US Supreme Court.
h) Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation [xv, xvi]
The case originated in the unlawful taking by bank executives of $5.8 billions. It concluded with no executive held accountable, and none of the ill-gotten money returned to the shareholders.
The case is of particular interest, since it was widely reported by national and international media, which tried to portray it as an example of effective banking regulation in the United States. However, the outcome of the litigation, and research of the PACER and CM/ECF records of the case show that US Judge Jed Rakoff, SEC, and Bank of America Corporation colluded in the conduct of simulated litigation from the start.
k) NML Capital v Republic of Argentina [xvii]
The case originated in the default of the Republic of Argentina on sovereign debt. The outcome of the case may lead to the collapse of the Argentinian economy for the second time in 15 years through deliberate actions of the US and its agencies.
Notice, opining fraud on the Republic of Argentina in NML Capital v The Republic of Argentina was given by this author to the government of the Republic of Argentina with copies to the governments of the German Federal Republic, the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, and the United States. [xviii]
p) Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the US Supreme Court
This case is no doubt one of the landmark decisions of the US Supreme Court in recent decades, if not in its entire history. It transformed the US political process by expanding the notion of "corporate personhood" and according corporations free-speech rights to "spend unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns" a stunning example of judicial activism-- [xix] It was also described as a license to corrupt government.
And yet, the "Judgment" record in this case is nowhere to be found...
E. Compliance with relevant US law
Through the conduct of simulated review, Habeas Corpus was in fact suspended. The process of Habeas Corpus should commence with the issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus by the court, which functions as summons - establishing the jurisdiction of the court. However, since the implementation of PACER and CM/ECF, not a single Writ of Habeas Corpus was found in any of the US courts that were examined.
2. First Amendment to the US Constitution- the right to file papers in court
Documentation is provided that effectively, the US courts have established a policy of denying the right to file papers that provide evidence of the corruption of judges and other government officers.
3. First Amendment to the US Constitution- to right to inspect and to copy court records
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
