Image 01 Image 03

Leftist SCOTUS Stalker Group ‘ShutDownDC’ Offers Bounties For Conservative Justice Sightings

Leftist SCOTUS Stalker Group ‘ShutDownDC’ Offers Bounties For Conservative Justice Sightings

ShutDownDC: “We’ll venmo you $50 for a confirmed sighting and $200 if they’re still there 30 mins after your message,” as targeting encouraged throughout leftist Twitterverse.

The radical left is chipping away at our civil society, and they are not only proud of themselves but actually fighting amongst themselves over which group of radical SCOTUS stalkers deserves the “credit” for tearing through the fabric of our society and destroying norms of behavior.

The regressive left is quite proud of its recent “success” in interrupting Justice Kavanaugh’s dinner and forcing his security detail to usher him out the back door of a DC restaurant. This happened just weeks after a leftwing pro-abortion fanatic traveled across the country with the goal of assassinating the Supreme Court Justice.

The organized SCOTUS Justice stalker group #ShutDownDC is now offering bounties for SCOTUS justice sightings.

Screenshot (archive link):

These fringe progressive groups are so certain that all of America looks just like Twitter (where conservative voices are silenced, squelched, or outright banned) that they are battling amongst themselves for “credit” for being what all but their fellow far-left radicals reject.

#OccupyDemocrats (yes, from the first Obama-era”Occupy” experiment of what became antifa, BLM, etc.) dared get excited about the hounding of Justice Kavanaugh and were quickly put in their place by the repellent pro-infanticide radicals at #RuthSentUs (archive link).

This is just bizarre in-fighting amongst fringe radical groups eager to take “credit” for being thoroughly obnoxious stalkers in the name of on-demand, taxpayer-funded abortion until the moment of birth (i.e. infanticide).  If that’s what they want, they need to be hounding Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Democrats hold Congress and the White House; if anything is going to be accomplished on abortion, it’s going to be there and it’s got to be very soon.

But no, these supposed pro-abortion groups don’t want to accomplish anything except accumulating donations for their “cause,”  and their cause is petty and repellent:  ensuring that those SCOTUS justices who voted to overturn Roe never have another moment’s peace.  It’s about punishment, retribution, vengeance.

These vigilante SCOTUS stalker mobs are so far out of line, so disturbing and unAmerican, that it’s hard to see how this will play out given that the Democratic Party, up to Joe “I am the Democratic Party” Biden and his partisan hack AG Merrick Garland, support these outrages. But one thing is certain, these are vile, hate-filled, vengeance-seeking radicals who are hell-bent on destroying American civil society.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


There is but one answer. Send in lots and lots of false reports and end up playing where in the world is Carmen sandiego with the stupid communists

    CommoChief in reply to Ironclaw. | July 9, 2022 at 11:12 am

    Another answer might be for establishments to protect their patrons from the actions of loony leftist mobs. When some people refuse to behave according to the norms of civil society they may find that countermeasures are deployed.

    henrybowman in reply to Ironclaw. | July 9, 2022 at 4:23 pm

    They’re at my house.
    Come and get ’em.

If these kinds of clowns keep pushing this kind of thing, some of their own may get killed.

What is it about America that its most privileged beneficiaries — all the cool kids — hate it so viciously, so vehemently that they use the freedoms it gives them to try to destroy it and all the good it’s been for this world. Story after story, no matter the topic, is ALWAYS this underlying theme: Hate America and Try to Destroy It.

Seriously, how does this even work?

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to wsot23887. | July 10, 2022 at 12:12 pm

    The cool kids have been handed everything. They likely didn’t even need to clean their rooms. Granted, the do-gooders have made it hard for kids to get a small job somewhere, or the mountains of paperwork to fill out just to have a kid sweep out the back room of a small store.

    Still, there are ways to instill discipline and manners, but the parents are too lazy, or busy with their social lives to be parents.

I hope this article is a good corrective to the automatic “uniform=good”, this behavior is illegal and the law would be enforced if it was a right wing group behind it.

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Danny. | July 9, 2022 at 12:02 pm

    Danny, I have said this before. Abbie Hoffman started a trend of calling cops pigs. He got it wrong; they are in fact dogs.

    They – like dogs – obey their masters, and follow the orders of those who provide food (pay check), shelter (pension), and the occasional treat (picking out something nice from the latest “asset forfeiture” to take home).

