Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, please visit Ask-Socrates.com.
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.
Constitutionally, both the Sixth Amendment and Due Process of Law require court proceedings to be open to the public. The judge took my lawyers away, 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 I 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 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 with a Supreme Court as they try 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 that appointed them when they rendered 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.
Happy New Year! We hope that our content has helped you to navigate 2024 — the political year from hell. We will keep you informed on what to expect as we look ahead to 2025.
Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, please visit Ask-Socrates.com.
COMMENT: Martin,
REPLY: That is very correct. Trump would not be bound to join WWIII. That is why they are scheming to try to delay his inauguration so they can invoke Article 5. Just for the record, the last time Article 5 was invoked was 911 to justify invading Iraq, which had nothing to do with 911 and never had weapons of mass destruction. It was Dick Cheney who schemed to invade Iraq, and then they intended to go right into Tehran.
It was Dick Cheney who crafted the intelligence, and to cover his ass, he invoked Article 5 to start his war, which was, I believe, to conquer the Middle East. The US pitched it in October 2001, and as this article quotes, they provided “clear and compelling” evidence. Everything presented to justify this quest to conquer the Middle East was a lie, as always. They are preparing the very same strategy to conquer Russia and divide the spoils of the wealthiest nation on earth in terms of natural resources.
They have lied to start every single war because they get to expand the government and line their pockets. They have no remorse for the people who die in these actions. These people who constantly push for war are Psychopaths and are classified as people with little or no conscience but can follow social conventions when it suits their needs. They are far more dangerous than a mere Sociopath who cannot feel empathy and remorse but possesses merely antisocial personality disorder (APD) rather than a deliberate and conniving Psychopath.
Here is Lyndsey Grachm for once telling the truth. This is not about democracy, and nobody cares if any Ukrainians remain. This is about strip-ming Russian assets. They will invoke Article 5, and the main country NATO is pushing to be the attack-dog is Poland.
New York state has enacted a bill to extort fossil fuel companies in the name of climate change. Governor Kathy Hochul believes the bill will generate $75 billion in funds for the state over the next 25 years, which she claims will be used to fight climate change.
Why would any energy company want to operate out of New York? The fines for merely existing are unclear, but the New York Department of Environmental Conservation will begin determining the extent of each company’s greenhouse gas emissions. Worse, they will begin fining companies for the amount they began releasing 24 years ago in 2000. ANY company that the department deems “responsible” for greenhouse gas emissions is subject to a fine.
Vermont was the first state to enact such a law under the Climate Superfund Act. Oil and energy companies are mandated to pay into a climate change fund if they have released over 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases from 1995 – nearly 30 years ago – until now.
“This bill represents a major step forward in ensuring that responsible parties, like Big Oil – companies like ExxonMobil and Shell that have known for decades that their products are disrupting the climate – be required to also pay a fair share of the cleanup costs,” the Vermont Natural Resources Council said after blaming the industry for the catastrophic flooding that occurred earlier in the year.
American Petroleum Institute declared that this tax unjustifiably violated due process of rights. Society at large is dependent on fossil fuels, but these taxes aim to extort profitable companies that have been providing a service to the public. Both Vermont and New York have also failed to explain how they will calculate emissions or the true costs involved.
Imagine if the government told you that you needed to pay additional taxes spanning back decades. This is absolute insanity and yet another brain-dead policy aimed at punishing fossil fuels. Stepping on the neck of a crucial sector is not how to generate state revenue. Anyone cheering that these laws punish Big Oil fails to understand that these fees will simply be passed down to the consumer as residents of New York and Vermont should expect to pay more in energy costs in the near term.
The European Union would prefer to cut off Slovakia and Hungary from accessing energy than to “cave” to Russia. Prime Minister Robert Fico of Slovakia paid a visit to Russian President Vladamir Putin to discuss the matter as tensions between EU nations heat up over the energy scandal.
Hungary and Slovakia are exempt from the EU ban on Russian crude oil. These landlocked neighbors are to receive oil through the Druzhba pipeline, but Ukraine has prevented these nations from receiving shipments. Lukoil may be the main supplier using this line, but Russneft, Tatneft, and Gazprom also utilize this line, leading Ukraine to intervene. Hungary was blocking aid to Ukraine as a result, but Brussels repeatedly told Hungary that it was wrong. Slovakia would like to continue receiving Russian gas through Ukraine, noting that alternative routes would cost over 500 million euros in additional fees. Yet, the EU and Ukraine would prefer to starve these nations of energy than to permit them to use Russian oil.
Russian gas composed 40% of the EU’s supply, down to only 10% as of 2023. Slovakia and Hungary, however, rely more heavily on imported gas from Russia. “Slovakia is part of the single European energy market and Fico must respect common European rules,” Zelensky stated, claiming that Putin gave Fico the orders to “open a second energy front” against Ukraine.
Fico has threatened to cut off emergency power supplies to Ukraine if they blocked their ability to access Russian energy. The current standing transit deal is due to expire, and Zelensky does not care if other nations suffer as a result. Zelensky said he will not renew the contract or work with Moscow in any capacity. Brussels also does not care, which is precisely why the EU is beginning to crack.
