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.
Pinned
One of the sweet mysteries of life: Why is it that not a single Article III judge can solve a simple ninth-grade math problem? If A and B but NOT C, then D. Every fact that matters is judicially noticeable. Trump is ineligible to serve. His "orders" are void.
But crickets....
But crickets....
@adamkinzinger.substack.com 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 won't you say this?
Why won't you say this?
November 27, 2025 at 8:51 PM
@adamkinzinger.substack.com 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 won't you say this?
Why won't you say this?
@meidastouch.com 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 6:48 PM
@meidastouch.com 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?
@judgeluttig.bsky.social 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 6:48 PM
@judgeluttig.bsky.social 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?
@tribelaw.bsky.social 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 are you so silent?
Why are you so silent?
November 27, 2025 at 2:39 PM
@tribelaw.bsky.social 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 are you so silent?
Why are you so silent?
@lawyeroyer.com 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 won't anyone say this out loud?
Why won't anyone say this out loud?
November 27, 2025 at 2:36 PM
@lawyeroyer.com 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 won't anyone say this out loud?
Why won't anyone say this out loud?
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 anyone say this?
Why can't anyone say this?
November 27, 2025 at 2:29 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 anyone say this?
Why can't anyone say this?
Murder, Grok Wrote? A Fresh Look at the Epstein “Suicide” x.com/MannC84373/s...
Donnie Two-Weeks (TACO, Man!) on X: "MURDER, GROK WROTE? Grok revisits Epstein's death in light of the Epstein E-mails. Unknown Party: How did the timing of Epstein’s death help Trump? GROK: The timing of Jeffrey Epstein's death on August 10, 2019—weeks after his arrest and amid swirling speculation about elite https://t.co/hJWxfz4GhM" / X
MURDER, GROK WROTE? Grok revisits Epstein's death in light of the Epstein E-mails. Unknown Party: How did the timing of Epstein’s death help Trump? GROK: The timing of Jeffrey Epstein's death on August 10, 2019—weeks after his arrest and amid swirling speculation about elite https://t.co/hJWxfz4GhM
x.com
November 18, 2025 at 10:02 PM
Murder, Grok Wrote? A Fresh Look at the Epstein “Suicide” x.com/MannC84373/s...
@jbf1755.bsky.social America didn't make it to 250. But the cause of the failure is ... complicated.
Response to Judge Wolf: www.scribd.com/document/947...
Response to Judge Wolf: www.scribd.com/document/947...
Dear Judge Wolf | PDF | Justice | Crime & Violence
The letter addresses Judge Mark L. Wolf, criticizing his perceived hypocrisy regarding the judiciary's role in upholding the Constitution. It argues that the judiciary has failed to protect citizens' ...
www.scribd.com
November 18, 2025 at 1:05 PM
@jbf1755.bsky.social America didn't make it to 250. But the cause of the failure is ... complicated.
Response to Judge Wolf: www.scribd.com/document/947...
Response to Judge Wolf: www.scribd.com/document/947...
I can't say what I need to with a 300-character limit.
November 16, 2025 at 3:11 PM
I can't say what I need to with a 300-character limit.
@espinsegall.bsky.social, perhaps you can help me solve one of the sweet mysteries of life: Why is it that not a single Article III judge can solve a basic grade-school logic puzzle? 🤣
A holding that Trump is ineligible to serve as a matter of law resolves every case I have seen. Even tariffs.
A holding that Trump is ineligible to serve as a matter of law resolves every case I have seen. Even tariffs.
November 13, 2025 at 5:01 PM
@espinsegall.bsky.social, perhaps you can help me solve one of the sweet mysteries of life: Why is it that not a single Article III judge can solve a basic grade-school logic puzzle? 🤣
A holding that Trump is ineligible to serve as a matter of law resolves every case I have seen. Even tariffs.
A holding that Trump is ineligible to serve as a matter of law resolves every case I have seen. Even tariffs.
@katiephang.bsky.social The Constitution is not to be sodomized by expediency.
As a matter of law and logic, an oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President as a matter of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.
Originalism.
