HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why is Trump Obstructing ...

Mon May 28, 2018, 10:05 PM

 

Why is Trump Obstructing Justice in Romney/ Sachs cases?



.
It appears that Trump has - drained the swamp - in order to put in his own Vampire Squid racketeering creatures.

A case was filed, in Washington D.C., suing Trump, FBI, SEC & DOJ, on March 22, 2017, to block Jay Clayton from becoming head of SEC; but the Clerk of Court refused to click in the Complaint (a felony violation of Civil Rights).

Upon success of that crime (Jay Clayton being confirmed) Trump's Administration seeks to obstruct justice further, by nominating an associated corrupt Federal prosecutor (Colm Connolly) to become a Federal Justice.

No main stream media has bothered to point out the facts that Mitt Romney & Goldman Sachs have been partners in benefiting from schemes & artifice to defraud, for, at least, 20 years.

Crimes, benefiting Sachs & Mitt, in the billions of dollars, includes Fingerhut, Kay Bee, Mattel and eToys.
.
Did Trump have dinner with Mitt to obstruct justice

Trump met with Mitt Romney in a highly publicized, unusual open view, dinner; which VP Pence claimed Mitt was pitched to be Secretary of State.

There's another theory, much more likely.

Trump doesn't forgive critics; and we all know Romney was highly critical of Donald (calling him a phony & fraud); but Trump has done an about face, endorsing Mitt for Senator.

After the publicized dinner, Romney said Trump was the right man for the job as President.

Would you endorse a guy who just said no to appointing you to a Cabinent position?

A whistleblower pointed out that Mitt's dinner with Donald could have been a way for Romney to meet with Trump, so that nobody could sit in the meeting, where the two hatched a plan to protect Goldman Sachs and Bain Capital from being indicted.


.
There's no question that Goldman Sachs and Bain Capital are guilty of benefiting from organized crimes. The only question remaining is accountability.

Donald Trump can't go after Mitt Romney and his Bain Capital, with resulting in Goldman Sachs being indicted.

Hence, it's hands off Mitt; and Trump's ploys to protect.
.

Wash D.C. Clerk REFUSED to file Trump lawsuit


After Romney's dinner with Trump, the focus turned to Trump's nomination of Jay Clayton to be head of the SEC.

On March 22nd, 2017 - Laser Haas (yours truly) filed a Federal Complaint seeking a TRO (temporary restraing order) to block Donald Trump's nomination of Sullivan & Cromwell partner - Jay Clayton - for Commissioner of Securities Exchanges Commission ("SEC" ) .

The Complaint was filed in Washington D.C. Federal District Court (case of HAAS v. TRUMP D.C. District Court - docket number "1:17-cv-00861" ).

Illegally, the D.C. Clerk of Court flatly refused to put the case into the docket record (hiding it in a special place titled "F-Deck".)

https://cdn.steemitimages.com/0x0/

Subsequently, after the Clerk kept making different excuses, the HAAS v TRUMP lawsuit was entered into the Public Access Court Electronic Records ("PACER" ) on May 24th, 2017.

Unfortunately, this was 3 weeks after a rushed Cloture vote to confirm Jay Clayton.

The reason why the Complaint was filed, is due to the fact Jay Clayton was partners at Sullivan & Cromwell; which is a law firm involved in the criminal conspiracy to defraud eToys ( see NYT article Rigging IPO Game ).

Clayton's wife, Gretchen was a partner of Goldman Sachs; and possibly could have been in the division of Goldman Sachs that defrauded eToys public offering.

On top of all that, Jay Clayton was invested with Bain Capital; and the Mortis Nichols Arsht & Tunnell ("MNAT" ) law firm was the party in charge of eToys suing Goldman Sachs.

MNAT handpicked Paul Traub to be opposing counsel to Sullivan & Cromwell; which was a conflict of interest federal crime (MNAT represents Goldman Sachs & Bain Capital in Delaware).

In reality, Goldman Sachs sued Goldman Sachs and settled a billion dollar fraud for $7.5 million; which MNAT & Paul Traub publicly argued about how much they would split up.

As the Minnesota Federal Receiver over the Tom Petters Pinzi case pointed out - Paul Traub, by the way, was partners with fraudster Marc Dreier (pic below center circle) and Traub " controlled " the Tom Petters Ponzi (pic below Tom Petters far left and Traub far right)



Despite Paul Traub's confessions in the eToys case, about deliberately lying under oath (MNAT & Paul Traub both betraying their court approved clients) the federal prosecutors in Delaware - Colm Connolly - refused to investigate or prosecute Paul Traub and MNAT.

