Roberts’s Crime in the Annals of History

Roberts has authorized the federal judges to fabricate fictitious, fraudulent processes, decisions, orders and judgments in US court that affect every American man, woman and child in every one of the nation’s 3100 counties.

In and of itself, this is a horrific crime against the greatest and most protected freedoms and liberties under the Constitution.  These are rights that belong only to the American people that neither the majoritarian view nor any form of legitimate American federal or state government, can regulate at all, no matter what process is provided. However, the sinister of Roberts’s crime does not stop here.

Roberts executed his crime by fabricating an illegally policy, and by engaging in illegal policy making, at the Judicial Conference.  The Conference was created to end self-regulation and impeachment as the only two methods to discpline the federal judges. And Roberts controls it.

Roberts knew that the federal judges could not defend his criminal conduct at the US District Courts before a jury. Roberts realized that he had to abrogate all of the American people’s Article III right under the Constitution in order to protect himself and his DRE crime from a jury. And Roberts did so.

Roberts knew that in order to interfere with unassailable liberties and freedoms, Roberts had to deny Americans the right to access federal justice to defend themselves against the states and any form of questioning or enquiry whatsoever.

Roberts knew that he had to eliminate all basic human rights in America. These are rights dating back to the Assize of Clarendon Act of 1166 and the Magna Carta of 1215. The spirit of the Assize of Clarendon Act and the Magna Carta is incorporated into America’s laws [Note [i]].

It was Sir John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Alton (January 10, 1834 – June 19, 1902) who in 1887 wrote that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely…[and that] there is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”

In 1858, Twenty nine years before Sir Dalberg-Alton penned his most famous words, the US Supreme Court minority opinion ruled that government must not  “assume to regulate domestic relations of society.” It spoke of this type of regulation as an “inquisitorial authority.”  The Court added that a state cannot give its judges any authority over its citizens’ “morals and habits and affections or antipathies” without seeking authority of the United States.

In the 21st century federal judges are using this same 1858 ruling to grant state judges absolute government power over American citizens’ domestic relations.

In 1980 Americans’ criticism of federal judges spurred Congress to pass the Judicial Conduct Act. The federal judges took 28 years to create rules to govern themselves under the law. These rules have not prevented federal judges from engaging in fraudulent conduct to allow state judges to violently intrude in American private lives.

[i]. “We hold here that the right to a speedy trial is as fundamental as any of the rights secured by the Sixth Amendment. That right has its roots at the very foundation of our English law heritage. Its first articulation in modern jurisprudence appears to have been made in Magna Carta (1215), wherein it was written, ‘We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right’; but evidence of recognition of the right to speedy justice in even earlier times is found in the Assize of Clarendon (1166).” Klopfer v. State of N.C., 386 U.S. 213, 223, 87 S.Ct. 988, 993, 18 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1967).

(“And when a robber or murderer or thief or receiver of them has been arrested through the aforesaid oath, if the justices are not about to come speedily enough into the country where they have been taken, let the sheriffs send word to the nearest justice by some well-informed person that they have arrested such men, and the justices shall send back word to the sheriffs informing them where they desire the men to be brought before them; and let the sheriffs bring them before the justices.”  English Historical Documents 408 [1953]).