Why can't you people just say it?
As a matter of law and logic, an oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President as a matter of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.
Originalism.
Why can't you people just say it?
November 11, 2025 at 9:13 AM
@katiephang.bsky.social The Constitution is not to be sodomized by expediency.
As a matter of law and logic, an oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President as a matter of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.
Originalism.
Why can't you people just say it?
As a matter of law and logic, an oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President as a matter of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.
Originalism.
Why can't you people just say it?
@meidastouch.com The Constitution is not to be sodomized by expediency.
As a matter of law and logic, an oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President as a matter of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.
Why can't you just say it?
As a matter of law and logic, an oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President as a matter of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.
Why can't you just say it?
November 11, 2025 at 9:11 AM
@meidastouch.com The Constitution is not to be sodomized by expediency.
As a matter of law and logic, an oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President as a matter of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.
Why can't you just say it?
As a matter of law and logic, an oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President as a matter of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.
Why can't you just say it?
The 300-character limit and lack of reach for the average man is killing BlueSky. I have to write on Twitter (I refuse to call it X) and link it here. And no one can hear what I say, anyway.
x.com/MannC84373/s...
x.com/MannC84373/s...
Donnie Two-Weeks (TACO, Man!) on X: "Though we are blessed with “a magnificent Constitution,” AAUP v. Rubio, No. 1:25-cv-10685-WGY, ECF #261 at 1 (D.Mass. Oct. 1, 2025) (per Young, J.), we are cursed with a judiciary that would embarrass Zimbabwe. The #SupremeCourt is criming again. This is judges writing law for" / X
Though we are blessed with “a magnificent Constitution,” AAUP v. Rubio, No. 1:25-cv-10685-WGY, ECF #261 at 1 (D.Mass. Oct. 1, 2025) (per Young, J.), we are cursed with a judiciary that would embarrass Zimbabwe. The #SupremeCourt is criming again. This is judges writing law for
x.com
November 6, 2025 at 10:33 AM
The 300-character limit and lack of reach for the average man is killing BlueSky. I have to write on Twitter (I refuse to call it X) and link it here. And no one can hear what I say, anyway.
x.com/MannC84373/s...
x.com/MannC84373/s...
Grokipedia is an epic fail. Even Grok admits it. x.com/MannC84373/s...
Donnie Two-Weeks (TACO, Man!) on X: "@kadmitriev @elonmusk Grok's take: Me: In my world, words have meaning, and relevant facts drive conclusions. 1. Minsk 1991 officially sets Ukraine’s borders. [endnotes below] 2. Budapest Memorandum (1994); Ukraine gave up its nukes. 3. Ukraine first enquires into becoming an EU member (2002)" / X
@kadmitriev @elonmusk Grok's take: Me: In my world, words have meaning, and relevant facts drive conclusions. 1. Minsk 1991 officially sets Ukraine’s borders. [endnotes below] 2. Budapest Memorandum (1994); Ukraine gave up its nukes. 3. Ukraine first enquires into becoming an EU member (2002)
x.com
October 28, 2025 at 7:17 PM
Grokipedia is an epic fail. Even Grok admits it. x.com/MannC84373/s...
#nokings Genesee, in Colorado. West of Denver, on I-70. Best estimate per Grok: about 300, on an overpass in a chilly breeze. TWICE the number of last time.
My contribution to the fight, in DC Superior Court: www.scribd.com/document/888...
My contribution to the fight, in DC Superior Court: www.scribd.com/document/888...
October 19, 2025 at 1:35 AM
#nokings Genesee, in Colorado. West of Denver, on I-70. Best estimate per Grok: about 300, on an overpass in a chilly breeze. TWICE the number of last time.
My contribution to the fight, in DC Superior Court: www.scribd.com/document/888...
My contribution to the fight, in DC Superior Court: www.scribd.com/document/888...
I'm no fan of KBJ, but let's be fair. Knowledge is a weapon.
October 16, 2025 at 4:05 PM
I'm no fan of KBJ, but let's be fair. Knowledge is a weapon.
