Posted originally on Jan 1, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

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.

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. 

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.

Judge Richard Oweb was altering the transcripts, and a made a motion to recuse, forcing him to admit that he was committing a felony. Again, the Second Circuit court of appeals knew what was taking place and in a public opinion claimed it did not have the power to order judges to comply with the law.

“According to counsel, the Southern District is somewhat unique in this practice. See Leiwant Decl. at 2.

Courts do not have power to alter transcripts in camera and to conceal the alterations from the parties.¹¹  Given the issues that arose in this case as a direct result of this practice, there appears to be little justification for continuing the practice in its present form. To be sure, a procedure that corrects obvious mistakes in transmission is useful, and the parties have little interest in closely monitoring such a procedure so long as the alterations are cosmetic. Monitoring by the parties, however, provides some assurance that only cosmetic changes will be made or, if not, that changes will correctly reflect what transpired in the particular proceeding. Moreover, there is little cost in informing the parties of cosmetic changes or at least of directing court reporters to give parties access to the original transcript when they request it.

Nevertheless, whether we have the power to order a change in such a practice is unclear.¹²  We review judgments, and our review of the convictions and sentences here may not be an appropriate vehicle for the fine tuning of this practice. However, we invite the judges of the Southern District to consider revision.”

UNITED STATES v. ZICHETTELLO 208 F3d 72 (2d Cir 2000)

18 U.S.C. § 1506 states:

“Whoever feloniously steals, takes away, alters, falsifies, or avoids any record, writ, process, or other proceedings, in any United States court, whereby any judgment is reversed, made void or does not take effect; or whoever acknowledges, or procures, in any such court, any recognizance, bail, or judgment, in the name of someone, not privy or consenting to the same, shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both.”

This hatred of Trump and his agenda is putting us on a collision course next year with a Supreme Court as they try not just to prevent him from taking office using the 14th Amendment if they dare. Still, they will try to challenge many issues, and if they lose, they will retaliate against the court.

The likelihood of ignoring the Supreme Court has often been a problem. Even back in 1957, for instance, President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to integrate its schools after officials sought to defy Supreme Court decisions that found segregated schools unconstitutional.

Roberts stated that some “public officials” had “regrettably” attempted to intimidate judges by “suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings without a credible basis for such allegations.” Those attempts, he warned, are “inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.” Indeed, the press reports who appointed them when they render a decision imply that they are not interpreting the Constitution but politics. This is the very source of the problem that the press suggests that a decision they do not like should not be followed.