Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Donald Trump Denies He Was Inciting Violence With Second Amendment Comment About Hillary Clinton And The Secret Service Did Not Visit Him

 

Donald Trump: I wish someone would just pop a cap in her butt!
 
U.S. Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, caused a firestorm of controversy this week after he made comments about political rival, Hillary Clinton, being taken care of by "the Second  Amendment people." The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms (guns) in America ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed). Some interpreted Trump's statements to mean that Americans would kill Clinton if she chose Supreme Court judges they did not like, in the event she is elected President of the United States. 
 
Trump stated," Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know." Trump later stated his comments were to motivate gun owners to vote against Clinton, not shoot her.

 
   
Hillary Clinton: Yea, keep playing with me Donald and you and your combover are gonna end up on the Clinton kill list (and boy does it have a lot of names). Bernie just got off the list last month (LOL).
 
 CNN reported the Secret Service formally interviewed Trump about his statements. The Trump campaign stated CNN lied. The Secret Service backs up their statement in also denying CNN's claims. Trump slammed CNN for the story stating, "No such meeting or conversation ever happened. A made up story by low ratings CNN." 
 
I can see how some could interpret Trump's statements as dangerous. It sounded like he was joking and hoping regarding gun owners lighting up Hillary like a Christmas tree. There are always fanatics who are unbalanced and will hear or read items and act upon it in an illegal manner. Trump needs to be careful of what he says, because if someone pops a cap in Hillary's butt, some will blame him.
 
   
Bernie Sanders (left) sweating bullets, pardon the pun and Hillary Clinton (right)
 
Side Bar: Two months ago, a Democrat writer indirectly called for Donald Trump's assassination and the mainstream press said nothing (weeks after, someone did actually try to kill Trump). This week Trump makes a statement that is interpreted by some as violent and it lands on all the mainstream outlets. That's quite uneven. Both stories should receive the same amount of attention. 
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, July 25, 2016

Beyonce Steals Again This Time Ripping Off Short Film For HBO Lemonade Special Resulting In Copyright Infringement Lawsuit



Jay Z (left) Beyonce (center) one of his copyright stealing artists/adulterous mistress Rita Ora (right)
 
Unethical singer Beyonce has become known to audiences for making a career out of stealing copyrights from people in America and all over the world. The stolen copyrights are worth millions of dollars. Beyonce steals copyrights and then converts said intellectual property for her own illegal use, which constitutes massive financial crimes.

Copyright infringement is a criminal violation of federal law in America and United Nations law in the international community. It has been a terrible pattern of criminal behavior on Beyonce's part and that of her husband, rapper Jay Z, for every single project they have released during their respective careers. The couple have also corrupted court cases via bribery to get away with the illegal conduct, when lawsuits are filed against them for copyright infringement.

  
Beyonce's most recent album "Lemonade" has been hit with several copyright infringement claims from different, unrelated people (Beyonce Steals Again Illegally Using Copyrighted Footage For Her Deceitful New Video ‘Formation’ While Ripping Off A Model's Pictures And Is Slammed By The National Sheriffs' Association and Beyonce Slammed By Rapper For Stealing Images From His Album 'Lemonade'). One of the most flagrant is Beyonce's outright criminal theft of the 2014 short film "Palinoia" by news station creative director, Matthew Fulks, who was known to the singer's label Sony prior to the thefts. Greedy, immoral Sony tried to hire Fulks to direct a music video, but decided it would be cheaper to steal from him. Beyonce infringed Fulks' short film "Palinoia" via copyright infringement, two years after its release, for her 2016 "Lemonade" special that aired on the cable channel HBO. 

Fulks has understandably sued Beyonce, who then had the unmitigated gall to file legal paperwork in court via her lawyer, demanding a declaration that she did not steal his work. BUT SHE DID!  Anyone can see Beyonce stole his work in conduct she keeps engaging in at many people's expense. Beyonce legal filing is arrogant, criminal, fraudulent and a vile abuse of the American court system. 


To file such paperwork, knowing full well she stole Fulks' preexisting copyrighted works, constitutes perjury, as one attests documents filed in American courts of law are truthful, accurate and in compliance with the statutes government them. Why are you lying in court papers. It is so arrogant, devious and slimy. Who is Beyonce kidding with this. One look at Fulks' PREEXISTING work then Beyonce's copyright theft that ripped off his work TWO YEARS LATER and it immediately becomes apparent she stole his intellectual property.  

Beyonce's pathetic, dubious excuse is that her rip off HBO special is about a black woman, while Fulks' preexisting short film is about a white man. Is she crazy (rhetorical question). First of all, don't pull the race card invoking black women's struggles when you are going around acting like a crazy, mindless, greedy eyed criminal stealing from everyone. This is not a racial matter. You are a thief. As a black woman I state, don't involve us in your crap. Your thieving behavior feeds into negative stereotypes of black people. You are apart of the problem. 


