(born Jan 27, 1955 in NY) an American attorney serving as the 17th and current Chief Justice of the United States, since 2005. He was nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The globalist wolf in conservative sheep’s clothing has sided with the liberals more than 40% of the time, decided liberal on 16 cases where he was the pivotal vote – including Obamacare. He failed to recuse himself in the Leader Technologies v. Facebook case, helping seal the deep state theft of the social media patent. He also named every single rubber-stamp FISA court judge who currently sits on the FISA court bench making him largely responsible for the illegal use of the FISA court by Obama to spy on President Trump and has been the ruling factor in blocking Trump’s restrictions on asylum in the Supreme Court.
Born in Buffalo, NY, Roberts grew up in northwest Indiana and was educated in a private school. He then attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School, where he was a managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. After being admitted to the bar, he served as a law clerk for Judge Henry Friendly and then Rehnquist before taking a position in the Attorney General’s office during the Reagan Administration. He went on to serve the Reagan administration and the George H. W. Bush administration in the Department of Justice and the Office of the White House Counsel, before spending 14 years in private law practice. During this time, he argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Notably, he represented 19 states in United States v. Microsoft Corp.
Roberts has been involved in 800 decisions while on the high court bench, according to Washington University School of Law’s Supreme Court Database.1 In 313 of these, he voted with the majority in a decision that the database describes as “liberal,” as coded by the database’s maintainers, a group of legal and political science scholars. In 15 of those cases Roberts’s vote was pivotal in which Roberts voted with the majority in a 5-4, liberal-leaning decision, where switching his vote would also have switched the ruling to a conservative one.
Roberts’s most famous “liberal-leaning” vote came in 2012 when he wrote the opinion that upheld the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare. That case, called National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, found the ACA’s individual mandate, which imposes fines on certain people who do not carry health insurance, to be a constitutional use of Congress’s power of taxation.2 Roberts performed some jurisprudential contortions to arrive at his opinion, and the result was seen as an expression of his desire to maintain the credibility and legitimacy of the court.
On 27 June 2019, Roberts joined the other far left partisan judges on the Supreme Court again to basically rule that it’s not important that an individual be an American citizen in order to fill out a US census form. What utter nonsense. So according to Roberts we might as well send census forms to Pakistan for completion because it just doesn’t matter who fills them out!
Three days earlier, the Supreme Court hijacked Congress’s power to legislate and redefined “sex” to “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” The SCOTUS, including Chief Justice Roberts, decided by a 6-3 vote to essentially rewrite a federal civil right’s law. For years the left has been fighting to change this federal law, and on June 15th of 2020, 6 unelected judges rewrote the law. Justice Alito fired a warning shot and said the ruling could destroy women’s sports, weaken religious freedom, weaken freedom of speech and personal privacy.
So what about Roe v. Wade, possibly the court’s most famous case and currently its most discussed? In his confirmation hearing, Roberts repeatedly expressed his desire to “stay away from a discussion of particular cases.” Roberts has also discussed the importance of the legal idea of stare decisis — “to stand by things decided.”
Fox News Reports: In another unusual twist, the 11 judges (of the FISA court) are appointed exclusively by the Chief Justice of the United States, without any supplemental confirmation from the other two branches of government. John Roberts has named every member of the current court, as well as a separate three-judge panel to hear appeals of FISC orders, known as the Court of Review.
The Supreme Court would theoretically have the power to hear any subsequent challenges, but the justices never have– at least not that we know. But the Electronic Privacy Information Center last week directly asked the high court to review the NSA collection of telephone communication data. Roberts himself expressed some reservations about this judicial concept — also known by the acronym FISA — during his 2005 confirmation, one of the few times a federal judge has talked publicly about that court.
Roberts also joined with the liberals on the Court to block Trump from curbing bids for asylum at the Mexican border. Most ominously, he kept Louisiana from enforcing new abortion restrictions that required abortionists to get admitting privileges at a local hospital. What makes this action most curious is that Roberts dissented in 2016, when the Court struck down an almost-identical Texas measure.