    Milhouse in reply to Danny. | July 10, 2022 at 1:29 am

    Illegal?! What law are they breaking? If you see someone you have every right to tell the whole world where they are. It may be obnoxious, but it’s not illegal, and if someone uses that information to commit a crime that’s their problem, not yours. You didn’t commit it, you didn’t conspire with them to commit it, so you’re not responsible.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2022 at 1:44 am

      They’re breaking 18 USC § 2261A (2011). Read it.

      “Whoever— … uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B); 2 shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.”

        Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | July 10, 2022 at 10:49 am

        They are not breaking it, because reporting someone’s location is not a “course of conduct” that this section bans. If it were read to ban such reporting it would be unconstitutional; so to avoid striking it down no court will ever read it that way.

      Danny in reply to Milhouse. | July 11, 2022 at 10:10 am

      In addition to henrybowman who answered you correctly there is this

      18 U.S. Code § 115 – Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member

      Stalking is illegal to

      Next time you call a law unconstitutional please cite the time a majority on the supreme court struck it down because your interpretation of the constitution would make every one of the founders laugh and has no correspondence to any point in American history since.

      We do not have mob rule, you have rights but your rights are very meaningfully ended when someone else’ rights exist and that includes a right to a fair hearing from ALL federal courts which is why RETALIATION against a ruling you don’t like is explicitly illegal in this country.

      Think that is undo burden on free speech?

      1. There has never been a point in American history the law agreed with that

      2. Somebody else having a right to a fair trial and fair court hearing easily outweighs your right to intimidate through force and threats and to stalk a judge

      3. Try stalking a judge in any European country or Japan or Oceania count the nanoseconds before you are behind bars.

This seems like a great idea! Paying stalkers a flat rate then an incentive bonus when the target of the stalking doesn’t run. Presumably these reports will be used to coordinate other ‘public minded’ observers to converge on the location. All to express their opinions to the target on what good govt policies look like to the mob. No way this could go sideways and devolve into violence or intimidation. /S

    Peabody in reply to CommoChief. | July 9, 2022 at 12:41 pm

    “No way this could go sideways and devolve into violence or intimidation”

    There’s a movie title that applis to this situation, “Every Which Way But Loose.”

    henrybowman in reply to CommoChief. | July 9, 2022 at 4:29 pm

    I’m so old I remember (just 12 years ago) when it was fedsplained to us that cyberstalking and cyberbullying were such an immediate, existential threat to Americans everywhere that something had to be done about it on the federal level right away!

    18 U.S. Code §2261A, titled stalking, makes it a federal crime for a person to “engage in a pattern of conduct that places a person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or death. The statute speaks to physical stalking and cyberstalking of a potential victim, that victim’s family, spouse, partner or pets.

    Cyberstalking is punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000. A life sentence can be imposed if the cyberstalking results in the death of a victim.


      CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | July 9, 2022 at 6:12 pm

      Henry, you know dang well we aren’t supposed to play with that or similar things. I for one, have full trust and confidence in our bureaucratic overlords and am happiest when they make all my decisions for me. /S

      Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | July 10, 2022 at 1:32 am

      Reporting someone’s location is not such a pattern of behavior. If it were, then the statute would probably be unconstitutional, at least as applied.

        henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2022 at 1:45 am

        Soliciting the stalking of that person is.
        And the reporter could easily be charged with conspiracy and/or under RICO.

          Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | July 10, 2022 at 10:46 am

          No, they could not. There is no conspiracy to commit a crime. And RICO is just a fancy kind of conspiracy theory; no conspiracy, no RICO.

        AnAdultInDiapers in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2022 at 5:24 pm

        Conspiring to stalk someone by paying people to report their location sounds like conspiracy to commit a crime to me.

        Doing it over the internet makes it cyberstalking.

        Doing it while also promoting the harassment of the person makes it stalking.

        Doing it to someone who has already been the target of an attempted assassination.. don’t tell me that’s protected by the First Amendment because I don’t believe you.

          I don’t always agree with you (there are differences between Tory and Republican and I appreciate you coming here and discussing them with us even when I get annoyed at you) but I do agree 100% with you on this and so to does American law in all 50 states and territories.

          Like the UK we have limits to our permitted actions here and the basis for limitation is usually the same because they come from the same base legal tradition.

How long before some right-wing people get sick of this shit and lead these morons into an ambush?

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Paul. | July 9, 2022 at 12:05 pm

    A very, very long time. For all the “From My Cold Dead Hands” tough talkers, VERY few of them will be willing to act.

      healthguyfsu in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | July 10, 2022 at 12:36 am

      I wish being unwilling to act weren’t true, but the truth is that most conservatives have family and relatives, jobs and income, retirements and mortgages, and simply have more to lose than the useful idiots of the left. They also have dark money funding, so they aren’t worried about the cost of these “bounties”.

