portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

economic justice | government

Chief Justice Roberts Gets Personal Sanctions Motion

Sam Lipari filed the Medical Supply Chain, Inc. antitrust lawsuit in 2005. At that time, Ford knew it was going to be forced to close 14 plants in North America by 2012 and lay off 30,000 American workers, but federal judges could not be bothered with the felony Sherman Antitrust Act violations Lipari had evidence were breaking the bank of private and government healthcare plans. Back in 2006, General Motors was closing its Oklahoma City plant and even US Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals judges from Oklahoma could not be troubled to understand the significance of General Motors having to close another eight plants and lay off 30,000 workers of its own because it was being crippled by healthcare costs and the rising expenses of its retirees.
 link to www.veteranstoday.com

NOTE: THESE HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE BEING AGGRAVATED BY THE USE OF DUBIOUS HEALTH PRACTICES LIKE FLUORIDATION AND VACCINATION. Europe doesn't fluoridate any more because its dangers to health are well documented. Vaccination is still not a "proven" science. It appears to cause sensitization and not immunity (Vaccine A--Gary Matsumoto)

On Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts and the staff of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia were served with a Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11 in the injunctive relief case LANDRITH et al v. JOHN G. ROBERTS 1:12-cv-01916-ABJ

The Chief Justice has 21 days to withdraw his misrepresentations to the court of Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

The Veteran's Today readership is so vast that many fellow Missouri citizens have contacted me, mad about the fact that only Veterans Today and this Article is exposing the real reason behind the loss of almost all of our Show Me State's auto plants.

During Sam Lipari's quest to enter the national hospital supply market he repeatedly informed the courts that America was in danger of thirty more auto plant closings if the hospital supply monopoly was not broken and healthcare costs continued to be too expensive for American employers to compete with foreign manufacturers in the domestic US market.

At the time Lipari filed the Medical Supply Chain, Inc. antitrust lawsuit in 2005, Ford knew it was going to be forced to close 14 plants in North America by 2012 and lay off 30,000 American workers, but federal judges could not be bothered with the felony Sherman Antitrust Act violations Lipari had evidence were breaking the bank of private and government healthcare plans. Back in 2006, General Motors was closing its Oklahoma City plant and even US Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals judges from Oklahoma could not be troubled to understand the significance of General Motors having to close another eight plants and lay off 30,000 workers of its own because it was being crippled by healthcare costs and the rising expenses of its retirees.

The auto plant closures rippled through the national economy. In the neighboring state of Kansas which had only one General Motors plant, Governor Kathleen Sebelius who is now President Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services warned: "There are an estimated 60,000 Kansas workers whose livelihoods depend on the survival of the American car companies.." No state was immune from the loss of Blue Collar middle class jobs and the loss of the tax revenue this wealth brought in. The State of Kansas would later have to cut the budget of the state judge colleagues of the federal judges refusing to hear the evidence in the Medical Supply Chain antitrust litigation.

I have agreed to provide our readers updates on the case against Chief Justice John Roberts to force federal courts to publicize judicial ethics complaints. Landrith and Lipari argue that this change will prevent the repeated violations of the constitutional rights of parties in federal litigation. And, it looks like it is shaping up into a real fight to reclaim the soul of justice in our once great nation.

On Monday the plaintiffs were forced to serve a Motion for Sanctions against Chief Justice John Roberts for repeated and intentional misrepresentations to the Washington, D.C. court.

While this seems unbelievable and outrageous that the man in charge for enforcing the code of ethics and judicial canons in America's courts would make fraudulent misrepresentations to the court he is on trial in, readers must remember that Chief Justice John Roberts' legal defense is being controlled by Attorney General Eric Holder, the first Attorney General in the history of the United States to be under a Contempt order by Congress. Of course that was also for misrepresenting the facts and preventing access to records that are believed to contradict his testimony.

The Congress is suing Attorney General Eric Holder to get those same records in a case that like Bret Landrith and Sam Lipari's lawsuit is also being heard by Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

Landrith and Lipari have answered Chief Justice John Roberts' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and the Answer is available online. Fair warning though, don't try to read it unless you have your blood pressure medicine within reach.



