The Gulag is recognized as a major instrument of political repression in the Soviet Union. It was the government agency in charge of the network of forced labor camps.
Version 0.4.0
A Marxist “Equity-Based” Justice Fundamentally Subverts Our Constitution.
In the case of an “LGBTQ+” (but in actuality only driven to “maximize federal reimbursements” using children) Massachusetts, our Constitutional civil rights and explicit federal antidiscrimination statutes always come secondary to inherently contradictory and incoherent “feminist equities.”
500+ Open LettersTo solve Russell's Paradox (carelessly introduced by The White House by allowing the enumeration of purposely non-inclusive LGBTQ+ alphabet soup of “specially protect from others” groups without ever mentioning the always inherently present “leftovers”), the above deliberately deceitful “equity for all” must be corrected to a mere “equity for some,” in contradiction with our U.S. Constitution.
"It's on purpose! The laws are unclear for a reason. Because everybody is a criminal. So anybody can be arrested at any moment ..." -- The Gulag: What we know now and why it matters.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts aims to “double protect” some citizens at the expense of revoking all protections from others, including Constitutional rights. Does “double protecting” some waive Constitutional protections for all?
RoutineThe “Sec. 8. Affirmatively Advancing Civil Rights … to prevent and address discrimination and advance equity for all” clause of the 2/16/2023 Presidential Executive Order results in Russell’s Paradox, and it must be corrected as a logically unacceptable conclusion to a less deceitful “equity for some.” Is the mandate to selectively “advance equity” (for only some) Constitutional?
Can the U.S. Congress avoid overriding a state’s immunity when presented with such Civil RICO claims that specifically imply deliberate violations of civil rights?
Has a state self-abrogated its sovereign immunity by deliberately sabotaging continued attempts to appeal rulings?
Racketeering"Immunity is overcome in only two sets of circumstances. First, a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions. Second, a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction,” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991).
Could a sadistic zoo keeper use massive federal assistance to endlessly poke and torture their bleeding caged animals until their openly public collapse?
Yet Father, who was used to the communist “weaponized psychology,” never turned violent, avoided succumbing to depression, never became sick, and most importantly, never gave up hope despite his deliberately induced full indigency.
Retaliations"Specifically, not knowing if Father’s filings and relevant evidence are ever even considered by the Family Court and then utterly unable to find out about any of the Family Court’s decisions is what the 'conspiracy to silence and enslave' was intended to convey."