      At the same time, “acting” by creating an ambush and committing a violent crime is not my idea of the action we need to be taking anyways.

        The Gentle Grizzly in reply to healthguyfsu. | July 10, 2022 at 12:16 pm

        “At the same time, “acting” by creating an ambush and committing a violent crime is not my idea of the action we need to be taking anyways.”

        Any ideas? I can’t think of any off the top of my head.

“But one thing is certain, these are vile, hate-filled, vengeance-seeking radicals who are hell-bent on destroying American civil society.”

Oh, C’mon Fuzzy! Don’t hold back! Tell us what you really think!

The past week has been an exclamation point to the failure of the globalist elites plan to control everything. Everything is falling apart and they are now resorting to spreading violence everywhere. They have already failed. Remember that.

The game for now is to step up and focus on survival right here in America. We will soon be witnessing mass starvation and violent government crackdowns across the world. Hong Kong was just small potatoes. We survive by returning to growing all of our own food, providing all of our energy needs, manufacturing all of our own goods, and securing our borders to clarify who exactly is American.

It would be nice to be able to take care of the rest of the world but we can’t We are only 334 million people out of what, 7 billion? Get real. We are in for hard times very soon but we CAN survive this. The rest of the world? All of those dictatorships? Good luck. But it is their problem, not ours. We’ll try to help them later if we can. Right now, we can’t.

It still appears that the unspoken end goal is the assassination of at least one of the conservative justices. I hope their bodyguards are on the ball and excellent shots.

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to txvet2. | July 9, 2022 at 12:10 pm

    ” I hope their bodyguards are on the ball and excellent shots.”

    And also hope they aren’t “just following orders”, like the fibbies and the cops.

      CommoChief in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | July 9, 2022 at 12:25 pm

      On the other hand the DC elites were fine with deadly force used v an unarmed woman on Jan 6. They did get upset about mounted Border agents though.

      The logical conclusion is as long as one isn’t mounted use of force is totes ok.

        txvet2 in reply to CommoChief. | July 9, 2022 at 8:01 pm

        They’ve been fine with it for years. I remember video during Obama’s reign of terror of a poor DC woman who got lost in the maze of barriers in DC, and ended up getting killed by capitol police as she drove around in panic trying to find her way out.

I am curious as to how this can possibly NOT be considered a criminal conspiracy, under both Virginia and Federal law. It is my understanding that Virginia law prohibits the picketing of a residential home (where these “protests” have already occurred) and that Federal prohibits any attempt to unlawfully harass or influence members of the judiciary.

The answer is that, well it IS a criminal conspiracy, but given the last 50 years of politicization of the FBI and DOJ, these criminals are considered to be on the left-wingers side, and so are given then “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” treatment.

    Peabody in reply to Blackwing1. | July 9, 2022 at 12:26 pm

    “The answer is that, well, it IS a criminal conspiracy.”

    That just about covers it. No need to say more.

    Milhouse in reply to Blackwing1. | July 10, 2022 at 1:40 am

    1. The Virginia and Maryland laws are both unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable.

    2. The federal law only prohibits attempts to influence judges, jurors, witnesses, etc. Before the decisions were made, it was possible to argue that the protests were intended to influence the justices, and were therefore illegal. But now that the decisions have already been made, they are clearly intended not to influence but to protest those decisions, and thus the federal law doesn’t apply.

    3. The Montgomery County law against residential picketing is constitutional, but it’s never been enforced and the country DA is reluctant to enforce it now, because he has compunctions about its compatibility with the freedom of speech. Also, he claims the protests are not lingering outside the justices’ homes, but are merely stopping briefly as they march past, which is of course a constitutionally protected activity.

      rebelgirl in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2022 at 8:50 am

      Why do they not need a parade permit to march down a public street?

        Milhouse in reply to rebelgirl. | July 10, 2022 at 10:54 am

        Because they’re walking on the sidewalk, where they have every right to do so.

        (If they wanted to walk on the road and applied for a permit they would have to be given one, at some time when they would not be unduly disrupting significant traffic. The police could not treat them differently from any other applicant, such as a block party or religious procession, which would be granted the permit without question. But they haven’t applied for one because they don’t need to walk on the road; they’re happy with the sidewalk. They can’t crowd that so as to block other traffic, but so long as they’re moving they’re good, and even if they stop for a short while, they’re good so long as people can get through or around them.)