In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled to effectively block the Trump administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census. SCOTUS sent it back to a lower court. Liberals on the court did not believe it is legal to ask Americans if they are citizens or non-citizens in the US census. Chief Justice John Roberts AGAIN sided with the liberal judges.
Also in 2020, during the impeachment coup by the democrats and deep state, Justice Roberts censured a question – twice – about the alleged whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, and would not allow the question to be read – just like the liberal social media platforms. Nothing about the question should have been censured, only that the deep state wanted to cover up the fact that he was a Trump-hater, and tweeted about the resistance to the Trump presidency.
Chief Justice Roberts also sided with liberals as he refused California church’s right to assemble during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020.
Justice Roberts named every single FISA judge who currently sits on the FISA court bench. This basically means that Justice Roberts in a major way is responsible for the illegal use of the FISA court by Obama to spy on President Trump and those close to the President, as Justice Roberts named all 11 FISA Court Judges who sit on the FISA court bench.
The FISA court pretty much allowed Obama’s illegal spy ring on President Trump with Foreign help, where Hillary started it with hiring Christopher Steele to write up the unverified report by Fusion GPS…Which was used illegally because unverified reports violate the FBI criminal statues to get a warrant through the FISA system. So really in a big way Chief Justice Roberts who has been the ruling factor in blocking Trump’s asylum restrictions, is pretty much responsible for the illegal use of FISA on President Trump. SOURCE
McKibben v. Facebook non-recusal
In Leader Technologies’ Petition for Writ of Certiorari submitted to Roberts, he failed to recuse himself since he:
- had a personal mentor relationship with Facebook’s appeals attorney, Thomas G. Hungar of Gibson Dunn LLP,
- he had substantial holdings in Facebook financial interests,
- failed to demand conflict of interest recusals pursuant to the Code of Conduct from the three-judge panel in Leader v. Facebook since each judge held substantial Facebook financial interests. Federal Circuit Judges and Clerk Alan D. Laurie, Evan J. Wallach, Kimberly A. Moore, Randall R. Rader, Jan Horbaly,
- failed to set aside the Federal Circuit ruling in Leader v. Facebook once it was discovered that Weil Gotshal LLP attorney Edward R. Reines entered an appearance in Leader v. Facebook on behalf of the Federal Circuit Bar Association (in which the judges were members) while he was simultaneously conspiring with Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall R. Rader to fix cases (Rader was removed from the bench; he had done nothing to police the multiple breaches of ethics of the Leader v. Facebook panel),
- had previously recused himself in a case involving Microsoft, who was and is a notoriously-known principle stockholder and technology provider to Facebook, therefore his Microsoft holdings gave him a recusal-able conflict of interest in Leader v. Facebook,
- failed to disclose his common membership and association with Hungar’s partner Theodore B. Olson in the Senior Executive Service (SES) Association shadow government,
- failed to disclose his conflict-level camaraderie with Gibson Dunn LLP’s Theodore B. Olson in the former U.S. Solicitor General’s club. Roberts (1992 Plum Book), Olson (1984 Plum Book),
- failed to order release of Zuckerberg’s 28 computer devices from his Harvard period (2003-2004) after it was discovered in another case that Facebook had lied about their existence, saying they were “lost,” then magically found to be in the possession of Facebook’s appeals attorney Gibson Dunn LLP the entire time.
- failed to order release of Zuckerberg’s 28 computer devices from his Harvard period (2003-2004) after it was discovered in another case that Facebook had lied about their existence, saying they were “lost,” then magically found to be in the possession of Facebook’s appeals attorney Gibson Dunn LLP the entire time, and
- failed to stop the persecution of Paul Ceglia by U.S. Attorney Preetinder Bharara in New York (now on the Mueller Witch Hunt that is using fabricated “dirty dossier” evidence against President Trump) who used fabricated evidence of forgery to arrest; that the so-called evidence against Ceglia is fabricated has now been verified by a NY appeals court.
It is widely believed that Roberts makes political calculations, crafting decisions (such as when he went through contortions to find a plausible legal reasoning to uphold ObamaCare) that avoid the appearance of partisanship. But that is not Roberts’ job — he took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not an oath to maintain an appearance of non-partisanship.
