Mapping John Roberts’ Corruption Trail: From making Bush President, Giving Trump Immunity To Gutting The Voting Rights Act
How John Roberts helped make George Bush Jr. President
“John Roberts flew to Florida in November 2000 to assist Bush’s legal team. He helped prepare the lawyer who presented Bush’s case to the Florida state Supreme Court and offered advice throughout. Roberts also faced a singular personal challenge during the 36-day ordeal that extended from the November 7 Election Day to the court’s late-hour December 12 ruling.” CNN
Check this map to see which of the current Supreme Court justices were involved in the Bush legal team to stop the recount in Florida. Who appointed the Supreme Court justices? What was the role of Paul Manafort and Roger Stone in the Brooks Brother riots? Where was Ted Cruz then and now?
Connect the dots for yourself with this map. Click on any face or arrow for details and follow the links to the actual news article.
Follow John and Jane Roberts’ corruption
The Chief Justice and His Wife Took $20 Million From Firms He Rules On.
Spreadsheets show Jane Roberts earned $10,323,842.70 in commissions over seven years.
Over sixteen years of federal financial disclosure forms, Chief Justice John Roberts mischaracterized more than twenty million dollars in household income from law firms appearing before the Supreme Court.
He concealed his wife’s equity stake in her employer for three consecutive years. He failed to recuse from more than five hundred cases argued at the Supreme Court by law firms that had paid his household millions in commissions.
He architected the Court’s first ethics code and designed it to be unenforceable.
This is a course of conduct stretching across two decades, connected by a single through-line: the belief that the rules that apply to every other federal judge do not apply to him.
The governing standard is 28 U.S.C. § 455, which applies to every federal judge including Supreme Court justices. Roberts triggers all three recusal obligations.
Subsection (a) says a judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This is the appearance standard, and it does not require actual bias. It requires only that a reasonable person knowing the facts would question the judge’s impartiality. - Christopher Armitage
Giving Trump immunity
What you can do now!
Send a letter to the DC Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel at 515 Fifth Street NW, Building A, Room 117, Washington DC 20001. Write it in your own words. The facts to include are that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. mischaracterized his wife’s commission income as salary on sixteen years of federal financial disclosure forms, omitted a material equity interest for three consecutive years, and did not recuse from more than five hundred cases argued by law firms paying his household in commissions. The relevant statutes are 28 U.S.C. § 455, 5 U.S.C. § 13106, and 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and the rule to cite is DC Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c). It takes about ten minutes. - Christopher Armitage
TakeAway: Send a letter to the DC Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel at 515 Fifth Street NW, Building A, Room 117, Washington DC 20001. Write it in your own words.
Deepak
DemLabs
DISCLAIMER: ALTHOUGH THE DATA FOUND IN THIS BLOG AND INFOGRAPHIC HAS BEEN PRODUCED AND PROCESSED FROM SOURCES BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED CAN BE MADE REGARDING THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, LEGALITY OR RELIABILITY OF ANY SUCH INFORMATION. THIS DISCLAIMER APPLIES TO ANY USES OF THE INFORMATION WHETHER ISOLATED OR AGGREGATE USES THEREOF.
Roberts’ Supreme Court Hit Parade
This follows 12 other decisions by MAGA SIX PACK justices to rig the system for the billionaires who packed the Supreme Court.
Politicians in robes
“The inflamed public reaction stems also from the fact that the law changed because the court’s membership changed. The ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was the culmination of a political and politicized process to bolster the conservative majority by any means necessary. And this stacked court has — time after time, but most flagrantly in overruling Roe v. Wade — abandoned normal rules of restraint, twisted or ignored doctrine, and substituted raw power to achieve its desired result.
And this is how the institution undermines its own legitimacy. If the court behaves like just another political body, it loses the only power it has, of achieving public acceptance of its rulings.” - Washington Post