It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Criminal! Cover-up in process Sotomayer; Senate Judiciary Committee; everyone knows but YOU

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
This is waaaaayyy worse than people just disliking her politics - this is CRIMINAL behavior on her part. A criminal should never be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court.

I have officially lost all confidence in Congress. They are about to KNOWINGLY confirm one of the most corrupt judges to the United States Supreme Court - all in the name of securing the Latino vote. Politicians come and go but Supreme Court Justices are there for life! The press, as usual, is silent. Disgusting!! The proof is here for you doubters - take a look - it might be the last time you can.

Sotomayer covers up bankruptcy fraud to benefit herself and her cronies at the expense of creditors and more importantly, the Constitution. The Senate Judiciary Committee is fully aware of this and will confirm her anyway. Congress covers up Sotomayer fraud scheme to benefit themselves at the expense of THE RULE OF LAW. They don't represent YOU .. they only represent THEMSELVES. I'm pissed and I'm writing a letter to the editor of the Columbia, SC newspaper, The State asking Lindsay Graham (Senator R-SC and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee) why he chose to remain silent.

Dr. Richard Cordero delivered the following linked letter to the entire Judiciary Committee on July 3, 2009 (both Democrats and Republicans). It details Sotomayor's deliberately lying to the Committee through omission (indisputably proved omission I might add). The reason was to protect her from her own criminal activities. Those criminal activities are also contained in the linked information that the Senate Judiciary Committee received and they have not even mentioned it in the confirmation hearings. They are COWARDS.

It's a long letter with all the documented proof, and one that you should read, the following is only a few excerpts.

judicial-discipline-reform.org...

Dear Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions,
I hereby bring to your attention and explain the significance for the assessment of the integrity and impartiality of Justice Nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor of a case that she withheld from you and your Committee. Indeed, the latter requested in its Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees that she “13.c. Provide citations to all cases in which you were a panel member, but did not write an opinion” and “13.f. Provide a list of all cases in which certiorari was requested or granted”.1 Although the Judge
referred you to the Appendix2 for her answer and stated in her letter to you of June 15 that “In responding to the Committee Questionnaire, I thoroughly reviewed my files to provide all responsive documents in my possession”, she neither included that case in the Appendix nor in either of the supplements with her letters to you of June 15 or 193 following your requests for more precise answers.

..... The cover-up aimed to keep concealed from creditors at least $673,657 in just one of the unmanageable 3,907 open cases as of April 2, 2004, according to PACER15, brought by the same trustee, George Reiber, before Judge Ninfo. To that end, Judge Sotomayor condoned her Appointee‟s denial of, and denied me herself, every single document that I ever requested to defend my claim from the motion to disallow it and evidentiary hearing concocted by the DeLanos and J. Ninfo.16 That constituted a blatant denial of the right to discovery under FRBkrP 7026 and 7034 and FRCivP 26 and 34. By so doing, she showed contempt for the most important constitutional guarantee that any judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice, must safeguard: due process of law.

..... Therefore, I respectfully request that your Committee 1) ascertain why Judge Sotomayor withheld from you DeLano as well as any other requested cases; 2) conduct a Follow the money! investigation of her financial affairs as well as of the DeLanos‟ concealed assets and of the parties to Pfuntner31 in order to expose the bankruptcy fraud scheme32; 3) investigate the impossible coincidence that on several occasions my four email accounts stopped receiving emails a day after I widely emailed articles with evidence of CA2‟s scheme cover-up33; and 4) invite me to be heard at the hearings on Judge Sotomayor‟s confirmation so that I may provide a firsthand account of her participation in the cover-up and its reflection on her integrity and impartiality34.


More information at www.newswithviews.com...


Dr. Richard Cordero holds a Ph.D. in law from the University of Cambridge in England; a law degree from La Sorbonne in Paris, and earned a Master of Business Administration from the University of Michigan. Dr. Cordero is a member of the bar of the State of New York. For the past 5 years he has been involved in 11 federal bankruptcy cases, which he has appealed from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, WBNY, to the U.S. District Court, WDNY, to the Court of Appeals, CA2, and to the Supreme Court of the United States.

These are very serious charges. Does Dr. Cordero have any proof? Yes. Indisputable and every single member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has had this evidence (not speculation) since July 3, 2009. Dr. Cordero spent all last week calling every member of that committee, both Republicans and Democrats to confirm they received the documents. I called several offices (Sessions, Coburn, Franken) to confirm they had these documents. They do. And, yet, not a single question was asked of Sotomayor on any of the evidence presented by Dr. Cordero. Instead, all of them (Coburn, Sessions, Graham, et al) have remained silent.


QUESTIONNAIRE FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES - Sotomayer - www.judicialwatch.org...

Letters to the Judiciary Committee by interested parties, special interest groups and the usual groupies. Absent is one document or letter from Dr. Cordero exposing Sotomayor. (good thing he has the delivery receipt, huh?) judiciary.senate.gov...



