"THE OVERTHROW OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC", Part 35

"THE OVERTHROW OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC",
Part 35
by Sherman H. Skolnick 6/26/03

High Court and High Crimes
In even the largest reference libraries, there are almost no books stating the true history of America's highest tribunal, the U.S. Supreme Court. The same is true of law libraries and those of law schools.
Early in the 19th Century, for upwards of 35 years, the Chief Justice of the high court was John Marshall. Portraits of him, in gold edged frames, hang in many law schools. In Chicago, a law school is named after him.
>From the beginning of this nation, one of the greatest crimes against the inhabitants here, was the huge land swindles. With the formation of the United States of America, formed from the 13 colonies, only the State Courts, not the Federal Courts, were equipped and inclined to combat terrible offenses committed by the plutocrats of that era.
Chief Justice Marshall, issuing a ruling of his court with flowery language, in so many words, arrogantly proclaimed that the federals are the dominant force and that the State Judges, are, in effect, mere vassals, handcuffed, powerless peons. Law stude nts, starry eyed from consuming perfumed windbags of idealistic law, are forever mouthing off that supposedly "wonderful" decision, Marbury versus Madison.
The Chief Justice's own brother was one of the great land swindlers whose case ended up in the high court. The Chief Justice did NOT disqualify himself. Guess who won in his crooked Court? Nowadays, as we have dared point out, the banker-judges sitting in high tribunals, likewise do not disqualify themselves when their own financial interests are the subject matter before their Court.
So, state court remedies against big land pirates, were snuffed out by the Chief Justice and his well-disguised pronouncements.
As set forth in this website series, since the War of 1812, when the British invaded this nation and burned down the Capitol, the British have repeatedly vowed to overthrow the American Republic, reverting this land to British rule, with Americans becom ing mere subjects of a London Monarchy, rather than citizens and residents of a duly formed Republic operating here.
For the benefit of British rulers, three U.S. Presidents were assassinated, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, and William McKinley, all of whom opposed British interference with the American industrial development. In its true significance, the America n Civil War, also known as the War Between the States, was in great part, instigated by the British. They added to the natural and historical friction between the industrial North, and the agricultural, non-industrial, slave-owning South. British ships ran the Northern blockade to supply the Confederacy with weapons made in England.
In preparation for civil war, the pro-British Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Roger Taney, a devout Catholic (not really a contradiction), in 1856 added to the North-South agitation. He ruled in the Dred Scott case, that black slaves in America were mere chattel, mere baggage, that could be moved from place to place without any restraints of law. And get this, by the 21st Century, the Dred Scott decision has not been excised from the law books. [As to the concealed Catholic issue in American history, see the heavily documented opus, "The Rulers of Evil" by F. Tupper Saussy.]
In Persian Gulf War One, 1990-91, Daddy Bush, as President, sent great numbers of black GIs to fight for the backward Monarchies of Saudi and Kuwait. Yet, that late in the 20th Century, those two dictatorships had large numbers of black chattel slaves.
I was about the only one to raise the issue at the time that it was unconstitutional for an American ruler to send black soldiers to fight for the benefit and protection of black slave owners. [Visit part 30, of this website series.]
Published early in the 20th Century was a heavily-documented book, dealing with the U.S. Supreme Court as well as the legal history of America, "Supreme Court", by Gustavus Myers. The book is so much as banned, not to be usually found in even the larges t law libraries.
As to the post-Civil War era, see the book entitled simply "1876" by Gore Vidal. Published in 1976, it deals with how the 1876 Presidential election was stolen by corruption of Congress and the high court. Was it a mere concidence that the book was re-i ssued in paperback in the Spring of the year 2000, ahead of the presidential election? A key part of the theft of the presidency revolved in 1876---get this---on election ballot finagling in Florida. Samuel Tilden was the duly elected President but was blocked, apparently by federal troops, from approaching the Inauguation stands in 1877. In that year, like occurred in 2001 with George W. Bush, Rutherford Hayes became the "fictitious" president. Gore, like Tilden, was the duly elected President BUT NO T INAUGURATED. A result was many called him Rutherfraud. We see fit to call the present occupant, Bushfraud. Rutherford Hayes and his gang made corrupt deals, including with the U.S. Supreme Court. The result, a group of cases with the ominous title called "The Slaughter House" cases. In 1883, the high court arbitrarily nullified the federal civil rights laws of 1871, which had granted to blacks and others the right to bring their demand for remedies of injustice into the federal courts such as against nightriders of the Ku Klux Klan. The poisonous and corrupt high court ruling of 1883 was not corrected unti l almost 80 years later in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Monroe versus Pape, granting blacks the right to be in federal court Chicago to sue corrupt Chicago police who had a system of beating blacks until they admitted to something, in the meantime, arbitrarily shooting blacks in Chicago without established reasons or provocation, such as while the blacks were in their own apartment asleep.