After President Barack Obama chose the occasion of the State of the Union message to directly attack the Supreme Court justices sitting in front of him for their Citizens United decision, which invoked the First Amendment protections of free speech, Roberts never challenged Obama. But in the case of Trump, he publicly challenged the president, saying, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to equal right to those appearing before them.”
Roberts added, “That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
However, if Roberts’ intent was to remove the Supreme Court from politics, he had an odd way of doing it, publicly challenging the president, which was a blatantly political statement. Predictably, Democrats in office and in the media hailed Roberts as a hero for his statement. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) even called the Trump presidency a “dark era,” and said the “independent judiciary” will be “the heroes.” CNN legal analyst Renato Mariotti said, “Trump’s attack on Chief Justice Roberts is just his latest assault on our independent judiciary. He attacks judges, the press, the FBI and the Justice Department because they can check his power and hold him accountable. This is a serious threat to the rule of law.”
On the contrary, the “serious threat to the rule of law” is the thinking that the media, federal judges, the FBI, and anyone else can publicly express their opinion, but the president of the United States cannot express his. Donald Trump did not lose his right of free speech when he took the presidential oath. In fact, the president is a key player in the nation’s political landscape. Federal judges, such as Roberts, are not to be players in politics, at all. They are supposed to simply “call balls and strikes,” not throw the pitches or swing the bat, as Roberts himself said during his confirmation hearings. Hopefully, Roberts will not continue the drift to the Left that has been far too common of the nominees of Republican presidents going back decades.
John and Jane (nee Sullivan) Roberts were married in 1996 and about four years later they adopted their two children, both infants at the time, a boy and a girl, about four months apart in age. The adoptions were “private,” meaning they were arranged through private parties without the involvement of any agencies. The notion of the Obama White House blackmailing Roberts arose with rumors that the adoptions may have been illegal under the laws of Ireland.
Ireland? Yes. It seems the children were said (by whom is unclear) to be of Latin American origin. Their fair complexions and blonde hair, however, suggested to some that a northern European origin was more likely. Two sets of circumstances to keep in mind: One is that during Roberts’s confirmation battle almost nine years ago (he was nominated by George W. Bush), the New York Times was hot on the trail of anything untoward in the nominee’s past. Seven years later, in the weeks immediately preceding the ObamaCare ruling, the Obama White House was doing its own digging, and the president himself was out in public decrying a possible ruling against his signature accomplishment.
Now, a question: Which European country makes both private adoptions and out-of-country adoptions illegal? Yep. Ireland. Therefore, as the rumor has it, the Roberts children must have been born in the Emerald Isle and therefore their adoptions in America must have been illegal. Clearly the chief justice was ripe for blackmail if there were facts to back it up. Be a shame to see your family broken up over ObamaCare, wouldn’t it, Chief?6
Isn’t it interesting that a reporter with the last name of “Justice” was the one who investigated the children of Judge John Roberts? Referring to a report that New York Times investigative reporter Glen Justice was prying into the private adoption records of Roberts’ two children, radio talk-show host Kevin McCullough declared that “Every adoptive parent reading this will be understandably outraged, and they should be. Every decent human being in every decent family across this nation should speak up. And every person subscribing to the New York Times should think about whether or not they want to continue to do so.”
In a column carried by Illinoisleader.com, McCullough said, “The reason that such tactics get played out over and over is because the Times and other elements of the liberal dominated media feel they will suffer no foul consequence in doing so. Their idea is journalism has little to do with reporting the facts as much as it has to do with Democratic Party-friendly witch hunts that can be carried out without indictment for any wrongdoing. By conducting such an inquiry into the personal and private lives of Supreme Court nominee Roberts, his wife and the process they went through to become parents, the Times seems to be setting a new low-like they have been prone to in recent years-in its lack of journalistic standards.”
The National Council for Adoption issued a statement denouncing, “in the strongest possible terms”, the shocking decision of the New York Times to investigate the adoption records of Justice John Roberts’ two young children. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Vice Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference at the time, said she was “appalled to learn that reporters for the New York Times had started an investigation into the adoption records of U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and his wife. Simple decency dictates that some boundaries should be placed on inquiries into the private lives of public figures by interest groups and the news media.”
