This installment shall prove, once and for all, the three branches of the US corporate government established by its constitution are holographic structures designed to perform nothing more than theatrical gestures.

Though American history texts herald the US constitution as a living testament to America’s “freedom”, in truth, it replaced the Articles of Confederation, which did not make provisions for a central banking concern, and resulted from legal negotiations between sworn Esquires of the Crown Temple – who were also holders of allodial land titles in the American colonies – and King George III who, while acting under the guise of first American president “George Washington”, was an agent of London’s Crown Temple.

The following information shall not only serve to expose yet another renowned and award-winning Hollywood actor in the role of a Supreme Court Justice, but further explain what specific government agencies, in cooperation with London’s Crown Temple and the Vatican, are really in control of the US corporation, rendering the three branches of government you may have learned about in public school’s civics class superfluous.

Indeed, Sandra Day O’Connor’s presence on the land’s highest court was merely a symbolic gesture, and as shall be demonstrated, those legal decisions that become reported as landmark templates of the American judicial system are not truly decided by the Justices sitting on the bench in Washington D.C., but in New York, which is licensed to be the prime legal franchise for the Inner Temple of the Crown in London, where all of the legal principals, judges, et al., are legal representatives called to the Bar of the Crown’s Middle Temple.

As for “Justice” Sandra Day O’Connor, she was yet another fabricated historical character portrayed by an esteemed Hollywood host actor – a name with which loyal readers are likely already familiar. 

Pay close attention to the story told by the woman featured in the following video excerpt. Utilizing your best objective powers of judgement, does it seem as if she’s telling you the truth? Or does her account resemble a story of a fictional character told in the third person by an actor perhaps well-polished in the portrayal of the character being spoken of?

One’s loyal readers – as an objective, and empirically based epistemological description of the true nature of history – have read a great deal about the concept of the actor based reality existing as a post-modern phenomenon.

Perhaps it would be necessary to expiate further as to what exactly is meant.

Perhaps it is more accurate to say, history represents an idealized consensus, consisting of archetypical characters designed to portray mythical roles in theatrically fabricated events demonstrative of an overriding collectivist, humanist philosophy, and in many cases – as presented through the American public school system and even at prestigious American universities – one finds historical texts replete with psychological cues as to how such a consensus of historical events and the participating characters are to be collectively perceived.

In other words folks, historical scholars of the 20th and 21st centuries (and likely the case with all such officially sanctioned historical scholars throughout the ages) have deliberately sold the pubic a faux bill of goods – narratives of stories that never happened with characters that never existed.

Fundamentally, the continued credulity of such historical narratives is contingent solely upon the foundation of the masses’ perceptive consensus handed down to them from the ivory tower of authoritative scholars, a collective consensus derived chiefly from the black magic of massive psychological trickery.

Though such has been alluded to before, it bears repeating: the ulterior, clandestine, and ultimately sinister motive lurking behind the academic façade of historical scholarship – regardless as to whether or not its practitioners and perpetrators remain aware – represents the control of collective human consciousness and perception.

Significant challenges to this historical consensus are met with either social shaming, educational failure and or professional ostracization, with the added implied subconscious fear that such significant challenges will perhaps be met with severe legal censure or imprisonment at the point of a gun barrel wielded by those sniveling and sinister Templar/Jesuit/masonic cowards in control of reality’s locked and barricaded insane asylum, those who’ve sold their mortal souls in return for what they expect will be some great material or social reward.


Comparatively speaking, of all the official mainstream biographies one has examined in the past, those telling the official story of Sandra Day O’Connor (English Ordinal Full Reduction gematria=73/occult mirrored reversal/3 7’s/777/intelligence joker code/masonic/Joycean play on words/Day of the Con+OR=21/Reverse Ordinal/777/3/EE=33), American history’s first woman appointed to sit on the Supreme Court, perhaps none have been found to consist of a greater frequency of anomalies, logistical inconsistencies, as well occult and numerological markers.

For those unfamiliar with the history of the American Supreme Court generally, and with Sandra Day O’Connor specifically, both are fraudulent, and hers is yet another example of a biography concocted to accentuate the rise to fame and notoriety of a major public figure from the ranks of relative or total obscurity.

To begin painting the broad strokes, as it were, O’Connor, allegedly born March 26, 1930 (3/EE=33/high-degree Scottish Rite Freemasonry/26/2 6’s/12/21/777/intelligence joker code/19X3=57/5+7=12/21/occult mirrored reversal/777) is now a retired former Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, and as alluded to before, was the first woman to have ever been appointed.