In 1970, was formed a subcommittee to consider the possible impeachment of U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, for his links, while on the bench, in business with known gangsters, the Albert Parvin Foundation matter. Part of the subcommittee came to Chicago and met in my residence to hear and write down my testimony. The details about me, Chief Judge Campbell and high court Judge Douglas, became part of a U.S. government printed report. Most of the subcommittee agreed with me. The two judge s involved, however, hired lobbyists with suitcases of money who apparently leaned on the subcommittee and Justice William O. Douglas was not made subject to impeachment.
At a later date, I and my colleagues dug up data showing that Chief Judge Campbell was secretly the owner of several tall downtown Chicago buildings, all in the maiden name of his wife. Campbell used his judicial clout to compel several federal agencies to lease space in his skyscrapers, despite the fact that it was not appropriate to their work and was way overcharged per square foot. Judge Campbell moreover got into a ruckus with some of his former business partners who sued Campbell's cronies. My t estimony succeeded in wrecking the Chief Judge's extortion attempt against his former business partners.
In the 1930s, to the great injury and damage to ordinary Americans, the U.S. Supreme Court, packed with banker-judges, arbitrarily ruled in the gold clause cases that ordinary Americans cannot insist on gold to support contracts and other dealings. In19 37, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the greatest counter-revolutionary in modern history, tried to get an arm-lock on the banker-judges by his own "court-packing" scheme, to fill up the court with more judges than previously by law provided for. The FD R trick failed, and the banker-judges succeeded in smashing down laws of Congress designed to alleviate the suffering of workers in the Great Depression.
In 1967, I brought as a Chicago voter, on behalf of myself and all other Chicago voters similarly situated, a class action federal suit (Skolnick versus Mayor & City Council of Chicago, U.S. District Court, Chicago.) I sought to remedy the situation whe rein Chicago's 50 election districts for City Council, called Wards, were grossly gerrymandered. That did not comply with the re-apportionment provisions of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, requiring districts, wards, of equal populati on. Further, the ward boundary lines were so abitrarily drawn, that it prevented blacks and latinos from having proper representatives in the city government tribunal. The case was assigned to Chief District Judge William Campbell; despite me being self -educated in law, he ordered a lawyer to speak for me. I told the lawyer, who I did not authorize to speak for me, that if he did claim to speak for me, that I would sue him for malpractice in another court. In a stand-off, the Ch! ief Judge relented, and I was allowed to speak for myself as well as the class of Chicago voters. I proceeded with my suit under the "one man, one vote" doctrine. [Eventually, my litigation succeeded in getting more complete representation in the City Council fo r latinos and blacks.]
I filed a motion to remove Chief Judge Campbell from the case. As i showed, without challenge or dispute, the Chief Judge, while on the bench, was also the director of a gangster-operated money laundry, called the Albert Parvin Foundation, named for a C hicago hoodlum who moved to Nevada. Get this while on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court, the President of the Albert Parvin Foundation was U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, a supposed liberal who in his spare time was a mountain-climber.
My city council case generated lots of mentions in the monopoly press, such as for 40 seconds or so on the radio or tv. So I came one day to the courtroom of Chief Judge Campbell to present my motion to remove him from the case. I asked that he disquali fy himself in that I and the Chicago voters could not be assured of a fair hearing and adjudication at his hands, he being in business with known gangsters, and thus subject to blackmail and corrupt manipulation.
Having heard of the expected hearing, eighteen reporters showed up, sitting right behind me as I silently waited my turn to present my motion to the Chief Judge. Without provocation, suddenly two of the Chief Judge's court bailiffs grabbed hold of my wh eelchair and began to turn me upside down. All of the reporters were witnesses to this outrage. None of their reports or comments appeared in print, on the radio, or on the tv. Chief Judge Campbell released a statement, that he heard from certain unspecified sources, that I was there, not to present any court papers, but rather to shoot him. He offered no details from my long public career to support such ridiculous contention s that I was anti-social and would use violence.
I brought a damage suit against his two court bailiffs, contending that I was the son of orthodox Jews and that I obeyed my parents orders never to handle or carry weapons. (Skolnick versus Guadno, et al., Chicago U.S. District Court.) My case ended up before the banker-judges in Chicago's federal appeals court. They ruled, in a law book published decision, that I was not entitled to any remedy. There was no dispute or challenge to the facts that I was there to seek to remove Chief Judge Campbell beca use of his undisputed position, while a judge, as a Director of a hoodlum Foundation. The judges ruled that despite the fact that I am a defenseless cripple silently sitting in a wheelchair in the courtroom, that the bailiffs were immune from being sued despite the undisputed facts that they perpetrated, in full view of 18 witnesses, an assault and battery upon me, without cause or provocation.
