Donnie Two-Dolls (a/k/a The DonFather)
@steverino76.bsky.social
JD/MS/CPA. Retired. I despise corruption. It is a poison which is inevitably corrosive to any society. I fight it where I can.
I write extensively on constitutional theory from an originalist and textualist perspective. COTUS locuta est, causa finita est.
I write extensively on constitutional theory from an originalist and textualist perspective. COTUS locuta est, causa finita est.
I've been fighting them, but can't get arrested.
Private Criminal Prosecution: www.scribd.com/document/897...
Private Criminal Prosecution: www.scribd.com/document/897...
PCP Motion | PDF | Prosecutor | Supreme Court Of The United States
Plaintiff K.L. Smith seeks access to a grand jury to present evidence of alleged crimes committed by the defendants, arguing that the Constitution provides mechanisms for citizens to initiate criminal...
www.scribd.com
December 6, 2025 at 5:59 AM
I've been fighting them, but can't get arrested.
Private Criminal Prosecution: www.scribd.com/document/897...
Private Criminal Prosecution: www.scribd.com/document/897...
He's not even Honey BooBoo.
December 4, 2025 at 5:20 PM
He's not even Honey BooBoo.
Doesn't GA allow for private criminal prosecution?
November 27, 2025 at 2:32 PM
Doesn't GA allow for private criminal prosecution?
An oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3. Every act a usurper purports to take in that capacity is void ab initio. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 443 (1886).
Why can't you just say this?
Why can't you just say this?
November 27, 2025 at 2:31 PM
An oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3. Every act a usurper purports to take in that capacity is void ab initio. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 443 (1886).
Why can't you just say this?
Why can't you just say this?
An oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3. Every act a usurper purports to take in that capacity is void ab initio. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 443 (1886).
Why can't you say this?
Why can't you say this?
November 27, 2025 at 2:30 PM
An oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3. Every act a usurper purports to take in that capacity is void ab initio. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 443 (1886).
Why can't you say this?
Why can't you say this?
OINK!!!
November 18, 2025 at 1:08 PM
OINK!!!
That playbook was obvious to everyone with a law degree.
November 17, 2025 at 10:59 PM
That playbook was obvious to everyone with a law degree.
SCOTUS was technically right: Congress provided the remedy (quo warranto/mandamus). Read the DC statutes.
November 17, 2025 at 10:57 PM
SCOTUS was technically right: Congress provided the remedy (quo warranto/mandamus). Read the DC statutes.
This is MY legal analysis of the Dobbs decision, adapted from court filings. The citations are adequate. Run it through Grok or ChatGPT for soundness, if you like.
November 13, 2025 at 5:24 PM
This is MY legal analysis of the Dobbs decision, adapted from court filings. The citations are adequate. Run it through Grok or ChatGPT for soundness, if you like.
2/ Ironically, under the Living Constitution, the Justices can change the meaning of the word "person" to make the law fit their preferences.
November 13, 2025 at 5:11 PM
2/ Ironically, under the Living Constitution, the Justices can change the meaning of the word "person" to make the law fit their preferences.
Forget what you have been told about originalism. No one here knows what it is.
Roe was a scrupulously originalist decision. Dobbs was not. Below is the detailed proof. /2
Roe was a scrupulously originalist decision. Dobbs was not. Below is the detailed proof. /2
November 13, 2025 at 5:10 PM
Forget what you have been told about originalism. No one here knows what it is.
Roe was a scrupulously originalist decision. Dobbs was not. Below is the detailed proof. /2
Roe was a scrupulously originalist decision. Dobbs was not. Below is the detailed proof. /2