How Roberts Was Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare

Started by Trip, July 14, 2013, 12:05:18 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Trip


I apologize to the members here for reproducing research I originally presented "elsewhere", but I figure members here might find these facts of interest, and this story did get serious traction across the blogosphere, and sites such as "WhatReallyHappened.com" and "BeforeItsNews.com"

_____________________________

How Roberts Was Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare

INTRO:
Many of us have questioned what caused Roberts  to switch his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute, as reported by CBS, and doing so,  so late that the Conservative Justices were forced to rewrite their majority opinion to be minority dissent.

According to some sources, Roberts wrote both the majority and a large portion of minority dissenting opinions.   The liberal news outlet Salon.com has a story on July 3, 2012, "Roberts Wrote Both ObamaCare Opinions", written by law professor Paul Campos, citing "a source within the court with direct knowledge of the drafting process."

In this Salon article, Campos rejects the claim that the conservative minority wrote the dissenting opinion in response to Roberts' majority opinion. Instead Campos' source indicates that Roberts authored as much as the "first 46 pages" of the dissent, a full 70%,  originally intended to be the majority opinion entirely rejecting ObamaCare.   Only after Roberts switched his vote at the last minute did the remaining four Justices author the final 19 pages of that dissenting opinion. 

In support of this, Campos points out that it is extraordinary "in the court's history that a dissent has gone on for 13,000 words before getting around to mentioning that it is, in fact, dissenting", and yet there are repeated references to dissent from the majority opinion in those last 19 pages.

These facts may answer that question.

Roberts Adoptions:

In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were "from a Latin American country", but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American, but were Irish.  Why this matters will become evident.

In 2005 the NY Times began investigating Roberts life as a matter of his nomination to the Supreme Court by George Bush.  The Times was shortly accused of trying to unseal the adoption papers and intending to violate  the anonymity of the adoption process... however there is more to the story.


Drudge did an article in 2005
http://patterico.com/2005/08/04/drudge-says-new-york-times-is-investigating-robertss-adoption-records/


  •             The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

                The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts' two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.

                Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.

                Both children were adopted from Latin America.

                A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper's "standard background check."

                Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: "Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue."



Were the Children Adopted from Ireland?

This is not clear ... -- the Associated Press reports that they were "adopted from Latin America." This seems a bit puzzling, in light of the Time magazine report indicating that the children were born in Ireland. Also, their blonde hair and fair skin do not seem conventionally Latin American. 1

TIME had a "web exclusive" on the Roberts's (7/24/05) and quoted a family friend as stating the kids were "born in Ireland 4 1/2 months apart."

How were the Children Adopted?

According to The New York Times, based on information from Mrs. Roberts's sister, Mary Torre, the children were adopted through a private adoption.

As explained by Families for Private Adoption, "[p]rivate (or independent) adoption is a legal method of building a family through adoption without using an adoption agency for placement. In private adoption, the birth parents relinquish their parental rights directly to the adoptive parents, instead of to an agency."2

But was Robert's adoption utilizing "a legal method"?

Apparently the process of adopting Jack involved some stress for John Roberts. According to Dan Klaidman of Newsweek, during the contested 2000 election, Roberts "spent a few days in Florida advising lawyers [for George W. Bush] on their legal strategy," but "he did not play a central role," because " at the time, Roberts was preoccupied with the adoption of his son."

It is now quite evident that the two Children were from Ireland.  Even wikipedia references these adoptions at the time of Roberts' confirmation, and indicates that the children were of Irish birth.

However Irish law 1) prohibits the adoption of Children to non-residents, and 2) also does not permit private adoptions, but rather has all adoptions go through a public agency.

This would explain the children's origin from a "Latin American country", so as to circumvent Irish law.

Evidently Roberts arranged for this adoption through some sort of trafficking agency, that got the children out of Ireland and into that Latin American country, from which they were adopted, thereby circumventing two Irish laws -- entirely illegal, but perhaps quasi-legitimized by the birth mothers (two) transporting the children out of Ireland. 