Latest Posts:
Chief Justice Roberts Gets Personal Sanctions Motion
Rumored Dead Black Ops NSA CIA Gene Chip Tatum Alive
Chief Justice Roberts Fails Attempt to Dismiss Lawsuit


Thursday, May 2nd, 2013 | Posted by Stew Webb
Chief Justice Roberts Gets Personal Sanctions Motion

By Stew Webb - Federal Whistleblower-Activist



On Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts and the staff of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia were served with a Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11 in the injunctive relief case LANDRITH et al v. JOHN G. ROBERTS 1:12-cv-01916-ABJ

The Chief Justice has 21 days to withdraw his misrepresentations to the court of Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

The Veteran's Today readership is so vast that many fellow Missouri citizens have contacted me, mad about the fact that only Veterans Today and this Article is exposing the real reason behind the loss of almost all of our Show Me State's auto plants.

During Sam Lipari's quest to enter the national hospital supply market he repeatedly informed the courts that America was in danger of thirty more auto plant closings if the hospital supply monopoly was not broken and healthcare costs continued to be too expensive for American employers to compete with foreign manufacturers in the domestic US market.

At the time Lipari filed the Medical Supply Chain, Inc. antitrust lawsuit in 2005, Ford knew it was going to be forced to close 14 plants in North America by 2012 and lay off 30,000 American workers, but federal judges could not be bothered with the felony Sherman Antitrust Act violations Lipari had evidence were breaking the bank of private and government healthcare plans. Back in 2006, General Motors was closing its Oklahoma City plant and even US Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals judges from Oklahoma could not be troubled to understand the significance of General Motors having to close another eight plants and lay off 30,000 workers of its own because it was being crippled by healthcare costs and the rising expenses of its retirees.

The auto plant closures rippled through the national economy. In the neighboring state of Kansas which had only one General Motors plant, Governor Kathleen Sebelius who is now President Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services warned: "There are an estimated 60,000 Kansas workers whose livelihoods depend on the survival of the American car companies.." No state was immune from the loss of Blue Collar middle class jobs and the loss of the tax revenue this wealth brought in. The State of Kansas would later have to cut the budget of the state judge colleagues of the federal judges refusing to hear the evidence in the Medical Supply Chain antitrust litigation.

I have agreed to provide our readers updates on the case against Chief Justice John Roberts to force federal courts to publicize judicial ethics complaints. Landrith and Lipari argue that this change will prevent the repeated violations of the constitutional rights of parties in federal litigation. And, it looks like it is shaping up into a real fight to reclaim the soul of justice in our once great nation.

On Monday the plaintiffs were forced to serve a Motion for Sanctions against Chief Justice John Roberts for repeated and intentional misrepresentations to the Washington, D.C. court.

While this seems unbelievable and outrageous that the man in charge for enforcing the code of ethics and judicial canons in America's courts would make fraudulent misrepresentations to the court he is on trial in, readers must remember that Chief Justice John Roberts' legal defense is being controlled by Attorney General Eric Holder, the first Attorney General in the history of the United States to be under a Contempt order by Congress. Of course that was also for misrepresenting the facts and preventing access to records that are believed to contradict his testimony.

The Congress is suing Attorney General Eric Holder to get those same records in a case that like Bret Landrith and Sam Lipari's lawsuit is also being heard by Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

Landrith and Lipari have answered Chief Justice John Roberts' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and the Answer is available online. Fair warning though, don't try to read it unless you have your blood pressure medicine within reach.

Landrith_Lipari_Motion_for_Sanctions by Bret Landrith

It seems that civilian public servants in the District of Columbia have some casual attitudes toward their solemn responsibilities. Attorneys cannot ethically misrepresent the material facts or the relevant case law to a tribunal. But, I guess if you are defending the Chief Justice of the United States to keep the process for reporting judicial ethics violations from being improved, the Department of Justice must feel its okay to break some rules.


The First Amended Complaint reveals for the first time known to this author, a secret part of the USA PATRIOT Act that was never published, but enforced as an official policy by government employees in the Department of Justice and Judicial Branch. How people could enforce a law that is secret and not published where citizens can learn of it and change their conduct is a new one to me.

Reading between the lines, it is clear that the policy being enforced was the censoring of political and business speech. So not putting this part of the USA PATRIOT Act into a published statute probably kept a lot of the people enforcing the censoring of US Senate campaign sites and blocking hospital supply sites to restrain trade from knowing just how bad they were violating the constitution.

First_Amended_Complaint_Landrith_and_Liapri _v._Roberts by Bret Landrith

Related:

 link to www.veteranstoday.com

Short URL:  http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=250419