In 1971, I had won a successful verdict against the U.S. government spying on anti-war activists, like myself, while they pretended to be a news media service. (Skolnick versus 113th Military Intelligence Group, pretending to be Midwest Audio-Visual New s, Chicago U.S. District Court.) In 1971, William Rehnquist was the top U.S. Justice Department official heading a secret unit, arranging through ulterior means to block verdicts in federal court against spying by the U.S. Military against anti-war acti vists.A few years later, when being ratified as a new Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, Rehnquist sought to conceal this role from the U.S. Senate ratifying committee.
Later, Justice Rehnquist was the key judge on the high court in a ruling favoring Military Intelligence Units sued for illegal spying on anti-war activists. He did not disqualify himself and his rotten ruling destroyed the validity of my court verdict a gainst U.S. government spying.In plain lingo, Justice Rehnquist had committed a fraud upon his own court.
In 1986, he was appointed Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, requiring him to be again before a U.S. Senate ratifying committee. He sought to conceal his role, before becoming a federal official, that he was a lawyer in the Southwest. Witnesses we re available to prove that there were a line of blacks and latinos, waiting to register to vote. Rehnquist assaulted and harassed them, stating in so many words, "Hey, get out of here. You have no right to vote!"
In his book, "The Myth of Democracy", Ferdinand Lundberg set forth the true basis for the supposed de-segregation decision of the high court in 1954, Brown vs. Board of Education. Namely, that at the time in Africa, British and French colonies were breaking away from the mother country to become independent nations run by blacks.
American foreign policy in Africa was being ridiculed and discredited by actions within the U.S. by hundreds of years of mistreatment of blacks in America. Such as the continuing lynching of blacks, by hanging them from trees, while whites nearby were amused as they sat watching and eating their picnic lunch. Lundberg in his classic book of 1968, "The Rich and the Super-Rich", pointed out that the very wealthy are some of the most stupid persons in the world and continue to abuse and beat down common people until one day, there is a revolution where the heads of the rulers and top clergy are chopped off.
According to witnesses, just as the results of the year 2000 Presidential Election were coming in, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, were heard each separately commenting that if Albert Gore, Jr., were to become President, that they could not carry out their plan, based on their advanced age and suffering from illinesses, to retire from the high court.
Justice Clarence Thomas' wife was a key figure in a group operating with GOP money to promote Bush. Justice Antonin Scalia's son was the lawyer participating with presenting the litigation to the high court, Bush versus Gore. These plus one other, made up the Military-Style Junta, called by some "The Gang of Five" that installed George W. Bush as the occupant and resident of the White House. Recall the details of comparisons between the 1876 corrupt installation of Hayes as the occupant and resident o f the White House and that of George W. Bush. Both, revolved in part on corruption of Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, and finagling with the election authorities in Florida. [For more details, visit our website stories about the 2000 President Electio n.]
To meet a deadline in December, 2000, the high court released their arbitrary ruling just before midnight. Justice Scalia scornfully announced that Americans did NOT have the right to vote for President, only the very limited right to vote for Electors, that antiquated appendage called the Electoral College (that became the basis for the corruption in Florida, and the bribery of top DEMOCRATS in southern Florida to stop the recount of the Gore ballots).
Acknowledging the arbitrary nature of the Bush vs Gore ruling, the Gang of Five put in their decision that it was NOT to be used as a precedent in any other election case or similar controversy. Thus, they admitted it was tainted, and should not be use d, as is otherwise customary, in some other litigation as a prior binding precedent decision.
Justice Antonin Scalia and two Chicago federal appeals judges, were together law professors at Rockefeller's University of Chicago Law School. [That is 7th Circuit appeals judges Richard A. Posner (312) 435-5806 and his shadow and side-kick, Frank H. Ea sterbrook (312) 435-5808 ]. A third Judge on the 7th Circuit federal appeals court is Judge Diane P. Wood (312) 435-5521. She was Dean of the Law School. Together these four judges, while on the bench, also represent the multi-billion dollar stock and b ond portfolio of Rockefeller's University of Chicago.
These four judges are required to file an annual mandatory federal judicial financial disclosure form. They did NOT disclose their financial links, as required, to the Rockefellers.. Further, these forms require their signatures making them liable to fe deral criminal prosecution for perjury if they falsified or omitted any required details.And they did so omit and falsify.
So three federal appeals judges, one step below the high court, and their crony on the high court, have committed a fraud upon their own court. Also, they have committed a fraud upon the American common people and committed blatant injustices against th em. How many ordinary litigants were rejected by these judges in fronting for the Rockefellers and depriving Americans of Equal Justice under Law? These judges have failed to disqualify themselves in numerous cas es involving the financial ownership and interests of the Rockefellers.
So, Americans are being plundered by the scoundrels over the years occupying the U.S. Supreme Court. In violation of the social compact underlying our organic law, namely the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we are NOT governed by rulers with o ur consent. The high court judges are not for the common people, but represent the interests and mandates of The Establishment, "the powers that be", the Ruling Class, in others words THEM. The failure to prosecute such Judges for high crimes or to remove them from office by impeachment trial, convinces some commentators that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a dead letter.

More coming....Stay tuned..

http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ootar35.html