County Bench, Uncle Sam, Thank God for this friends only forum. Thank him and the other him, his son JC, for privacy and good faith in the Fourth Amendment. I sure as a donkeys muffin dont want anyone outside of my Face Book Friend circle keying into my private business, some of which I share here. Thats why Im not on twitter, where just anyone can follow, watch and read. Im feel so secure knowing that My FBI, My CIA, My NSA, My Senate Intelligence Committee, My Norad and My Federal Reserve, among others, have installed all of their privacy security measures to insure that they dont accidentally dip into anyones personal or private matters. Especially judges. They would never do anything like that. No way. Not by back door court order (so that it cant be tested for validity) or any other sleight of the hand. America is the shit, you know. Especially our America Franchise. The other other, called California. I wonder what they do about privacy, security and insuring that the state isnt invaded by any foreign cells? Hmm. We sure dont want any foreign influence on our American soil, our American law, our American stuff, you know. youtube/watch?v=IdJIQJqsVqM To: Stephen W. Preston Central Intelligence Agency Office of General Counsel Washington D.C., 20505 Date: 03-04-11 Re: Judicial Corruption (S.D. to State Bar) – An Inconvenient Truth Dear Mr. CIA Stephen Present and camp, This debriefing provides a factual backdrop to correct the myth that State’s Judiciaries (including Alex McDonald to the Bar’s Joanne Remke) are anything but human. As a reality check, in the deviance context, State Court’s criminal human nature was brought to public light in a big money, highly political case (like Ralphs et al.); it was a sting named Operation Greylord. Greylord was a 1980’s FBI & IRS criminal investigation into corruption in the judiciary of Cook County, Illinois (the Chicago area). It was a 3 ½ year undercover operation recognized to this day as one of FBIs most successful covert investigations. Greylord marks the first publicly known listening device (tap) ever placed in a judge’s Chambers (Wayne Olsen). In 1994, ten years after the undercover phase was complete, the investigations, prosecutions and trials concluded. The last conviction was of Judge Maloney, found guilty of fixing three murder cases for more than $100,000 in bribes. Maloney was released from federal prison in 2008; he died the same year. A total of 92 people were indicted: including 17 judges, 48 lawyers, ten deputy sheriffs, eight policemen and eight court officials. Greylord serves to remind that humans called judges conspire to fix cases, just as humans conspire to rig prices (Lysine), boxing matches (Don King), football events (Italian Football Federation ’00) and baseball competitions, like the Black Sox Scandal where: Eight members of the major league franchise were banned for life from baseball for throwing (i.e., intentionally losing) adversarial competitions, essentially giving the series to the Cincinnati Reds. The conspiracy was the brainchild of White Sox first baseman Arnold Chick Gandil, who had longstanding ties to underworld figures. Last, with regard to the profile of court cartels, compliance with correct price accounting, owed procedural rules, classification of Federal Citizen’s as U.C.C. “goods” by reference to one’s all capitalized name & court’s false claim to concurrent power grants (10th Ame), the Chief Justices of the identified courts during the applicable time-frame are presented for your review: A. Court cartels -- … consumers should dislike them very much. As always, I appreciate your independent review of the sensitive issues raised. See attached information parts, viewed in context of previous briefings and the “bigger picture.” A Two in one case rig already reviewed is that filed by Greg Stone & Don Howarth in April, 2001; they filed “under seal,” which means in secret. They filed back to back with Noonan-Lerach in April 2001 in their joint San Diego case against Bonas. The Firm(s), Greg Stone, David Noonan & Don Howarth - U.S. Attorney Stools got this published for The People - thanks: The government indicted Bonas for violating 18 U.S.C. §875(c) by making threats in interstate commerce. Trial commenced and was expected to last three to four days. On the first day, the district court empaneled a twelve-person jury and two alternates, and the government began its case. On the following morning, the district judge made the unexpected announcement that “the jury service people did not make [an] inquiry [into possible financial hardship], and for that reason, as soon as we selected the jurors to serve, two or three of them at that time informed us for the first time that they are not going to be paid by their employers.” E.R. at 270. The judge explained that he had investigated the matter and determined that four of the jurors were not being compensated by their employers. The judge also explained that the employers had been contacted but were steadfast in their refusal to pay the jurors for their days of jury duty. The judge stated that he had consulted the former chief district judge about ways to compensate the jurors and had even tried, unsuccessfully, to get the clerks office to pay them. The judge expressed concern that forcing the jurors to serve without pay would “adversely affect the parties” and undermine the likelihood of a fair trial. E.R. at 272. He proposed declaring a mistrial, but Bonas objected. The government took the position that it neither supported nor objected to a mistrial. It did urge the district judge to “just utter the magic words, that the court finds that manifest necessity exists.” The judge replied “I certainly will find that, yes” and declared a mistrial. E.R. at 274. Shortly thereafter, Bonas filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that a retrial would violate[s] his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The district court denied [it] …, Bonas appeals. Working with the U.S. attorney against Bonas, San Diego D.A., Lerach, Noonan & Mogin kept apprised of every move in the federal case (phone records). Indeed, after the 9th Circuit argument, and before its ruling, San Diego D.A. amended its complaint against Bonas on a never before used criminal speech theory; that one could stock another from jail by writing, which is called “speech.” Amen, #1! c: MS. MAYA DILLARD SMITH Commission on Judicial Performance 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400 San Francisco, California 94102 ● Aguilar et al. v. Atlantic Richfield Corp. et al. (Sup. Ct. #700810) (4th App Dist., published). ● McCambell et al. v. Ralphs et al. (Sup. Ct. # 703666) (4th App. Dist., unpublished). ● U.S. v. Bonas 344 F.3d 945, 948 (9th Cir.2003, argued 08-04-03, submitted 09-17-03). ● The People of California v. Bonas (Sup. Ct. # (4th App. Dist., unpublished). ● Baker et al. v. Jewel (Illinois, Chicago Milk, published). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Greylord en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sox_Scandal Doctor Ken Elzinga, on trial at page 3940:22-25. United States v. Bonas, 344 F.3d 945, 948 (9th Cir.2003).
Posted on: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 03:26:44 +0000