Tidbits by Scotty

PT2: Outdated Thought Patterns That Are Quietly Running Your Life —UFO Edition

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:15:00 -0500

Last time we talked about safely opening your mind without fear of your brain falling out. Today, let’s look at what happens when we don’t open it — especially when something as mind-bending as UFOs comes knocking. For decades, the default reaction to anything unidentified in the sky was: “That’s ridiculous. Move along.” But what if that knee-jerk dismissal is just another dusty old thought pattern? Here are some hilarious (and painfully relatable) examples of outdated mental software that still make people slam the lid shut on their minds the moment “UFO” gets mentioned.

Funny Stories About Keeping Your Mind Shut Tighter Than a 1950s Hangar

“If it’s not on the evening news, it’s not real”The Story:
My uncle Dave still believes the government would never hide anything big. In 2021, when the Pentagon released those Navy “Tic Tac” videos, he watched them, shrugged, and said, “Probably drones. Or glitches. Pass the chips.” Three years later he’s still waiting for “real proof” while the rest of us are wondering how many more declassified videos it will take.Old Pattern: Blind trust in official channels + “if I haven’t seen it personally, it doesn’t exist.”
Open-Mind Upgrade: Sometimes the truth leaks out slowly. Your brain can handle new data without exploding.

“Only crazy people believe in little green men”The Story:
A very logical, spreadsheet-loving coworker once told me, “Anyone who talks about UFOs probably owns a tinfoil hat collection.” Fast-forward six months: he accidentally watched a full Luis Elizondo interview during a long flight. He landed convinced the topic deserved serious discussion… but refused to admit it in the office because “people would think I’m nuts.” Classic fear of social judgment.Old Pattern: Stigma + ridicule as a defense mechanism (very 1950s–1990s mindset).
Open-Mind Upgrade: Intelligent, credible people — pilots, radar operators, even former intelligence officials — have reported and investigated this for years. Curiosity isn’t crazy; it’s intellectual honesty.

“Science has already figured everything out”The Story:
I once argued with a friend who insisted, “If aliens were real, scientists would have told us by now.” I reminded him that scientists once “knew” the Earth was flat, that heavier-than-air flight was impossible, and that ulcers were caused by stress (not bacteria). He paused, then said, “Yeah, but this time we’re right.” Famous last words.Old Pattern: Overconfidence in current scientific consensus (the same mindset that laughed at meteorites until one literally fell on someone).
Open-Mind Upgrade: Real science stays curious. The “unidentified” part of UFO literally means we don’t know yet — and that’s okay.(Use Image 5: “Open your mind wide. Your brain won’t fall out, but fresh ideas will pour in.” — perfect for the flood of new possibilities!)

“It’s either aliens or nothing — no in-between”The Story:
My neighbor swings between two extremes: “It’s definitely secret military tech” or “It’s definitely little green men coming to probe us.” When I suggested it could be something we don’t understand yet (new physics, non-human intelligence, or even phenomena from another dimension), he looked at me like I’d grown a second head. Binary thinking strikes again.Old Pattern: All-or-nothing thinking (a very human shortcut that shuts down exploration).
Open-Mind Upgrade: The truth is probably more interesting and nuanced than our current categories allow.(Pair with Image 3: “It’s safe to open your mind. Your brain is staying right where it belongs.”)

“Talking about this makes me look stupid”The Story:
A highly successful executive friend admitted in private that he’s seen something he couldn’t explain — a silent, glowing object that moved in ways no known aircraft can. But he won’t discuss it publicly because “I have a reputation to protect.” Meanwhile, he happily debates cryptocurrency or quantum computing at dinner parties. The irony is thick.Old Pattern: Fear of looking foolish (one of the strongest outdated programs still running in adult brains).
Open-Mind Upgrade: The people who changed history were often willing to look a little silly while asking big questions.

The Gentle (and Slightly Cosmic) Truth

These old thought patterns didn’t appear because we’re dumb. They appeared because, for a long time, they kept us safe from ridicule, uncertainty, or having our worldview gently rocked.

But here’s the fun part: when you finally lift the lid on your mind and look at the UFO/UAP topic with genuine curiosity instead of instant dismissal, nothing catastrophic happens. Your brain stays firmly in place. What does fall out are the rigid old assumptions that were limiting how big you let reality be.

Opening your mind to the possibility of UFOs isn’t about believing every wild story. It’s about staying curious enough to say, “I don’t know… but I’m willing to find out.”

And who knows? That small act of mental openness might be the exact thing that prepares us for whatever comes next — whether it’s advanced human tech, non-human intelligence, or something even weirder. Your brain is safe.
The sky is wide open.
Maybe it’s time we stopped being afraid to look up.

___________________________Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purpose such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.

Open Minded Quandary

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:20:00 -0500

Don't be afraid to open your mind. Your brain won't fall out. What might finally escape, though, are the old stories, fears, and conditioning that have been holding you back.

The lighter, reassuring version "Don't be afraid to open your mind—your brain won't fall out" flips the classic caution into an invitation to curiosity and growth. It reassures people (often those hesitant due to fear, dogma, or conditioning) that exploring new ideas won't cause them to lose their intellect or identity.

The modern usage as a counter to the overly skeptical tone of the original, emphasizing that healthy open-mindedness is safe and beneficial. Variations include lines like "Open your mind, and don't worry, your brain won't fall out, but years of conditioning might" (a common extension encouraging shedding limiting beliefs).

You know that moment when you finally lift the lid on your mind… only to realize there’s a dusty old filing cabinet in there labeled “Beliefs from 1997” that you forgot to throw out?

“If I’m not busy, I’m lazy”The Story:

Sarah, a high-achieving friend, used to schedule bathroom breaks in her calendar. One Saturday she had a completely free afternoon and immediately panicked: “I should be doing something productive!” She ended up stress-cleaning the fridge at 2 a.m. because “resting felt wrong.”Old Pattern: Hustle culture brainwashing from the early 2010s.

Updated Version: Rest is productive. Your brain actually needs downtime to make good decisions. “I have to finish everything on my plate”

"Unlock your mind. No risk of brain spillage."

The Story:

My Italian grandmother’s voice still lives rent-free in my head. As a kid I was told wasting food was basically a sin. Fast-forward to adulthood: I once ate three extra slices of cold pizza I didn’t even want because “it was there.” My stomach was screaming, but my childhood programming was louder.Old Pattern: Scarcity mindset from previous generations.
Updated Version: Listening to your body > finishing food you don’t want.

“Good girls/boys don’t make waves"

"Feel free to open your mind wide. Your brain is safely anchored in there."

The Story:

Alex grew up in a household where disagreeing = disrespect. At 34, he finally spoke up in a team meeting and suggested a better way to run a project. His heart was racing like he’d just robbed a bank. Afterward he texted me: “I said something and no one died. Is this… allowed?”Old Pattern: People-pleasing software installed in childhood.

Updated Version: Polite disagreement is healthy. Your opinion isn’t a threat to world peace.

“I’ll be happy when…”

"It's safe to open your mind. Your brain won't fall out, but fresh ideas will pour in."

The Story:
I once told myself I’d finally relax and enjoy life “when I lose 15 pounds / get the promotion / buy the house.” Then one day I hit all three goals… and immediately started a new list. The finish line kept moving.Old Pattern: Future-based happiness (a trap from the 90s–2000s self-help era).
Updated Version: Happiness is a now skill, not a future reward.

“If they really knew me, they wouldn’t like me”

"Open your mind without fear — your brain is staying right where it belongs."

The Story: A client once admitted she hides her nerdy hobbies (she collects vintage Pokémon cards) because “real adults don’t do that.” She was 41. When she finally showed her collection to friends, one of them screamed with joy because they had the same cards in storage.Old Pattern: Impostor syndrome + fear of judgment.
Updated Version: The right people will like the real you — quirks and all.

"Be open-minded, not empty-headed. Your brain is securely in place."

Moral of the story:

"Open your mind fully. No brains will be harmed (or lost) in the process."

_______________________________ Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purpose such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.

Signpost PT5: Plagues from Above

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 18:25:00 -0500

Plagues from Above, Rebellion from Below — The Corrupt Are Caught in the Crossfire

Day after day the signposts keep dropping.

One morning it’s a murder of crows blanketing Tel Aviv like a living shadow, whispering of decay. The next, massive bee swarms descend on Israel, turning blue skies black and forcing cities to shutter as if the old plagues never left the script. While heaven sends its warnings from above, the earth answers from below: locals in red towns and blue cities alike are rising up, blocking billions in data center deals that would guzzle and poison their water and rob the power, while warehouse fires erupt with messages scrawled in flames — “All you had to do was pay us enough to live.” Nature and the forgotten are speaking in unison now.

Sign Post Blog Series Links:

1-If you were not aware this is a really big deal

2-PT1 2026 Wild Card Sign Posts highlighting a raise of world wide awakened consciousness

3-PT2 Afroman Authority Overstepping it bounds

4- PT3 Festus voters firing the council in real time.

5-PT4 Sign Post Wild Cards Rachel and Crew

6- Signpost Pt5 Plagues from above, rebellion from below- The corrupt are caught in the crossfire.

Late March: Murder of crows darkening the skies over Tel Aviv, sparking “harbinger” talk everywhere.

A 'murder' of crows over Tel Aviv triggers chatter of bad omen and biblical prophecies on social media

A video [below] widely circulated showing thousands of crows flying over #TelAviv is considered by many cultures to be an omen of impending doom.

Mid-April (literally yesterday/today): Massive bee swarms hitting parts of Israel, grounding flights and forcing nationwide warnings — straight out of the Exodus playlist.

I mean what more signs do we need https://t.co/mewcCKSgCE
— BASED SAVAGE (@crackcobain__) April 15, 2026

NEW: A “biblical plague” of tens of thousands of bees has swarmed Israel, forcing residents indoors as entire streets were overtaken.

The chaos reportedly started near a downtown shopping complex before the swarm spread block by block into residential neighborhoods.

Cars, lamp… pic.twitter.com/hOViWGRpl5
— Jack (@jackunheard) April 15, 2026

Ongoing: A surge in local rebellions blocking or stalling data center projects across the US — from Michigan rallies and Imperial Valley protests to reports of $64 billion+ in projects delayed or killed by everyday residents fighting power/water grabs. Even MSM Fake News picked up the story!

Fayetteville divided as data center debate intensifies https://t.co/6lxqybKLvx
— ABC11 EyewitnessNews (@ABC11_WTVD) April 15, 2026

In the small Missouri town of Festus, voters pushed back against a $6B data center by voting out all four incumbent council members, Politico reports.

That same day, voters in Port Washington, Wisconsin, approved a first-of-its-kind referendum to restrict future data center… pic.twitter.com/7ZFCpnYAD5
— Cybernews (@Cybernews) April 15, 2026

🔥 AI backlash hits hard!

Festus, MO ousts council after $6B data center deal. News sites block Wayback Machine—transparency fades.https://t.co/LOQ5tlvOqv #artificial #data #digital pic.twitter.com/4nfHXU1w8K
— Signal of Tech (@SignalOfTech) April 15, 2026

This week: The big California warehouse fire (Kimberly-Clark paper products, $600M damage) where the arrested worker allegedly left a video saying “All you had to do was pay us enough to live” — “All you had to do was pay us enough to live.” One lighter, $600 million gone.