Beyonce has stolen copyrights from a number of black, Hispanic and white artists, in her greedy quest for untold fame and riches she is not entitled to under the law, depriving others of their property and paychecks. By the way, judging by public feedback on social networking, newspaper website feedback sections and message boards, people firmly believe Beyonce stole Fulk's work. 

Beyonce is sick in the head to pretend in a court of law that she didn't steal his work and seek a court declaration to that effect. Either Beyonce has surrounded herself with yes people or something is misfiring in her thieving, struggling brain that she thinks this chronic criminal behavior constituting financial crimes is acceptable human conduct and that no one notices. Millions of people notice. Hence the 50% sales drop between Beyonce's current album and its predecessor.


If you can support or try to excuse Beyonce and or Jay Z's thieving criminal behavior that keeps depriving people of their intellectual property and money, something is wrong with your moral compass as well. You need to do some introspective searching in your mind and soul, in an attempt to ascertain why you are supporting and promoting thieving criminals. Because I'm certain, if someone showed up on every one of your paydays and kept stealing your checks and cashing them like dirty degenerates raised by other depraved dirty degenerates, you wouldn't find it amusing, decent or humane (and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, as Beyonce's parents stole $32,000,000 from the kids of her deceased manager, resulting in a lawsuit against them and Beyonce). 

Think about how you would react to doing hard work then repeatedly being robbed on your job and stop pretending others should accept that from Jay Z and Beyonce, because that's what those two thieves keep doing for undue financial enrichment. Better yet, if you think Beyonce and Jay Z's thieving financial crimes are appropriate, I want you to donate every single one of your paychecks to charity indefinitely. Of course, you will say how will you pay your bills if you donate all your paychecks? Exactly. Then you will know how Beyonce and Jay Z's victims feel being repeatedly victimized by those two thieves, who have criminally diverted the financial revenues from others they've brazenly stolen from like dirty leeches. 


You have to be psychotic to be stealing from people like that, then publicly bragging about how much money you've made from what is criminal behavior. U.S. and international law make no allowances for theft of copyright or finances, neither does it permit defrauding others out of their money and or property, which both Jay Z and Beyonce have done to others. 

It's quite appalling what some in the black community are calling role models - two ignorant, illiterate, uneducated thieves robbing people left right and center, while bragging about alleged net worth gained via serious financial crimes. They're no better than Madoff. And just like Madoff's day came - so will theirs. Beyonce and Jay Z are an embarrassment and a disgrace.


Fulks deserves to win the case, as Beyonce has clearly and willfully infringed his copyrights. However, here's the problem. Sony and Warner Bros have a penchant for bribing judges and the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been my personal experience. Miami judge, Cecilia Altonaga, corrupted a case I had against Sony and Warner Bros in relation to depraved Madonna over copyright infringement, while concealing the fact Sony had given her child stock in their company and her husband's law firm is giving hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal work by the companies as well. She ended up having to admit the gross conflict of interest in court papers. When the case got to the Supreme Court level, Warner Bros bribed Chief Justice, John Roberts with several hundred thousand dollars in stock in their company to deny the claim and criminally award them my PREEXISTING copyrights they stole (The Associated Press Accuses U.S. Supreme Court Judges Of Taking Stocks As Bribes And They're Right). The U.S. justice system is completely corrupt. It is full of bribery, rigging and fraud. Just ask Hillary Clinton and the FBI and the Department of Justice.

I can also attest, my late godmother's husband, Clement "Coxsone" Dodd, the Jamaican music producer who started reggae music and discovered Bob Marley, creating a genre of music that went on to become a billion dollar industry, was terribly ripped off by Sony as well. Their crap excuse for stealing his music was "We didn't know who it belonged to" which was an outright lie. Copyright law has no provisions for stealing copyrights because you allegedly didn't know who it belonged to when you criminally took it without permission or payment to the owner. Sony are the biggest copyright and patent thieves in the world of music, film, television, electronics and computer software. You will find none worse. Warner Bros/Time Warner is a close second.

STORY SOURCE

Hold up! Beyonce files legal papers denying she stole ideas from indie filmmaker's short film Palinoia for her Lemonade visual album
 
Published: 21:07 EST, 22 July 2016 | Updated: 02:37 EST, 23 July 2016 - Beyonce has denied that her visual album Lemonade ripped off a 2014 short film. The pop star filed court documents refuting filmmaker Matthew Fulks's legal claim that Lemonade is 'substantially similar' to his film Palinoia and that she stole his ideas, TMZ reports. But Beyonce says the films have very different storylines, pointing out that her HBO special is about 'an African-American woman who progresses through stages of suspicion, denial, anger and, ultimately, reconciliation in her relationship,' according to court documents seen by the gossip site. 