Undoubtedly Roberts and his wife spent a great deal of money for this illegal process, circumventing Irish laws and arranging for the transit of two Irish children from separate birth-mothers to a foreign nation.  Come 2012, those two children have been with the Roberts' for roughly 10 years, since they were adopted as "infants".

Some might feel an impulse dismiss this information, mistakenly believing Roberts and his wife were doing a good thing for a children needing a home.

That would be an inaccurate belief.  As recognized, such an inter-country adoption would only come about at great cost, and those who utilize this method are creating a for-profit black market in adoptive children, trafficking across international borders, and doing so from mothers who have not yet given up  their children except for that profit.  Such actions are creating a very unsavory profit-for-children human trafficking market that even necessitates immediate contact with new birth mothers in dire circumstances to offer financial gain. The entire arrangement is thoroughly predatory, turning children into only financial commodity,  and even providing motivation for their birth mothers to give them up! That's an important ethical recognition.   

Roberts is not deserving of any sort of respect here, and is only the latest example of people in position believing themselves above the law, beyond scrutiny and exempt from repercussion.

It all now makes sense.

The circumstances of these two adoptions explain not only why this would be overlooked by an overall sympathetic media, but also why a sitting Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would not want this information to become public fodder well into his tenure.  Its release and public discussion would discredit Roberts as an impartial judge of the law, and undoubtedly  lead to his impeachment.

This also explains why Roberts would have a means to be blackmailed, and why that leverage would still exist even after the institution of ObamaCare.

... And it has led to flipping the swing-vote on ObamaCare, which fundamentally changed the relationship between citizen and government, making us de facto property of the state, with our relative worth in care and maintenance able to be determined by the government.  Essentially it was a coup without firing a shot, much less needing even an Amendment to the Constitution.

And it is consistent with Obama's Chicago-style politics, that has previously involved opening other sealed <divorce> records in order to win election.



Trip

The only weak point in my original post, above, beyond actual proof of blackmail, was my understanding of Irish Adoption Law.  However an overview of widespread Irish Adoption laws do bear out the assertions.

Reference: Overview of Ireland Adoption Law (PDF)

The above document makes the following statements:


  • "The responsibility for making adoption orders is vested in the Irish Adoption Board, An Bord Uchtala. Before a final adoption order is made, the child usually is placed with the future adopter(s) by one of Ireland's Registered Adoption Societies." [page 1]



Who may adopt?


  • ... "While the Irish acts do not require the applicants have Irish nationality or an Irish domicile, the applicants must be ordinarily resident in Ireland or have resident there during the year ending on the date of the order."[Page 4]


Adoption Authorities:

  • "The adoption process in Ireland is regulated by the Adoption Board -- the An Bord Uchtala -- which consists of a Chairman and eight members.   THe Adoption Board is an independent, quasi-judicial statutory body appointed by the Irish Government.   It has the sole right to grant or refuse to grant adoption orders.  The Board is also responsible for granting the declarations of eligibility and suitability to prospective adopters in advance of their adopting abroad and for maintaining the Register of Foreign Adoptions in which the details of intercountry adoptions are entered." [Page 4]



  • "Before an adoption agency can accept a child for adoption, the person proposing to give the child up must be furnished with a statement explaining the effect of adoption order upon his or her rights and the provisions of the adoption acts relating to consents.  An agreement to place the child with prospective adopters must be signed prior to the signing of consent.  The agreement to place must have been made freely, with full knowledge of the consequences, and under circumstances where neither the advice of persons engaged in the transaction nor the surrounding circumstances deprive the mother of the capacity to make a fully informed free decision.  In particular an agreement to place is "not valid if motivated by fear, stress or anxiety or dictated by parents or deprivations."[Page 7]

There are no private adoptions.

All adoptions go through the government board, An Bord Uchtala.

John Roberts was not ordinarily resident in Ireland, and was not resident there for the year ending on the date of an order that never passed through the Uchtala Board!

Furthermore, it is doubtful that Robert's adoption afforded the adopting mothers (two) an environment that fully informed each of them of their rights, and was free of stress, anxiety, coercion and "deprivations".  In fact it is virtually certain that the process involved removing two children and their respective mothers from Ireland, and any support structure they might have had there, not to mention removing them from the purview of Irish law!