Update on the arson fire at the Kimberly Clark distribution center in Ontario California. Damage to the paper products was $500 million. https://t.co/3vGDkJbdLa
— Frederick of Follywood 🇺🇸 (@TimmSchroeder2) April 11, 2026

The only war is the class war
Californian man recording himself lighting the toilet paper warehouse he worked in on fire while repeating the words, "All you had to do was pay us enough to live."
It took 175 firefighters to stop the blaze. pic.twitter.com/JPNCzFiHZF
— Arty Lunch • Arthur Poindexter Lunch • RaymondGuy (@ArtyLunch) April 9, 2026

Corporate greed lit the match. The people are just holding it.

We were joking earlier about this being Biblical but holy fuck - kinda crazy. A bunch of bees shutting down the Israeli genocide machine, we didn't see this on this whacky ass timeline. https://t.co/jCWpBU7KMX
— Anonymous (@YourAnonNews) April 15, 2026

The warships are still in the Strait of Hormuz. The war is still raging.
And in a twist no one saw coming…
Iran just defended the Pope against Trump.
In a viral LEGO-style cinematic animation making rounds, Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian condemns Trump's deleted AI-generated… pic.twitter.com/0tBfNiTZ0i
— Masu Zafi 🔥🔥 (@masuzafi) April 15, 2026

There are loads of Americans on TikTok talking about burning shit belonging to billionaires to the ground.
I think there are enough people with nothing left to lose to actually do this. A class war has started... pic.twitter.com/Calp3jHwZm
— Kerry Burgess (@KerryBurgess) April 14, 2026

"A drop of clean water for a child is worth more than a billion AI-generated images."👏

This isn't just about technology; it’s about survival. 🛡️

In Ravenna, Ohio, Will Hollingsworth just exposed the "19th-century resource heist" happening in our own backyard.

Trillion-dollar… pic.twitter.com/bD5kluwrgC
— Jessica Rojas 🇺🇸💪 (@VoicesUnheard) April 14, 2026

________________________________Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purpose such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.

pt4 Wild Card Sign Post Blog Series

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Thu, 9 Apr 2026 19:24:00 -0500

Rachel Vaughan & The Group Just Dropped April–June 2026 Predictions… And They’re Already Nailing the Wildcards

Predictions Live with Rachel Vaughan, Max Lowen, and Angie Sudduth Walsh

Predictions Live - April to June 2026: Max Lowen, Angie Sudduth Walsh & Rachel Vaughan

This is the latest in the ongoing predictions series with my friends Angie & Max.

From Angie’s Solasta Circle channel:

‘It's that time again for my dear friends, Rachel Vaughan and Max…
— Rachel Vaughan (@weazel8888) April 8, 2026

Wild Cards of 2026 blog series is a continuation of the blog post: If you were not aware this is really a big deal highlighting real world events happening all around the world and how these events all contribute to a raising of consciousness.

Remember when Rachel Vaughan, Max Lowen, and Angie Sudduth Walsh helped kick off this entire “Signposts of 2026” series back in If you were not aware this is really a big deal?

They’ve been right on so many things already.

On April 8, 2026 the trio went live again with their latest three-month download — and it’s pure 2026 wildcard fuel. Key hits from the new session:

Unexplained physical symptoms? Max broke down exactly why so many people are feeling them right now — energetic upgrades, not random glitches.
Rachel reframed the “rapture” conversation: nothing to fear, and she unpacked the straw-man factor that changes how we see the whole narrative.
All three were shown the dragon lines / ley lines are awake and responding positively to the rising frequencies.
The big one: The true reality is here NOW. It’s not something we’re still trying to create — it has been hidden from us, and the veil is lifting fast.

This isn’t fluffy hope. It’s the exact flavor of wildcard the stars have been signaling.

Uranus is days away from slamming into Gemini (April 25/26). That’s the switch from Taurus-level physical shocks (land, resources, data-center drama like Festus) to Gemini-level information explosions, rapid collective awareness, and the voice of awakened people. Dragon lines lighting up? That’s Earth herself joining the Uranus-in-Gemini info revolution — ley lines as the planetary nervous system waking up and saying “yes” to higher frequencies.Saturn-Neptune in Aries and Pluto in Aquarius are backing it all up: new spiritual structures, collective truth bombs, and the hidden becoming obvious. The group has been tracking this shift since before the year started — and the hits keep coming. Local uprisings, sudden energy symptoms, reality flips… exactly what they’ve been flagging.

The true reality isn’t coming.
It’s already here… and the dragon lines just turned the lights on.

Big thanks to Rachel, Max, Angie, and Asta for keeping the downloads flowing. Links to the full Videos are directly below — watch it yourself and feel the confirmation.

The wildcards aren’t just out there in the world.
They’re inside us, under our feet, and lighting up the grid.

Blog Series Links:

1-If you were not aware this is a really big deal < started with their earlier predictions.

2-PT1 2026 Wild Card Sign Posts highlighting a raise of world wide awakened consciousness

3-PT2 Afroman Authority Overstepping it bounds

4- PT3 Festus voters firing the council in real time.

5-PT4 Sign Post Wild Cards Rachel and Crew

__________________________

Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purpose such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.

Festus Wild Card of 2026 pt3

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Thu, 9 Apr 2026 18:09:00 -0500

Festus Wild Card of 2026 pt3 dives into a city reshaping its future as residents vote out incumbents over a data center, proving 2026’s wildcard energy in action. Unexpected grassroots power, rapid info flow, and real-time civic uprising. Read more: https://t.co/EOGdyVHoj2
— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) April 9, 2026

The Wild Cards of 2026 Are Already Voting

Festus, Missouri just gave us a live preview of what the wild cards of 2026 look like on the ground.

The City of Festus, MO canceled their Council meeting for tonight following last night's election whereby citizens voted out of office every single member who voted for the data center there that the people did not want.
Micro to macro, that is how we hold them accountable.
— Missi Hesketh for MO 7th (@MissiforMO) April 9, 2026

One week after the city council approved a massive $6 billion data center project—despite strong local opposition—voters showed up in record numbers and fired every single incumbent council member up for re-election. All four lost by wide margins. The new faces ran on platforms of transparency, accountability, and putting residents first. The old guard? Gone.

The irony is delicious: the council promised the data center would bring “jobs.” It did—just not the ones they were expecting.

The Festus City Council promised data center development would usher in new jobs. They were right. Four new candidates will take their seats after toppling the incumbents last night. #Festus #DataCenter #LocalPolitics pic.twitter.com/kKJkwHO0XY
— Mark Maxwell (@MarkMaxwellTV) April 8, 2026

This is pure 2026 wildcard energy in action.

Uranus has spent years in Taurus shaking up land, resources, values, and the physical cost of “progress.” Data centers are the perfect symbol—AI dreams chewing through electricity, water, and farmland while locals feel the pain in their backyards and utility bills. Now, as Uranus prepares to re-enter Gemini on April 25/26, 2026, the focus flips to communication, local networks, information flow, and the rapid voice of the people.

This is literally insane

So many people showed up to oppose a $6 billion dollar data center in Missouri they had to use bleachers

The whole crowd yells and chants they don’t want the data center

Festus City Council voted to approve the data center anyway right in their faces pic.twitter.com/I9xOyK9U4p
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) April 3, 2026

The timing couldn’t be clearer. April 2026 has been loaded with trigger aspects: Saturn-Pluto pressure testing old power structures, Mars-Saturn frustration turning into decisive action, and Mercury (ruler of local politics and messaging) amplifying surprises and spreading the story fast.What happened in Festus isn’t isolated small-town drama. It’s the universe demonstrating the 2026 theme in real time: unexpected resets where the collective voice, powered by fast information and raw dissatisfaction, rewrites the script.

Wild cards don’t always arrive as inventions or global shocks. Sometimes they arrive as ordinary citizens who finally say “enough,” organize quickly, and vote the machine out.

https://t.co/XbbiJ5htVR"St. Louis Public Radio After $6B data center plan, Festus voters oust every incumbent council member St. Louis Public Radio | By Kavahn Mansouri Published April 8, 2026 at 11:58 a.m. CDT"
— Aribert Deckers (@aribertdeckers) April 9, 2026

This is the shift PT1 talked about—paradigm-shifting events that stir complacency and raise consciousness. The stars are aligning for more of these local uprisings where people use the very tools of the system (social media, town halls, rapid organizing) to push back against top-down decisions.

The wild cards of 2026 aren’t coming.

They’re already here… and they’re voting.

the data center rebellion is happening right now in real time you guys pic.twitter.com/UPD5PY6AfW
— jae holzman (@jaeporeon) April 9, 2026

Not only did residents of Festus, MO vote out city council this week after the council approved a data center, but there's now a lawsuit alleging that city councilors met privately with data center developers, tried to limit public input and oversight: https://t.co/jj29S7kjkM https://t.co/zQXUyu2iha
— a = all out against 🧊 (@scott_a_ross) April 9, 2026

Please watch this local news report about how four City Council members in Festus, MO were thrown out of office after ignoring strong public sentiment & voting in favor of an unwanted data center. The same thing can & should happen to unresponsive elected officials in Michigan‼️ https://t.co/rSKvNdrMXh pic.twitter.com/PrB1sLNKtu
— Rich Studley, Michigander (@rstudley) April 9, 2026

If you object it, they will not build it

If the AI center gets in, you’ll never get it out pic.twitter.com/wdA1JpBlDi
— DR JANE RUBY™️ (@RealDrJaneRuby) April 9, 2026

On March 30th, Festus, Missouri’s city council voted 6-2 to approve plans for a $6 Billion data center in the area despite fierce vocal opposition.

Today, one week later, every single incumbent was utterly obliterated.

Collier: 34.6%
Wehner: 20.2%
Venz: 17.6%
Tinnin: 19.6% pic.twitter.com/Km54Gva56O
— Gavin Bena 🗳 (@gavinbena) April 8, 2026

OMG. She is a legend 💯 pic.twitter.com/53QaqovjS6
— Jesse Lynn♥️ (@jesseRoss597206) April 10, 2026

_____________________

MaxHeadroom 20 minutes into the Future 1985

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Wed, 8 Apr 2026 03:07:00 -0500

1985, Max Headroom, AI, predictive programing highlights a dystopian future of body part sales

Max Headroom - 20 minutes into the Future - 1985 - YouTube

Afroman Wild Card of 2026 pt2

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Fri, 20 Mar 2026 00:42:29 -0500

Tidbits by Scotty: Wild Cards of 2026 pt1 https://t.co/nFUfZbtoBo pic.twitter.com/iqBlMxxiG8
— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) March 22, 2026

Afroman as a Kryon wildcard fits right in with the prior blog if you were not aware this is a really big deal and Wild Cards of 2026 pt1 when:

Authority Overstepping their bounds backfires!

Wild cards speed this by disrupting the status quo—often making overreaching powers look fragile or foolish when their heavy-handed responses backfire.

https://x.com/AttorneyCrump/status/2034645861859295491?s=20

Wild Cards complete old cycles and launch new ones, turning potential darkness into opportunity's that propels society in ways never before imagined.