Why should Slovakia continue sending endless aid to Ukraine when Zelensky is causing its people to suffer needlessly? Zelensky is not a diplomat but a dictator, as are the unelected officials in Brussels. Fico offered to aid in peace talks, but of course, he logically knows that is not an option. This single issue is causing EU nations to break with Brussels in favor of Moscow, as Putin now appears to be the only reasonable leader with their interests in mind.
QUESTION: Dear Martin,
QUESTION: Regarding CBDC, will they convert all the savings/cash in your bank account, will they convert everything in your brokerage accounts (all stocks etc.) will they go after gold and silver you have in storage (Brinks, for example)?
KS
ANSWER: Everything will be converted to the new CBDC. The money in your bank account is already just an electronic book entry. This is why banks are closing branches everywhere in the USA as well as Europe. They are preparing for CBDCs, which means without physical paper money, bank branches are no longer needed. You can deposit a check on your phone. The only thing left for a branch is safe deposit boxes, and the government assumes you are hiding cash there anyway. So kiss your local branch goodbye. The local bank I used because it was the closest has closed, and it is now a 30-minute ride to the closest one still open.
The monetary system will still function as normal. The exchange will probably be one-for-one. The main purpose of this is to destroy the underground economy to be able to tax everything – even the 16-year-old girl next door you hire to babysit while you go out to dinner and that $100 bill you found in the parking lot that you cheated the government out of their 50% gift tax. We are all looked down upon as scum. They presume we are all guilty and the whole debt crisis is never their fault – it is you – we the people.
This is the natural progression of direct taxation – the complete loss of all liberty. This is why the Founding Fathers prohibited direct taxation. But the socialists seized the government and followed Marx to get the evil rich. It was introduced with the promise that only the rich would have to pay. They lied about that as well, for as soon as the income tax took place, simultaneously in the same bill, there was the payroll tax demanding employers withhold income from their workers.
The federal income tax of 1913 was accompanied by the fact that the law also attempted to withhold the brand-new income tax because the people were never to be trusted. Initial estimates were that the withholding provisions would yield two-thirds of income tax revenue, but in 1916, less than 5% came from withholding. Furthermore, employers’ simple lack of compliance led to a massive groundswell of opposition to the new withholding system.
The people realized that the government lied to get the 16th Amendment passed, and the state politicians voted for it because it allowed them to also allowed them to impose income taxes at the state level. Even cities joined the money grab, imposing city income taxes. Every layer of government now had the right to extort money from the people based on their income, requiring disclosure of their personal lives. You gave your children money, which was circumventing income tax, so they rolled out the gift tax. , which fueled the corruption on a massive scale. The Revenue Act of 1862 included an inheritance tax and gift tax, which applied to transfers of personal assets. In 1864, Congress amended the Revenue Act, added a tax on transfers of real estate, and increased the rates for inheritance taxes. They have always used war to justify raising taxes, but they always remain in place thereafter. The War Revenue Act of 1898 implemented an inheritance tax of .74 % to 15%, which was used to fund the Spanish-American War. This is why the government loves to wage wars.
By 1916, the payroll tax had become so politically unpopular that even Secretary of the Treasury William McAdoo advocated for its removal. In the War Revenue Act of 1917, the withholding rules passed in 1913 were officially repealed and replaced with a softer set of rules for employers — they were now only required to furnish information about wages paid to employees throughout a year, but not actually withhold or pay taxes on those wages.
This entire CBDC movement is about taxes, and they want to eliminate all paper money so they can track absolutely everything, rendering you an economic slave of the state precisely as the LEFT created with Communism. You will not be able to escape this system. This is why I have said that Republics are just tyranny by another label. We have no right to vote on anything. We are supposed to be “represented” by those in the House of Representatives, and the Senate represents the state governments – not the people. We have no right to vote on any issue ranging from taxes to war.
When FDR confiscated the gold, it was from institutions – banks and storage facilities. The Gold Confiscation Act of April 5, 1933, called for holders of significant quantities of gold to sell their gold at the prevailing price of $20.67 per ounce. They did not go from house to house. That is what FDR did. There are Supreme Court cases known as the Gold Clause where they upheld that private contracts with a gold clause could not be enforced.
The only exception was numismatic coins because Teddy Roosevelt (1858-1919) was an ancient coin collector. When Teddy became president on September 14, 1901 – March 4, 1909, he commissioned the artist Augustus Saint-Gaudens (1848 –1907) to redesign the $20 gold coin and made it high-relief as the ancient coins had been struck. The machines could not handle the high relief, and so the coins had to be reduced in their relief. He also ordered redesigning the $10 gold coin and had the American Indian represented. Teddy himself insisted on the headdress.
The statue of Teddy Roosevelt, who ironically was a socialist, had his statue removed from New York under reinterpretation that it was racist because it portrayed an American Indian and a black African. Teddy was certainly not a slave owner. Their representation reflected the two continents being America (the American Indian) and Africa because Roosevelt had taken a year-long expedition to Africa. This is the danger of interpretation that changes with the changing times. Teddy’s $10 Indian was commissioned in this same spirit of respect – not some racist WOKE theory.
This time, they will cancel all your paper currency, and your money in accounts is electronic book entries anyway. That will all be replaced with CBDCs in the bank/brokerage accounts. The only thing to survive will be tangible, real NUMISMATIC coins before 1933. They may outlaw bullion in transactions, and just as they altered all private contracts, nullifying any clause that required payment in gold, we must understand that they can do that even to cryptocurrencies outlawing such transactions.