That federal prosecutor was Delaware United States Attorney Connolly - and Colm Failed to disclose the fact that he was a partner of the MNAT Law firm.

Colm Connolly's resume is archived at the Department of Justice Office if Legal Policy website. Trump has nominated this corrupt crony former federal prosecutor - who switched sides, multiple times, - as a “revolved door” . (Colm's Résumé from DOJ website.)



Obviously, Colm Connolly is unfit to become a Federal judge; but Laser Haas can't sue to block him (it didn't work versus Jay Clayton).

AA far as that goes, Trump himself is unfit for office; but that doesn't stop his Administration from Obstructing Justice.

The bad faith crony corrupts are so brazen, blatant & flagrant that thru posted the time line of the corrupted HAAS v TRUMP case, into the public docket record pointing out the Twilight Zone backwards time line, as if bragging about the perversions.

https://www.justice.gov/archive/olp/colmconnollyresume.htm

How does a court dismiss a case 4 days before it received the paperwork?

If you will look at the court's record picture, the Judge signed the Order to dismiss on May 5th; but the record shows the paperwork was clocked in on May 9th.

The PACER docket record for HAAS v. TRUMP wasn't created until May 24th.

Obstruction is the Rule - in the Trump Twilight Zone - instead of the exception.

Just sayin........

..................LOOK for yourself



.
2 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Is there any stopping Trump Obstruction?
0 (0%)
Yes
0 (0%)
No
0 (0%)
Maybe
2 (100%)
Who cares
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

26 replies, 2035 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 26 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why is Trump Obstructing Justice in Romney/ Sachs cases? (Original post)
laserhaas May 2018 OP
stevenleser May 2018 #1
laserhaas May 2018 #3
stevenleser May 2018 #4
stevenleser May 2018 #6
jberryhill May 2018 #2
laserhaas May 2018 #7
stevenleser May 2018 #12
jberryhill May 2018 #13
stevenleser May 2018 #14
The Velveteen Ocelot May 2018 #5
laserhaas May 2018 #8
The Velveteen Ocelot May 2018 #9
laserhaas May 2018 #10
laserhaas May 2018 #11
stevenleser May 2018 #16
laserhaas May 2018 #25
laserhaas May 2018 #26
tammywammy May 2018 #15
laserhaas May 2018 #17
tammywammy May 2018 #19
laserhaas May 2018 #20
jberryhill May 2018 #21
tammywammy May 2018 #22
stevenleser May 2018 #23
laserhaas May 2018 #24
laserhaas May 2018 #18

Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2018, 10:54 PM

1. If you want to play lawyer so badly, why don't you go to law school?

 

At the rate you are going you are just going to be declared a vexatious litigant in more jurisdictions than you have been already.

I can tell you without the benefit of law school that what you have filed here doesn’t have a chance of proceeding. In situations where the President has the authority to nominate people for positions and the senate has the right/duty/obligation to vet and confirm, unless a particular office has a constitutional requirement that the appointed is not meeting you have zero chance.

Your assertion that you believe someone has committed a felony won’t do it, they have to have been convicted of that felony.

That’s before the matter of standing which kills most lawsuits before they get started. I would be very surprised if any court ruled you have standing here. I’m willing to be corrected by any DU attorneys like jberryhiill or misanthrope

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #1)

Mon May 28, 2018, 11:14 PM

3. That is because you don't know Jack crap about the law

 

Snide and petty naysayer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #3)

Mon May 28, 2018, 11:17 PM

4. According to whom? You? You have been declared a vexatious litigant in

 

Multiple jurisdictions. That’s the definition of not knowing the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #3)

Mon May 28, 2018, 11:23 PM

6. And per jberryhills link below the judge told you pretty much what i did

 

regarding situations where the President has the authority to nominate people with the advise and consent of the senate.

The judge also said you lacked standing which is what I suspected would also happen,

It’s hilarious that you accuse me of not knowing the law when the judge dismissed your lawsuit for exactly the reasons I suspected it wouldn’t fly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2018, 11:13 PM

2. Who cares what the clerk told you?

 

Did you bother to read what the judge told you?