This whole thing is highly illegal and unethical, and undeniably exposes Roberts to blackmail!


Trip

The below image is taken at the White House Tuesday July 22, 2005, when G. W. Bush introduced John Roberts as his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court. Appearing with Roberts and Bush, to the right, are Robert's wife Jane, and their two adopted children, Josie (Josephine) and Jack.

The four J's: John, Jane, Josie and Jack.

The Washington Post covered the story with an article titled, "An Image a Little Too Carefully Coordinated", in which the author engages in a rather unsavory vivisection of the Roberts family conservative attire.

Perhaps the Post's article title was even more apropos than they knew!

(Pool Photo By Shawn Thew)


Walter Josh

Playing Devil's Advocate; the reality is, assertion is not proof.
If true, did Roberts break Gaelic Law (not Irish) or instead ignore a precedent of a foreign country???
If this was impeachable then, why is it not impeachable now???
Wouldn't Roberts, as a sitting Federal Justice, have enough gravitas w/the Dublin Bar and in their
Dail (Parliament) to adopt in the normal course w/o all this chicanery???




Trip

#4
Quote from: Walter Josh on July 14, 2013, 10:07:32 AM
Playing Devil's Advocate; the reality is, assertion is not proof.
If true, did Roberts break Gaelic Law (not Irish) or instead ignore a precedent of a foreign country???
If this was impeachable then, why is it not impeachable now???
Wouldn't Roberts, as a sitting Federal Justice, have enough gravitas w/the Dublin Bar and in their
Dail (Parliament) to adopt in the normal course w/o all this chicanery???

The indication that the births occurred in Ireland came from the Roberts family and sources close thereto in various different statements, as well as the indication the adoptions occurred from "latin Americna countries".   The only thing that "assertion" applies to is a de facto proof of blackmail.

The phrase "Gaelic law" applies to common tradition passed down orally, not in statute manner, and represents the ancient civil "common law" tradition of the Irish people, applied only as late as the early 17th century.  That is clearly not what is described in the  second post in the "Overview of Ireland Adoption Law", which is not any sort of Gaelic oral tradiont at all, but rather Irish civil law,  with references applicable to as recent as 2010.


It is impeachable now, and nowhere was it indicated not to be.  And all that would be required to thoroughly discredit Roberts as a Justice of the Supreme Court, would be some 2nd hand leak, not even directly coming from the administration, with any piece(s) of concrete evidence about the adoptions, such as birth certificate, and adoption papers. It is pretty clear that the New York Times was not just nosing into the Roberts adoptions for a back story to the nomination,  and that reporters there were onto something concrete, as merely "two adopted children" is not cause for any inquiry normally.

That's just it, Roberts was not a sitting Federal justice" at the time of the adoptions, and if Roberts was going through the Irish government he most certainly would certainly would not have to go through obscure channels of avoiding that Irish law, by adopting not one, but two Irish children through Latin American countries.  You're not suggesting that Roberts should have received legitimate Irish government approval, and still would have gone through a Latin American country, are you?

Prior to the adoptions in 2000, John Roberts was working in private practice as a partner in Hogan & Hartson, as well as serving as an adjunct faculty member at the Georgetown University Law Center.  As noted in previous comments, Roberts adoptions occurred in the midst of the contested 2000  election between George BUsh and Gore, in which Roberts consulted both George Bush, as well as governor Jeb Bush,  on legal strategy, but was recognized to be distracted by the adoptions.

It seems that Roberts having adopted two newly Irish-born children through Latin American countries, strongly indicates what is clearly and substantially engaging in far more than mere "chicanery", and was bypassing Irish law by engaging in black market human trafficking thorough foreign countries to contravene that law, something entirely inappropriate for any citizen to do, not to mention cause to impeach a Justice.

