SCOTUS

SCOTUS

Judges and justices in every court in America serve as “public servants” under the Public Trust, subject to the basic obligations thereof. By definition, a breach of trust is a ‘conflict of interest crime’ within 5 CFR 2635.101. There is No Discretion to find otherwise. 

Justices and judges have a fiduciary responsibility to interpret and to uphold the Law.  Our Nation was created under Laws described in the Declaration of Independence and codified as a Contract between the People and the government they established under the U.S. Constitution.

Is SCOTUS corrupt?
The answer can be found within a review of SCOTUS decisions past, and present. On June 20, 2016, SCOTUS rendered three decisions. One decision; Whole Woman’s Health et al v. Hellerstedt (Texas), determined that imposition of professional restrictions on birth abortion institutions, such as Planned Parenthood, is an infringement on the ‘privacy rights’ of a woman against the woman’s right to choose an abortion or to go full-term with her pregnancy.

The Court Decided that an Abortion is Protected under the Constitutional Right to Privacy. This decision appears to a layman to contradict and therefore overturn the 1973 landmark case Roe v. Wade, where that Supreme Court created a ‘core constitutional principle of privacy and liberty’ to a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy. Did SCOTUS abuse its authority when it “created” a NEW “constitutional right”? 

Let it be herewith officially noted, the “core constitutional principle of privacy and liberty” is not, I repeat, Is Not propagated in the United States Constitution to preserve or protect a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy; neither is a person’s (man or woman) right to privacy even mentioned, alluded to, or published in the Constitution, in any of the Amendments to the Constitution, or within the contents of the Declaration of Independence, which is codified by the US Constitution. 

There is No “Constitutional” principle ( or Right ) of privacy as a matter of constitutional or statutory law.  If so,  Does SCOTUS have Authority to “create” new RIGHTS?
The Roe v. Wade decision by SCOTUS appears, to reasonable minds, to be a legal fiction drawn from thin air, rather than the four corners of the instrument. For “Whole Woman’s Health …”, a different SCOTUS decided to rely on a false “right to privacy” doctrine, in order to support the efficacy of it’s desired conclusion. If so determined, the Roe v. Wade Decision is void ab initio.

Separation of Powers
The Constitution establishes a government of three (3) equal branches, and alleges a system of checks and balances to keep each branch from abusing its authority. When a POTUS oversteps his authority, both Congress and SCOTUS have a fiduciary responsibility to We the People to act in a manner that “reins in” the overreaching POTUS. Similarly, all three branches are responsible to act to prevent abuse of authority by another branch without abusing their own authority.

In 2017, Neil Gorsuch, a “nominee” to SCOTUS of Donald J. Trump, POTUS, remarked that any judge who is happy with every one of his decisions is ‘probably’ a bad judge!   Gorsuch noted that judges should follow the Law (Constitution), and not digress to find a convenient (or inconvenient) explanation in an effort to reconcile their decision. 

Ironically, within days, a  federal judge in the 9th Circuit, rendered a decision to invalidate an Executive Order (EO) by President Trump that suspends immigration to the United States from seven (7) specifically named countries. The court’s decision appears, on its face, to be in direct conflict with existing Law and the explicit authority of the POTUS to keep the Nation secure from international threats to the security of our borders.    To wit: 

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952:
“Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrant’s or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
See also  8 U.S.C. 1182 — Inadmissible Aliens

This decision of the 9th Circuit deviates from the Court’s fiduciary responsibility to We the People to interpret the cases before that court in conformance with the precise language as contained within the four corners of the Constitution or statutory Law.  

The POTUS has exclusive authority to take any action deemed necessary to keep our borders secure. Th 9th Circuit appears to usurp the authority of the POTUS in violation of the Oaths of Office of the judges, a departure from their fiduciary duty to produce and to provide “honest services”  (5 CFR 2635.101) in the performance of their duty and therefore a “Breach of Trust” that provides “an advantage for one party over the other” which satisfies the necessary criteria for “conflict of interest crimes” and charges of “Corruption”, supra. In the instant case, this decision gives “aid and comfort” to our enemies; an act of TREASON. 

Is SCOTUS corrupt? 

 

 More to Come! a WIP (Work in Progress)