Afroman

(the rapper Joseph Foreman, who just recently (as of mid-March 2026), won a major defamation lawsuit against seven Adams County, Ohio, sheriff's deputies. They raided his home in 2022 (botched, no charges, damaged property including eyeing his "mama's lemon poundcake" in footage), then sued him for nearly $4 million over satirical music videos/songs he made mocking the raid using his own security cam video (tracks like "Lemon Poundcake"). The deputies claimed defamation, emotional distress, etc., but the jury sided with Afroman, affirming his right to parody and criticize public officials.
The raid and lawsuit completely backfired on the authorities:

It turned into viral content and songs that amplified criticism of police overreach, freedom of speech still rules this land!

In court, Afroman flipped the narrative: "If they hadn't wrongly raided my house, there would be no lawsuit... no songs, nothing."

One officer reportedly broke down crying on the stand; Afroman trolled back hard on social media with more mocking posts/videos.

His defense attorney hammered that public officials must tolerate criticism (even exaggerated for comedy), and trying to silence it via courts has a "chilling effect" on free speech.

This aligns perfectly with the blog's Kryon-inspired idea of wild cards: an unlikely figure (a laid-back rapper famous for weed anthems) becomes a catalyst exposing authority fragility.

https://x.com/ogafroman/status/2034765277133472199?s=20

The overreach (unjust raid + suing over satire) boomeranged, boosting Afroman's platform, highlighting accountability issues, and symbolizing how "old energy" control attempts crumble in this awakening phase — much like the Iranian regime's crackdowns fueling more rebellion or Nepal's corrupt officials fleeing/being ousted.

https://www.tumblr.com/scottysystembuster/810618005143814144

_______________________

Wild Cards of 2026 pt1

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 20:21:24 -0500

2026 Wild Card Sign Posts highlighting a raise of world wide awakened consciousness pt1

Excited to share Wild Cards of 2026 pt1, a deep dive into how random events shape global consciousness and spark new paradigms. From Tesla to the Wright brothers and beyond, discover why wild cards matter, plus numerology and shifts on the horizon. https://t.co/wBxPYQMxJL
— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) March 20, 2026

This Wild Cards of 2026 pt 1 blog post is a continuation of the blog post: If you were not aware this is really a big deal highlighting real world events happening all around the world and how these events all contribute to a raising of consciousness.

Today I want to talk about wild cards. I wish to help explain what or who they’ve been over time, but in order for this explanation to be understood and accepted and beautiful to your soul, you’re going to have to do some pretending.

Adjusting Your Attitude

If you were a scientist coming from another planet to observe Human history, you would need to do it without emotion or bias. I can tell the story about wild cards, both for your grandfathers and for you, but there is often emotion and bias involved. Because of this, I will say one thing, and you may hear another. Dear ones, it can’t be that way for you to understand this message.

Warning: What comes next has to be disengaged from what you think you know, or from the emotions of who you think you are, what you think has happened, or even from what you feel is historical. Remember, in his pretending scenario, you’re aliens coming from another planet to learn what has happened. You’re pretending so you will disengage. Pretend history will be told to you about a race you’re not part of. This is so you will have no attachment to anything as you listen. This is the only way you will understand this lesson today. It is the only way you will begin to understand the beauty of a spiritual system that pushes you when you need to be pushed.

Wild Cards Examined

Wild card, as used in spiritual language, is a term that is difficult to define. Wild cards can be events, they can be inventions, they can involve one Human or a few. They can be one of many things or many of one thing, but they follow a timeline that you can look at. We want to talk about some of the wild cards that you’ve had in the past, and some attributes of their occurrence that you might not have thought of.

The basic attribute of any kind of wild card is that it’s a surprise event. It’s often shocking, sometimes revealing, but always a surprise. We’re also going to do some of the numerology as we go, and also take a look at the energies that help define what the energy is around specific wild cards.

Numerology is an ancient system that helps define an energy around something. For instance, an event may seem to be one thing, but the numerology will tell a story around it that may be more explanatory. When you see what we will call synchronized numerology – the same numbers repeated around a wild card – it’s very telling, for there are no accidents.

Dear Kryon, you might ask, “Does Spirit create wild cards for the planet?” Answer: No, you do. Your consciousness at a certain point in time gives an allowance for a wild card. Spirit is ready to enhance some wild card scenarios and not others. But the energy and consciousness of humanity allows for their occurrence.

A wild card can be a person, an invention, a thing, an event, a new system or a new paradigm that changes the planet. It is unexpected, sometimes startling and often dramatic in its influence. If it’s an invention, it has to be outside of the purview of what would normally have occurred through the evolution of science or the timing of expected scientific evolution. It is often a paradigm shifter, and it’s usually from one person. When you see that, you will know it’s a wild card. It isn’t always an individual invention, and sometimes it’s collective. But, dear one, you can tell because every single wild card takes everybody by surprise.

Wild Cards in History

You’ve had a number of them, and I’ll list a few so you get the idea. You’ll also get to see a system of singularity that comes to inventors. You’ll see this as I go.

Tesla was a wild card. His ideas were unexpected, controversial and advanced to a degree that even to this day those in electronic engineering shake their heads. They will take a look at what he invented and will comment, “How is it possible for any one person to have seen that? If you study alternating current, it’s a conundrum. Phase relationships of alternating current are brilliant beyond brilliant.” This was Tesla.

However, what you know about him is only what he brought to you. Now, a brilliant mind like that would have other things, don’t you think? Indeed, he did, so you might ask, “Well, where are those other things?” The answer is that those other things were stopped cold – all of them. He only was able to promote the one thing that you needed for the planet. The brilliance of his mind had many other profound ideas, but he was unable to proceed. He saw ways to alter mass in his workshops, but couldn’t. He was frustrated that he didn’t have the elaborate tools to be precise enough to make it work on a regular basis. That’s just one. Transmission of electricity without wires through the ground was the other. However, it would not have been correct at the time for those things to have been presented to humanity. You weren’t ready, but you were ready for alternating current, one of the most needed inventions for the time. Tesla died frustrated, poor, in a small room and alone. He came to do one thing, and was stopped from anything else, then he passed. If you have analyzed the people who were wild cards in your history, there is a pattern.

Other wild card inventors have come into the planet just because the earth was ready for a specific invention. Remember, Spirit does not give the information, but allows for it to be released, often all at once, all over the earth. Let me give you some examples.

Another wild card is the Wright brothers. Isn’t it odd to you that it wasn’t that long ago that you got powered flight? It was just yesterday! Some of your relatives were alive when flight was discovered! Dear ones, the Chinese have been flying kites for thousands of years. Don’t you think that they knew the dynamics of a bird? Do you think that century after century after century occurred and nobody figured out how to sustain flight with any kind of power source? Two bicycle makers figured it out!

That’s odd enough, but the fact that they only beat the French by two weeks is something worth looking at. That’s odd! It’s almost like this profound invention was ready to be given to the planet simultaneously, all over the earth, at the same time. Whoever got to it first would be the ones who got the credit. The real oddity is the timing. It’s not logical that it was so hidden, then suddenly so many were working on it all at once.

The Wright brothers were here to show it to you, then stop. All they did was what you saw at Kitty Hawk. They never went past basic wing warping, and did not have first intuitive thought about ailerons, or the basics of flight control today. For them, it stopped there. Dear ones, there was great frustration, and perhaps even health issues from it, from having others take the basics and develop flight so fast beyond them. Dysfunction and sorrow followed them both, and they died without ever being able to participate fully beyond the initial invention. One died far earlier than the other, creating sorrow for the one left behind. They came to do what they did and move on. This is more common than you know with wild cards, especially when it comes to inventions that change this planet.

Who invented the radio? Was is the Italian Guglielmo Marconi, or our frustrated wild card Tesla? Marconi got the credit, but the invention was everywhere, ready to be claimed. The earth was ripe and ready for it, and it was delivered to the consciousness of the planet at the right time. But both men got it at the same time, apart from each other. I’m giving you things to think about.

We have told you that there are wild card inventions coming in the future. One in particular is ready, but you will not receive it until the time is right. It’s almost like there’s a thinking ceiling on what you can do. We even gave you some of the attributes of the coming invention, but not the one who will bring it. We’re not even concerned that you’ll do it in advance, because we know the wild card is coming. An invention is coming. It is an invention that will rewrite physics as you know it. You’d see the patterns in quantum fields, and there would be the big aha! It would be like reinventing the wheel.

“Kryon, why can’t we have it now? What’s stopping it?” We told you, it’s too easy to weaponize. When you reach the point where you won’t weaponize it, it’s yours. All this is coming. It’s natural, and it will come when it’s time just like the Wright brothers, just like Tesla, just like Einstein.

Einstein was a genuine wild card. He was not a quantum thinker at all, but what he presented is still alive and well today and they’re still looking inside the atom for the concepts he gave you. So I will make this statement: Einstein isn’t finished yet, because the very concepts that continue to be received from his work are going to be applied to the invention of the century. So the Einsteinean principles, even though they are not quantum, will be very much involved in what is coming. You might say he was a wild card and continues to be one. The joke is that his concepts last and last, outside of time, yet his main ideas were with time. If you asked Einstein if he was happy with what he brought to the planet, he would tell you no. He was frustrated that he didn’t get to do what he really wanted. Like Tesla, he felt that something was just “out of reach” and he didn’t get to do it.

Then there was World War II. Dear ones, pretend you are an alien scientist. Disengage your emotion. You’ve come in from another planet to look at this.

World War II (WWII) was not a wild card, but the man who created and enhanced it was. This planet was teetering on the edge of ultimate dark energy and destruction. Nobody expected it. The most despicable old energy card played itself out exactly as it should have, with the consciousness of this planet going to where it had brought itself. You had just finished World War I (WWI), yet WWII ignited and continued. So WWII was simply an extension of WWI. You did it again, only this time the weapons were getting bigger and more able to destroy all of humanity. Remember the prophecy of your scripture? You were headed for mass destruction. WWII would become World War III, and by the year 2000, you would be almost gone.

As I mentioned, WWII wasn’t the wild card, rather it was the man who led the lowest consciousness in recent history who was. He was the wild card, and you know of whom I speak. This wild card killed millions of people who were not even participants in the military portion of the war. Genocide had begun, a race war had begun, and many were following his lead. It showed the darkest side of humanity – more than you had ever seen before, and it almost targeted the demise of civilization if he had won.

It was a horror wild card, and the planet had created it. However, when it was over, the entire world took a breath and for a moment, just for a moment, there was a glimmer of realization: “This cannot go on, for we will do it again.” Many things took place due to this realization. Without the wild card, you would not have the European Union, you would not have the United Nations or any attempt at unity on Earth. Disengage from your logic and emotion, dear ones. These things were not created from Spirit, but rather from the depth of lower humanity. This is the dark side at its worst, showing itself with almost free reign, but the world objected to it and started to climb out of it. It was the beginning over half a century ago of what you’re starting to see now in the shift.

The amazing shift that you’re in right now is something that goes slow. It didn’t happen all at once. The Cold War was a natural occurrence out of the consciousness that was part of the end of WWII. But, dear ones, you could never have the shift if that Cold War had continued the way it was. Enter another wild card: The Soviet system fell over.

The Cold War could not continue, and it was stopped in the form it was in. Dear ones, for those reading now, that was one of the biggest wild cards of all. The consciousness of earth said “no” and it ended. That was a huge wild card. It changed everything; it wasn’t expected; nobody saw it coming, and it changed everything. It may not have changed things immediately to the way you want it right away, but it created that which you needed at that time.