Is this the reason he’s sold out conservatives several times or is there more? It appears there may be…
Early the morning of July 7th 2020, a whistleblower who allegedly works in the federal circuit revealed a Supreme Court justice was seen in various “Epstein tapes” that were recently recovered by investigators:
“One of the SCOTUS [justices] is in the Epstein tapes that were recovered yesterday. I’m sure you can guess which one.
“The shocking part is the canary is telling the feds a certain nation state has been blackmailing this gentleman since prior to his nomination to SCOTUS.
“What does this mean? This justice was hand picked at the highest levels specifically because he was being controlled via blackmail. A sheep in wolf’s clothing appearing to be which he is not.
“Cat is out of the bag… or I should say almost.”
The “canary” the whistleblower is referring to may very well be Jeffrey Epstein’s former madam, Ghislaine Maxwell. The “nation state” that has been blackmailing the justice was later confirmed to be “one of the 5 eyes”:
After being prodded by readers to disclose the exact country, the whistleblower stated the following:
“I don’t know which country, but UK was in bed with our deep state intelligence agencies trying to dig up dirt on Trump. I don’t think that is even questioned anymore. Outside of my area of specific knowledge though.”
Also, since it was mentioned that the justice is a male (e.g. “gentleman”), some have speculated how it might be the Chief Justice.
The name “John Roberts” reportedly appears in Epstein’s infamous “little black book”:
Could this be any John Roberts? It’s possible, but the Epstein operation was a CIA / Mossad blackmailing operation and catered to people who had high positions in politics or society. The DailyMail reports:
Gates was not the only famous name to hop aboard Epstein’s plane either, with the serial pedophile also welcoming famed newsman Walter Cronkite, architect Peter Marino and a passenger identified as John Roberts.
He flew with Epstein on at least two occasions according to flight records, from March 22, 2010 and February 10, 2011.
In 2010 the plane with Roberts traveled from Palm Beach to Oakland, and the following year from Palm Beach to Teterboro.
This in addition to the already noted famous guests such as Bill Clinton, Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and Prince Andrew.
On December 11th, SCOTUS threw out a legitimate lawsuit by the state of Texas claiming there was no standing. This apparently followed rants by Chief Justice Roberts behind closed doors (see Parley below), who allegedly stated in an August 2019 phone conversation with Justice Stephen Breyer, that he (Roberts) would make sure “the motherf#*ker (Trump) would never be re-elected.”
Please help me ECHO this far and wide as fast as we can. Proof that the Supreme Court is compromised because they are cowards… They should meet the gallows…
— Davidfrede Davidfrede Thursday, December 17, 2020
A report by White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro, details massive fraud plaguing the 2020 election and alleges there was a widespread, “theft by a thousand cuts” strategy “across six dimensions and six battleground states.” The report cites comprehensive evidence, and blasts the media for its failure to cover the matter accurately. He also outlines a “coordinated strategy to effectively stack the election deck against the Trump-Pence ticket” occurring in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
1: Does anyone else find it strange that George Soros seems to think that he can count on John Roberts to help him destroy nationalism? Don't take my word for it, here he is at Davos in January where he fanboys the Chief Justice, twice pic.twitter.com/twyTf8SWl1
— Jennifer Lynn Lawrence (@JenLawrence21) November 26, 2020
Death of Justice Scalia
Lin Wood had tweeted that he had proof that Justice Roberts had foreknowledge that Justice Scalia would be killed and wanted to name his replacement. He later, on January 19th of 2020 – just prior to the inauguration, dropped the video on Telegram.
Roberts should be in jail!
Chronological History of Events Involving Supreme Court Justice John Roberts
Attorney Lin Wood Releases Video of Whistleblower Testimony on Justice Scalia Murder Plot by FBI / Justice Roberts
Goldman Sachs Fined $6 billion to Settle Faulty Mortgage Claims from the 2008 Financial Crisis. No Worries! They got $13 Billion in Taxpayer Bailout Funds
Dennis Montgomery, designer of “THE HAMMER (HAMR)” Surveillance Platform, Notifies the FBI that Obama, Clapper, and Brennan were Collecting Domestic Surveillance Data for “Blackmail” and “Leverage.”