 Sued! Beyonce has been accused of 'copying' the work of an independent filmmaker from Kentucky for her Lemonade trailer. In contrast, Matthew's film was about a 'white man who is distressed in the wake of a failed relationship,' her lawyers say. Matthew, an independent filmmaker from Louisville, Kenucky, sued Beyonce in June after seeing a trailer for Lemonade. He says her visual album 'stole' ideas from his short film. 

Beyonce's highly-publicized one minute promotional video for her HBO special aired in April, ahead of the release of her sixth studio album and film. Matthew alleges in his lawsuit that his 2014 short film, Palinoia, had been seen by members of the team working on the Lemonade video, and that Beyonce's video was created months later and was 'visually similar.' Fulks, who lives in Louisville, Kentucky, alleges that the pop singer, her management company, Parkwood Entertainment, Sony Music Entertainment and Columbia Recording Corporation, infringed on his copyright.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, points to nine instances - about 39 seconds of the 65-second trailer - that Fulks says are visually similar. It seeks unspecified monetary damages. The Lemonade trailer was 'substantially similar' to Fulks' film, including a similar mood, setting, pace and fonts, he says in the lawsuit. 

The similarities cited in the complaint include 'graffiti and persons with heads down,' 'red persons with eyes obscured,' 'parking garage,' 'stairwell,' 'black and white eyes,' 'title card screens,' 'the grass scene,' 'feet on the street,' 'side-lit ominous figures.' Matthew Fulks has filed a legal claim, according to The Hollywood Reporter, saying Lemonade is 'substantially similar' to his 2014 short Palinoia. 

THR.com posted a copy of Fulks' complaint filed in New York against Beyonce's Parkwood Entertainment, Sony Music and Columbia Recording. Fulks, who works as a creative director at a Louisville news station, is seeking a share of the profits that proceeded from the 'exploitation of his work,' THR.com reported, including sales of the Lemonade album.

He says that an executive at Columbia had approached him in 2015 about an opportunity to direct a music video and that his information including a link to Palinoia were sent to others at the label. The Lemonade video started shooting in late 2015. The release of HBO's Lemonade and the album made headlines around the world for its lyrics about infidelity and Beyonce's relationship with her husband, 46-year-old rapper Jay Z.  The dark visual album showed her smashing in cars with a baseball bat, and addressed themes of adultery, revenge and ultimately forgiveness. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

RELATED ARTICLES

Rachel Roy's Emails Hacked As People Try To Find Out If She Is Cheating With Beyonce's Husband Jay Z While Rita Ora's Cousin Makes Statement That Causes Adultery Claims About The Rapper To Worsen










Beyonce Slammed By Rapper For Stealing Images From His Album 'Lemonade'



 

Jay-Z And Mary J. Blige Sued For Stealing Song
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, July 15, 2016

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg Under Fire For Comments Apologizes To Donald Trump


Ruth Ginsburg: what did I do?
 
Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, put her foot in it criticizing presidential candidate, Donald Trump last week. I do not agree with comments Trump has made about Mexicans, Muslims, blacks and the disabled and expressed my personal view on this site that he needs to apologize. However, Ginsburg unwisely made comments about Trump in a public interview.

Ginsburg labeled Trump “a faker” and further stated, “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego…How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.” 


I have no words for this meme (LOL)
 
Trump became incensed and stated Ginsburg needs to resign. Trump stated, “Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot - resign!” Ginsburg ironically suffers from something Trump does as well - speaks before thinking (while Trump’s rival Hillary Clinton is too busy deleting emails to speak). Ginsburg is on the Supreme Court. 

In slamming Trump, this means she will have to recuse herself from everything concerning him in the future, as she exposed an obvious bias and outright contempt. Trump is a businessman with significant assets and with that type of portfolio comes lawsuits to protect one‘s property.


Ginsburg sleeping on the job during an Obama speech, which is understandable
 
I’m all for free speech but what Ginsburg did is self-defeating. Any Trump lawsuit that reaches the Supreme Court would automatically call for a Ginsburg recusal. If Trump becomes president, Ginsburg has major problems, as she will have disqualified herself from everything he would send to the Supreme Court. Items liberals want approved by the Supreme Court, would be hampered with one less judge in the vote.

Realizing what she has done, Ginsburg has apologized. However, the problem she created for herself and her political party, the Democrats, in slamming Trump in the manner she did, still remain and will repeatedly be cause for a recusal under certain circumstances. Furthermore, voters don't form their opinions on who to vote for at the polls based on the words of judges trying to swing the election. 