O’Connor’s appointment to the court came in 1981 (28/2 8’s/aces and eights/mark of the Jesuit order) at the behest of President Ronald Reagan, a capacity for which she served until 2006, a span of twenty-five years (7/Kabbalah Zayin/the psychological hook/mind weapon).

Straight away, one’s suspicions should be aroused at O’Connor’s association with Ronald Reagan, America’s first admitted Hollywood actor “elected” US President, who was not only a political and Hollywood personality portrayed by a host actor, but shortly after becoming elected was involved in badly staging his own pathetic assassination attempt with an “assassin” who was also a then would-be television actor.

SEE: Actors in history’s grand stage play (Part XI)

Officially, O’Connor’s place of birth was El Paso, Texas, a state with a plethora of masonic lodges, the largest of which is the grand lodge located in Dallas which, of course, became the scene of the staged assassination of US president John F. Kennedy in 1963.

It is claimed O’Connor grew up on a “198,000 acre cattle ranch” (666) near Duncan, Arizona, which was located, it is claimed, “nine miles from the nearest paved road” (9/6/occult mirrored reflection/33/high-degree Scottish Rite Freemasonry) a sprawling and remote residence which reportedly, did not acquire running water or electricity until Sandra had reached the age of 7 (Kabbalah Zayin/the mind weapon).

According to Wikipedia, the 2010 US government census indicates the tiny Arizonian hamlet of Duncan was populated by a total of 696 (21/777/joker code), and that in 2015, the estimated total population numbered 799 (7/Kabbalah Zayin, the hook or mind weapon) and in 2016, the government census estimated the population had risen to 804 (12/21/777).

O’Connor’s official biographies also inform us Sandra became a keen outdoorsman from an early age, and that she hunted jackrabbits (jack of the deck/the joker code) for food with a .22 caliber rifle (22/masonic master builder). She also had two younger siblings (masonic pillars of Boaz and Jachin), a sister and a brother, who were each eight to ten years her junior (18=3 6’s/666).

But as further examination of O’Connor’s biographies progressed, evidentiary inconsistencies increasingly came into play.

Reportedly and despite the well-documented poverty stricken circumstances of her youth, O’Connor, while being sent to live with her maternal grandmother in El Paso, matriculated at an exclusive private boarding school, the Radford School for Girls.

The Radford School’s motto is “Disco Ut Serviam” which translates from the classical Latin to “I  learn That I May Serve.” The Latin term Serviam or “I will serve”, according to biblical legend, was the cry of Saint Michael the Archangel in response to Lucifer’s “I will not serve” or “non-serviam” when God chose to test the loyalty of his legions of angels.

A thorough examination of the school’s website reveals that Radford is not only one of the most exclusive and expensive private schools in all Texas, but according to, among all schools in that state, whether public or private, Radford ranks first as purportedly the best and most challenging curriculum for grades K-12 in El Paso as of 2019.

What O’Connor’s biographies fail to inform – unsurprisingly – is how the family of one of Radford’s most renowned alumni, an Arizonian family hailing from such a poverty stricken economic status and lacking even the bare essentials of water or electricity, managed to bear what must have been an extreme economic hardship in affording the tuition presumably required by the most prestigious private institution in El Paso, Texas?

Perhaps O’Connor’s biographers did not possess the creative wherewithal or didn’t wish to risk appearing ridiculous in employing the twisted pretzel logic required to fulfill such an implausible explanation?

Or was it because any further explanation would have hinted too close to the truth?

Repeatedly however, we have observed how the creators of celebrity narratives desire the necessity for such rags to riches biographical details, which in the minds of the public, fulfill their psychologically conditioned notions that anyone can, despite having been steeped in impoverished economic conditions, acquire the material blandishments of the illusive “American Dream” by simply employing the requisite can-do gumption.

The usual numerological markers continue to inundate O’Connor’s official biography with this excerpt from Wikipedia:

“O’Connor spent her eighth grade (44/destruction code/aces and eights) living at the ranch and riding a bus 32 miles to school (2 3’s/33). She graduated sixth (33) in her class at Austin High School in El Paso in 1946 {at the age of sixteen/7/Kabbalah Zayin/the mind weapon} (1946=29/2 9’s/2 6’soccult mirrored reversal/12/21/777/joker code).

