
“Anyway, let me get to the Law Note that caught my attention on Jan. 10th. It essentially proposes a means an approach and a strategy to amend the Constitution in a way that does not comply with Article 5 of the Constitution. Article 5 requires a Supermajority of both the House and the Senate – two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate to ratify any amendment to the Constitution. And Article 5 also requires that in addition to those two approvals to the House and the Senate, that three-quarters of all the states amend the Constitution or ratify the constitutional amendment.”
“So, in that circumstance this law Note begins by asserting the premise that all are created equal – take off not from the Constitution, but from All Men are created equal that came from the Declaration of Independence by Jefferson. So, on the premise that all are created equal… by the way it’s not clear whether they’re talking about all ‘humans’ or all what but nevertheless that’s the way they do it. And they say that is absolutely the premise upon which our nation should have been organized and therefore the Senate is completely unacceptable as a means of exercising power over legislation and over what the people want to do with their government. On that basis they then proceed by saying that this is so fundamentally unfair that it shouldn’t be out of bounds to be more or less unfair in the way it’s addressed and removed as a weakness of the Constitution.”
SGTREPORT: “… I just want the audience to understand what the proposal was here. So, you write” [*N.B.: See para. 1 below] –
“This is absolutely unbelievable. They want to take away each of the State’s existing two Senators and this is their proposal…this is absolute lunacy Wayne.”
WAYNE JETT: “Well that lays the groundwork for their further activities to be taken as soon as what they say could be done. They say that we can do this with a simple majority in the House and in the Senate in order to admit these 127 [new] States. They say nothing whatsoever about for example signature or veto of the President in that circumstance. They just leave that topic unaddressed, therefore that doesn’t require them to say that they have to win the presidency as well. But you can see when they are proposing to do this radical change … as soon as they do this and presumably, they would have these new representatives – the 127 new States – I assume immediately available. What they would then do is promptly adopt the amendments to the Constitution including removing the Electoral College – they specifically say that – and additional changes as well as the first one being, they would transfer all powers of the existing Senate to another body. They did not describe how that body would be comprised and but obviously it would be one that would satisfy the new and powerful Senators and Representatives from the District of Columbia.”
| Unfair: Two Senators Per State The HLR law note mounts its attack against the Constitution and the Republican Party on a premise given wings in the Declaration of Independence. Originally written by Thomas Jefferson more than a decade before the Constitutional Convention as “all men are created equal,” the premise is now restated in HLR as “all are created equal.” Viewing this premise as violated by actions taken at the Constitutional Convention to establish an upper legislative chamber comprised of two senators from each state, HLR’s law note contends this design must be undone as a matter of deep moral principle because a California resident shares two senators with many more other citizens than does a Wyoming resident, due to those states being at or near opposite ends of population counts among the states.” ~ Wayne Jett |
SGTREPORT: “This is insanity. This really floors me because look over at Yale we have Skull and Bones which give us people like George Bush Jr. and Senator John Kerry both running for President at the same time – both Bonesmen meant that this Deep State stuff just absolutely ticks us all off because we know what’s going on, we’re all awake. And you know what happens when people wake up? The elite change the rules of the game in the middle of the game Wayne. That’s exactly what they’ve done with free speech on YouTube change, the rules in the middle of the game to silence the people that are winning the war for truth – they want to silence us and shut us up because we’re winning and then, when the people rise up and start to take their power back through a lawfully elected president who’s not beholden necessarily to the Deep State like the wicked witch [Hillary Clinton], they just want to change the rules. It’s just disgusting, these people are just absolutely disgusting, and you rightly conclude at the end of your article here. . .