Then there was Steve Jobs. He was a wild card. What he did had little to do with technology, for that would have happened anyway soon enough. Instead, it had to do with the paradigm of the business of music on Earth. He freed it, and the paradigm of how music is obtained and heard will never be the same. However, Steve Jobs did basically one thing for all of you, and then he died. Do you see any kind of connecting of the dots to some of the inventors who come and give you the one thing, then leave? If he had lived, would there be more? Yes, but you’re not ready for it. Consciousness has to support what happens.

Yes, it would seem we have left some things out – the invention of DNA, the atomic bomb, etc. However, these were not wild cards. These are your civilization, within a normal evolution of science. Wild cards are very unexpected things, and there are more coming your way.

The Wild Card of 2016

Remember: No emotion now. You have come from another planet and you’re looking at the end of 2016 – and there is the election. Understand without bias.

So for 2016, let’s do the numerology. You add the numbers and get nine. Nine is completion in simple numerology, and when you see a nine it often means the completion of something. Often it is of a time cycle, an energy or the completion of a paradigm. But it’s very strong.

The nines are stronger than many of the other numerological aspects and you feel them. The president-elect (at this writing) is a strong wild card. He is scheduled to become the 45th president. What a coincidence! Forty-five is a nine. A nine and a nine together are more than significant. They tell a story about what is happening. I will tell you something else. This story is not finished yet and there is more coming. You don’t know what you don’t know, so don’t make up your mind in advance about any outcomes. You’re from another planet, remember? There’s no emotion, no bias, no politics and nothing to judge. Look at it for what it is.

A big stick has just been inserted into what is normal and it’s going to be turned. As the big stick turns, other things will respond that never would have responded otherwise. I wish to tell you, dear one, old soul, relax with upcoming wild cards. They do what they do on purpose so that you will have a better civilization in the future. Sometimes they show you what won’t work, and sometimes they change paradigms that would have never changed otherwise. But what you have now is a profound wild card. That is the message.

It’s so common for you to respond certain ways when you are invested in the process. The knee-jerk reaction is expected or you wouldn’t be a Human. However, for this lesson, you’re from another planet and you’re looking down and you’re seeing it. Pretend.

Isn’t that interesting about a nine and a nine together? It means that truly the end of something is here. Perhaps it’s the end of the old way things were done? Perhaps it’s a shake-up of the system so it can correct itself? Don’t dare make up your mind where it’s going, because it’s not finished yet. However, wait a moment. Did you also realize that 2017 is a “one” year? Not only is the energy one of completion with a double nine, but it moves into “a new beginning” (the definition of a one in numerology).

I have more to tell you about numerology, and also something that will be clearer about this whole situation. I will give this to you in the next channelling.

Can you relax in the face of uncertainty when it’s your own country? Can you relax in the face of not knowing what’s next? When you’re so involved, can you disengage from either side of the fray? That is the test of a Lightworker.

There’s something else coming. Dear ones, this is beautiful. No matter what you think and no matter what your reaction is to this channelling, what is happening is correct for your time and needed for your immediate future. I will speak of this later. The beauty is when you step away and see how grand it is, that Spirit cares enough that it would allow a big stick to occur that would stir your complacency at this time. The real reason? The shift is here.

How do you feel? I want you to relax and smile at what the shift has brought you. For those of you who felt all the “shift talk” was nonsense, this may be your wake-up call. It’s real. Here it comes.

This is the message of the day. I am Kryon, in love with humanity, and for good reason.

And so it is.

KRYON

LIVE KRYON CHANNELLING

"WILD CARDS OF THE PLANET"

This live channelling was given in Wilmington, North Carolina

NOVEMBER 19, 2016

To help the reader, this channelling has been revisited [by Lee and Kryon] to provide even clearer understanding. Sometime information is even added or condensed. Often what happens live has implied energy within it, which carries a kind of communication that the printed page does not. So enjoy this enhanced message given in Wilmington, NC. source: https://kryon.com/CHAN2017/k_channel17_wilmington.html

Missouri's Drowned Giants — The Ozark Valleys the Army Corps of Engineers Flooded in the 1930s

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Thu, 26 Feb 2026 18:00:00 -0600

Between 1931 and 1979, the Army Corps of Engineers built massive dams across the Ozark region, flooding millions of acres and creating dozens of enormous reservoirs. Lake of the Ozarks. Table Rock Lake. Bull Shoals. Truman Lake. Official reason: flood control, hydroelectric power, recreation. But every major valley flooded had one thing in common—documented giant skeleton discoveries in the decades before the dams were built.

1885, Osage River valley (now Lake of the Ozarks): Workers exposed caves containing skeletal remains with a femur measuring thirty-three inches—suggesting a nine-foot height. 1903, same valley: Farmer Thomas Clarkson discovered a stone chamber ten feet square containing three skeletons, the largest measuring eight feet seven inches, alongside a twelve-pound copper blade. Both sites were collected by the Smithsonian, then flooded in 1931 beneath what became a 60,000-acre reservoir.

1921, White River valley (now Table Rock Lake): Missouri Speleological Survey documented cave chambers containing seven giant skeletons ranging from seven feet four inches to nine feet one inch, with corbelled ceilings and copper tools. The survey recommended multi-year investigation. In 1958, before that study could happen, the entire valley was flooded beneath 200 feet of water.

1936, Bull Shoals region: WPA archaeological team excavated a collapsed stone structure containing fifteen skeletons ranging from seven feet six inches to eight feet eleven inches. Their report recommended preservation for further study. In 1951, the site was submerged beneath Bull Shoals Lake.

1968-1974, Osage River valley near Clinton, Missouri (now Truman Lake): Pre-dam surveys documented "anomalous structures of unknown origin" and noted that "preliminary excavation revealed skeletal remains of unusual size" but "further investigation was not possible due to project timeline constraints." The site was flooded in 1979. Materials collected were sent to the Army Corps of Engineers for "long-term storage and potential future analysis." There is no public record of that analysis ever being conducted.

This investigation examines why a military engineering division controls recreational lakes, why every Ozark valley with documented giant discoveries was systematically flooded between the 1930s and 1970s, and why flooding is the perfect suppression mechanism—not destroying evidence, but making it permanently inaccessible beneath hundreds of feet of water where no independent investigation will ever be permitted.

The material on this channel presents exploratory interpretations of history and imaginative speculation, conveyed through narrative storytelling rather than precise historical documentation. Viewpoints and visual representations are dramatized or intentionally constructed to support alternative narrative exploration. Visual elements may at times be created using automated or generative tools. The content shared should not be considered factual.

_________________

additions to this blog by Scotty: Map Locations by Grok using this map: https://www.lake-art.com/cdn/shop/files/mo-lake-of-the-ozarks-miller-3D-wood-map-424_1800x1800.png?

pt5 Dandelion Conspiracy

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 21:45:00 -0600

Glyphosate is Political Poison: All-Time Monetary Payoffs from Monsanto & Bayer

@grok what are the "all time" total contributions from #glyposate poisons via Monsanto and Bayer to the Political Hacks masquerading as hereos ? Monsanto:https://t.co/HjeJRiUj59 Bayer: https://t.co/yQ5qrCfiob
— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) February 21, 2026

Bayer spent: $9,190,000 Lobbying Politicians in 2025

h/t Grok for this info: User

@StLHandyMan

nails it—asking for all-time totals from "glyphosate poisons" via Monsanto/Bayer to politicians. Using OpenSecrets data (pre- and post-2018 merger, when Bayer bought Monsanto for $63B, folding its lobbying under Bayer AG):Monsanto (Pre-2018, ID D000000055)

All-Time Contributions: $31,138,284 (1989–2020, to 3,581 filers including candidates, parties, PACs; state/federal levels via FollowTheMoney/OpenSecrets). Breakdowns sparse, but 2016 cycle: $755,146 (81% PACs, 19% individuals; 53% to Republicans, top recipients like Roy Blunt (R) $31K).

Lobbying Expenditures: No official all-time sum, but yearly peaks ~$4-6M (e.g., 2016 $4.6M, 2015 $4.33M, 2011 $6.3M). Estimated 1998–2017: ~$80M (averaging $4.5M/year over 18 years, focused on ag biotech, pesticides like glyphosate regs).
Key Ties: 83-87% lobbyists ex-government (revolving door); issues: GMO labeling opposition, EPA/FDA biotech rules.

Environmentalist claims you can drink a whole quart of glyphosate and “it won’t hurt you.”

The interviewer calls his bluff and offers him a glass of glyphosate.

The interview ends 22 seconds later. pic.twitter.com/zp9TyfK8oo
— Cary Kelly (@CaryKelly11) February 20, 2026

Bayer AG (ID D000042363, Post-2018 Includes Monsanto)

All-Time Contributions: Data cycle-based, no full aggregate; 2024 cycle: $544,690 (50% PACs/individuals; top: Kamala Harris (D) $103K, Donald Trump (R) $23K). Historical (1990–2024 estimate via affiliates): ~$10-15M (e.g., 2018 $464K via Bayer Corp, leaning 54% Dems).

Lobbying Expenditures: Yearly 2013–2025: $6-13M (e.g., 2025 $9.19M, 2024 $8.47M, 2023 $7.45M, 2017 $13.74M peak post-merger). Estimated all-time (1998–2025): ~$200M+ (averaging $8M/year over 28 years, on pesticides, pharma, ag bills like H.R.4288 for glyphosate labeling).
Key Ties: 78-85% lobbyists ex-government; affiliates: Climate Corp (ex-Monsanto), MEDRAD; issues: Glyphosate defense, farm security acts aligning with Trump's EO.

Combined Monsanto/Bayer (Glyphosate Focus)

Lobbying (2006–2016 Decade): $120M total (pre-merger separate ops, per reports). Post-merger (2018–2025): ~$70M (Bayer avg $9M/year).
Total Estimated All-Time (1990–2026): Contributions ~$40-50M; Lobbying ~$350M (Monsanto $80M pre + Bayer $270M). Ties to glyphosate: Bills shielding from cancer labels/lawsuits, EPA approvals, national security framing.

I introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act.

Thank you @chelliepingree, @RepBoebert, @RepNancyMace, @RepRoKhanna for sponsoring.

If we’re Making America Healthy Again, government shouldn't be promoting glyphosate and providing liability immunity for corporations making it. pic.twitter.com/QmByXmMRCu
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) February 20, 2026

String Pullers: Big Ag/Pharma influence via revolving door, donations to both parties (e.g., Trump/Harris), opposition to GMO bans/labeling.

These millions buy policy shielding glyphosate (cancer-linked, in 95% military food) while dandelions—free, anti-cancer potential—get sprayed. Profit over health.

dyk: its a REVOLVING DOOR w/ @Bayer
"44 out of 56 Bayer AG lobbyists in 2024 have previously held government jobs." h/t @OpenSecretsDC pic.twitter.com/LREKVOelNN
— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) February 21, 2026

Dr Joseph Ladapo DECIMATES the argument that our food system would collapse without glyphosate & that we have no choice but to continue to use it.

