UNMASK THE BRITISH PILGRIMS SOCIETY’S 24-POINT PLAN TO MAKE AMERICA IMPERIAL AGAIN
By Anonymous Patriots, May 19, 2025
Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett has gravely undermined the integrity of the U.S. Supreme Court through her own conduct, violating the ethical standards she vowed to uphold.
Her rulings in favor of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Axon Enterprises between 2021 and 2023 directly benefited her investment portfolio, as detailed in her 2023 Financial Disclosure Report.
With up to $5.73 million holdings in Vanguard, Fidelity, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, Invesco, T. Rowe Price, JPMorgan, and Prudential, Barrett’s decisions enhanced the value of these firms’ significant stakes in the litigants she favored, breaching her duty to avoid conflicts of interest.
Her actions, documented in public judicial and financial records, constitute a fraud on the Court, necessitating her impeachment, the reversal of her tainted rulings, and personal liability for the harm caused.
The Code of Conduct: An Oath Violated
Code of Conduct for United States Judges
- Canon 1 A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary
- Canon 2 A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
- Canon 3 A judge should perform the duties of the office fairly, impartially, and diligently.
- Canon 4 A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with the obligations of judicial office.
Canon 2 requires judges to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety,” mandating recusal from cases involving any financial interest, no matter how small, in a litigant.
Barrett’s failure to recuse from cases where her investment firms held substantial interests violates this canon, as her own financial disclosures and SEC records demonstrate.
Barrett’s Financial Conflicts: Evidence of Misconduct
Barrett’s 2023 Financial Disclosure Report, filed May 9, 2024, details her investments in mutual funds and ETFs managed by Vanguard, Fidelity, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, Invesco, T. Rowe Price, JPMorgan, and Prudential. These include the Fidelity 500 Index Fund, Vanguard Target Retirement 2040, BlackRock Strategic Municipal Opportunities Fund, Goldman Sachs High Yield Municipal Fund, Invesco Oppenheimer Developing Markets Fund, T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth, JPMorgan Hedged Equity Fund, and Prudential Global Real Estate Fund. Spanning brokerage accounts, IRAs, 403(b), 401(k), and 529 plans, she values her portfolio at up to $5.73 million.
These firms are major shareholders in the litigants Barrett favored, as SEC records confirm:
- Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021): Barrett joined the majority, ruling for Google (Alphabet Inc.). Her firms—Vanguard (~8.2%), BlackRock (~6.8%), Fidelity (~2.5%), T. Rowe Price (~1.2%)—hold ~18.7% of Alphabet’s shares.
- Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021): Barrett supported Facebook (Meta Platforms). Her firms—Vanguard (~8.1%), BlackRock (~6.7%), Fidelity (~4.5%), T. Rowe Price (~1.5%)—own ~20.8% of Meta’s shares.
- Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023): Barrett backed Twitter, then publicly traded. Pre-acquisition (2022), her firms held ~21.8% of Twitter’s shares, with Vanguard (~10.2%), BlackRock (~7.8%), and Fidelity (~3.8%).
- Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 598 U.S. 175 (2023): Barrett ruled for Axon. Her firms—BlackRock (~10.8%), Vanguard (~9.5%), Fidelity (~3.9%)—control ~24.2% of Axon’s shares.
Funds like the Fidelity 500 Index and Vanguard Total Stock Market Index, which Barrett holds, include significant allocations to Alphabet, Meta, and Axon, suggesting her rulings increased their value, benefiting her portfolio.
Her failure to recuse, despite these interlocked financial ties, violates her ethical obligations and her Senate Questionnaire pledge to adhere to the Code of Conduct and 28 U.S.C. § 455.
A Broken Pledge: Barrett’s Senate Commitment
In her 2020 Senate Questionnaire, filed Sep. 29, 2020, Barrett vowed to maintain ethical standards, stating she would resolve conflicts by following the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, the Ethics Reform Act (28 U.S.C. § 455), and guidance from judicial ethics officials.
She committed to using a recusal list to avoid conflicts, including cases involving family members, Notre Dame University, or her prior judicial rulings. Yet, her participation in cases benefiting her investment firms—Vanguard, Fidelity, BlackRock, and others—directly contradicts this pledge, as her financial interests were not disclosed or addressed through recusal.
A Network of Financial Influence
Barrett’s investments align with those of numerous judges and politicians, who hold stakes in Vanguard, BlackRock, and similar firms dominating global markets. BlackRock and Vanguard, major shareholders in each other, form a concentrated web of financial power.
The fact that a public official holds these investments is not the issue. The issue is when judges hold these interlocked holdings, must they recuse in those case. The reasonable person’s answer is ABSOLUTELY! The slimy attorney’s answer is the opposite.
Barrett’s rulings, benefiting these firms’ holdings in Alphabet, Meta, Twitter, and Axon, have bolstered this network, raising concerns about impartiality. Her failure to recuse, as required by Canon 2, undermines public trust in the judiciary.
