John Roberts
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
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
