SCORE 1 FOR US. SCOTUS RULES CITIZENS CAN HOLD FEDS LIABLE FOR ABUSE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

http://libertycrier.com/government/unanimous-supreme-court-rules-that-citizens-can-hold-federal-government-liable-for-abuse-by-law-enforcement-officers/?utm_source=The+Liberty+Crier&utm_campaign=5e9fffc2e9-The_Liberty_Crier_Daily_News_3_30_2013&utm_medium=email

DOMA, CONSTITUTIONALITY, OBAMA, HOLDER AND THE SUPREMES

National News Alert

Majority of justices question constitutionality of Defense of Marriage Act

A majority of the justices on the Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law which withholds federal benefits from legally wed gay couples by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The Obama administration has said that it would not defend the law, and lower courts have ruled it unconstitutional. At the same time, however, the administration has said it will continue to enforce the law until the Supreme Court rules.

During Wednesday's oral arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia remarked on that contradiction, saying it was a "new world" when the attorney general could decide a law is unconstitutional but still enforce it. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, considered a potential swing vote in the case, called that a “questionable practice.”

Read more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-the-second-day-supreme-court-considers-doma/2013/03/26/331bb5ae-966e-11e2-9e23-09dce87f75a1_story.html

KAGAN SPLITS WITH GINSBURG AND SOTOMAYOR ON IMMIGRATION AND HABEAS CORPUS

http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/kagan-splits-with-ginsburg-and-sotomayor-on-immigration-and-habeas-corpus/

DRONES: SHOULD JUDGES BE THE DECIDING FACTOR?

http://patriotaction.net/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A6104184&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

Judges?  Are you kidding?  They're as corrupt as any other politician.  Read the comments at the bottom of this link and consider leaving one.

If there's going to be a drone outside my window - hell's bell's...I want one, too.  I believe I heard yesterday that Obama wants more drone sites in the USA.  We'll just have to confirm that later.  But if it's so, I strongly
urge you to pressure your Congresscretins so they will stand up to him.

TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE

http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/two-supreme-court-decisions-the-anti-gunners-dont-want-you-to-see/

QUESTION FOR ROMNEY AND OBAMA ON THE SUPREME COURT AND FEDERAL JUDGES AND ACCOUNTABILITY - GREAT READING!

A Question for President Obama and Governor Romney

and several for principled and ambitious journalists covering them

on whether the candidates would

dare hold the Supreme Court justices and federal judges accountable[ⁱ]

or continue to allow them to engage in wrongdoing to avoid antagonizing them because,

just as the justices upheld, but could have overturned, ObamaCare,

they and their peers[ⁱⁱ] can doom

a president’s legislative agenda and even his signature law[ⁱⁱⁱ].

by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Judicial Discipline Reform

See * >^{[footnote #]}, (#), and (#§#) references as hyperlinks at

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf

Did the President disregard Then-Judge Sotomayor’s concealment of assets, suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico^{* >[102a]}, and nominated her to the Supreme Court –the same way he had disregarded the tax evasion of known tax cheats Tim Geithner [now Treasury Secretary], Tom Daschle, and Nancy Killefer and nominated them to cabinet posts [the latter two had to withdraw their names in the face of public outrage][¹⁰³]– so as to curry favor with the voters who wanted another woman and the first Latina on the Court and from whom he expected in exchange that they lobby Congress to pass ObamaCare?

Can Gov. Romney[^iv], inspired by the founding principle of government, not of men, but of laws Nobody Is Above The Law; and journalists motivated by their watchdog mission on the public’s behalf and the prospect of winning a Pulitzer Prize and national recognition, make the initial presentation(xxv) of this issue and thereby launch a Watergate-like, generalized media investigation guided by a query that proved its devastating effect when it caused President Nixon to resign on 9Aug74, and which can be rephrased thus:

What did the President(77§5), the justices, and judges[¹⁹⁶] know [23^b]

about J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets(65§1)

and consequent tax evasion[^102c] and

when(75§d) did they know it?

Can journalists searching for J. Sotomayor’s concealed assets bring about her

resignation[^v] for having failed to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”[^118a],

just as Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas had to resign on 14May69,

on the same grounds?(92§d)

How will the President respond to the demand that he release

the secret FBI vetting report on J. Sotomayor?

Did The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico[^102a]

simultaneously and without explanation kill

in a quid pro quod with President Obama

their stories suspecting Then-Judge Sotomayor of concealment of assets?(xxxiii)

Can the issue of judges’ wrongdoing tolerated for political gain[^vi]

so outrage the national public, already lied to about the integrity of J. Sotomayor,

as to widen the gap between the candidates

in a way that the spent issue of the economy has failed to?