| Subverting the Constitution Is Unacceptable “Those behind the HLR law note plot would prefer having full power over America formally centered within the very swamp President Donald Trump was elected by landslide to drain. They would do so upon the entirely false pretext that this would achieve fair and equal representation of Americans across the country. In fact, political power under the plotters’ design would be far more centralized in DC than ever before. Only those willing and able to ally themselves with political views of the DC swamp (operatives for the globalist cabal) could hope to advance their local, national or international interests. Think of the implications of DC being converted into 127 states with 127 congressional representatives and 254 senators. This is proposed as the means to bring fair and equal representation to all Americans across every state!!?? The proposal is entirely outrageous, and a person seeking to advance the plan may be well advised to consider whether doing so is an act of treason to subvert the Constitution.” ~ Wayne Jett |
WAYNE JETT: “And on that last point, it seems to me that helps to provide an answer to exactly why they would put it in the Harvard Law Review. What if they didn’t put it in the Harvard Law Review and they just wrote this up, or whoever conceived of it, wrote it up and circulated it around secretly? Would that not be evidence of treason and subversion of the Constitution? It seems to me that perhaps the reason they put it in this so-called highly-regarded publication is to make it appear that surely this is simply free and open discourse among intellectuals of the United States and therefore completely a fair and aboveboard.”
“I don’t regard the substance of their proposals as anything in the nature of being fair and aboveboard because it would in every practicable respect amount to a complete tearing down and demolition of the existing Constitution of the United States of America. I mean that’s what it amounts to if their plans and proposals were carried forward and put into effect the Constitution and the United States would no longer exist as a Republic of the nature that we have enjoyed to the extent that we have enjoyed it to this point in time. But they certainly … seem to be in a position that they’re desperate to do something drastic in order to hold on to power while they’ve still got it.”
My History with the Harvard Law Review: 1989-2020
Here are a few more ideas I have chronicled and augmented from my original Facebook post regarding my 30+ year history with the Harvard Law Review:
1. As a historical footnote to this post, 31 years ago in Jan. 1989 as a graduate student in History I took my first classes at Harvard Law School with one Barack Hussein Obama… yet we took two very different paths in life: Celebrity vs. Obscurity, Devotion to Socialism Slavery, Evolution Atheism, Eugenics Democide vs. Devotion to Natural Law, Natural Rights and Original Intent, Treachery vs. Fidelity (to the text of the U.S. Constitution), etc… As I told my elementary and Middle School students at the 4 schools, I was recently fired from over the 4 months working as lowly substitute teacher with a Google footprint the students would not allow me to hide (Sept. 2019-Feb. 2020), you decide who supported which views… then and now.
–
2. Sept. 1988 – At the behest of my then best friend, Leon Bechet (2L) I self-educated myself in the foundations of the law first by spending many of my weekend evenings perusing the Harvard Law Library. I started reviewing, later reading the voluminous volumes of law reviews there beginning with reading various excerpts from the Harvard Law Review. And since these law reviews were in alphabetical order it was a natural transition to read the Howard Law Journals, where I was delighted to find a scholarly opus by my future intellectual mentor, Judge Clarence Thomas, Toward a “Plain Reading’ of the Constitution — The Declaration of … in Constitutional Interpretation,” 30 Howard Law Journal 691, 692 (1987).
Since this would be one of two epiphany experiences that would occur during that fateful Year of 1988 – the other one was watching the Trump interview on The Oprah Show where she repeatedly queried him if he would run for president that year. Although Trump demurred, others did not namely – Lee Atwater, that iconic Republican legend and George H.W. Bush Campaign Manager, and Roger Stone my son’s name sake). Both of these men begged the GOP establishment to make Trump Bush Senior’s V.P. at the 1988 GOP Convention, yet regrettably the GOP didn’t listen. . . and the rest they say is History! I memorialized these two epiphany experiences of these two magnificent men who would shape my life in a most profound manner by dedicating my 10th book to them –
3. Irony Alert! Three months later in April 1989 I won a coveted Staff Editor position on the Michigan Law Review over the top 2L and 3L law students (2 years before I formally attended law school as a full time student, and 2 years before where Obama [with neither pedigree nor academic worth] was handed the Presidency of the Harvard Law Review on a silver platter because he was “Black”). . . How did I become an Editor on the Michigan Law Review? I convinced the then Executive Editor of the Michigan Law Review (Erik Light) to allow me to take the required Blue Book Rules exam and I scored the highest grade and thus won the Staff Editor position!
