VFT DROPBOX MATERIAL
May 26, 2026
RESEARCH FILES:
Gabrielle’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
SURVEY DATA
SURVEY 3:
SURVEY 4
SURVEY 5
SURVEY 6
SURVEY 7
SURVEY 8
Gabrielle’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Candace Owens posted about you today. Congrats for revealing the extent of the infiltration.
1. Judicial Review is an implied power if and only if the opinion is symmetric in relation to the US Constitution.
2. Otherwise, SCOTUS replaces rule of law with rule of case law, the latter is what they are doing.
3. Chief Justice John Marshall assumed what he was trying to prove in Marbury v Madison 5 US 137 (1803), which is not an implied power, but law schools seem incapable of applying the math of social science.
4. Coase's Theorem (Coase won the 1991 Nobel) allows that social equity measures substantive due process, so that constitutional due process can be put on software, removing most of the discretion (abuse of discretion) that judges and prosecutors typically employ.
5. Procedures lacking in substance is how Nazis ran things, and currently is how the US government operates. This is how you were removed, as Ben Franklin warned that those who give up essential liberties, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.
6. Nazis used the Reichstag Fire Decree to justify the sealing off of civil liberties; Pete Hegseth used his own scam to remove you and others.
7. Because SCOTUS is supposed to do a proof each time when attempting judicial review, there can be no majority or dissent. Either the opinion is symmetric or it is not. If not, can't be used.
8. I don't think SCOTUS can do a proof in social science. For example, in Gamble v US (2019), Gorsuch guessed the correct answer, but didn't prove it. The other justices in the "majority" are wrong. Luigi Mangione is also correct about facing double jeopardy (the legal question in Gamble), so he knows more substantive due process than the justices beside Gorsuch.