Can journalists and superPACs investigating

judges’ unaccountability and riskless wrongdoing

lead to the most substantial and enduring legacy of the next president:

to tilt the Federal Judiciary to his side with enough replacement justices and judges; and

set in motion a profound judicial accountability and discipline reform

to ensure that judges apply to themselves and We the People

Equal Justice Under Law?

You are kindly encouraged to redistribute this email as widely as you can.

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com

Brooklyn, NY

tel. (718)827-9521

follow @DrCorderoEsq

Endnotes

See * >^{[footnote #]}, (#), and (#§#) references as hyperlinks at

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf

____________________________

i     In the 223 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8! * >14 To put this in perspective, 2,131 federal judges were on the bench as of 30sep11.13 So they can and do engage in wrongdoing risklessly, unless the politicians15 in “Washington[, which] is dominated by the culture of corruption (Former Speaker Pelosi16)” confer incorruptibility upon nominating and confirming judicial candidates. Judges’ wrongdoing is rendered irresistible by the most insidious corruptor: money! In CY10, bankruptcy judges, who handle 80% of all new federal cases annually32, ruled on $373 billion31 in consumer bankruptcies alone. How much more pervasively corrupt would politicians -your boss too?- be if they held their jobs for life with impunity and ruled on $100s of bl.29?(xxxvii)

ii    Chief federal circuit judges dismissed systematically 99.82% of the complaints against their peers filed[18]a, by anybody in the 1oct96-30sep08 12-year period[19a-c]. In that period, the federal judicial councils –the circuits’ all-judge disciplinary bodies– denied up to 100% of the petitions to review those dismissals(10; 24§b), as did the 2nd Circuit’s council(11), of which Then-Judge Sotomayor was a member[20]. Thereby she too exempted her peers from all accountability regardless of the nature and gravity of their wrongdoing. Now as Justice Sotomayor, she, like other justices(71§4), and judges[196], has to prevent any investigation of federal judges, lest the wrongdoing that she tolerated or her own concealment of assets be discovered and she end up incriminated. Can you trust justices and judges who in their personal and class interest break the law to apply it impartially when they rule on your property, liberty, and life?

iii  Up to 9 of every 10 appeals to the federal circuit courts are disposed of ad-hoc[28] through no-reason summary orders[65a] or opinions so “perfunctory”[66] that they are neither published nor precedential[68], mere fiats of raw judicial power that enable arbitrariness. You can spend $10,000s on an appeal to a circuit court only for it to dispose of the appeal with a 5¢ form whose only operative word is “Affirmed”, as did Then-Judge Sotomayor[67] in Ricci v. DeStefano[66].

iv   Governor Romney has criticized Justice Sotomayor for being liberal; the other Republican presidential candidates as well as President Obama criticized the justices and judges for being activist..

a) Republicans Turn Judicial Power Into a Campaign Issue; by Adam Liptak and Michael D. Shear, The New York Times, 23oct11; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/docs/Rep_candidates_fed_judges_12.pdf;  

b) Dems Hit Romney for Going After Sotomayor in Ads; TPM (5mar12); Hispanic leaders condemn Romney for criticizing Sotomayor in ad; by Griselda Nevarez. VOXXI (29feb12); National Institute for Latino Policy; 5mar12; id;

c) CBS "Face the Nation" Host Bob Schieffer interviews Speaker Newt Gingrich on “activist judges”; 18dec11; id.

v   This Watergate-like(2¶¶4-8) generalized media search can make a stream of revelations of improprieties(101§1) –like superPAC negative ads at no cost to Gov. Romney– that chip away at the denials of J. Sotomayor, the President, and their peers and aides, discourage his donors and volunteers, tie up his resources in their defense, mar their PR image, and lead to resignations. More people would be outraged(83§§2,3) at dishonest judges affecting their property, liberty, and lives[5,6] than Latinos, a constituency lost to Romney, would be angry at him. Their outrage can be channeled through a business venture(125§3) toward reform(131§e-h).

vi   Senators Schumer and Gillibrand(78§6) recommended J. Sotomayor to the President. Sen. Schumer, his point man to shepherd her nomination through the Senate, disregarded the evidence submitted to him[154e] showing her concealment of assets of hers and others(66§§2,3), and her perjurious(69§b) withholding from the Senate Judiciary Committee a case over which she had presided, DeLano[104,106], that incriminated her[127] in covering up a bankruptcy fraud scheme[59] run by a bankruptcy judge[119] that she and her CA2 peers[105] had appointed[60a]. Sen. Gillibrand introduced Judge Sotomayor to the Judiciary Committee and endorsed her to New Yorkers and the rest of the country[161] by lying about the Judges' dishonesty[169] (104§2).

