Skip to content

Prospective Relief

How do ‘we the people’ address rogue jewdicial authorities like Thomas Moukawsher of Connecticut? Redress by bullets or federal suit? Does Attorney General William Tong prefer bullets? According to AAG, blog star, Robert Deichert, bullets are preferred as Tong objects to civil redress in suit under the Enforcement Act of the Fourteenth Amendment. Let bullets fly! Deichert objects to peaceful resolution of disputes, inciting a free people to acts of violence to deal with Moukawsher’s tyranny of being accuser, trier, judge, jury, and executioner under the guise of jewdicial discretion in his illegal action of disbarring a zealous advocate for pointing out that family court is a jewish cesspool of alien ideology hostile to familial bonds, a danger to society acting outside the Constitution, raping childhoods for shekels. Oi vey, the Second Amendment comes into play as Deichert argues for tyranny, wars against the Constitution, betrays public trust, begs a .50 cal freedom seed to the head, offering up his blood as the natural manure to refresh the Tree of Liberty.

Free citizens hold rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to seek prospective relief in federal court from deprivations of rights by unscrupulous state actors. In the instant matter, nigger boy Robinson usurps sovereign authority by misuse of practice rule §2-45, illegally empowering tyrants in black robes to disbar attorneys for disliked speech, a power not conferred on judges by sovereign statutes. Gulag Connecticut does not observe ‘due process’, just jewdicial tyranny, anything good for d’jews is proper use of discretion, rule of law cast to the wind. Connecticut is curiously the only state in the Union where judges have power to disbar a lawyer at whim, a constitutional error created by a sickly Chief Justice Andrews in 1890.

Why is Deichert so bent on opposing peaceful resolution of Moukawsher’s failure of due process in federal court? Does Deichert incite a firefight? Nightscopes, .308 ball ammunition thru two panes of glass, from the grassy knoll, thru 900 feet of dense forest? Death rays from the space station? F35 smart bombs? Flames of liberty consuming the yellow flesh of tyranny? Does the Deichert/Tong duo really believe discretionary summary disbarment sits within limits of the Fifth Amendment? That disbarment for disliked advocacy sits within protections of First Amendment? Do these communist clowns understand the bloody purpose of the Second Amendment? Blog legal department notes promotion of violence is protected by the First Amendment, upheld by SCOTUS in Brandenburg over a half-century ago. Deichert creates moral necessity to resort to violence in reaction to his opposition to civil redress under the Fourteenth Amendment. There is moral propriety to apply high velocity freedom seeds in retort to Deichert’s claim in name of Connecticut, a claim alien to founding principles, a claim sponsored by the jew, now a call to arms in defense of the sovereign.

The Tree of Liberty is very thirsty.

Editor’s Note:  The crap being filed in federal court, opposing civil redress is pure tyranny, which Tong incites a free people to take up arms against him, the true purpose of the Second Amendment, a constitutional lesson learned the hard way.

The Second Amendment opposes Tong/Deichert’s opposition to civil redress. Second protects the First.

Tong/Deichert exemplify the blood of tyrants in Tree refreshment.