Donald Trump: I will pop a cap in your butt...
 
One would think judges would realize, it may feel good indulging in inappropriate speech against someone you think you are in a position to put in their place, but when the soundbites or press quotes come back to haunt you, it could cost you your career and name. Furthermore, calling Trump a “faker” is grounds for a defamation lawsuit. You may and others may think he is fake, but can you prove it. 


Trump: talk to the hair, Ruth
 
The Supreme Court wants the public to have confidence in them, yet it has been revealed they take massive stock bribes, engage in racist speech as seen with Justice Antonin Scalia who kept insulting black, calling us “slower” than white people and now open bias as seen with Ginsburg. None of this inspires confidence. Is there any wonder the American public is actively calling the government “corrupt” and “rigged” on social networking sites.

STORY SOURCE

Ginsburg Apologizes For 'Ill-Advised' Trump Comments
 
July 14, 201610:44 AM ET - Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she regrets calling Donald Trump a "faker" and making other disparaging remarks about the candidate. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has apologized for what she called "ill-advised" comments she made earlier this week criticizing presumptive Republican presidential nominee. 

"On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them," Ginsburg said in a statement Thursday morning. "Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect." In an interview with the New York Times over the weekend, Ginsburg didn't hide her contempt for Trump, saying, "I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president" and that her late husband would have said it was "time for us to move to New Zealand." 

She doubled down on those statements Monday to CNN, calling Trump a "faker." "He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego...How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that," Ginsburg continued.

http://www.npr.org

RELATED ARTICLES

The Obama Administration Is Interfering In Civil And Criminal Court Cases In Violation Of The Law Corruptly Ordering Judges How To Rule And Bugging Trees And Rocks At Courthouses

Attorney General Loretta Lynch Dodged 74 Questions In Congress About The Corruption That Led To Hillary Clinton Not Being Criminally Charged For Mishandling Classified Information





World Leaders Blaming Obama For Brexit
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Supreme Court Unconstitutionally Grants The FBI The Right To Hack Any Computer Anywhere In The World

 
FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Director Robert Mueller and U.S. President Barack Obama
 
Privacy advocates have slammed the Supreme Court's decision to grant the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) the right to hack any computer anywhere in the world without a warrant (they've been doing this for years anyway, now they're trying to make it legal). This means there will be no accountability and scores of violations of international law, when the hacking extends into foreign countries in an imperialistic manner. This is a massive overreach that is unconstitutional. 

The Obama administration has destroyed the American people's privacy to terrible degrees. Obama has used the NSA, FBI and CIA, to spy on Americans in egregious, illegal ways that constitute awful privacy violations. If Obama's family were subjected to the same privacy violations he has rubberstamped as president, he would be outraged. 

Newsweek stated of the decision, "These amendments will have significant consequences for Americans’ privacy and the scope of the government’s powers to conduct remote surveillance and searches of electronic devices...these are complex issues involving privacy, digital security and our Fourth Amendment rights, which require thoughtful debate and public vetting."

The Judiciary Report is of the opinion, with the FBI openly allowed to hack computers domestically and internationally, you will see a massive increase in retaliatory hacks from foreign governments, angry the agency is stepping on their toes, running roughshod over fellow sovereign nations via computer intrusion. 

STORY SOURCE

Supreme Court Allows FBI to Hack Any Computer Anywhere With a Warrant

By Seung Lee On 5/1/16 at 10:02 AM - Thanks to a Supreme Court decision on Thursday, law enforcement agencies including the FBI may end up with broad powers to hack any computer, regardless of its physical location—but the expansion of power hinges upon congressional approval. 

With a new rule change in the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedures, which covers search and seizure protocols, federal judges would be able to issue warrants to search computers located anywhere in the world. Before the Supreme Court’s alteration, federal magistrate judges were allowed only to issue warrants within their own jurisdictions. The Supreme Court submitted the changes to Congress as a part of the court’s annual review of the procedures, which were passed by Congress in 1938 for a more uniform way of dealing with criminal cases across the country.

At least one senator and several privacy rights organizations called the decision an affront to civil rights and a doorway to unchecked government hacking. Congress has until December 1 to amend or block the Supreme Court decision. Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon has publicly slammed the decision on Twitter and said he will propose a bill to reverse it. 

