Justice Scalia recusal on libertarian arguments?
~

The case, Wonschik v. U.S., includes gun rights and the following are quotes from an Amicus Brief and a motion for recusal in that case: "The National Socialist German Workers' Party killed 21 million; the People's Republic of China killed 35 million; the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics killed 62 million. As an attorney, I represented people facing the death penalty for murder. I never defended anyone as murderous as governments and government officials. Self-defense against socialist mass slaughter is a reason for not infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms (including homemade machine guns as alleged in Wonschik's Commerce Clause argument)." For more on that topic see http://members.ij.net/rex/guncom.html

"The criminal charge alleged against Wonschik had no allegation of violence and is a classic example of how the federal government is taking over criminal prosecutions from states and doing so by manufacturing jurisdiction with charges that do not address any actual act(s) of violence, nor any acts that are the actual origin of the case, but do so by criminalizing non-violent aspects in ways that arguably violate the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms (and the Commerce Clause as in Wonschik's argument), instead of leaving the state to pursue the intelligent charges involving any actual violence. The federal criminal charge in Wonschik involves the non-violent act of possession of gun parts. If the government's antidisestablishmentarianism does not end, then we will be living in an even bigger police state."

Wonschik also argues that his federal judge and jury were prejudiced against him when the judge led the jury in the Pledge of Allegiance shortly after 9-11-2001. Another quote: "The violent aftermath of the 1940 Pledge of Allegiance case (Minersville School Board v. Gobitis) is the reason for not infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms (including homemade machine guns as alleged in Wonschik's Commerce Clause argument): self-defense against mob violence inspired by government schools, by the Pledge of Allegiance, and by cases such as Gobitis."

The argument asks the highest court to restore the pledge to its pre-1892 version.

The arguments explain that many older Americans performed the Pledge of Allegiance with its original straight-arm salute every day for the first twelve years of their formal educations in government schools. The Pledge of Allegiance was the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Many Americans were forced to chant the Pledge by law, under threat of expulsion and eventual arrest and jail. Many older Americans were aware that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a self-proclaimed National Socialist in the U.S. (Francis Bellamy) who promoted a government education monopoly because he wanted to create an "industrial army" modeled on the military for a totalitarian socialist society. Francis Bellamy and his cousin Edward Bellamy promoted their ideas worldwide and they influenced similar behavior in socialists in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Peoples' Republic of China, and the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Many older Americans attended racist government schools where segregation was imposed by law and where racism was taught by government teachers. It was behavior that was later shared by the National Socialist German Workers Party. Many Americans lived before WWII and knew the history of the Pledge and liked it. Some may have liked it even after WWII.

"Some jurors and judges chanted the pledge every day in government schools at the ring of a bell like Pavlov's lapdogs of the state."

"The Pledge did not turn every judge and juror into a Manchurian candidate. But that is not the legal test in the case."

"We the sheeple rarely have the guts to solitarily exercise the right to be left alone in a crowd of robotic chanting."

Let's restore the pledge to its pre-1892 version.

yours in liberty,

Rex Curry

Attorney at Law

http://RexCurry.net