Tweet:   Who had #NYTimes #WPost and #Politico kill their stories of concealment of assets

by Obama’s #Judge #Sotomayor? http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/1/5.pdf

 

OBAMACARE ON FAST TRACK BACK TO SUPREME COURT

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamacare-on-fast-track-back-to-supreme-court/

OBAMA'S FORMER LAW STUDENT AND LATER CLERK FOR JUDGE SMITH TALKS ABOUT OBAMA'S SCOTUS REMARKS

http://noisyroom.net/blog/2012/04/07/former-law-student-of-prof-obama-and-later-clerk-for-judge-smith-talks-about-obamas-supreme-court-remarks/

EVEN HANNITY THINKS THERE'S A MOLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE LEAKING INFO TO OBAMA?

http://conservativebyte.com/2012/04/hannity-hints-he-has-inside-information-on-media-matters-from-wh-source/

WHO TIPPED HIM OFF? WHO'S THE MOLE? ONE OF THE THREE WITCHES OF WASHINGTON?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-warns-unelected-supremes-overturning-my-law-would-be-judicial-activism/


How dare that pencil-necked geek threaten our Supreme Court! Let's hope their collective ego will
serve our people well and end Obamacare and all its clones forever!

WHY DID THE SCOTUS RULE FOR STRIP SEARCHES? CAN WE EXPECT THEM TO HAND DOWN A CONSTITUTIONAL CONDEMNATION OF OBAMACARE?

The justification for this? Terrorism...(no joke, go to the end)

So if you get caught by da man expect a strip search by Bruno, even if it was for jaywalking...

That is , unless you steal billions...then you get a government bailout...only the little people need worry...

And so many people want these folks to run our healthcare.

Regards

Pete

(Pete is with the Libertarian Party in Florida) and I agree with him entirely about these people - the Supreme Court - deciding our future healthcare. Be afraid and then get really angry.

Supreme Court Upholds Invasive Strip Searches

by The Associated Press

text size AAA

April 2, 2012

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that jailers may subject people arrested for minor offenses to invasive strip searches, siding with security needs over privacy rights.

By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled against a New Jersey man who complained that strip searches in two county jails violated his civil rights.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion for the court's conservative justices that when people are going to be put into the general jail population, "courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security."

In a dissenting opinion joined by the court's liberals, Justice Stephen Breyer said strip searches improperly "subject those arrested for minor offenses to serious invasions of their personal privacy." Breyer said jailers ought to have a reasonable suspicion someone may be hiding something before conducting a strip search.

Albert Florence was forced to undress and submit to strip searches following his arrest on a warrant for an unpaid fine, though the fine actually had been paid. Even if the warrant had been valid, failure to pay a fine is not a crime in New Jersey.

But Kennedy focused on the fact that Florence was held with other inmates in the general population. In concurring opinions, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said the decision left open the possibility of an exception to the rule and might not apply to someone held apart from other inmates.

The first strip search of Florence took place in the Burlington County Jail in southern New Jersey. Six days later, Florence had not received a hearing and remained in custody. Transferred to another county jail in Newark, he was strip-searched again.

The next day, a judge dismissed all charges. Florence's lawsuit soon followed.

He may still pursue other claims, including that he never should have been arrested.

Florence's problems arose in March 2005, as he was heading to dinner at his mother-in-law's house with his pregnant wife and 4-year-old child. His wife, April, was driving when a state trooper stopped the family SUV on a New Jersey highway.

Florence identified himself as the vehicle's owner and the trooper, checking records, found an outstanding warrant for an unpaid fine. Florence, who is African-American, had been stopped several times before, and he carried a letter to the effect that the fine, for fleeing a traffic stop several years earlier, had been paid.

His protest was in vain, however, and the trooper handcuffed him and hauled him off to jail. At the time, the State Police were operating under a court order, spawned by allegations of past racial discrimination, that provided federal monitors to assess state police stops of minority drivers. But the propriety of the stop is not at issue, and Florence is not alleging racial discrimination.

Kennedy gave three reasons to justify routine searches — detecting lice and contagious infections, looking for tattoos and other evidence of gang membership and preventing smuggling of drugs and weapons.

Kennedy also said people arrested for minor offenses can turn out to be "the most devious and dangerous criminals." Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh initially was stopped by a state trooper who noticed McVeigh was driving without a license plate, Kennedy said.

