Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics
Re-Posted Feb 12, 2017 by Martin Armstrong
President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, has shown he is deeply biased and not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. His nomination should now be withdrawn. Judge Gorsuch told the New York Times privately expressing “dismay” they reported over Trump’s Tweet regarding Judge James Robart when he wrote: “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”
The New York Times reported that Trump’s criticism of “independent judges ‘demoralizing’ and ‘disheartening.’ All of a sudden, the New Your Times claims “Judge Gorsuch’s sterling credentials notwithstanding, his supporters in the legal community should withdraw their backing for his nomination if he fails” criticize Trump.
First of all, the legal community is an absolute joke. Judges are predominately political and by NO MEANS independent. George Bush’s cousin, Chief Judge John Walker, struck a policeman directing traffic and killed him. The police never even tested him for drinking and just let him go home. Who would ever be treated that way unless you were a privileged federal judge?
The Federal Judges of New York City routinely break the law and change the transcripts of hearing to maintain the 98%+ conviction rate. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled “Nevertheless, whether we have the power to order a change in such a practice is unclear. 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.” ( see page 97, US v Zichettello). Where was the New York Times reporting this one – no place.
I confronted Judge Owen about changing the transcripts. I protested and wrote to the SEC and said what the hell – since your people alter what is said in court just make up a transcript report I said whatever you want and get this over with. Where was the New York Times reporting that or that I forced a federal judge to admit publicly that he was changing the court records? You see, to pretend that the judges are really “honorable” is an insult to the people of this country and places at risk everything we fought and died for for centuries.
In my own case, the bank stole the money and tried to blame me with the usual rogue trader excuse. They had to admit their own people were illegally trading in our accounts, but then tried to claim I conspired with them. The told the press, and the New York Times reported it, that $1 billion was missing and they had “no idea” where it went. When the film the Forecaster debut was in Amsterdam, the third night was for all the bankers of Europe. The moderator tried to pretend to be impartial and asked me whatever happened to the $1 billion. I turned to the audience and said let’s ask them. I asked, was it possible for $1 billion to vanish from a bank and nobody knew where it went? They all started laughing. It is had to be wired, moved by check, or you needed a tank to break into the vault. You just can’t beam it out like in Star Trek. The moderator looked like a fool. So why did the New York Times no simply ask how is such a claim possible?
Republic plead guilty and had to return all the money. I owed nothing. This was the plea that the accounts were to be segregated from the bank and not available for the bank’s use – NOT MINE, since they were my accounts and not limited power of attorney type accounts. The New York Times NEVER reported the details of what went on or how the judges were conspiring with the banks and the government to protect the bankers as always.
So sorry. If Judge Neil Gorsuch wants to pretend the “integrity” of judges should NEVER be questioned, he is not qualified for the Supreme Court.
As for the outrage of Trump’s travel ban, perhaps we should judge this in light of the Supreme Court decision upholding the imprisonment of Japanese Americans during World War II without any probable cause other than they were Japanese and might decide to help their native land. On December 18th, 1944, the Supreme Court ruled in Korematsu v. United States that the wartime internment of Japanese-Americans was constitutional, though it ruled in a separate decision that loyal citizens must be released. The decisions came soon after the government decided to end internment. This is what the Supreme Court said and it certainly applies to Trump’s order:
“It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers — and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps, with all the ugly connotations that term implies — we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue.”
The government did not roundup German Americans. What they did to the Japanese was clearly racist but OK because the Supreme Court defended the government’s political will at that time. Courts are by no means a place of integrity or real “justice” but always rule politically for “just us” as the government demands.
Centinel2012 