“These amendments will have significant consequences for Americans’ privacy and the scope of the government’s powers to conduct remote surveillance and searches of electronic devices,” Wyden says in a statement. “These are complex issues involving privacy, digital security and our Fourth Amendment rights, which require thoughtful debate and public vetting.”... 
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Judge Defends Court Order Declining Autopsy On Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Who Died Under Suspicious Circumstances But Former Criminal Investigator Disagrees



Antonin Scalia
The Washington Post is reporting Texas Judge, Cinderela Guevara, pronounced U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, dead "without seeing his body." Scalia passed away this past weekend at the upscale Cibolo Creek Ranch in Shafter, Texas, with no security in tow, as he declined protection while on vacation at the resort. The owner of the Cibolo Creek Ranch stated to the press, "We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled. He was lying very restfully. It looked like he had not quite awakened from a nap."

Guevara stated she acted on information provided to her by authorities. However, in light of claims he passed away with a pillow over his head, which Judge Guevara may not have been informed about, an autopsy should have been performed. I dislike this rush by Washington to usher Scalia into the grave with such serious questions surrounding his death. In the interest of justice and equity, an autopsy should have been performed.

The former head of criminal investigations for D.C. police, William O. Ritchie stated, "You have a justice of the peace pronounce death while not being on the scene and without any medical training opining that the justice died of a heart attack.” He has a good point. 

I find it upsetting that Scalia was found with a pillow over his head. Anyone with a heart should feel sad about that. I didn't agree with his racial rulings, but he was a human being. I sincerely hope he was not killed, but the manner in which he was found, with a pillow over his face, doesn't look good. It's downright sad, as what it implies is horrible. I don't like conspiracy theories, but what are people supposed to think under the circumstances.  

STORY SOURCE

Texas judge defends decision not to order autopsy for Justice Scalia 

By Mark Berman February 16 at 7:33 PM -  The top elected official in the Texas county where Antonin Scalia was found dead says the U.S. Supreme Court Justice died of natural causes. The Texas judge who pronounced Justice Antonin Scalia dead over the weekend but did not request an autopsy defended her decision Tuesday in the face of questions and conspiracy theories floating online, saying she was respecting the wishes of his relatives. 

After Scalia died suddenly at a remote West Texas resort, a chaotic and confused scene unfolded in the remote region not far from the border with Mexico. It took hours to find a justice of the peace, and when they did, Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara pronounced Scalia dead without seeing his body, which is allowed under Texas law. 

This decision was made based on what Scalia’s family wanted and what she was told by a law enforcement official, Guevara said. Guevara decided against the autopsy after the county sheriff told her “there were no signs of foul play or struggle, and that it appeared that Justice Scalia had died peacefully in his sleep,” she said in a statement Tuesday... 

The decision not to order an autopsy has prompted skeptical questions from law enforcement, like William O. Ritchie, former head of criminal investigations for D.C. police. “You have a justice of the peace pronounce death while not being on the scene and without any medical training opining that the justice died of a heart attack,” Ritchie wrote on Facebook. He also questioned whether authorities could be sure “that he was not injected with an illegal substance that would simulate a heart attack.”...
 
 

 


 

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, February 15, 2016

No Autopsy On Racist Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Who Was Suspiciously Found Dead With Pillow Over His Face After Declining Security On Vacation In Texas

Rumors Rife Scalia Was Killed...But Who Had The Most To Gain From His Death

Antonin Scalia
The news coming out of Texas regarding the death of U.S. Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia, isn't pretty. Scalia passed away this past weekend on the Cibolo Creek Ranch in Shafter, Texas (Racist Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia Dead). He was on vacation at the ranch and declined security. The owner of the Cibolo Creek Ranch stated to the press on Scalia's death, "We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled. He was lying very restfully. It looked like he had not quite awakened from a nap."

Who sleeps with a pillow over their head. The man was a rude racist, but he wasn't a complete imbecile. Why was a pillow over his face. People found dead with a pillow over their head are usually victims of suffocation at a criminal's hands. Suffocation and an ensuing struggle to breathe can also induce a heart attack. What's also suspect is the government stating Scalia died of natural causes and no autopsy will be performed. This is highly unethical under the circumstances. A thorough autopsy should be performed and an investigation conducted into his death in the interest of justice.

Scalia and the Supreme Court ruled against U.S. President Barack Obama last week, regarding his proposed EPA regulations. It came as a shock to many in Washington and viewed as the Supreme Court rebuffing the president. The Court has come under fire these past few months over conduct the public slammed (Racist Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia States In Ruling That Blacks Are Slower Than Whites Causing Uproar On Social Networking and The Associated Press Accuses U.S. Supreme Court Judges Of Taking Stocks As Bribes And They're Right). Scalia and the Supreme Court were also set to decide a number of cases, including items concerning President Obama's political plans and policies. 

Scalia's convenient passing means Obama gets to nominate another Supreme Court justice, who would rule in his autocratic favor. However, there are reports of a resolution passed by Democrats in 1960 that forbids the appointment of a Supreme Court justice during an election year under these types of circumstances, "S.RES. 334, 'Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.'"