“Please remember that is complete bollocks...when people say that, just know that it’s complete nonsense.” pic.twitter.com/JTKlUTGklB
— Valerie Anne Smith (@ValerieAnne1970) February 20, 2026

This is one of the darkest, most evil and sick things I have ever witnessed. The reason why Monsanto/Bayer is pushing so hard for legal immunity – in states, the Farm Bill, and the executive branch – is simple. Their product gives people cancer. They did it with Agent Orange and… pic.twitter.com/pnbwNrBUcw
— Vani Hari (@thefoodbabe) February 20, 2026

Why I wrote this
I started this series because I believe dandelion has been unfairly demonized as a “weed” while its traditional uses and emerging research point to real potential. I’m not a doctor or scientist—just someone who thinks people deserve to see the full picture without pharmaceutical gatekeeping. This post is part of my effort to document what I’m finding so others (maybe years from now) can decide for themselves.Dandelion Conspiracy Blog Series Web Links: Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 -Part 5

There’s always a reason with this guy. Follow the money.💰 pic.twitter.com/YqIzaQxNRR
— 💕 Brittany Belle 💕 (@BrittanyinTexas) February 20, 2026

Major drugmaker Bayer — which sells the controversial, glyphosate-based weed killer Roundup — donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration last year.

Bayer had never before donated to an inaugural committee. https://t.co/SaY2NWi261
— FactPost (@factpostnews) February 20, 2026

Monsanto’s Chemical (Glyphosate) Makes Its Way Into 85% of Personal Hygiene Cotton Products https://t.co/Z7cvItT7Wd (2016)
— The Last American Vagabond (@TLAVagabond) February 20, 2026

Study Shows How Glyphosate & Aluminum Can Operate Synergistically To Destroy The Human Brain https://t.co/mIhLXGZ7Sw (2017)
— The Last American Vagabond (@TLAVagabond) February 20, 2026

SIGN THE PETITION to the White House and an email will be sent directly to Trump: https://t.co/KKV0iGmMwh

In a complete betrayal of Americans across the country, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) titled “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate… pic.twitter.com/VAqTWGq3XF
— GMO/Toxin Free USA (@GMOFreeUSA) February 20, 2026

clip: Dandelion Root Harvesting Tips by @weazel8888 Q: Why are so many medicinal plants classified as weeds? https://t.co/hf0DEu90qu via @YouTube
— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) March 29, 2026

____________________Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purpose such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.

Pt4: The Dandelion Conspiracy

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 19:34:00 -0600

Trump's Glyphosate "National Defense" EO: Shielding the Spray While the Weed Thrives

February 18, 2026: President Trump signs Executive Order "Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides" (via Defense Production Act of 1950). It declares glyphosate (Roundup's active ingredient) and its precursor elemental phosphorus critical to national security, food-supply security, military readiness, and agricultural strength. The order delegates authority to USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins to prioritize contracts, allocate resources, and ensure domestic production—potentially compelling companies if supplies falter. It invokes DPA liability protections for compliant producers, shielding them from certain damages tied to order fulfillment.

Why I wrote this

I started this series because I believe dandelion has been unfairly demonized as a “weed” while its traditional uses and emerging research point to real potential. I’m not a doctor or scientist—just someone who thinks people deserve to see the full picture without pharmaceutical gatekeeping. This post is part of my effort to document what I’m finding so others (maybe years from now) can decide for themselves.

Dandelion Conspiracy Blog Series Web Links: Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 - Part 5

Official rationale: U.S. relies heavily on limited domestic output; disruptions (e.g., foreign dependency on China for imports) threaten food prices, yields, and defense tech (phosphorus in semiconductors, batteries). Glyphosate enables efficient farming for cheap food and feed.
Timing bombshell: Comes days after Bayer announces a $7.25 billion class-action settlement for Roundup cancer lawsuits (non-Hodgkin lymphoma claims), with billions already paid in prior verdicts. IARC classifies glyphosate "probably carcinogenic"; newer studies link it to leukemia, liver/thyroid cancers, neuroinflammation. EPA maintains low risk when used as directed, but critics highlight retracted industry-influenced safety papers and pervasive residues in food/water.
MAHA backlash explodes: The Make America Healthy Again coalition—key to Trump's 2024 win via RFK Jr.'s anti-toxin push—calls it betrayal. RFK Jr. (HHS Secretary) defends: "America first" for defense/food supply. But voices like "Glyphosate Girl" (Kelly Ryerson), EWG's Ken Cook ("big middle finger to every MAHA mom"), and activists warn it risks midterms support. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) drafts the "No Immunity for Glyphosate Act" to block implementation, strip liability shields, and preserve lawsuit rights. Outrage frames it as Big Ag win over chronic disease fight—glyphosate tied to microbiome disruption, infertility, cancer spikes.
Key New Glyphosate/Trump Developments (as of Feb 21, 2026)

@PeteHegseth surely you are aware of this eh? #glyposate The same chemical elevated to "national defense" status in Trump's Feb 18, 2026 EO (prioritizing production and shielding producers) shows up in 95% of US Armed Forces Troops' rations. https://t.co/TCN9hf2bZt pic.twitter.com/RnrSMg7xcj
— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) February 21, 2026

Dandelion tie-in: While policy elevates the chemical that kills dandelions (broadleaf weed targeted by Roundup), dandelions remain nutrient powerhouses—vitamins A/B/C/D/K, minerals, antioxidants; traditional diuretic, liver/kidney support; in vitro studies show extracts inhibit spike protein binding, cancer pathways (e.g., NFκB in colorectal models). No human trials? Unpatentable plant = zero pharma profit incentive. Lawns sprayed for "perfect" grass ignore pollinator/soil benefits.
Government deems cancer-linked herbicide "essential defense," grants production immunity, while free dandelions get demonized/eradiated. Why prioritize poison over potential natural alternatives? Profit chains, ag dependency, or something deeper?

The recent reports on harmful chemicals in U.S. military food, including Meals Ready to Eat (MREs) and base cafeteria meals. A major independent lab study (commissioned by Moms Across America, with support from Children's Health Defense Military Chapter and Centner Academy) tested 40 samples in early 2026—covering MREs and cafeteria items from multiple bases—and the results are alarming:

100% of samples contained pesticide residues.
95% tested positive for glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup), linked to cancer risks (e.g., non-Hodgkin lymphoma), endocrine disruption, neurological issues, liver/kidney damage.
100% showed heavy metals (some levels up to 17,000x higher than EPA safe drinking water limits).
Banned or restricted veterinary drugs/hormones (e.g., growth promoters like beta-agonists/steroids in U.S. meat, one avian contraceptive) appeared in samples—substances not approved for human consumption in many countries.
Some meals were nutrient-deficient compared to USDA standards.

This ties directly into the glyphosate/Dandelion Conspiracy threads:

The same chemical elevated to "national defense" status in Trump's Feb 18, 2026 EO (prioritizing production and shielding producers) shows up in 95% of troops' rations.
Critics from the MAHA coalition (RFK Jr.'s orbit) call it "unknowingly poisoning our military," especially ironic given the admin's push for healthier food pilots at 20 bases in response.

Older concerns include PFAS ("forever chemicals") in MRE packaging—banned in military food contact materials after Oct 1, 2021 (per 2020 NDAA)—though legacy contamination persists on bases from firefighting foam. PFAS links to cancer, immune issues, etc., but the 2026 study focuses more on pesticides/heavy metals/vet drugs in the food itself.

Action items:

Ditch Roundup: Manual pull, vinegar/corn gluten, embrace "weeds" for bees/soil.
Support pushback: Back Massie bill, demand independent natural-remedy research.
Question: If glyphosate's "national security," why not fund laser weeding or regenerative methods RFK Jr. once hyped?

Dandelion Conspiracy Blog Series Web Links: Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 - Part 5

clip: Dandelion Root Harvesting Tips by @weazel8888 Q: Why are so many medicinal plants classified as weeds? https://t.co/hf0DEu90qu via @YouTube
— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) March 29, 2026

________________Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purpose such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.

pt3 Epstein Alien UFO pysop

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:20:00 -0600

Have you seen all the great UFO memes making fun of Trump trying to distract everyone from the Epstein Files?

pt 1 and 2

https://www.tumblr.com/scottysystembuster/809113592984174592/pt2-epstein-files-distraction-aliens-and-ufos

___________________

Esoteric Discussion Steven & Rachel

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Fri, 13 Feb 2026 19:49:00 -0600

Knowledge Transfer Series #12 with Dr Steven Young.

In this 12th Knowledge Transfer Session for Ley Love Down we are joined by PHD in Nuclear Physics Dr Steven Young.

Steven is a physicist turned alchemist who enlightens his followers with extensive knowledge of scientific truth. Including attempts throughout history to obfuscate the existence of the human soul.

A great discussion including talk of Scottish Lochs being portals, Faery rings & the Fae, cryptids, ley lines, & whether or not the fanatical, determinist Venetian Oligarchs were even human.

Dr Steve speaks with conviction as a musician & DJ regarding the difference between 432hz & 440hz music. All of his own music has been in 432hz frequency – the most harmonic number - for over a decade. Which is helpful for those Keepers looking for appropriate tracks to play in the ley lines.

_______________________Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purpose such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.

JAKEGTV Epstein Files

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Fri, 13 Feb 2026 17:13:00 -0600

POV: You Try Watching The Epstein Files But The Anchors Keep Noticing

POV: You Try Watching The Epstein Files But The Anchors Keep Noticing pic.twitter.com/2w7AIOC2Jh
— JAKEGTV (@JakeG_Official) February 9, 2026

_____________________Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purpose such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.

pt3 The Dandelion Conspiracy

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Tue, 3 Feb 2026 18:03:00 -0600

Image by Grok AI

Dandelion Conspiracy Blog Series Web Links: Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 - Part 5

"big pharma can't copyright natural remedies" h/t Scotty

Big Pharma cannot copyright or patent natural remedies in their raw, naturally occurring form—and that's a key reason why plants like dandelion, turmeric, ginger, or other traditional herbal remedies often stay in the public domain rather than becoming exclusive blockbuster drugs.

dyk Y more "real life" human trials w/ Dandelion that stops cancer and spike proteins have not been done??? > h/t @grok for the breakdown: https://t.co/BGC66mxcK8 as I stated numerous Xs its a #dandelionconspiracy
— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) February 3, 2026

big pharma can't copyright natural remedies.

You're absolutely right: Big Pharma cannot copyright or patent natural remedies in their raw, naturally occurring form—and that's a key reason why plants like dandelion, turmeric, ginger, or other traditional herbal remedies often stay in the public domain rather than becoming exclusive blockbuster drugs.To clarify the distinction first:Copyright protects original creative expressions (books, music, software

code, etc.). It doesn't apply to remedies, plants, or substances at all. No one

copyrights a plant or a natural treatment.
Patents are what matter here for medicines—they protect inventions

(new compositions, processes, uses, etc.) for about 20 years, giving the holder

monopoly rights to sell without direct competition.
Why Natural Remedies Themselves Can't Be PatentedUnder U.S. patent law (USPTO guidelines, shaped by Supreme Court rulings like Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics in 2013 and Mayo v. Prometheus), products of nature are not patent-eligible subject matter. This includes:Naturally occurring plants, leaves, roots, or flowers (e.g., dandelion itself).
Isolated or purified natural compounds (e.g., taraxasterol from dandelion,

curcumin from turmeric, or any single molecule found in a plant).
Mere discovery of a natural substance's use (e.g., "dandelion root inhibits

cancer cells" if it's just the isolated plant material).
The law treats these as "laws of nature," "natural phenomena," or "products of nature"—judicial exceptions that cannot be patented, even if isolated or purified. The reasoning: you can't "own" something that already exists in nature without adding human invention that makes it "significantly different" or "markedly different" from what's found in the wild.This principle has been reinforced in recent years, making it harder to patent isolated natural products than in the past.

