Ignoring the Supreme Court

0
350

by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics:

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts came out strong against what has been encroaching upon the very foundation of our tripartite government. Mainly, the Democrats have been attaching the court for overruling Roe vs Wade’s abortion ruling, which was clearly outrageously unconstitutional. The Democrats have no problem discriminating against anyone who has money they want to get their hands on. Suddenly, there is no Equal Protection of the Law. But somehow Due Process includes the right to have an abortion? Never has such a ruling ever been applied to any social program.

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

2009 Ginsberg Eugenics

Even Justice Ginsberg said when she was on the Court that Roe vs Wade was all about eugenics – not women’s rights. Chief Justice Roberts warned what he described as “dangerous” talk by some officials about ignoring federal court rulings, using an annual report stressing the importance of an independent judiciary.

Roberts wrote about officials “from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings,” in the report just released by the Supreme Court. “These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.” The chief justice didn’t detail specific politicians.

In all fairness, Trump has repeatedly argued the federal judiciary is rigged. There is no question that is the case. The point is not to ignore the Supreme Court, the circuit courts already do that. In my own case, the Supreme Court had ruled in Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999) on June 17th, about 3 months before my case began. My lawyers raised the case that clearly said there was no such authority whatsoever to even bring the case against me since we were buying portfolios in Japan and issued 10-year notes that were UNSECURED, and all accounts in New York were in my name – not clients.

The District Court lacked the authority to issue a preliminary injunction preventing petitioners from disposing of their assets pending adjudication of respondents’ contract claim for money damages because such a remedy was historically unavailable from a court of equity. 

Altering Transcripts closing court

 

AP 42700 r2

Constitutionally, both the Sixth Amendment and Due Process of Law require court proceedings to be open to the public. The judge took my lawyers aways, closed the courtroom, threw the Associated Press Out, and then the Second Circuit claimed the lost the appeal THREE TIMES and then refused to hear the issue.

Read More @ ArmstrongEconomics.com