If Scalia was indeed killed, he deserves something he denied many people in life in his role on the Supreme Court, which is justice. Murder is wrong.

STORY SOURCE
Cibolo Creek Ranch owner recalls Scalia’s last hours in Texas

Updated 10:11 pm, Sunday, February 14, 2016 - Owner of Cibolo Creek Ranch John Poindexter speaks to reporters the day following the death Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at the West Texas Resort ranch February 14, 2016 in Shafter, Texas. A first-time guest to the Cibolo Creek Creek Ranch, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was animated and engaged during dinner Friday night, as one of three dozen invitees to an event that had nothing to do with law or politics, according to the ranch owner. 

Just hours later, he would be found dead of apparent natural causes, which media outlets were reporting Sunday was a heart attack. "He was seated near me and I had a chance to observe him. He was very entertaining. But about 9 p.m. he said, 'it's been a long day and a long week, I want to get some sleep," recalled Houston businessman John Poindexter, who owns the 30,000-acre luxury ranch.

When Poindexter tried to awaken Scalia about 8:30 the next morning, the judge's door was locked and he did not answer. Three hours later, Poindexter returned after an outing, with a friend of Scalia who had come from Washington with him. "We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled," said Poindexter. "He was lying very restfully. It looked like he had not quite awakened from a nap," he said.

Scalia,79, did not have a pulse and his body was cold, and after consulting with a doctor at a hospital in Alpine, Poindexter concluded resuscitation would have been futile, He then contacted federal authorities, at first encountering a series of answering services because he was calling on a weekend... 

http://www.mysanantonio.com

Justice Antonin Scalia said to have died of 'natural causes' 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died of natural causes and no autopsy was necessary, a judge has told The Associated Press. Chris Lujan, a manager for Sunset Funeral Homes in Texas, said the 79-year-old jurist's body was taken from the El Paso facility late Sunday afternoon and was to be flown to Virginia, although he had no details. Scalia's family didn't think a private autopsy was necessary and requested that his remains be returned to Washington as soon as possible, Lujan said. 

Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara told The Associated Press on Sunday she consulted with Scalia's personal physician and sheriff's investigators, who said there were no signs of foul play, before concluding that he had died of natural causes. He was found dead in his room at a West Texas resort ranch Saturday morning. Guevara says the declaration was made around 1:52 p.m. Saturday. 

Terry Sharpe, assistant director for operations at El Paso International Airport, said a private plane carrying Scalia's body departed around 8 p.m. EST Sunday. Scalia's body was accompanied to the airport by U.S. marshals, he said. The body was returned to Virginia late Sunday. Scalia's weekend death was as much of a shock to those at the ranch as it was to the rest of the nation...

http://hosted.ap.org

Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments

February 14, 2016 - Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog: Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment. The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won. As it should this time.
RELATED ARTICLES







 
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, February 13, 2016

Racist Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia Dead


Antonin Scalia

It is being reported this evening that Scalia has died on a Marfa, Texas ranch. Reports reveal he was not feeling well yesterday and did not come down for breakfast this morning. He was subsequently found dead. He was 79-years-old. Scalia will be remembered as the racist who stated blacks are slower than whites and should not be admitted to elite universities. He will also be remembered as the Supreme Court judge who robbed politician Al Gore of his destiny in corruptly awarding George W. Bush the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, which set in motion a deceitful war that left over 1,000,000 people dead and darn near bankrupted America. Scalia was unrepentantly and unapologetic racist, corrupt and defiant to the end. Scalia has a lot to answer for when he meets God, the true Judge of us all that made us all equal.  

Social networking is not mourning Scalia. Thousands of comments have been posted slamming him, Clarence Thomas and the Supreme Court as a whole. Americans are fed up with the decisions pouring out of the Supreme Court, as they are not instep with the will of the people. It also doesn't help that Supreme Court judges are corruptly sitting on many millions of dollars in stock in major U.S. corporations that are petitioning the court, when said justices can't afford said stocks on their salaries (The Associated Press Accuses U.S. Supreme Court Judges Of Taking Stocks As Bribes And They're Right). It doesn't look good.

RELATED ARTICLES







 
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

The Associated Press Accuses U.S. Supreme Court Judges Of Taking Stocks As Bribes And They're Right

 
John Roberts

The U.S. Supreme Court has come under fire in a recent expose on the Associated Press and Yahoo News websites. The article states U.S. Supreme Court justices have millions of dollars in stock in American corporations, who are filing civil cases for the Supreme Court to decide. It is a felony for a Supreme Court Justice to rule on cases where they have stock in any of the litigants companies.