      Danny in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2022 at 8:55 pm

      1. Stop sanctimoniously conflating your libertarian ideology with the constitution they are in absolute disagreement and incompatible. Restrictions of when and where you could protest are absolutely constitutional and restrictions have been upheld from the very start. If a state banned protesting at a persons private residence it would most likely be upheld 9-0. Your sanctimony makes you sound like a complete and utter bleephole because it is based on absolutely nothing and is wrong don’t believe me?

      Stop being a bleephole 15 seconds of research could have revealed to you your statement that it is unconstitutional and unenforceable is nothing more than a sanctimonious lie.

      You are better than being a sanctimonious liar so knock it off. There are restrictions to freedom of speech because societies need rules including ours. Anarchism has failed everywhere.

      2. So you don’t think there are further cases that will be influenced by this? Supreme Court is in retirement???? Federal law absolutely still applies.

      3. Again liar. It has been established at the supreme court that yes you absolutely could restrict protest locations away from residential areas and you know the reason leftist District Attorneys are hesitant to enforce the law against leftist is political bias.

      I am being hostile because I really hate sanctimony when the sanctimonious person is just making it up.

      Precedent before the United States Supreme Court does establish that the very laws you lied about are constitutional.

      Or are you going to (as no doubt most leftists would) claim anti-abortion protests are somehow different from all others?

A simple way to counter this would be to flood them with thousands of false SCOTUS sightings. The best ones would be false sightings in a Justice’s home town at a likely location. Get all the derails you need from Yelp , and then fire away with a breathless sighting. Include a picture of the back of someones head that could be Justice Roberts. Do a few in Spanish or Mandarin. Throw in some stereotypical details. “Kavanaugh is so drunk!” “Coney Barrett has been saying grace for 15 minutes.”

texansamurai | July 9, 2022 at 1:26 pm

wonder if supurrkitten-rn,bsn is really a nurse?–if she is, wonder if the hospital, med center, private practicioner, clinic, training center is aware of what she’s advocating and promoting?–criminal activity?–wonder if they’d like to be made aware of same?


    henrybowman in reply to texansamurai. | July 9, 2022 at 4:38 pm

    America will be kept safe by Twitter’s firm Trust and Safety rules, which ban any content like this.

    Milhouse in reply to texansamurai. | July 10, 2022 at 1:42 am

    She(?) is not advocating or promoting criminal activity. There is nothing criminal about tweeting someone’s location.

    Also, if her(?) employer is a government entity, it can’t discipline her for advocacy, even of criminal activity, on her own time.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2022 at 8:38 am


      The tweet in isolation isn’t a problem. In context of aiding a flash mob to harass and intimidate it might be a problem. Just a driving a car isn’t a problem until the act is part of a larger criminal enterprise.

      Govt can’t hold employees accountable for speech? They do so all the time. They just sanctioned a man working as a civilian contractor for meant tweeting Jill Biden.

        Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | July 10, 2022 at 10:58 am

        No, they cannot punish employees for protected speech, unless it affects their ability to do their job. This is black-letter law, well established by the supreme court. See Rankin v USA; a police employee (some kind of secretary; not in a position that interacts with the public) reacted to the attempt to assassinate Reagan by expressing approval of the attempt, and a wish that next time they get him. She was fired; the supreme court ordered the police to reverse that, because her speech was protected by the first amendment.)

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2022 at 11:56 am

          You are confusing should not with can not.

          Here is an example: I should not punch a random person in the nose. There is a legal prohibition. However, if I am determined to do so despite the illegality of the act then I can certainly do so.

          The govt did in fact sanction this employee based upon his tweet. That isn’t disputed even by the govt. To suggest otherwise is ignoring reality.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2022 at 5:35 pm

          What case are you talking about?

          The government cannot legally punish people for their speech. If they do it illegally the person can sue and win. If you claim something contradictory happened, you’ll have to link to the story, because I have no idea what you’re talking about.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2022 at 8:53 pm


          The case of LTG (Ret) Volesky which is appears in LI today among other places. He tweeted at Jill Biden and was reported to have been fired from his civilian consulting work by DoD.

          He may in fact have a claim against the govt as you suggest. However, he was being compensated at less than $100 an hour on a part time basis. A solid attorney runs well in excess of that rate, not to mention the govt has near infinite resources to bring to bear.

          The costs to take on the govt for a part time job are economically prohibitive. So as a practical matter the govt will likely get away with sanctioning him irrespective of the actual rights and wrongs.

        Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | July 10, 2022 at 11:03 am

        There is no such context. The only context that a court can take into account is that person’s other tweets; not anything that anyone else says or does. A driver isn’t responsible for any crime that his driving ends up being part of, unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was in on the conspiracy. If he was simply told to wait on this corner and when two men get into the car, drive them to a certain address, he’s free and clear, even if it turns out that they were escaping a crime scene. He wasn’t in on the conspiracy, so it’s none of his business.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2022 at 12:02 pm

          A get a way driver who’s physical participation is limited to driving a bank robber who kills a clerk is exposed to criminal liability as an accessory. That individual can certainly offer up an alternative theory at trial.

          A tweet is a tool. Every tool can be used for good or ill. Lawfully or unlawfully. The jury as finder of fact gets to decide which based upon the evidence and which arguments they find persuasive.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2022 at 5:33 pm

          The driver is not exposed to any liability unless he knew about the crime.

          A tweet is speech, which is protected by the first amendment.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2022 at 9:09 pm

          Not quite right about speech . ‘Mere’ speech is protected not all speech. Advocacy of a policy position is protected. Speech which results in a criminal act? Maybe but maybe not. A jury might decide not.

          That driver? The question is was he an accessory before or after the crime. Can the State prove it? Better question is does the accused want to make a plea bargain v taking his chances with a jury? Especially if in that State he can be charged with 1st degree murder as an accessory and they still have the death penalty.

      Danny in reply to Milhouse. | July 11, 2022 at 10:20 am

      1, Absolutely a government entity CAN remove an employee it has good reason to believe is in the process of breaking the law.

      2. Stalking and trying to harass somebody is illegal in all 50 states, all federal territories, Europe, Japan and Oceania stop trying to tell people stalking is not stalking Mr. Orwell

      3. Retaliation against a judge for making a ruling you don’t like (i.e. by making their life unlivable….on what planet are you allowed to stalk people on grounds they are federal judges?

      If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

      Trying to remove someone from a supermarket or restaurant is force. Trying to prevent their kids from going to school-force.

      Our law gives protection to judges from retaliation because we ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT THEM GIVING VERDICTS TO PLEASE MOBS WE WANT FAIR TRIALS.

      Which is why your libertarianism just doesn’t work, rights are ambiguous and they are in contradiction with one another.

nordic prince | July 9, 2022 at 3:01 pm

One of the tweets is by an entity whose handle is “Jezebel”…how fitting. They’re acting just like their role model.

Do not expect civility from groups of people that promote the killing of unborn babies. It’ll be nearly impossible to dissuade zealots from these tactics. They would consider being Doxed themselves as an honor.

Merick Garland is in on it.

I expect the FBI to go after them in 4, 5, 6 ,7 ,8.

If the ‘Round Mound of Sound’ Stacy Abrams can raise $450,000 for her (what is a woman?) personal security, surely we can raise a few hundred thou to discover the identities of these domestic Democrat terrorists and pay for armed protection of Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett ; the cost per pound would be minimal. John Roberts is no threat to them.

Actually it would be revealing to see how GO FUND ME dealt with such a fundraising.

It would also be revealing to see how aggressively Judy Garland pursues the felony charges and how many of the parents would pledge their homes to bail out the children who live in their basements.

healthguyfsu | July 10, 2022 at 12:42 am

When you have a dark money slush fund coming from the globalists, you can piss away a couple hundred bucks regularly.

If a bunch of rowdy conservatives had interrupted the dinner of any one of the Dumb-o-crats’ “luminaries,” e.g., Fauxcahontas; the dim-witted Latina, Sotomayor; Comrade Sanders; Schmuck Schumer; Maxine Waters; Crone Pelosi; Occasional-Cortex; I can guarantee you that their behavior would not have been characterized as an allegedly laudable expression of “dissent” and “democracy in action.”

These Dumb-o-crat apparatchiks and their media lapdogs are such transparent hypocrites.

Anacleto Mitraglia | July 10, 2022 at 5:15 am

Vile, as ever. But it highlight the fact that there’s a small army of non working people idling 24/7 in wait for a call to action. It must be expensive to keep. Who pays?

Steven Brizel | July 11, 2022 at 8:50 am

This is how the radical left attempts to intimidate dissent at all levels

Steven Brizel | July 11, 2022 at 8:51 am

The radical left serves as the foot soldiers and cannon fodder for the Democrats

Steven Brizel | July 14, 2022 at 12:33 pm

See this excellent article
about these well organized, dangerous and not spontaneous foot soldiers for the Democrats

When the GOP takes the House, and elects that milquetoaste Kevin McCarthy as Boehner II, will Merrick Garland be impeached? Will FBI rat Christopher Wray be removed?