After high school graduation, O’Connor reportedly attended university undergraduate school at Stanford, where she not only served on the staff with the editor-in-chief of the Stanford Law Review, future Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (sums to 210 in English gematria/3/EE=33 and 96 in English Full Reduction gematria/6/33), but she also garnered a Bachelor of Arts in Economics in 1950 (24/6/33), and then continued on for her degree in Law in 1952 (26/2 6’s/12/21/777).

Taking into account that Stanford Research Center, located on the campus of Stanford University, exists in close cooperation with and as an adjunct to London’s Tavistock Institute of Human Relations – which in turn exists as the globe’s centralized headquarters of psychological operations – one decided to examine images of Mister Rehnquist.

Wouldn’t you know it folks, one immediately discovered yet another actor portraying a significant role while having served on the nation’s highest court.

Both comparison facial recognition and ear biometric analysis positively revealed it is likely that former Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist was portrayed by award-winning television actor, Craig T. Nelson, who at present, so it appears, portrays California’s reigning democratic governor, Jerry Brown.

Chief Justice Rehnquist:

California Governor, Jerry Brown:

Craig T. Nelson:


Though this subject has been broached previously, America is legally controlled by the Crown Temple, which is located within the one square mile of the City of London. One should never misconstrue however, that when the Crown is mentioned, that it is with reference to the royal family of England. Quite the contrary, for the Crown is a direct reference to the Exchequer, or the Bank of England, which via legal charter, is tied to not only the Federal Reserve and the IRS in America, but the Vatican and the Holy See controlled by the Jesuit order, to which in turn all legal licenses, fees, taxes, liens, and treaties are ultimately bound.

The Temple directly refers to the monopoly of the four Inns of Court, which consist of the Inner and Middle Temples, along with Grey’s Inn and Lincoln’s Inn. All four courts are, legally speaking, non-entities or secret societies, which means they are unincorporated and without charter or statute.

This means that they cannot be sued or have claims filed against them, and since they are secret societies, one cannot belong unless they are officially called to the Bar through one of their legal franchises.

Rather than in Washington D.C., the Middle Temple of the Crown exerts its control over America through its Bar franchise in New York, and through both the Federal Reserve and the IRS.

This is the true triumvirate of power in America.

The three branches of government – executive (the president), legislative (congress, both Senate and House of Representatives), and judicial (Supreme Court) – about which everyone has learned while passing through the public school curriculum, collectively represent a mere veil for the covert power of the Crown Temple, which in turn, is merely a veil for the clandestine global power exerted over America and the West by the Vatican controlled by the Jesuit order, and the thirteen, ruling elite Jesuit families.


The excerpt from the 1984 movie, Places in the Heart, features the performance for which Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s host actor, Sally Field, garnered Best Actress by Hollywood’s Academy of Arts and Sciences. In fact, if examined closely and compared with the performance of the O’Connor character in the video excerpt displayed near the beginning of this installment, it becomes quite apparent that Sandra Day O’Connor was created – with strategic additions of latex facial stippling to give the character a more distinguished image – as a modification of Field’s cinematic character, Norma Rae, in Places in the Heart.

Despite these clever modifications, Field’s identification as O’Connor’s host actor is verified by both facial recognition and voice analysis.

Sally Field wins Best Actress in 1984:

By the way, folks, the actor observed in the video, Robert Duvall, who presented Sally Field with her Best Actress award from Hollywood’s prestigious Academy in 1984, has for years portrayed the host actor of this popular television and radio personality and collectively, ear biometrics, facial recognition and voice analysis prove it:

Larry King:

Robert Duvall:













6 thoughts on ““Justice” Sandra Day’s Supreme Con Job

    1. Your latter point is well taken, and in fact, the judicial system is the Achilles heel, if you will, of the Crown Temple system that secretly governs America and the West. If merely a small percentage of the total population – both working and middle classes – could pool and organize their combined resources to employ a legal team to not only redress legal grievances, but to renegotiate the terms and conditions of America’s founding documents, and along with a general boycott of the consumption of commercial goods – with the effect of significantly decreasing the profit margins of the ruling elite families – legal representatives of the Crown Temple would be forced to reconsider their position and come to the bargaining table.

      1. It is beyond that. People are still people but many have fallen over the threshold to evil. The evil is short lived. They will fall back to proper. We have a God!

      2. Yes, and destruction of religion in lieu of ‘materialism’ or humanist philosophies has represented a significant part of the ruling elites global program.

Leave a Reply