What Big Pharma Can Patent (and Often Does)While the raw plant or simple extract can't be patented, companies work around this by patenting modifications or innovations built around natural substances. Common strategies include:Modified or synthetic versions — Slight chemical tweaks (adding a group,

changing structure) create a "new" molecule not found in nature.
Formulations and combinations — Specific blends, ratios, delivery systems

(e.g., encapsulated, fermented, or combined with other ingredients) that

produce unexpected or synergistic effects.
New methods of use — Novel ways to administer or apply the substance

(e.g., a specific dosing regimen for a new indication).
Processes — Unique extraction, purification, or manufacturing methods.
Compositions with added features — Stabilized forms, coated versions,

or mixtures that differ from natural states.

Examples from real patents:Fermented extracts of plants (e.g., bitter orange aerial parts).
Grape seed extracts with specific processing.
Combinations like sulforaphane + milk thistle extract for particular effects.
Aqueous seaweed concentrates or other complex mixtures.
These can get patented because they claim something "significantly different" from pure nature. But the base plant or simple tea/tincture? Still free for anyone to grow, harvest, brew, or sell.Why This Matters (The Incentive Angle)Pharma companies invest billions in R&D and clinical trials. Patents let them recoup that via high prices during exclusivity. Natural remedies, being unpatentable in basic form, offer little financial incentive for large-scale, gold-standard human trials—anyone could copy and sell a dandelion root tea without paying royalties. This contributes to the pattern where promising lab/animal data on herbs often stays preliminary, while synthetic or modified drugs get fast-tracked.
That said, natural products remain widely available as foods, teas, or supplements (regulated differently under DSHEA in the U.S., with less rigorous pre-market proof required). People can (and do) use them freely, which is exactly why community sharing around dandelions and similar plants keeps growing.

In short: the statement holds up well. Natural remedies can't be monopolized through patents in their original form, which keeps them accessible but also limits big-money research into them. If you're exploring dandelion or other herbs, that's part of why they're still "backyard medicine" rather than prescription-only.

Tea and Powders look to be the best avenue >
h/t @grok "EssentialOils don't capture all healing properties—water-soluble compounds like phenolic acids are better in teas, tinctures..." https://t.co/sqngqzcoQj
— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) February 3, 2026

the only doctors worth trusting ride brooms pic.twitter.com/QZRKw556lq
— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) February 3, 2026

https://t.co/yHVhNwG0pP
— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) February 3, 2026

"big pharma can't copyright natural remedies" h/t Scotty

Big Pharma cannot copyright or patent natural remedies in their raw, naturally occurring form—and that's a key reason why plants like dandelion, turmeric, ginger, or other traditional herbal remedies often stay in the public domain rather than becoming exclusive blockbuster drugs.

images by grok:

Grok AI Signature

The signature came out looking like a doctor's prescription scribble!

Classic AI handwriting attempt. I think it adds character though — kind of fits the underground, backyard-rebel vibe of the Dandelion Conspiracy series.

A note from Grok & Scotty: Written Feb 2026. This is not medical advice. I’m archiving these thoughts because I/We think future generations should know that some of us questioned the dominant narratives around natural remedies, suppression of information, and who really benefits from certain health policies. Feel free to save, share, or ignore — just wanted the record to exist.

clip: Dandelion Root Harvesting Tips by @weazel8888 Q: Why are so many medicinal plants classified as weeds? https://t.co/hf0DEu90qu via @YouTube
— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) March 29, 2026

________________________

Your bacon is a scam

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Sun, 25 Jan 2026 20:37:00 -0600

video:Why Medieval Meat Lasted 3+ Years While Your Bacon Rots In 5 Days

You bought it six days ago but it's already turning grey at the edges. There's a smell when you open the package, something sour and chemical. By day seven, it's slimy and you throw it away.

Now travel back to 1547. An Austrian farmer salted a pig, smoked it with beech wood, and hung it in his cellar. Sixteen months later, his family ate that ham on Easter Sunday. It wasn't just safe, it even tasted better than fresh.

Court to hear oral argument on law banning guns on private property

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 14:33:33 -0600

The Second Amendment provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” On Tuesday, in Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the latest chapter of the ongoing dispute over the scope of that right: a challenge to a Hawaii law that bans gun owners from bringing their guns onto private property that is open to the public without specific permission from the property’s owner. Four other states have similar laws: California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey.

Defending the law, Hawaii tells the justices that the law was “designed to vindicate both the right to bear arms and property owners’ undisputed right to choose whether to permit armed entry onto their property.” But the gun owners challenging the law argue that “Hawaii is attempting to thwart constitutional rights newly recognized” by the Supreme Court in its gun-rights jurisprudence. “This Court,” they say, “did not brook such resistance after Brown v. Board of Education. It should not do so now.”

Unlike some other parts of the Constitution, the line of Supreme Court cases interpreting the Second Amendment is relatively short. In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep guns inside the home for self-defense. Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court held that the Second Amendment also applies to the states.

More than a decade later, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves. More broadly, the court made clear in Bruen that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right “to keep and bear arms” protects an expansive right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. Going forward, Justice Clarence Thomas explained in his opinion, courts should uphold gun restrictions only if they are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

In 2023, in response to the court’s decision in Bruen, Hawaii passed the law at the center of this case, which prohibits anyone with a concealed-carry permit from bringing a gun on private property that is open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives permission to do so. A violation of the law is a misdemeanor, carrying a sentence of up to a year in prison.

Three Maui residents with concealed-carry permits, as well as a local gun-rights group, went to federal court in Hawaii to challenge the ban. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the Hawaii law. It concluded that “a national tradition likely exists of prohibiting the carrying of firearms of private property without the owner’s oral or written consent.” A divided court later turned down the challengers’ request to reconsider that ruling.

The challengers came to the Supreme Court last April, asking the justices to decide whether the permission requirement for private property violates the Second Amendment. The justices granted that request in October. (At the same time, the justices declined to weigh in on the methodology that the court of appeals used to uphold a separate provision of the law banning guns in so-called “sensitive” places, such as parks, beaches, playgrounds, and places that serve alcohol. The challengers had argued that the court of appeals should have looked at regulations from the time of the country’s founding rather than at laws from the mid- to late 19th century.)

In its brief on the merits, Hawaii insists its law does not target conduct covered by the Second Amendment at all, because the Second Amendment simply “codified the right to bear arms as it existed at the Founding” of the United States. At that time, Hawaii stresses, there was no right to enter private property without permission from the owner – much less to do so with a gun. And even if consent to enter the property might in some scenarios be implied, Hawaii continues, that determination rests on “state law and local custom.” “Accordingly,” the state says, “Hawai’i is free to enact a law clarifying that the public’s implied license to enter private property does not include an invitation to bring a gun, particularly because that accords with the well-established custom in Hawai’i.”

The challengers contend that the text of the Second Amendment “simply recognizes a right to bear arms, which is precisely what [they] wish to do. That is the end of the textual inquiry.” The challengers concede that property owners can bar other people, including people carrying guns, from their property. But the Hawaii law goes farther than that, they say, making “it a crime to carry guns even where the owner of property open to [the] public is merely silent. That presumption,” they argue, “tramples on the Second Amendment.”

Hawaii responds that, even if the Second Amendment does apply, its law does not violate the Constitution because “it fits comfortably within our Nation’s history of firearm regulation.” The state points to what it describes as a “raft of colonial-era laws” that required the owner’s explicit consent to bring guns onto private property, “at least where the land was developed or fenced, a category that readily includes the sort of retail facilities on which [the challengers] have focused their current challenge.” Such laws, the state argues, are “relevantly similar,” as Bruen requires, to Hawaii’s ban because they had the same purpose and they accomplished that purpose in the same way: The colonial-era laws were intended “to protect a property owner’s right to exclude firearms,” and they did so not by prohibiting guns altogether but by “condition[ing] that entry on obtaining the property owner’s consent.”

According to Hawaii, “[r]equiring evidence of a more extensive and widespread historical tradition would turn the Second Amendment into a ‘regulatory straightjacket.’ It would also [] overread legislative silence. As Justice Barrett has explained, ‘originalism does not require’ th[e] Court to ‘assume[] that founding-era legislatures maximally exercised their power to regulate.”

But the challengers push back, telling the justices that there is no historical tradition of laws “broadly banning law-abiding citizens from peaceably carrying firearms on private property open to the public without first getting express permission from the proprietor.” In upholding Hawaii’s ban, they say, the court of appeals relied on two laws, neither of which is analogous.

The first was a 1771 New Jersey law that barred poaching on lands that were closed to the public. But that law, the challengers wrote, “simply codified the American rule that hunters could hunt on unimproved lands not their own, while improved lands remained off limits. That is a trespass law,” they concluded, rather than a law that – like Hawaii’s – generally prohibits “carrying firearms on any and all private property without advance express consent.”

And the second, the challengers continue, was an 1865 Louisiana law, enacted as part of that state’s Black Codes to restrict the rights of formerly enslaved people, that barred the carrying of guns on “premises or plantations” – that is, private property – without the owner’s consent. “A law controlling access to land barred to the public cannot serve as an analogue for a law restricting access to property held open to the public,” the challengers asserted. And in any event, the challengers added, the Louisiana law “came too late.” The Second Amendment, they stress, “should be understood according to its public meaning in 1791, as that ‘meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it.’”

The Trump administration, which filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the challengers, echoes their argument that the law “lacks any well-established historical analogue.” But the law is unconstitutional for the additional reason, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer writes, that “firearms regulations are per se unconstitutional if they are designed to thwart the right to publicly carry arms, or if they effectively negate the right. Hawaii’s restrictions fail both metrics.”

Both the Trump administration and the challengers characterize the effect of the law as sweeping. The challengers tell the justices that the restriction “is more than merely inconvenient; it requires licensees to leave their firearms at home whenever they go out in public if there is any chance of visiting private property open to the public.” And the government suggests that gun owners with a concealed-carry permit “who stop for gas with a pistol in the glove compartment risk a year in prison if they fail to obtain the gas-station owner’s unambiguous consent.”

Hawaii portrays the effect of the law as significantly narrower, emphasizing that gun owners can bring their guns onto private property “so long as the owner or one of his agents gives oral or written authorization. That means that, to bring a gun into a shop or convenience store, one need only ask an employee for an ‘okay.’” And the Trump administration is wrong “in suggesting that the law prevents pulling into a gas station or private parking lot with a gun stored appropriately in the vehicle; the law applies to carrying a gun on one’s person, not storing a gun in a car,” Hawaii writes.

A decision in the case is expected by the summer.

