by Laurie Azgard

Forget about the corrupt federal judges Thomas David Schroeder and Jackson L. Kiser, as there are even far-worse power grabbing federal judges that act as though they are our new rulers, federal judicial supremacist dictators that think all Americans belong to the corrupt judiciary with the thugs who are US marshals running around pointing guns at people and beating up federal inmates and mistreating federal prisoners under them. Multiple federal judges seem to be wanting to have some emergency meeting over the Roger Stone case over Trump making free speech over a miscarriage of justice and over Attorney general William Barr deciding to pull back the sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone.

They are globalist puppets, and many corrupt federal judges were appointed by past globalist and Bilderberg Group puppets. That includes skull and bones secret society member George W. Bush, G. H. W. Bush, the Obamas and the corrupt Clintons and the pedophile rings. No, the federal judges have decided to act as official dictators of the United States of America, and if we don’t bow down to them they can make our lives a living hell like they did with Brian D. Hill of USWGO alternative news and Roger J. Stone who may end up in federal prison.

The Communist-News-Network [CNN] released an article a day ago about a group of federal judges wanting to have an emergency meeting in regards to President Trump’s comments about the federal criminal case of Roger Stone in interfering with the judicial process, as what the judicial tyrannis like to call it.

Quotes from CNN (posted under fair use copyright exemption) and comments added below:

Washington (CNN) The leaders of a group of federal judges will hold an emergency meeting on Wednesday to address growing concerns about the recent intervention of President Donald Trump and the Justice Department in politically sensitive cases, Megan Cruz, the executive director of the group, told CNN on Tuesday.
Trump and Attorney General William Barr ignited fresh concerns about the impartiality of the Justice Department last week when Barr retracted a recommended sentence for Trump ally Roger Stone after the President criticized it on Twitter. Trump also took to social media to criticize the judge involved in Stone’s case. Barr is also ordering a re-examination of several high-profile cases, including that of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

For decades and over a century, the United States Supreme court had set in stone, case law in regards to the right of a U.S. President to pardon any offense and the pardon can cover any offense except that of impeachment.

Ex Parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333, 380-81 (1866) (“Such being the case, the inquiry arises as to the effect and operation of a pardon, and on this point all the authorities concur. A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.”) Ex Parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333, 380 (1866) (“The Constitution provides that the President “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions. ”)

The law has it, a President has a right and every right to pardon anybody he wants. All three branches of government is co-equal and should not be dominating over the American people. We the American people have vested that the President shall have the power of a pardon not only to acquit those who were wrongfully convicted, as well as restoring the rights of those who were convicted but have demonstrated remorse, but also to correct any miscarriages of justice within our federal court system. Even if Roger Stone is a buddy of Donald Trump, there is only one President who has the authority to issue pardons and reprieves and has the rightful duty to pardon somebody who was deprived of a fair trial and was innocent of the federal charge but was wrongfully convicted. The pardon or commutation of sentence exists not only to relieve somebody who has accepted responsibility for committing a crime and has successfully changed their life around in a productive way, but that a pardon is also meant to deter judicial insanity and judicial tyranny.

Another quote from CNN:

It is extremely rare for judges to speak out about pending cases or controversies, but a handful, including Chief Justice John Roberts, have pushed back in the past regarding the President’s criticism of judges.

It is healthy in a republic for any average American and even our U.S. President to criticize federal judges. It is not only just our guaranteed first amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of press, but it is our duty to keep checks and balances on our courts, on our judiciary. There have been judges who were cruel to innocent people and can be cruel to those with Autism. Without any blogs or media or any criticism of federal judges or any judges for that matter, federal judges can hurt whoever they want and never feel the consequences of any wrongful actions they may take. They lecture people all day about the consequences of breaking the law but what if these federal judges are breaking the law or any laws but never facing the very same consequences that they put their subjects through?

In fact these same corrupt group of federal judges who are political puppets and are likely blackmailed or compromised, didn’t criticize Barack Hussein Obama, former U.S. President who interfered with the Florida state case of George Zimmerman over the death of Travon Martin.

See Remarks by the President on Trayvon Martin [Wayback Machine]

You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.

That was former President Obama supposedly interfering with the judicial process but nobody raised hell over that? did they? So it was okay for a former President to make comments on a pending trial in a court case and that was okay with the federal judges for Barack Obama to make extrajudicial comments regarding a case when he doesn’t personally know the facts of that case. Obama didn’t know whether or not Travon Martin could have threaten Zimmerman behind the scenes? Obama doesn’t personally know the circumstances of a criminal case that he ain’t personally involved in but had decided to make that political and none of the federal judges including corrupt Chief Justice John Roberts raised any stink over that. Only when a non-globalist, non-skull-and-bones President Donald Trump had decided to make extrajudicial remarks of a criminal case did the federal judges wanted to raise a stink over Trump’s freedom of speech.

Didn’t Barack Obama made the Travon Martin case personal and exhibited favoritism at Travon Martin over Zimmerman? It is okay for Obama to favorite a party in a pending criminal trial which threatens due process but it isn’t okay for Donald Trump to want due process in the Roger Stone case?

I ain’t here to kiss anybodies butt. A President has the authority and the right to declare a federal criminal conviction as a miscarriage of justice and pardon somebody who was wrongfully convicted as a matter of law. If Obama is allowed to interfere with a state criminal case in Florida over Travon Martin shooting, then President Trump as the executive branch of government has the right to investigate judicial wrongdoing, judicial corruption, and any miscarriages of justice and can pardon anybody who shouldn’t have ever been convicted of a crime.

If democrat people don’t want Roger Stone pardoned then would they be willing to at least let his sentence be commuted for only probation? Are they willing to let due process be totally dismantled by our corrupt federal judges for everybody to have a kangaroo court process that can ensnare anybody and imprison anybody at their will?