However it is no small wonder with such willingness of Americans white-wash this clearly unethical and illegal behavior, why our own government officials feel so secure in so grossly violating our own Constitution, laws, and ethics with ObamaCare and other actions.


kit saginaw

You spiraled off-axis.   Roberts knew the Affordable Care Act was a flop and his yes-vote gave it the space to flop spectacularly in front of the entire Nation, which is what it's doing.  We're watching a key Dem artillery-stockpile blow sky-high.  They can never resurrect it to anything resembling this scale again.  Plus his vote 'rescued' the integrity of the Court from its dangling-chad hangover.

Trip

Quote from: kit saginaw on July 14, 2013, 06:01:11 PM
You spiraled off-axis.   Roberts knew the Affordable Care Act was a flop and his yes-vote gave it the space to flop spectacularly in front of the entire Nation, which is what it's doing.  We're watching a key Dem artillery-stockpile blow sky-high.  They can never resurrect it to anything resembling this scale again.  Plus his vote 'rescued' the integrity of the Court from its dangling-chad hangover.

So Roberts had some ingenious long-term plan, to first write 70% of what later became the minority opinion, entirely rejecting ObamaCare, and instead chose single-handedly to be the deciding vote to validate it, when it cold  have been entirely denied?

And in the meantime the country's economy is collapsing, jobs are being killed in the midst of the worst recession,  people made unemployed, insurance companies going out of business, doctors leaving the profession, health care costs are escalating, and far more.   All to watch a "key key Dem artillery stockpile" blow sky high?

And this is a good plan, some sort of brilliant idea, and not even greater cause to hang Roberts from the highest yardarm. along with the other four?  This has all the 'brilliance' of amputating the rest of the body to save a hand.

This attempt to salvage Roberts' reputation, to protect some misplaced adulation for Roberts at evidently any cost, even the cost of the Truth and the facts, not to mention real outcome, while his opinion on the ObamaCare case is one of the most appalling  pieces of judicial corruption and nonsense, is why we're losing this nation and our freedoms.

And as far as that "dangling chad hangover", the Court made the proper decision by not actually making the decision itself, but ruling that the if the vote count was going to be made by entirely different standards, then those standards had to be applied throughout the state of Florida, and the state was obligated to have the results by a date established by law.  This was entirely the proper decision! The only "hangover" was the Democrats continuing to make excuses for their own failed attempt to alter the outcome of the election by entirely illegitimate means -  selective sampling bias.



Solar

Quote from: kit saginaw on July 14, 2013, 06:01:11 PM
You spiraled off-axis.   Roberts knew the Affordable Care Act was a flop and his yes-vote gave it the space to flop spectacularly in front of the entire Nation, which is what it's doing.  We're watching a key Dem artillery-stockpile blow sky-high.  They can never resurrect it to anything resembling this scale again.  Plus his vote 'rescued' the integrity of the Court from its dangling-chad hangover.
You give him way too much credit.
He's just a traitor to Conservative principals, that's all.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

kit saginaw

Quote from: Solar on July 14, 2013, 06:51:40 PM
He's just a traitor to Conservative principals, that's all.

I dunno... sorta.  He's basically stuck, without much Dem doomagoggery to shoot-down.  So he'll probably serve-out his 'term' as a barely consequential figurehead. 

kramarat

If everything about the adoption was known in 2005, why would blackmail work in 2010?

Robert's decision doesn't matter. Obamacare will collapse on itself before it gets off the ground. Even the unions are going nuts.

The closer it gets to saying goodbye to Obama, the more democrats are going to turn on him. Honor among thieves only goes so far. Democrats aren't the type to jump on a grenade to save a comrade...especially when the comrade is almost finished.

AndyJackson

One early concept of the SC / Roberts Obamacare ruling was the theory that Roberts was somehow trying to give the GOP a chance to defund it as a tax and budget concept.

I've always held out a little hope that there was a little patriotic nuance in his ruling, and not just pure treasonous RINO.

AndyJackson

Otherwise, this adoption things is ridiculous.

Not enough there for blackmail to even be an option.  Arcane thousand-year-old laws of pre-history; a professional political blackmailer wouldn't even bother.