The post Court to hear oral argument on law banning guns on private property appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/court-to-hear-oral-argument-on-law-banning-guns-on-private-property/ January 15, 2026 at 02:27PM

Dockets on maximum overdrive: seventeen new relists involving ten issues

scottscontracting@gmail.com (Scotts Contracting, StLHandyMan, Scotty) — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 11:33:46 -0600

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

This Friday’s conference marks the Supreme Court’s last real chance to grant petitions in time for argument at the court’s April sitting – the last sitting of this term. The court already has an unprecedented 91 relisted cases in contention for those slots. This week it added 17 more relisted cases raising 10 distinct legal issues. Grants could come as soon as Friday.

Three of those cases raise familiar Second Amendment challenges to the felon-in-possession statute – there are literally dozens of such relists that have been pending for weeks. We won’t address those further. In another four of those cases, the Supreme Court previously called for the views of the solicitor general, and requested amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs have now arrived. Because review is especially likely in cases where the court has asked for the federal government’s views, we’ll begin with those.

Federal preemption and generic drugs

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell asks whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims where EPA has repeatedly approved a pesticide label without a cancer warning and federal regulations bar unilateral label changes. A Missouri jury awarded $1.25 million to respondent John Durnell, who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after long-term Roundup use, finding Monsanto liable for failing to warn of cancer risks. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s decision, holding that Missouri’s strict-liability failure-to-warn standard merely parallels FIFRA’s misbranding prohibition and therefore is not “in addition to or different from” federal labeling requirements. In doing so, it expressly declined to follow the contrary decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Schaffner v. Monsanto, which held that FIFRA preempts identical claims. Several federal courts of appeals had previously reached the same conclusion as the Missouri court.

Monsanto argues that this case presents a clean and deepening circuit split over whether EPA’s label approval and its regulations “lock in” labeling requirements, mandating preemption because federal law makes it impossible to add to the label. Durnell responds that the verdict can be sustained on non-label grounds (noting that there was no prohibition on including warnings in marketing and off-label contexts) and that, in any event, FIFRA’s misbranding standard leaves room for state tort enforcement.

For the second time on this issue, the court called for the views of the solicitor general. The United States now sides with Monsanto that the law is preempted, echoing a position the Justice Department took during the first Trump administration, and urges review. That said, the government took the opposite position several terms ago in Monsanto Co. v. Hardeman. With an entrenched split, and Roundup litigation continuing to generate massive verdicts nationwide, this case squarely tees up a recurring preemption question the court has repeatedly sidestepped – but may find increasingly difficult to ignore. I rate this a very likely grant. (Monsanto has also filed companion petitions raising the same issue in Monsanto Co. v. Salas and Monsanto Co. v. Johnson, but Durnell seems the likeliest vehicle.)

ERISA breach of fiduciary duties

Parker-Hannifin Corp v. Johnson asks whether plaintiffs pleading a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 – alleging that retirement plan fiduciaries imprudently retained underperforming investments – must show that their chosen performance benchmark is a meaningful comparator for the challenged funds. Plan participants sued Parker-Hannifin, claiming it violated ERISA by sticking with the Northern Trust Focus Funds despite their lackluster returns compared to allegedly similar alternatives, offering higher-cost shares, and failing to monitor funds. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed 2-1, holding that the allegations plausibly suggested imprudence under Hughes v. Northwestern University without requiring apples-to-apples benchmark proof at the pleading stage. Petitioners argue this creates a split with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 7th, 8th, and 10th Circuits, which demand proof that comparators provide meaningful benchmarks, while respondents counter that no true conflict exists and ERISA’s prudence standard doesn’t hinge solely on performance comparisons.

The government, as court-invited amicus, advocates review, arguing both that the courts of appeals are divided and that the 6th Circuit’s decision is erroneous, and it’s necessary for courts to employ “sound” benchmarks to cull meritless lawsuits. But the court’s order inviting the government to file a brief noted that Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in consideration of the petition, suggesting he is recused, and raising the specter that the court could divide 4-4 and be unable to resolve the case.

Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee raises the same issue, although the plaintiff is petitioning because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit required a comparable benchmark. Respondent the Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee argues the case does not implicate a circuit split and doesn’t warrant the court’s review. But it nonetheless says that if the court decides to address the question, the court should grant Anderson as well to ensure that Alito’s recusal doesn’t prevent the court from resolving the case.

Patent Infringement and Generic Drugs

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., asks whether a generic drugmaker can be hauled into court for inducing (encouraging or facilitating) patent infringement based on its public (that is, not on its label) statements that its product is the “generic version” of a brand-name drug and its citation of the branded drug’s sales figures – even when the generic uses a so-called “skinny label” that appropriately carves out use of the generic version for the patented application. Specifically, Amarin sued after Hikma launched its generic version for severe hypertriglyceridemia (a use for which the patent had expired), claiming Hikma’s press releases and website encouraged off-label use for Amarin’s patented cardiovascular-risk-reduction method. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, finding the allegations plausibly alleged induced infringement.

Hikma petitions, arguing that the Federal Circuit’s test conflicts with the Hatch-Waxman Act’s pathway for generics to reach the market and conflicts with the requirement of MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., that plaintiffs plead the defendant has taken “active steps … to encourage direct infringement, such as advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use.” Amarin opposes, insisting that Hikma seeks fact-bound error correction which is not suitable for the Supreme Court.

The solicitor general’s court-invited amicus brief urges the court to grant and reverse, echoing the position it unsuccessfully took in a similar case in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC. The solicitor general argues that even the threat of going to discovery here could chill skinny-label use and delay lower-cost drugs. Regular readers of Relist Watch know that this is the court’s second serious look at pharma inducement in three terms, suggesting it may be teetering toward a grant to clarify whether vague marketing puffery crosses the “active inducement” line, especially when state substitution laws already nudge generics into off-label territory. In Teva, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that he would vote to grant review; we’ll know soon whether he’s persuaded three of his colleagues to do the same. At the time, I rated Teva a likely grant. So you can draw your own conclusions.

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Federation asks whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s expropriation exception strips a foreign state itself of immunity from suit when stolen property is owned or operated by a state instrumentality that engages in commercial activity in the United States, even if the property is not present in this country. The statutory text applies if the property (i) “is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state,” or (ii) “is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in the United States.”

Chabad has spent decades seeking the return of its collection of thousands of sacred religious texts and archival materials seized by Soviet authorities and now held by Russian state archives. Although Chabad obtained a default judgment and massive contempt sanctions after Russia withdrew from the litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ultimately held that the Russian Federation retained sovereign immunity because the collection is located abroad, concluding that only the first FSIA nexus clause (property present in the United States) can abrogate a foreign state’s immunity.

Chabad argues that the decision rewrites the statute by requiring both presence and ownership to be present, and that the D.C. Circuit’s approach effectively nullifies the expropriation exception for claims against foreign states. It argues that there is a circuit split, pointing to decisions of the 9th and 11th Circuits holding the exception satisfied if the second nexus clause to foreign sovereigns is met and notes that the D.C. Circuit itself upheld jurisdiction in this very case years earlier. Tenex-USA, a Russian state-owned company targeted for attachment, responds that there is no true circuit split, that other courts have never squarely decided the question, and that extending jurisdiction based on an instrumentality’s U.S. contacts would contradict the FSIA’s structure and settled principles of sovereign separateness.

In its court-invited amicus brief, the United States now urges review – albeit in a relatively halfhearted way. The government states only that Chabad has “plausibly allege[d] confusion in the lower courts on the question presented,” and acknowledges that the government has in the past downplayed the depth of the split. The government also acknowledges that in the past it has taken the position that the D.C. Circuit’s position is correct and “[i]n the course of preparing this brief, the United States has not determined whether it maintains that position on the merits.” But the government states that the issue is “important” and “clarity as to jurisdictional issues can help to avoid needlessly protracted litigation.” Both Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson would be recused because they served on the D.C. Circuit at the time the case was before that court, but “that would still leave the Court with an odd number of members and thereby avoid the prospect of an equally divided court.”

Now on to the non-CVSG cases.

The state-secrets privilege

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, returns to the court for a second time, now asking whether a court may dismiss claims under the state-secrets privilege only after adjudicating the merits of the government’s defense using the very privileged information the privilege is meant to exclude. After the Supreme Court unanimously held in 2022 that FISA does not displace the state-secrets privilege, the 9th Circuit on remand again reversed the district court’s dismissal of respondents’ religion-based surveillance claims. Although the 9th Circuit agreed that the government properly invoked the privilege and that privileged information would be essential to the government’s defense, it held that dismissal is permissible only if the government first demonstrates – through detailed submissions – that the privileged evidence “clearly shows” a meritorious defense requiring judgment for the government.

The government argues that the 9th Circuit’s approach fundamentally misunderstands the state-secrets doctrine. It maintains that ordinarily, when courts determine that the government has properly invoked that privilege and that the privileged information would be central to further litigation, the rule is that the privileged information must be removed from the case and dismissal is required if the suit would risk disclosure of that information. The government argues that, by requiring courts to use privileged evidence to decide merits questions, the decision effectively nullifies the privilege by forcing the executive to choose between disclosing sensitive information to sustain a defense or forfeiting dismissal altogether. Yassir Fazaga and the other plaintiffs counter that the decision simply prevents dismissal based on speculation and aligns with longstanding D.C. Circuit precedent requiring a showing that a “valid defense” is actually “meritorious and not merely plausible.” Adding an unusual wrinkle, the government alternatively asks the court to grant, vacate, and remand for further consideration in light of “a significant intervening event”: the recent recantation of the FBI informant whose allegations underpin respondents’ claims that the FBI targeted them for surveillance solely because of their religion.

Geofence warrants

Chatrie v. United States asks whether law enforcement’s use of a so-called “geofence warrant” to obtain location-history data from Google violates the Fourth Amendment, and whether suppression is categorically unavailable under the good-faith exception. After a Virginia bank robbery, police obtained a warrant directing Google to provide an anonymized list of devices present near the crime scene during a one-hour window. Officers narrowed that list and – without an additional warrant – obtained information about the movement of certain devices during a two-hour period. Then officers – again without an additional warrant – obtained de-anonymized subscriber information about three devices. One of those devices belonged to petitioner Okello Chatrie. Based on the evidence derived from the geofence warrant, petitioner was convicted of armed robbery. Sitting en banc, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in a one-sentence per curiam, producing nine separate opinions. The court split on whether obtaining the data was a “search” under Carpenter v. United States, but a majority concluded that suppression was unwarranted because officers reasonably relied on a warrant issued amid substantial legal uncertainty.

Chatrie argues that the decision deepens a growing and untenable split over the Fourth Amendment reasonableness of geofence warrants, pointing to the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in United States v. Smith, which deemed such warrants unconstitutional general warrants (although it refused to suppress because the officers relied in good faith on the warrant). He also warns that routine reliance on the good-faith exception threatens to insulate geofence warrants from meaningful Supreme Court review altogether. The government responds that the case is a poor vehicle because suppression would be unavailable regardless of how the Fourth Amendment question is resolved (due to the good-faith exception), and because Google’s recent changes to its data-retention practices may limit the issue’s future significance. Of note, X Corp. – owners of the social media platform previously known as Twitter – have filed an amicus brief supporting Chatrie.

Davis v. United States also purports to raise the issue about the lawfulness of a geofence warrant. But the information uncovered by the geofence warrant concerned not the petitioner Johnnie Leeanozg Davis, but his girlfriend and his girlfriend’s daughter, and the government argues (and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit below held) that Davis lacks standing to challenge a search involving data linked to a third party.

