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.

 

Is Judge Roll's Death Linked to him Ruling Against Exec Order to Confiscate Pensions & Savings?

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
admin edit: This story has been proven a HOAX here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


If the facts in this article are accurate, it's very possible the real target of the Tucson shootings was Judge Roll.

authenticallywired.com...

Snippet


PERSPECTIVE ABOUT THE SHOOTING IN TUCSON ON SATURDAY WHICH IS OFF ALL RADAR AND WORTH LOOKING INTO …
ONE … DID … Obama recently signed an executive order allowing the feds to confiscate all 401ks and retirement accounts. Our media forget to inform us of this fact. A single judge adjudicated that Obama did not have that authority and stopped the confiscation.

Federal Judge John Roll … The judge, USDC court of Arizona Presiding Judge Roll, was shot and died on Saturday by a “crazed gunman.” The historical connotations are similar to Kennedy/Oswald in several ways.


I have to say I have found it strange that amidst such a furore, so little publicity was given to the assassination of Judge Roll. It has seemed odd that the MSM has made such little mention of him. Surely the assassination of a Federal Judge is a big number?

If what the article is suggesting is true, the intense focus on Congresswoman Giffords and the whipped up furore about the Tea Party's violent rhetoric might have been a deliberate distraction from the real issues. TPTB would NOT want the public to become aware of the Executive Orders which allow the feds to seize pensions, 401k and private savings, and they definitely would NOT want a lot of publicity about Judge Roll's death, because people would start digging.

Bad news for TPTB. People are digging anyway. People aren't buying this whole story, and the dirty details might be starting to emerge.

If this is the case, the 'conspiracy theories' that they are intending to take people's savings might just not be conspiracy theories.




edit on 18-1-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-26-2011 by Springer because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 



Very possible indeed. I never listen to main stream media news, etc. to be informed about anything. I am certain that lots of things that have happened have been to further an agenda that the world at large is unaware of. Look at both Kennedys, MLK, and others I can't think of now. To think a crazed lone gunman is responsible is nuts, but convenient for those that make these things happen since sheep buy into it out of fear.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Good job, my friend! I was talking with some friends about details of the shooting and everyone's response was "Judge Who?" Almost zero info on MSM about this man or potential reasons why he may have been a target. It's all about Gifford and the nine year old girl who was killed. It definitely is a tragedy, but they may be the tools of distraction for the real story behind the story. Misdirection is used very effectively by the media. I hope more info comes to light on this. Cheers...



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by RainDog
 


Yes, this one is definitely worth watching carefully.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 

nice post.
i was reading the other day the mandate to strip ira's and 401k's and replace them with government bonds with a 3% interest rate. very sinister imo atm.
regards f



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
The biggest hole in the OP theory is that this was a preplanned massacre. The judge had made no prior announcement that he would be attending. In fact, as the story goes, he decided that morning to stop by and visit Congresswoman Giffords after he left his church.

Fill that hole and you may have something.




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 

could be a possibility of an opportunist assassination. i wonder if the bullets match shooters gun from judges bod?
f



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Hell of an excellent find!!
S&F

"pay no attention to that dead judge lying there"



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


ahhh!!! good point!

inside job, then.
or maybe judge was steered there by somebody close to him or on his staff.
edit on 18-1-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit & additional comment



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
The same judge also more or less ruled in favor of an Arizona rancher who was being sued by illegal immigrants


U.S. District Judge John M. Roll, for starters, dismissed the claims of 10 of the illegals because they did not testify at trial. He then tossed related conspiracy complaints against Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, and his brother Donald, saying illegal immigrants had no constitutionally protected right to travel in the United States.


www.washingtontimes.com...

So this judge goes against federal confiscations and rules in favor of Americans as opposed to illegal immigrants, combine this with the fact that the judge was a behind the scenes tragedy while the congresswoman was front and center, and you have the perfect recipe for a conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
The biggest hole in the OP theory is that this was a preplanned massacre. The judge had made no prior announcement that he would be attending. In fact, as the story goes, he decided that morning to stop by and visit Congresswoman Giffords after he left his church.

Fill that hole and you may have something.




According to a Federal Bureau of Investigation statement filed with the criminal complaint, Roll had come to the meeting to talk to Giffords and her staff about the help she had provided trying to deal with growing volume cases in federal courts in Arizona. Roll was talking with one of Giffords’ aides before the shooting, according to the FBI statement.


www.bloomberg.com...

He went there specifically to talk to Gifford, so along the way any number of people could have figured it out.

He was talking with one of the aides before the shooting, how much before the shooting, I don't know, but that means someone knew he was there prior to the shooting.


edit on 18-1-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   
ok, so this is the court case in question

dockets.justia.com...:2010cv00703/568697/

here is an article about it

www.eutimes.net...


The case being ruled on by Judge Roll, this report continues, was about bulk cash smuggling into or out of the United States that the Obama administration claimed was their right to seize under what are called Presidential Executive Orders, instead of using existing laws. The Obama administration used as support for their claim before Judge Roll, the SVR says, the seizing of all American citizens’ gold, in 1933, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s signing of Executive Order 6102, which was ruled at the time to be constitutional.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
There is a video of the shooting, people. And the video clearly shows Judge John Roll shielding Mr. Barber, Gifford's aide, by lowering him to the ground and laying on top of him. It also shows Judge Roll getting shot once in the back from 4-feet away by the gunman.

He had the opportunity to run and probably could have survived. But instead he used himself as a shield to save another man's life. So, what now? You still think he was an intended target?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
criminal complaint says Roll was there performing official duties

count 3



www.politico.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by allenidaho
 


link?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by allenidaho
There is a video of the shooting, people. And the video clearly shows Judge John Roll shielding Mr. Barber, Gifford's aide, by lowering him to the ground and laying on top of him. It also shows Judge Roll getting shot once in the back from 4-feet away by the gunman.

He had the opportunity to run and probably could have survived. But instead he used himself as a shield to save another man's life. So, what now? You still think he was an intended target?


oh you mean the video that is in FBI custody and won't be released? But I guess if we believe our officials then everything matches up exactly as they said. Do you believe everything the officials tell you?

abcnews.go.com...
edit on 19-1-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
The video won't be released until the trial. I don't entirely believe the FBI but I do believe the witnesses and the Pima County Sheriff's Department. Why would they need to lie?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by allenidaho
The video won't be released until the trial. I don't entirely believe the FBI but I do believe the witnesses and the Pima County Sheriff's Department. Why would they need to lie?


If, for example, Roll did not valiantly save another man's life but was the intended target then it would wreck the entire official story that Gifford's was the sole target. I'm not saying that is definitely what happened but that would be a reason to lie.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I'm still trying to figure out how a defendant in a case could be money? (and a car).

I mean shouldn't the defendant be the owner of the car and the money? Or maybe if it is an illegal immigrant than they aren't the defendants? Wouldn't they still be the defendants. I've heard that you can't have a crime without a victim, well how about a crime without a criminal?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
So I did some research on this and the case they are talking about seems like it doesn't add up. Plus it is the EU times, not a very trustworthy newsite. Plus it is coming from Russia, yeah right. So I'm thinking this may be a disinfo, HOWEVER, usually they try to spoil the pot by intentionally introducing something bogus. What that means is this aspect may not be true, but it could be covering up something real. Keep looking into the judge's role in this.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join