Trip

Quote from: kramarat on July 15, 2013, 04:10:20 PM
If everything about the adoption was known in 2005, why would blackmail work in 2010?

Robert's decision doesn't matter. Obamacare will collapse on itself before it gets off the ground. Even the unions are going nuts.

The closer it gets to saying goodbye to Obama, the more democrats are going to turn on him. Honor among thieves only goes so far. Democrats aren't the type to jump on a grenade to save a comrade...especially when the comrade is almost finished.

The blackmail would work now, as opposed to 2005, because then Roberts was not a sitting justice of the Supreme Court.

In 2005 when the New York Times first stumbled upon this story, and obviously knew something was up, there was public dismay about the NYT having dug into something as personal as private adoptions, and it  was publicly dropped.  However we can be quite certain that the focus of the NYT was lost on many at the time, and particularly since Roberts own bio on even wikipedia points out the adoption concerns.

While most people would not find fault with the average person having made use of illegal adoption methods involving use of black market human trafficking, particularly since there is no claim of anyone being wronged, the same is not true for a sitting Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

As Chief Justice, no longer just a private citizen, and no longer just engaging in  private law practice, Roberts is in fact obligated to have demonstrate a respect for the law.  The clear evidence that Roberts has not just disregarded the law, but violated the law, and been involved him human trafficking to bypass that law, is in fact real cause for his impeachment.



AndyJackson

It's not human trafficking....that's a concept generally reserved for slavery, sex slaves, coyotes and mass illegal smuggling, etc.......

This is adopting children and giving them a better life.  Nobody can get a rise out of anybody for this.

If you can't get any interest in Obama's many felonies, repeated treason, and fake BC........nobody's gonna care about Roberts adopting 2 kids and giving them a good life.

Pure folly and fantasy.

Trip

Quote from: AndyJackson on July 15, 2013, 05:25:05 PM
One early concept of the SC / Roberts Obamacare ruling was the theory that Roberts was somehow trying to give the GOP a chance to defund it as a tax and budget concept.

I've always held out a little hope that there was a little patriotic nuance in his ruling, and not just pure treasonous RINO.

One has to be blind and ignorant to imagine that a reasonable course of action is to allow a law to be passed, when Roberts own vote, and original intention, was to entirely nullify ObamaCare and rule it unconstitutional, with Roberts himself having written 70% of what became the minority opinion to reject ObamaCare.

Why DEFUND something that is so flagrantly and thoroughy a violation of the Constitution, and to quote the founders, null and void on face value?  ObamaCare is not just a law, but fundamentally and grossly changes the relationship between citizen and government established by the Constitution, putting the government in a position of de facto ownership of each and every citizen.   

This cannot possibly be validated by any sort of contortions and interpretations of lelgal minds, and is not changed by considering the individual mandate to be a tax, rather than a penalty, which even Roberts could not present with any sort of veracity in the majority opinion!  The distinction between it being a Tax or a Penalty is entirely irrelevant to it being Constitutional, and the founders would have been fools if they only had defined one thing to be unconstitutional, but by a mere change of its description, it might be constitutional.  Such is the tool of tyrants, but fortunately those Founders were not fools, and both the Tax and the Penalty are prohibited by the Constitution.  (If you doubt this, challenge me and I'd be happy to prove it.)

You're bending over backwards to try and validate Roberts actions, when they are entirely unsupportable and unconscionable.

Quote from: AndyJackson on July 15, 2013, 05:28:08 PM
Otherwise, this adoption things is ridiculous.

Not enough there for blackmail to even be an option.  Arcane thousand-year-old laws of pre-history; a professional political blackmailer wouldn't even bother.

The Irish adoption law is not "arcane", is not "thousand-year-old", and sure as hell has nothing to do with "pre-history".  These are in fact contemporary laws, accurate into the 21st century.

Apparently you didn't read the linked PDF of  Irish adoption law.

Apparently you didn't read my response to the "Walter Josh" and adddress his misconception  that this was somehow "Gaelic Law" and some archaic laws no longer really applicable. This is contemporary law from the Republic of Ireland, and real modern-day Irish Law, and it is entirely applicable.