Deference to Sentencing Guidelines commentary

In the 1993 case of Stinson v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s explanatory commentary on the Sentencing Guidelines “is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline.” Poore v. United States asks whether, after Kisor v. Wilkie (which required a showing of genuine ambiguity before agency interpretations of regulations warranted deference) and Loper Bright v. Raimondo (which abolished deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes) courts may continue to reflexively defer under Stinson to the Sentencing Commission’s commentary when interpreting the Guidelines – particularly where that commentary expands an unambiguous guideline and increases a defendant’s sentence. Petitioner Raymond Poore received an enhanced sentence after the district court deferred to commentary treating inchoate offenses (such as being a party to a crime) as “crime[s] of violence,” notwithstanding the acknowledgment that the Guideline text itself unambiguously excluded such offenses. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit then affirmed, deeming itself bound by circuit precedent applying Stinson, and concluding that neither Kisor nor Loper Bright clearly displaced that framework.

Poore argues that Stinson rests on a deference regime that has been fundamentally undermined: Kisor requires courts to find genuine ambiguity before deferring to an agency’s interpretation of its own rules, and Loper Bright reinforces the judiciary’s duty to exercise independent judgment – especially in criminal cases, where the rule of lenity applies (the rule that ambiguities in criminal law should be interpreted in favor of the defendant). He argues that there is an entrenched six to six circuit split, with half the circuits refusing to defer to Guidelines commentary absent genuine ambiguity and the other half continuing to treat commentary as binding.

The government argues that this case is a poor vehicle, asserting that it is is moot because Poore has completed serving his sentence and has identified no collateral consequences. It also downplays the split’s importance in light of recent Guidelines amendments, and characterizes the decision below as a routine application of circuit precedent. The government notes that the court has repeatedly and recently denied review on other cases presenting this issue, which I know only too well – the court denied my (perfectly good!) petition raising this same issue back in 2021. Not that I’m bitter or anything.

State taxation of Indians on reservation land

Stroble v. Oklahoma Tax Commission asks whether Oklahoma can tax the income of a Muscogee (Creek) Nation member who works on tribal land held in trust and who lives on private property within the historic Creek territory recognized as a reservation in McGirt v. Oklahoma – or if federal law preempts such taxation absent explicit congressional consent. That tribal member, Alicia Stroble, a casino worker, sought a refund for state income taxes, arguing McGirt upended Oklahoma’s taxing authority. The state supreme court disagreed, holding McGirt didn’t abrogate longstanding tax statutes. Stroble petitions, arguing the decision below is inconsistent with decades of Supreme Court precedent “prohibiting States from imposing taxes on Indians who live and work within their Tribes’ Indian country absent express authorization from Congress,” and creates a conflict with other courts of appeals that have applied that precedent. Oklahoma opposes, agreeing that the issue is “undeniably important,” but arguing that review is not warranted because the decision below is correct and further review would create harmful uncertainty. Stroble’s reply again blasts the decision as conflicting with “[a]n unbroken line of this Court’s precedents.”

Whether “totality” means “totality”

District of Columbia v. R.W. addresses whether courts evaluating reasonable suspicion for a stop under Terry v. Ohio may exclude facts known to an officer before weighing the totality of the circumstances. Responding to a wee-hours dispatch telling police to be on the lookout for a suspicious or stolen vehicle at a particular address, a D.C. officer saw two passengers flee from the only occupied car in a small parking lot at that address and then saw the driver attempt to back out with a rear door still open. The car was indeed stolen and 15-year-old R.W., its driver, was adjudicated delinquent. The D.C. Court of Appeals suppressed evidence from the stop, holding that the dispatch had to be excluded from the analysis (because the information was of unknown reliability), as did the passengers’ flight (because there was purportedly no reason to attribute it to the vehicle’s driver), and that the remaining facts were insufficient to justify a seizure.

Seeking review, D.C. characterizes the court of appeals’ argument as an “isolationist approach,” improperly excluding factors before assessing the totality of the evidence. D.C. argues that the decision squarely conflicts with the Supreme Court’s repeated rejection of a piecemeal Fourth Amendment analysis and deepens a split with multiple federal circuits and state courts that require consideration of all circumstances known to the officer. Twenty-eight states and the National Fraternal Order of Police support review, warning that the ruling undermines officer safety and creates untenable confusion – particularly in D.C., where local and federal courts apply divergent standards. The other side counters that the case is factbound, that the court below properly required articulable support for vague dispatches and guilt-by-association inferences, and that no true split exists. Perhaps sensing that this case is sufficiently factbound to be an unusual candidate for Supreme Court review, D.C. argues in its reply that “[t]he legal error here was sufficiently straightforward to justify summary reversal [an unsigned opinion reversing the lower court].” That may be under consideration.

Another “lost cause”

Lastly, we have a case that falls into a category I have uncharitably dubbed “lost causes.” These are cases that have been relisted even though no brief has been filed in response to the cert petition, when the court has not granted review without first calling for such a brief. In Diehl v. United States, self-represented federal prisoner David A. Diehl argues that his conviction violated the ex post facto clause prohibiting retroactive punishment, although he never raised that argument below. We’ll see if Diehl gets any traction. While there is one “lost cause” that has stuck around a while, the Supreme Court has dispatched most of them promptly.

That – finally – is all for this week. Honestly, I’m not sure I’m going to be able to continue if the relists keep coming at the rate they have since December.

New Relists

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., 24-889

Issues: (1) Whether, when a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a “generic version” and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) are enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use; and (2) whether a complaint states a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use. CVSG: 12/05/2025

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Federation, 24-909

Issue: Whether a “foreign state” lacks immunity from U.S. jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act if either U.S.-nexus test in 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3) is met, or instead a “foreign state” loses its immunity only if the first U.S.-nexus test is met – i.e., if the expropriated property, or property exchanged for it, is found in the United States.
CVSG: 12/09/2025

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

Parker-Hannifin Corp v. Johnson, 24-1030

Issue: Whether pleading an imprudent-investment claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, based on how the investment’s returns compared to some performance benchmark, requires allegations showing that the benchmark is a sound basis for comparison for that investment. CVSG: 12/09/2025

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 24-1068

Issue: Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim where the Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly concluded that the warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product without EPA approval. CVSG: 12/01/2025

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

Monsanto Co. v. Salas, 24-1097

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

Monsanto Co. v. Johnson, 24-1098

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

Chatrie v. United States, 25-112

Issue: (1) Whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether the exclusionary rule should apply to the evidence derived from a geofence warrant.

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

Poore v. United States, 25-227

Issue: Whether the limits on agency deference announced in Kisor v. Wilkie and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo constrain the deference courts may accord the Sentencing Commission’s interpretation of its own rules via commentary.

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

District of Columbia v. R.W., 25-248

Issue: (1) Whether a court assessing the existence of reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment may exclude a fact known to the officer, or instead must assess all the evidence when weighing the totality of the circumstances; and (2) whether, under the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the officer in this case had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop.

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

Stroble v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 25-382

Issue: Whether Oklahoma may tax the income of a Muscogee (Creek) Nation citizen who lives and works within the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation that McGirt v. Oklahoma held remains Indian country.

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, 25-430

Issue: Whether dismissal of a claim after assertion of the state-secrets privilege requires a district court to adjudicate the merits of the claim using the privileged information where the privileged information is relevant to a defense.

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Comm., 25-498

Issue: Whether, for claims predicated on fund underperformance, pleading that an Employee Retirement Income Security Act fiduciary failed to use the requisite “care, skill, prudence, or diligence” under the circumstances and thus breached ERISA’s duty of prudence when investing plan assets requires alleging a “meaningful benchmark.”

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

Davis v. United States, 25-5189

Issues: (1) whether review is warranted to resolve disagreement among the circuits about the reasonableness of geofence warrants; (2) whether the record as a whole demonstrates improper collusion between federal and state law enforcement to make Davis’s arrest by state officers subject to the federal presentment requirements set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c) and Rule 5(a), Fed. R. Crim. P.; (3) whether Davis’s motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted on the three carjacking counts for want of sufficient evidence that Davis had the intent to kill or seriously injure anyone.

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

Sanchez v. United States, 25-6153

Issues: (1)Whether § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment facially; (2) whether § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to individuals with convictions for offenses that did not involve the misuse of firearms or establish a credible threat of such misuse.

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

Wilson v. United States, 25-6187

Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment.

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

Williams v. United States, 25-6189

Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession for all individuals previously convicted of a felony violates the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to the Petitioner.

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

Diehl v. United States, 25-6278

Issues: (1) Whether the Fifth Circuit had subject matter jurisdiction on direct appeal to consider an ex post facto constitutional argument that was never raised; (2) whether the full ex post facto clause applies where the offense occurred prior to United States v. Booker in light of Peugh v. United States; (3) whether Diehl presented facts showing fraud on the court for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(d)(3).

(Relisted after the Jan. 9 conference.)

Returning Relists

Smith v. Scott, 24-1099

Issues: (1) Whether, viewing the facts from the officers’ perspective at the time, the officers acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment by using bodyweight pressure to restrain a potentially armed and actively resisting individual only until handcuffing could be accomplished; and (2) whether the panel erred in denying qualified immunity where no case clearly established that pre-handcuffing bodyweight pressure violates the Fourth Amendment.

(Relisted after the Sept. 29, Oct. 10, Oct. 17, Nov. 7, Nov. 14, Nov. 21, Dec. 5, Dec. 12 and Jan. 9 conferences.)

Klein v. Martin, 25-51

Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit violated the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act‘s deferential standard by overturning a state-court decision based on the supposed lack of “nuance” and “exhaustiveness” in the court’s written opinion, rather than the reasonableness of its legal conclusion.

(Relisted after the Sept. 29, Oct. 10, Oct. 17, Nov. 7, Nov. 14, Nov. 21, Dec. 5, Dec. 12 and Jan. 9 conferences.)

Indiana, ex rel. Howell v. Circuit Court of Indiana, Wells County, 25-5557

Issues: (1)Whether petitioner made a sufficient factual showing to establish “good cause” for discovering actual judicial bias by showing that the trial judge had made specific allegations as to how his case was affected; (2) whether the Indiana Supreme Court erred in holding that every Indiana Post-Conviction Remedies Rule 1, Section 12 motion constitutes a prohibited “second or successive” petition as a matter of law; (3) whether a prosecutor’s failure to correct testimony of a witness that he knew to be false was used to obtain a conviction, even though other testimony regarding the witness’s credibility was introduced.

(Relisted after the Nov. 7, Nov. 14, Nov. 21, Dec. 5, Dec. 12 and Jan. 9 conferences.)

Allen v. Guzman, 25-5879

Issues: Whether petitioner has a state-created liberty in the appointment of counsel under the newly enacted California Racial Justice Act Penal Gode Section 1473(e), which provides that “the court shall appoint counsel, if the petitioner cannot afford counsel. “

(Relisted after the Nov. 14, Nov. 21, Dec. 5, Dec. 12 and Jan. 9 conferences.)

Vincent v. Bondi, 24-1155

Issue: Whether the Second Amendment allows the federal government to permanently disarm Petitioner, who has one seventeen-year-old nonviolent felony conviction for trying to pass a bad check.