In his dissent, Breyer said inmates in the two New Jersey jails already have to submit to pat-down searches, pass through metal detectors, shower with delousing agents and have their clothing searched.

Many jails, several states and associations of corrections officials say strip searches should only be done when there is reasonable suspicion, which could include arrest on drug charges or for violent crimes, Breyer said.

In 1979, the Supreme Court upheld a blanket policy of conducting body cavity searches of prisoners who had had contact with visitors on the basis that the interaction with outsiders created the possibility that some prisoners got hold of something they shouldn't have.

For the next 30 or so years, appeals courts applying the high court ruling held uniformly that strip searches without suspicion violated the Constitution.

But since 2008 — and in the first appellate rulings on the issue since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — appeals courts in Atlanta, Philadelphia and San Francisco decided that authorities' need to maintain security justified a wide-ranging search policy, no matter the reason for someone's detention.

The high court upheld the ruling from the Philadelphia court, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case is Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 10-945.

WILL OBAMA DEFY SUPREME COURT IF OBAMACARE IS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

http://patriotupdate.com/20663/will-obama-defy-supreme-court-if-obamacare-is-ruled-unconstitutional

What do you think? I think so. That'll end constitutional government in the USA and he will accomplished his goal.

Then there will be chaos.

That's how I feel, anyway. I would love to hear your comments.

Please.

We're getting down the the end time of our country...the light, the beacon that beckoned is all but snuffed out.

NOT A GREAT DAY FOR OBAMACARE - THERE'S A POLL TO TAKE ON ONE OF THESE LINKS

http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/Obama-Policies/Should-Congress-Repeal--Obama-s-Health-Plan-and-Ot/id/13/kw/default.aspx?PROMO_CODE=E88C-1

http://www.newsmax.com/US/obamacare-scotus-train-wreck/2012/03/27/id/434015?s=al&promo_code=E891-1

Hell, if my mind drifted to "Fish Heads", I'll sign anything to kill that bill.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-signal-possible-trouble-ahead-for-health-insurance-mandate-20120327,0,423592.story

OBAMACARE'S ACHILLES HEEL

http://freebeacon.com/obamacares-achilles-heel/

I won't be surprised if the SCOTUS passes this monster. Will you? Not with Kagan who should be removed by Congress for not recusing herself. The three witches are standing at the bubbling cauldron right now with their paddles, stirring the brew....

Toil, trouble, sorrow, hardship and death panels are the curses they chant.

OBAMA'S FIRST LOSE/LOSE OBAMACARE-RELATED ARGUMENT TODAY

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2012/03/26/obamas-first-lose-lose-obamacare-related-argument-today/

Kagan should have recused herself. Not a peep from the RINOS in each house. The bossman loaded the deck, that SOB.

RON PAUL SUSPECTS SUPREME COURT WILL RULE MONSTROSITY OBAMACARE CONSTITUTIONAL

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-suspects-supreme-court-will-rule-monstrosity-obamacare-constitutional.html

I think so, too. That's why I'm voting for Ron Paul, or writing him in. He's the only one who will repeal this bill.

SCOTUS BEGINS HEARINGS ON MUCH HATED OBAMACARE

http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/today-begins-the-hearing-before-the-supreme-court-on-president-obamas-widely-hated-health-care-law/

They will hear the case 2 hours a day for three days.

That's what I've heard.

If that's true, we need to lock the doors on the courtroom until they shoot the whole thing down.

What are we paying the "Supremes"?

Nowhere in our history has the government forced the people to pay for a government program.

That's a no-brainer anti-Constitutional issue to me. Prima facie?

What do the Republican candidates think of Obamacare? We know what Romney thinks. Ron Paul wants to repeal it. What about Santorum and Gingrich. Tell me.

SUPREMES BACK LANDOWNERS IN EPA FIGHT

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/supremes-back-landowners-in-epa-fight/

ROMNEY: OBAMACARE WILL BE STRUCK DOWN BY SCOTUS - BUT DON'T COUNT ON IT...DID YOU HEAR ABOUT OBAMA'S PRAYER VIGIL AT THE SUPREME COURT FOR OBAMACARE?

http://visiontoamerica.org/5632/romney-obamacare-will-be-struck-down-by-supreme-court/?utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20VisionToAmerica%20%28Vision%20to%20America%29&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner

OBAMACARE CAN BE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE SCOTUS AND STILL BE OVERTURNED

http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/obamacare-can-be-ruled-constitutional-by-the-u-s-supreme-court-and-still-be-overturned/

I'm not so sure. Kagan's in his pocket, so is Sotomayor and then there's the walking cadaver, Ginsburg.