Though we are blessed with “a magnificent Constitution,” AAUP v. Rubio, No. 1:25-cv-10685-WGY (D.Mass. Oct. 1, 2025), we are cursed with a judiciary that would embarrass Zimbabwe. The #SupremeCourt is criming again. This is judges writing law for partisan advantage. Per Grok.
x.com/MannC84373/s...
x.com/MannC84373/s...
Donnie Two-Weeks (TACO, Man!) on X: "Though we are blessed with “a magnificent Constitution,” AAUP v. Rubio, No. 1:25-cv-10685-WGY, ECF #261 at 1 (D.Mass. Oct. 1, 2025) (per Young, J.), we are cursed with a judiciary that would embarrass Zimbabwe. The #SupremeCourt is criming again. This is judges writing law for" / X
Though we are blessed with “a magnificent Constitution,” AAUP v. Rubio, No. 1:25-cv-10685-WGY, ECF #261 at 1 (D.Mass. Oct. 1, 2025) (per Young, J.), we are cursed with a judiciary that would embarrass Zimbabwe. The #SupremeCourt is criming again. This is judges writing law for
x.com
October 16, 2025 at 4:38 AM
Though we are blessed with “a magnificent Constitution,” AAUP v. Rubio, No. 1:25-cv-10685-WGY (D.Mass. Oct. 1, 2025), we are cursed with a judiciary that would embarrass Zimbabwe. The #SupremeCourt is criming again. This is judges writing law for partisan advantage. Per Grok.
x.com/MannC84373/s...
x.com/MannC84373/s...
You can't even wish for a war criminal's demise on X.
October 8, 2025 at 1:16 PM
You can't even wish for a war criminal's demise on X.
@thelisagraves.bsky.social Do you have any usable intel on Carl Nichols? I'm seeking to remove Trump from office via a quo warranto action. Summary below.
October 7, 2025 at 2:13 PM
@thelisagraves.bsky.social Do you have any usable intel on Carl Nichols? I'm seeking to remove Trump from office via a quo warranto action. Summary below.
@mspopok.bsky.social That's really the catch, isn't it? They are originalists when it gets them where they wanted to go. I have already argued that Dobbs was not an originalist decision
... BUT YOU ARE TOO ARROGANT TO LISTEN TO ANYONE!!!
... BUT YOU ARE TOO ARROGANT TO LISTEN TO ANYONE!!!
October 1, 2025 at 4:23 PM
@mspopok.bsky.social That's really the catch, isn't it? They are originalists when it gets them where they wanted to go. I have already argued that Dobbs was not an originalist decision
... BUT YOU ARE TOO ARROGANT TO LISTEN TO ANYONE!!!
... BUT YOU ARE TOO ARROGANT TO LISTEN TO ANYONE!!!
@mspopok.bsky.social This is what CJ Marshall should have written.
Everything else is an extemporaneous essay. I'll be happy to defend every inch of it as thoroughly originalist, but it is pure dictum.
Let's also talk Seventh Amendment before Callender.
Everything else is an extemporaneous essay. I'll be happy to defend every inch of it as thoroughly originalist, but it is pure dictum.
Let's also talk Seventh Amendment before Callender.
October 1, 2025 at 12:51 PM
@mspopok.bsky.social This is what CJ Marshall should have written.
Everything else is an extemporaneous essay. I'll be happy to defend every inch of it as thoroughly originalist, but it is pure dictum.
Let's also talk Seventh Amendment before Callender.
Everything else is an extemporaneous essay. I'll be happy to defend every inch of it as thoroughly originalist, but it is pure dictum.
Let's also talk Seventh Amendment before Callender.
@mspopok.bsky.social I have an answer to your Marbury question, but you don't have ears.
October 1, 2025 at 5:21 AM
@mspopok.bsky.social I have an answer to your Marbury question, but you don't have ears.
@mspopok.bsky.social He's right. Judges are to apply COTUS, not what the last judge found in his Depends.
October 1, 2025 at 3:09 AM
@mspopok.bsky.social He's right. Judges are to apply COTUS, not what the last judge found in his Depends.