dChan
Anonymous ID: 4f1a66 Nov. 22, 2020, 8:28 a.m. No.11738385   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8409 >>8425 >>8432 >>8456 >>8470 >>8481 >>8495 >>8506 >>8538 >>8561 >>8603 >>8607 >>8620 >>8733 >>8745 >>8834 >>9029

Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, and President Trump are unaware of the ongoing proceedings against Barr and Roberts under the Judicial Conduct Act. These proceedings must be the operation of Article II and the Act be resolved by the President himself and only by the President himself.

 

The President made should he would wish to consult the Senate and the House of Representatives, or file articles of impeachment in the Senate against Roberts.

 

There is no room for reasonable doubt that the DRE is a deliberate and malicious fraud and illegal act.

 

The issues in these proceedings are the judicial misconduct of a judge in the Southern District of New York US District Court named Ronnie Abrams In a criminal matter involving Devon archer and Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz, and Jason Sugarman.

 

I am involved in proceedings in the Second Circuit US court of appeals and its judicial Council that must be determined in order to resolve whether Evans political associations influenced her decisions which have been found to be unlawful and vacated.

 

The other matter involves a nationwide federal judicial scheme which I have defined as DRE. my particular fax concern Cuomo and the New York state chief judge and state prosecutor.

 

There is no way President Trump has been told about these proceedings even though he has been personally served and so has the chief of staff and so has his White House Council

 

The facts leave no room for reasonable argument, controversy, dispute, disagreement, and even discussion.

 

I've been in front of Roberts who is one of only two US officials who are responsible for resolving this fraud at the US Judicial Conference.

 

If Roberts fails or refuses to refuse the DRE fraud the entire Conference must consider the DRE and it be must resolve and then come Roberts’s misconduct.

 

What is happening is that Barr is protecting Roberts and bar is protecting Roberts from Trump.

 

The record is absolutely obvious and leaves absolutely no room for doubt. If it does once your story breaks Roberts and Barr will be unable to deny the verified record that exists in the public filings before Ronnie Abrams as well as at V department of justice under their docket numbers and the conference under their docket numbers.

 

therefore there is no way out for either Roberts or Barr. and furthermore, their behavior explains the 50 injunctions against Trump and the citizenship question and their failure to resolve the archer and Sugarman matter and Ronnie's conduct in this matter.

 

these things are directly related to the lawsuit that Sydney is planning to file next week which she announced on Newsmax.

 

Manuel P. Asensio 641 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1533 New York, NY 10022 (212) 702-8801 Cell (917) 515-5200 mpa@asensio.com

Anonymous ID: 4f1a66 Nov. 22, 2020, 8:57 a.m. No.11738662   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>11738620

DRE US Supreme Court Cases

ROBERTS’S DRE FRAUD AND COVER UP

 

Date Case Name Download

1 June 26, 2013 US. v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 186 L. Ed. 2d 808 (2013)

2 June 14, 2004 Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 124 S. Ct. 2301, 159 L. Ed. 2d 98, 188 Ed. Law Rep. 17 (2004)

3 June 15, 1992 Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 119 L. Ed. 2d 468 (1992)

4 March 3, 1952 Sutton v. Leib, 342 U.S. 402, 72 S. Ct. 398, 96 L. Ed. 448 (1952)

5 January 20, 1930 Ohio ex rel. Popovici, State of v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 50 S. Ct. 154, 74 L. Ed. 489 (1930)

6 April 16, 1906 Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562, 26 S. Ct. 525, 50 L. Ed. 867 (1906)

7 April 2, 1906 De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U.S. 303, 26 S. Ct. 485, 50 L. Ed. 765 (1906)

8 April 15, 1901 Lynde v. Lynde, 181 U.S. 183, 21 S. Ct. 555, 45 L. Ed. 810 (1901)

9 November 20, 1899 Simms v. Simms, 175 U.S. 162, 20 S. Ct. 58, 44 L. Ed. 115 (1899)

10 May 19, 1890 Burrus, Ex parte, 136 U.S. 586, 10 S. Ct. 850, 34 L. Ed. 500 (1890)

11 December 1858 Barber v. Barber, 62 U.S. 582, 21 How. 582, 16 L. Ed. 226, 1858 WL 9327 (1858)

 

https://judicialconduct.org/dre-supreme-court-cases/