4. In Nov. 1989, a few months after my tenure on the Michigan Law Review (May-Aug. 1989) was completed, I offered my first law review manuscript as a Student Note to the Harvard Law Review. They rejected it. 10 years later that opus – “black” or “Black”: A Plea for Legitimacy in Legal Scholarship – became the opening 3 chapters of my first book, “The Devil is in the Details: Essays on Law, Race Politics and Religion” (Vantage Press, 1999).
5. In Oct. 2017, I was invited to deliver a lecture by the Editors of the Faulkner Law Review regarding my pending law review manuscript, “1918-2018–100 YEARS OF UNNATURAL LAW OF JUSTICE OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES” – which was published in Fall 2017 edition by that same law review. Yet, which was the law review that I originally created this opus for and dedicated this work to, which took 30 years to write that comprehensive opus for which they rejected me yet again. . . ? That’s right, The Harvard Law Review.
6. Since 1989 I have written over 30 law review articles (published in multiple languages and on 4 continents). *N.B.: Every one of these law review manuscripts was first written specifically for, offered to, and rejected by the Harvard Law Review. Nevertheless, HLR had the occasion to publish such treasonous trash as this unsigned Student Note in their Jan. 2020 edition. (Qui bono – for whose benefit?) I posit this Socratic inquiry because none of the hundreds of esteemed Harvard Law Faculty had the guts to put their name on this Treacherous libel that seeks to deconstruct and destroy our sacred constitutional Republic founded on the eternal principles of Natural Law and Natural Rights.
History will NOT repeat itself. Just as the Treacherous Loyalists (the intellectual and political forefathers of the Progressive Democrat Socialist Party of today) failed to stop the birth of our Republic during their Seditious alliance with the demented King George III and the British Empire during the Revolutionary War (1775-83), so will these same Academic Traitors not achieve their objectives of destroying this Republic through Academic fiat by usurping power from We the People by increasing the number of States in Washington, D.C. from 0 to 127 in 2020.
Epilogue: Sic semper tyrannis = Thus [ defeat and death] always to Tyrants
244 Years ago, two institutions were born in the World – one by the existential forces of Evil, the other primarily by forces of Good (although even then the forces of Evil had successfully infiltrated the world’s first Constitutional Republic. The two institutions I write of born just 2 months apart are The Illuminati – a secret society founded by Jesuit, Attorney, Philosopher and Satanist Adam Weishaupt (1748-1830) on 1 May 1776 – the literal grandfather or infiltrator of every Satanic secret society and Leftist political institution known to this day. The second institution founded 2 months after the Illuminati was the United States of America instituted by Jefferson’s iconic Natural Rights Declaration of Independence on 4 July 1776, paid for in blood and treasure by WE THE PEOPLE.
The unsigned Note published in the Harvard Law Review was most likely authored not by a HLS student, but by several faculty of the Harvard Law School including uber anti-Constitutionalist Laurence Tribe who for 50 years is zealously continuing the Evolution Atheism jurisprudence championed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, President Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes who infamously declared (“The Constitution is what the Judge says it is”) which amounts to treason writ large.
Nevertheless, President Trump has been slowly and methodically preparing for the deconstruction of the ubiquitous Deep State of which the Ivy League Schools (including Harvard and Yale) are card-carrying members through appointing to date nearly 200 federal judges who have all sworn fidelity to upholding to the Original Intent of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and not deconstructing it like the unnamed Hegelian Harvard Law Faculty seek to achieve by adding another 127 states by Marxist Academic decree. These Fascist Professors will fail in their endeavors to destroy this Republic which as Benjamin Franklin queried above. . . We the People will “keep” this Great and Sacred Republic!
Latin: Lex iniusta non est Lex. (Later adopted by St. Thomas Aquinas and MLK)
Category: Commentary
