https://rense.com/general3/coca2.htm
Coca-Cola, The CIA, And The Courts
rense.com/general3/coca2.htm
Coca-Cola's reputed spies and the corrupt Federal Witness Protection Program
First, a short lesson in court corruption.
How do a series of secretly related court cases get onto the docket of one Judge? As a case is in the process of being filed in the federal district court clerk's office, the case, under the rules, is supposed to be assigned by random selection, "blindman's buff" they used to call it. But, after studying and investigating court corruption for over 40 years, I know the term to be used is RANDOM MAGIC.
One of the first things we probe when we are on the trail of a tainted or suspicious case is: How did THIS particular case get on THAT judge's docket? We know from long experience, corruption starts with the assignment of cases. Another tell-tale sign is when THAT judge uses JUDICIAL PERJURY to "fix" the case in favor of a certain litigant. A judge under a malign if not corrupt influence inserts false so-called "facts" plucked out of the sky and not in the court evidence to justify their decision. In simplistic terms, the undisputed court evidence shows it is DAY. Operating under a corrupt influence, the judge proclaims it is NIGHT, and applies case law regarding NIGHT to support her decision. Judges operate by case law, that is, by prior landmark rulings or statutes which cannot obviously be changed or sidestepped that easily. So the corrupted judge changes the "facts" and applies case law to fraudulent facts. That in essence is judicial perjury. Not every case is the subject of malign influence. But, often the important ones are. Over the years, when we suspected a judge was corrupt, we examined their rulings to see if there are judicial perjuries. An honest judge, mis-stating the undisputed facts, would quickly correct wrong statements. A crooked judge, even when confronted (cowardly lawyers are chicken), refuses.
Of the more than two dozen judges sitting in Chicago's U.S. District Court, one judge, by some witchcraft, has assigned to her a string of cases with apparent concealed links. That is Judge Blanche M. Manning [(312)435-7608]. Among these, she has assigned to her, by apparent RANDOM MAGIC, the case of Robert E. Kolody vs. Simon Marketing and The Coca-Cola Company, No. 97 C 190. For a number of years Kolody planned to sue Coke for stealing his intellectual property, designs he made for them. Kolody's confidant, who befriended him over the years and insinuated himself into the matter for some 10 years has been a local lawyer who was always sympathetic to Kolody's grievances against Coca-Cola and their adjunct, Simon Marketing. When Kolody retained an out-of-state attorney from Arkansas to represent him in 1998, the rules required the designation of an additional lawyer as "local counsel". That trusted "local counsel" was Kolody's long-time confidant Daniel V. Hanley, [(708)474-6633], of the Chicago suburb of Lansing, Illinois.
All of Kolody's legal strategies and plans and those of his Arkansas lawyer, Dan Ivy, were discussed in confidence with Daniel V. Hanley. But strange things were happening. Coke's lawyers seemed to be able to "beat to the punch" Kolody and Dan Ivy, that is, heading off Kolody and Ivy's legal strategies which, of course, are confidential and not to be divulged by his "local counsel" Daniel V. Hanley.
And Judge Blanche M. Manning arrogantly committed judicial perjuries, which some common people call straight out lies about what this copyright case was all about. The Judge evidently knew that she did not have to be careful. She refused to wipe out her judicial perjuries when confronted by Dan Ivy.
1/