The Safe Harbor “Concept”: A Barrier to Accountability
Barrett’s conduct is excused dubiously by the so-called “Safe Harbor” notion, a widely circulated but ethically unfounded concept that allows judges to avoid disclosing or recusing over mutual fund holdings, even when those funds involve litigants. Never codified by Congress, this practice enabled Barrett to conceal her financial interests in funds holding Alphabet, Meta, and Axon. The “Safe Harbor” notion undermines the Ethics in Government Act, is overused, and serves as a convenient excuse for the legal world to sidestep common-sense ethical standards. Here, Barrett’s reliance on this flawed concept is questionable, as her investments definitely conflict with her rulings.
The Safe Harbor concept is horribly flawed and self-serving. It’s not a law, regulation, or formal policy. On Aug. 25, 2000, the Office of Government Ethics labeled it a mere “memorandum.” On Mar. 14, 2001, the Judicial Conference, without Congressional approval, wrote a new policy: “Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a ‘financial interest’ in such securities unless the employee manages the fund.” This, despite the fact that the underlying big box stocks are the sole source of her investment’s value. Such a practice is ethically indefensible.
One insider told one of this post’s authors at the time that “judges are underpaid” as the moral justification for this financial disclosure boondoggle.
A Call for Accountability
Barrett’s actions, documented in her 2023 Financial Disclosure and SEC records, violate Canon 2 and constitute fraud on the Court. The following measures are essential:
- Impeachment of Amy Coney Barrett: Her failure to recuse, despite financial conflicts, warrants impeachment for breaching her ethical duties and public trust.
- Impeachment of Chief Justice John Roberts: Roberts’ failure to enforce ethical compliance, including oversight of Barrett and circuit judges like James E. Boasberg, demands his impeachment.
- Reversal of Tainted Rulings: At minimum, the cases—Google v. Oracle, Facebook v. Duguid, Twitter v. Taamneh, and Axon v. FTC—must be vacated due to Barrett’s conflicts, ensuring fair adjudication.
- Treble Damages: Barrett and Roberts should personally pay treble damages to Oracle, Duguid, Taamneh, and the FTC, compensating for losses caused by her biased rulings. Ironically, these litigation losers are also dominated by the same controlling shareholders that Barrett has holding in. This means that she and Roberts’ conflicts are so interlocked that they cannot lose whichever way they rule!
- Abolition of Safe Harbor: Congress must eliminate the Safe Harbor concept, requiring full disclosure of all judicial investments, including mutual fund holdings, to restore transparency.
A Judiciary Compromised By Imperial Control
Amy Coney Barrett’s conduct, as evidenced by her own financial disclosures and judicial actions, condemns her. Her rulings have enriched her investment portfolio at the expense of justice, violating the ethical standards she pledged to uphold.
The Supreme Court’s integrity demands accountability. Impeach Barrett and Roberts, reverse their compromised rulings, and hold them liable for the harm inflicted. Eliminate the Safe Harbor to ensure transparency. The judiciary’s credibility depends on it
This essay is limited to Barrett’s undisclosed financial conflicts of interest. There are other rabbit holes to investigate include her interlocks with Oxford University and Rhodes College in Memphis, TN, not to mention the 37 Rhodes Scholars from Rhodes College sent to the UK.
We also have not explored her interlocking relationships with fellow award winners at the American Academy of Achievement, an obvious honey pot for imperial recruits to the annexation of America.
One of Barrett’s investments, JP Morgan, saw its founder J.P. Morgan as a co-founder the British Pilgrims Society in 1902, along with Lord Walter Rothschild, Andrew Carnegie, and John D. Rockefeller. The list included Nicholas Murray Butler, who was presidents of both Columbia University and the Pilgrims Society from 1902-1945. Butler recruited J. Edgar Hoover to start the FBI, and David Sarnoff to found RCA (Marconi Wireless, Aegis) and NBC, among many others.
Barret’s misconduct is a telling sign that points 2 and 3 of the Pilgrims’ 24-Point Strategy, revealed first by journalist Lillian Scott Troy, called for the Pilgrims to control the U.S. Supreme Court and make it pro-British in order to annex American back into the British Empire.
Amy, what would Lillian Scott Troy say about your conduct?
Note: Chief Justice John Roberts is a Knight of Malta, English Priory.
Lillian Scot Troy (Feb. 17, 24, 1912) Discover the Pilgrims Society’ 24-point strategy to “annex America” ca. 1908. She was dissuaded from publishing it then by newspaperman W. T. Stead, a founding Pilgrims Society strategist, then published it anyway in 1912, just months before Stead drowned on the Titanic, a voyage J.P. Morgan disembarked the night before.
- Power of the President of the United States to be increased so as to gradually diminish the powers of Congress.
- Supreme Court of the United States to be revised so as to embrace only judges agreeable to absorption by Great Britain, and uniformly hostile to the United States Senate.
- Precedents must be established by said Court against the United States Senate in rulings, decisions, etc., (specially prepared). /. . .
Editor. (May 13, 1913). [Members of the British Pilgrims Society]
Would Annex America [says Suffragette Lillian Scott Troy], p. 20.
The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, Tennessee).
Read previous post on Lillian Scott Troy’s story.
Richard Eden. (Mar. 21, 2025). Trump will ACCEPT King Charles’ stunning ‘secret’ offer to make America part of the United Kingdom. Daily Mail.