The head of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, ruled over a case I filed with the Supreme Court, who has one of the rudest, most ill-mannered, ill-tempered clerks in existence. Roberts ruled in the original Aisha v. Madonna case I had filed in 2005 that reached the Supreme Court in 2008, with them affirming the corrupt lower court's decisions, rendered by bribe taking Florida federal judge, Cecilia Altonaga.

Here's were the corruption is apparent. Chief Justice Roberts should not have ruled in the case. The Associated Press and Yahoo News revealed this week Roberts has $500,000 of stock in Time Warner, who owns Warner Bros, the label and movie company Madonna has worked for since the beginning of her fraudulent career. Time Warner and Warner Bros were also sued in the first Aisha v. Madonna case Roberts unlawfully ruled in. That was illegal.

Roberts and the Supreme Court criminally allowed a corrupt series of legal rulings in Miami, Florida by Cecilia Altonaga and Marcia G. Cooke stand, in what nearly led to my death and that of my mother, when Madonna felt so empowered by the bribery and corruption, she sent a Miami Kabbalah Center lunatic to attack my mom at a Miami Chase Bank location (the staff rushed to her aid when they heard my mom screaming in horror, in what prevented the worst from happening).

In three separate incidents, members of the Kabbalah Center tried to run me over with vehicles, in a criminal tactic later revealed in criminal court by U.S. prosecutors in California as conduct Madonna's now incarcerated private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, often commissioned on behalf of celebrities in Hollywood, paying him to insanely target and harass innocent people.

Altonaga completely corrupted and deliberately destroyed the case with corrupt rulings, knowing she was committing a felony, as Madonna's co-defendants Sony gave her stock in their company (which she was forced to admit in a judicial recusal motion). Sony and Warner Bros share the same copyright lawyer in New York and share in publishing money and credits on various songs. Altonaga's husband was and is a partner in the law firm that represents Sony in many legal matters.

All this meant she should have recused herself, but she stayed on and destroyed the case via corruption. I had to file a motion to recuse Altonaga citing the blatant conflict of interest. That's when she admitted in response to the motion that Sony had slipped her daughter, a minor in her care and household, stock in their company. She refused to acknowledge the fact her husband is their lawyer, which was sitting right on his firm's website and in legal magazines (which is where I found the information). The Supreme Court affirmed the corruption in denying to hear the case, thus criminally aiding Hollywood in stealing billions of dollars in copyrights and abusing an innocent immigrant family they tried to kill. I have since sued Madonna again in 2015, as her criminal conduct has grown exponentially worse, posing a serious danger to our lives.

How are these Supreme Court judges affording millions of dollars worth of stock in these American corporations. They don't make enough money to afford theses stocks. As I have stated before, the U.S. legal and justice system does not work. It is full of corruption and bribery. It is the most corrupt in the world.

STORY SOURCE

Roberts sold more than $250,000 in Microsoft stock

February 4, 2016 4:14 AM - FILE - WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court's recent decision to step into a relatively unimportant case involving Microsoft's Xbox 360 gaming system revealed that Chief Justice John Roberts has sold between $250,000 and $500,000 in Microsoft stock in the past year.

Federal judges violate the law if they take part in a case involving a company they own shares in, although Roberts declined through a court spokeswoman to comment on his situation. His decision, though, raises this question: If the chief justice can unload one of his two largest stock holdings (Time-Warner is the other), why does any justice continue to own individual companies' stock, knowing that doing so sometimes will force him out of a case?

"We're not talking about grandpa's stock in the family business where a justice might have some sentimental reason for holding onto the shares. These are major corporations who regularly come before the court," said Arthur Hellman, who specializes in judicial ethics at the University of Pittsburgh.

Roberts himself backed a change in federal law to make decisions to sell more palatable financially. In 2006, Congress changed the law to prevent judges from getting socked with a big tax hit if they sell a stock to avoid a conflict of interest, then reinvest the money in government securities or certain kinds of mutual funds.

Only three justices — Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer and Roberts — even own individual stocks. Yet in the past few months, Alito has had to sit out a Supreme Court case and Breyer and Roberts acknowledged they overlooked stock ownership that should have precluded their participation in cases.

Alito's ownership of up to $15,000 worth of shares in Wisconsin-based Johnson Controls Inc. caused him to miss the court's consideration of federal policy on electricity pricing. Johnson Controls owns a subsidiary that was involved in the high-profile energy case. Breyer took part in that case despite his wife's ownership of the very same stock.

The routine check Breyer's office did to avoid conflicts failed to flag the Johnson Controls stock as a problem, Supreme Court clerk Scott Harris said in a letter to the parties after the argument. Breyer's wife, Joanna, quickly sold 750 shares worth about $33,000 after Breyer was alerted to the conflict.

