dChan
Anonymous ID: d7f058 April 5, 2025, 3:40 p.m. No.22872641   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>2643 >>2669

In a bombshell discovery dating back to 1908, fearless journalist Lillian Scott Troy unearthed a chilling 24-point plan by the British Pilgrims Society to annex America. At its core? A scheme to bend the U.S. Supreme Court to their will, stacking it with puppet judges like Chief Justice John Roberts and leveraging his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, to tighten their grip. This isn’t just history—it’s a conspiracy that’s alive and thriving today!

See Lillian Scott Troy: The Fearless Voice Against the Benedict Arnold Society. Anonymous Patriots.

The Roberts Power Couple: Tools of a British Takeover?

The Pilgrims Society hit the jackpot with John and Jane Roberts. Evidence of their success screams through John’s steering of Supreme Court cases, guided by his British knighthood in the Knights of Malta, English Priory. The smoking gun? Roberts recused himself from a 2020 technology case—Arunachalam v. Lyft (No. 19-8029)—after his British bias was called out, alongside the jaw-dropping conflicts of interest tied to his wife Jane. As an executive recruiter, Jane Sullivan Roberts has her tentacles in America’s most elite law firms, Fortune 500 giants, and tech titans. This isn’t influence—it’s domination!

Read on blog or Reader

 

American Intelligence Media

EXPOSED: The British Plot to Hijack America’s Supreme Court – Chief Justice John Roberts Caught in the Crosshairs!

 

By Mick the Miner on April 5, 2025

 

Shocking Revelation: A Journalist’s 1908 Discovery Unveils a Sinister Scheme

In a bombshell discovery dating back to 1908, fearless journalist Lillian Scott Troy unearthed a chilling 24-point plan by the British Pilgrims Society to annex America. At its core? A scheme to bend the U.S. Supreme Court to their will, stacking it with puppet judges like Chief Justice John Roberts and leveraging his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, to tighten their grip. This isn’t just history—it’s a conspiracy that’s alive and thriving today!

See Lillian Scott Troy: The Fearless Voice

Anonymous ID: d7f058 April 5, 2025, 3:40 p.m. No.22872643   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>2669 >>2682

>>22872641

Against the Benedict Arnold Society. Anonymous Patriots.

The Roberts Power Couple: Tools of a British Takeover?

The Pilgrims Society hit the jackpot with John and Jane Roberts. Evidence of their success screams through John’s steering of Supreme Court cases, guided by his British knighthood in the Knights of Malta, English Priory. The smoking gun? Roberts recused himself from a 2020 technology case—Arunachalam v. Lyft (No. 19-8029)—after his British bias was called out, alongside the jaw-dropping conflicts of interest tied to his wife Jane. As an executive recruiter, Jane Sullivan Roberts has her tentacles in America’s most elite law firms, Fortune 500 giants, and tech titans. This isn’t influence—it’s domination!

 

Caption: L/R: Attorney John G. Roberts, Jr., Janes Sullivan Roberts at John Roberts' swearing in on September 29, 2005 to be Chief Just of the Supreme Court, nominated by President George W. Bush.

Cover-Up at the Top: Why Was Jane’s Dirty Laundry Hidden?

In a blatant act of concealment, the Supreme Court Clerk—under Justice Roberts’ watch—redacted Jane’s sprawling client list from the Arunachalam v. Lyft docket. But we’ve got the unredacted original, and it’s a doozy. Jane’s recruiting empire spans a Who’s Who of corporate and legal America. The real question isn’t “Who are your clients?”—it’s “Who aren’t your clients?” Despite this web of connections, Roberts rarely steps aside from cases involving his wife’s clients. If you’re going to play dirty, why not go all in?

Jane’s Lawfare Army: The Firms Pulling Strings Behind the Bench

Jane Sullivan Roberts recruits for an arsenal of lawfare heavyweights that read like a legal hall of fame: Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Wilmer Hale, Perkins Coie, DLA Piper, Fenwick & West, Gibson Dunn, Fox Rothschild, Cooley Godward, Blank Rome, Kirkland Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Proskauer Rose, Weil Gotschal, White Case, Wilson Sonsini, and 198 others. These firms have marched through Roberts’ courtroom—yet he’s stayed put, raising eyebrows and red flags.

Corporate Collusion: Jane’s Empire of Influence

Jane’s corporate clients are a jaw-dropping roster of powerhouses: 3Com, Agilent, ADP, CBS, General Cable, General Dynamics, Gilead Sciences, Comcast, Clear Channel Communications, Abbott, Amgen, Amazon, Apple, AT&T, BoA (Bank of America), Dell, Boeing, Boston Scientific, CVS, Emerson, Dole, Delta, Google, Honeywell, Intel, IBM, J&J (Johnson & Johnson), GE (General Electric), Broadcom, Chevron, Charter Communications, FedEx, Disney, Marriott, McDonald’s, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Motorola, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, Rockwell, SAIC (C.I.A.), Starbucks, State Street, Verizon, Walgreen, Yahoo!, EMC, Facebook, Hitachi, HP (Hewlett-Packard), McAfee, Oracle, Texas Instruments, and 289 others. Many—if not most—of these titans have waltzed through Roberts’ court without a peep of recusal. Coincidence? Or corruption?

Fraud on Trial: Are Roberts’ Rulings Tainted Beyond Repair?

With Jane’s clients dominating legal, corporate, and technology America, a burning question emerges: Are all of Chief Justice Roberts’ court decisions fraudulent from the start? The sheer scale of these conflicts suggests a justice system rotten to its core, where impartiality is a myth and British influence reigns supreme. How can justice stand when the judge’s wife is in bed with the litigants?

The Redaction Scandal: What Are They Hiding?

Why didn't Roberts recuse himself when the Leader Technologies v. Facebook patent infringement trial came before him in 2012?

The Sir Roberts Family Inc. fingerprints were all over Facebook's law firms (Cooley Godward LLP, Blank Rome LLP, White & Case LLP, Fenwick & West LLP, etc.) financing (Thiel, Breyer, Summers, Andreessen, etc.), board of directors, interlocked relationships, personnel, USPTO (David J. Kappos), operations, tech (IBM Eclipse Foundation using stolen Leader IP & patents), beneficial ownership (Fidelity, Contrafund, Vanguard, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Juri Milner, etc.), and other conspiracies to defraud.

Why did the Supreme Court Clerk scrub Jane’s client list from the Arunachalam v. Lyft (No. 19-8029) docket? Was it to shield the Roberts duo from scrutiny—or to protect the Pilgrims Society’s century-old plot? Both? The redaction reeks of a cover-up, but the truth is out now, and it’s explosive. The American public deserves answers—will we ever get them?