[edit on 21/7/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
The confirmation "hearings" were a sideshow meant to appease the rules. If the rules didn't have to be followed they never would have had those hearings - they would have just railroaded her through.

Of course her appointment is to appease the Latino community and secure favor for Obama and the Democrats. It always was, which is a shame because other, more qualified candidates of non-latino origin didn't have a chance at the seat.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Well if they're just going to pretend to do their jobs I might just pretend to pay them.

This is waaaaayyy worse than people just disliking her politics - this is CRIMINAL behavior on her part. A criminal should never be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court.



[edit on 21/7/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Four flags and 1 response... please respond....people need to know about this.

[edit on 21/7/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Still trying to wrap my brain around this one.. Have I read properly that she denied someone due process in order to conceal information to benefite financially? I would think that if this is as groundbreaking as it sounds that it would be all over certian media outlets. There are alot of very vocal people who do not want Sotomayor in office who have not mentioned this yet (and don't tell me they are in on it).

The thing that bothers me the most about Sotomayor is not that she is possibly a racist crook. It is that she speeks perfect English without any accent, but when she says "Latina" it is in a very deep spanish accent! This bothers me soooooo much, my local news caster does it also and it bothers me.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterE
Still trying to wrap my brain around this one.. Have I read properly that she denied someone due process in order to conceal information to benefite financially? I would think that if this is as groundbreaking as it sounds that it would be all over certian media outlets. There are alot of very vocal people who do not want Sotomayor in office who have not mentioned this yet (and don't tell me they are in on it).



The fact that no one's talking about it is the really scary part because it means that it has to come from very high. I can understand why the politicians aren't asking any questions about it but what I can't understand is why the media isn't. It has gotten ZERO coverage. They can't ALL be under the government's thumb. But then on the other hand, looking at the documentation involved I can see no way for this to be a hoax or a lie. I really can't. Whoever has orchestrated this has really outdone themselves this time.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I don't think the so-called fraud is sufficiently substantiated. She made a ruling that Cordero disagreed with. That's all.

In addition, Sotomayor was not required to provide the Senate Judiciary Committee with every single letter that has ever mentioned her in her entire life.

Of course she's going to submit letters in support of her nomination.

If somebody wrote something untrue and defamatory about you would you include it on your resume?

Case not proven.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Sestias]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
I don't think the so-called fraud is sufficiently substantiated. She made a ruling that Cordero disagreed with. That's all.

In addition, Sotomayor was not required to provide the Senate Judiciary Committee with every single letter that has ever mentioned her in her entire life.

Of course she's going to submit letters in support of her nomination.

If somebody wrote something untrue and defamatory about you would you include it on your resume?

Case not proven.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Sestias]


I would not normally go to these lengths to spoon-feed people who don't have the desire in the first place to understand but I will in this instance because it really is that important that disinformation does not succeed this time. Either you didn't really bother to read or you misread - totally.

To quote you: "She made a ruling that Cordero disagree with".

What she did: She upheld a ruling by a lower judge (that she had nominated and that she was in cahoots with) that, in a bankruptcy case, the people filing for bankruptcy did not have to submit ONE SINGLE PIECE of documentation showing their financial standing. The creditors were out $673,000 in this one instance just on the word of the people filing bankruptcy (there were 3,907 OTHER bankruptcy cases open before this judge under similar circumstances). These people earned $291,470 in the preceding three years, were still on their jobs, and had a monthly excess income of $1,940, yet claimed that they only had $535 in hand and on account but the judge didn't make them prove it. Not even requiring a simple BANK STATEMENT.

Not much room for interpretation there. Not sufficiently substantiated??? What planet are you from??


Judge Ninfo did not review his petition for bankruptcy relief at all. Rather, he denied my request for production by the DeLanos of even their bank account statements. So did Judge Sotomayor, impervious to how much common sense, never mind review with due diligence, requires that such statements be produced by anyone claiming lack of money to pay his debts, particularly if still employed and earning an above average salary. She could not in good faith have considered that the DeLanos had no duty whatsoever to produce a single document to support their otherwise self-serving declarations in their petition; or that a creditor facing the loss of his claims on them had no right under any legal or equitable theory to obtain a single document from the self-portrayed bankrupts and was reduced to taking their declarations at face value.


The letters on the Senate Judiciary Committee website are all of the letters that the committee has released to the public in connection with her nomination. Dr. Cordero's letter was not included on this public list. (This is not her list... it is the Committee's list). This is NOT a resume.. it is there for "openness" with the public. Hahahaaaa.......

What she WAS required to submit every single one of was on the Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees. “13.c. Provide citations to all cases in which you were a panel member, but did not write an opinion” and “13.f. Provide a list of all cases in which certiorari was requested or granted” - She did not disclose that case. She intentionally left it out.



[edit on 21/7/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Eamil this to CNN and CNBC news! Im sure it will get LOTS of public viewing




top topics



 
11

log in

join