Breyer voted with the majority to uphold the policy that was being challenged by industry groups.
In early October, Roberts took part in the denial of an appeal by Texas Instruments among 20 parties that appealed their share of the costs to clean up a hazardous waste site in Arizona. Roberts owns between $100,001 and $250,000 in Texas Instruments stock, and court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg acknowledged Roberts should not have been involved. Alito sat it out, without explanation.

Fix the Court, a judicial ethics watchdog, first spotted Roberts' Texas Instruments conflict. The chief justice's sale of his Microsoft stock was the largest single stock sale by anyone on the court in at least the 10-plus years he has been there.

In 2014, Alito got rid of shares in five companies worth at least $330,000, and perhaps as much as $900,000. The justices report their financial holdings in ranges, rather than exact values. Alito's investment portfolio has grown in recent years through inheritance and he has sought to reduce some individual stock investments. He still held stock in nearly three dozen companies as of the end of 2014, according to his most recent financial disclosure.

Breyer and Roberts also have reduced some holdings. Breyer's largest single investment, worth from $1 million to $5 million, is his wife's stock in the Pearson media empire that her family started and built.

Roberts holds roughly a dozen individual stocks, the largest of which is $250,000 to $500,000 in Time Warner Inc.


RELATED ARTICLES


 
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Complains About Negative Public Perception Of The Court

 
John Roberts

First racist Supreme Court judge, Antonin Scalia, made bigoted, ignorant remarks about black people (Antonin Scalia Slammed By Members Of Congress As A Racist Who Should Be Removed From The Supreme Court) then tried to invoke the name of God and His role in America, when God in heaven doesn't support the behavior of such a man or his corrupt judicial colleagues who are helping to destroy the United States. Now Chief Justice John Roberts has done an interview complaining about the negative public perception of the court.  

The Washington Post stated, "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said late Wednesday that partisan extremism is damaging the public’s perception of the role of the Supreme Court." The court has made decisions that cost innocent people their lives. Public perception of the Supreme Court is very negative. The reason the Google Maps debacle happened, where the Supreme Court was labeled "The Dumb F**ks" is because the public labeled them as such and the tech company failed to edit it (Google Calls Black President Obama's White House 'The Nig*a House' And The Supreme Court 'Dumb F**ks'). 

Online searches will also reveal very negative comments from the American and global public about the Supreme Court. The comments indicate the court is hated by many, consistently going against the will of the people to do the bidding of presidents and special interests.

In the not too distant future, due to egregiously corrupt decisions the Supreme Court has already made, the public will petition them far, far less. There will be a massive decline in cases. Then you guys will have time to play Scrabble, watch Wheel of Fortune on TV and a riveting show you guys should be on "American Greed."

STORY SOURCE

The political wars damage public perception of Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts says

February 4 at 9:53 AM - BOSTON — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said late Wednesday that partisan extremism is damaging the public’s perception of the role of the Supreme Court, recasting the justices as players in the political process rather than its referees. Divisive battles over confirmations and mischaracterization of the merits of the court’s decisions worry him, Roberts told a ballroom crowd of about 1,000 people at a celebration of Law Day for New England Law-Boston.

Criticism of the court “doesn’t bother me at all,” Roberts said, as long as it is not based on a misunderstanding of how the court differs from the political branches. “It’s usually discussed as, ‘Oh, you’re in favor of this or you’re in favor of that,’ ” Roberts said in response to questions from the law school’s dean, John F. O’Brien.

“In fact, our ruling is that whoever does get to decide this or that is allowed to do it, and that it’s not unconstitutional, that it’s consistent with the law,” Roberts said. “But we often have no policy views on the matter at all, and that’s an important distinction.”

The court is under heavy criticism from all sides in the presidential campaigns, with Republican Donald Trump suggesting he would appoint justices who would overturn the court’s 5-to-4 decision saying gay couples have a constitutional right to marry and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders making a rejection of the court’s Citizen United campaign finance decision a litmus test for their potential nominees.

And before the justices adjourn in June, the court will decide a host of issues at the heart of the political debate: affirmative action in university admissions, abortion restrictions, the ability of religious objectors to opt out of the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage obligation, and President Obama’s plan to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation.

Roberts himself — once touted by Republicans as a prototypical Supreme Court nominee — has become a focus on the right. GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz, the senator from Texas, said Roberts’s nomination was a mistake, and even former Florida governor Jeb Bush, whose brother chose Roberts as chief justice, has criticized him.

The unhappiness arises basically from two of Roberts’s decisions on the same subject — finding Obama’s health-care act constitutional and then last year saving it from a potentially devastating challenge based on the language of the law...


RELATED ARTICLES
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)