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170714641

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, District Judge.
Plaintiff, who identifies himself as "Laser" or "Laster the Liquidator," Compl. ¶ 1, generally objects to the nomination of Jay Clayton to head the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" ) . In plaintiff's view, Mr. Clayton's partnership in the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP affords Goldman Sachs, the firm's client, undue power and influence. Based on the Court's understanding of plaintiff's claims, the case must be dismissed because it raises a nonjusticiable political question.


(More at link)



On February 26, 2016, the National Law Journal reported that Obama administration officials were vetting Jackson as a potential nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama.[16] In March 2016, the Washington Post[17] and the Associated Press[18] confirmed that information, and Reuters reported that Jackson was one of five candidates interviewed as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy.[19]

Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials.

How dare you make such an accusation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #2)

Mon May 28, 2018, 11:25 PM

7. Nothing your negative (Trump/ Mitt support) argument

 

has any validity to negate the fact that the Clerk of Court - illegally - refused to docket the case.

You are such a Laser hater, that you play games to keep people from legitimate discussion, telling only false narratives in support of bogus rulings, for the sake of defending bad faith acts.

This Judge signed an Order to dismiss on May 5th when the docket record wasn't created until May 24th.

You act if that isn't a horrific state of affairs.

If my case was so week, then why block it from being filed?

The judge insanely signed an Order to dismiss when there was no case number. Meaning the 10 days to appeal timely, was moot.

And you act as if that is okay.

Puhhhllleeeaaassseee.....

How can you constantly support abuses of discretion as if such is dispositive?

You act as if judges are perfect - even when they engage in Color of Law.

You can go get a dozen of your gang to bark all the B.S. you wish; but that doesn't change the fact that Romney & Sachs perpetrated frauds that my attorneys betrayed me - by aiding , abetting and lying under oath.

Sooner or later, Justice will come - to your shame!

Shheesshh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #7)

Mon May 28, 2018, 11:36 PM

12. You haven't been to law school yet you opine on the merits of a judges opinion?

 

There is a study you might want to read by Dunning and Kruger

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the metacognitive inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.[1] On the other hand, people of high ability incorrectly assume that tasks that are easy for them are also easy for other people.[2]

As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the cognitive bias of illusory superiority results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."[1]
——————————————-

Put simply, you don’t have the background to assess your incompetence or the judges competence with the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #7)

Mon May 28, 2018, 11:52 PM

13. That order is dated May 5

 

The time for filing an appeal in ordinary circumstances is 30 days. That appeal deadline has not passed yet.

But because you have sued an officer of the United States, you get 60 days from May 5

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4


(B) The notice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from if one of the parties is:

(i) the United States;

(ii) a United States agency;

(iii) a United States officer or employee sued in an official capacity


The time of docketing has ZERO bearing on the time for taking appeal.

Your accusation against Judge Jackson is disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #13)

Tue May 29, 2018, 12:00 AM

14. Btw did he accuse you of being "a Laser hater"

 

Is he talking about himself in the third person?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2018, 11:22 PM

5. Dude, get a different hobby.

Oil painting, stamp collecting, anything that doesn't waste the time of the federal court system and the money of taxpayers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #5)

Mon May 28, 2018, 11:27 PM

8. You have me mixed up with corrupt Federal agents and Wall Street crooks

 

They are the ones Obstructing...

And you are taking their side.

What does that say about you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #8)

Mon May 28, 2018, 11:29 PM

9. Hey, they're your windmills. Tilt away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2018, 11:32 PM

10. Legal eagles tend to circle the wagon to protect lawyers

 

That's similar to the 'Blue Wall of Silence'

And it sucks.

So I block anybody that argues my case is invalid; but they do so in bad faith by willful blindness of the facts.

Trump's nomination of a crooked federal prosecutor is something everybody should be fighting against.

Instead - the same people always show up to shoot down any reporters story on our federal case.

And nobody asks why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2018, 11:35 PM

11. Graham has a pyramid of argument validity.

 

There are legitimate debates and there are illegitimate debates.

Either a party cates about facts - or they don't!

A legitimate debate discuss the facts

Illegitimate debates usually attack a person by ignoring any fact that supports the position of the party being attacked.

It comes down to the 2 sides of a coin.

You can't call heads, and then ignore the result of heads landing face up - unless you are an unfair bully.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #11)

Tue May 29, 2018, 12:42 AM

16. The problem with this is, you don't know the subject matter and won't listen to the one person

 

responding here who does, jberryhill.

So you aren't up to anything on the top three layers here. In fact your responses to jberryhill are all on the bottom 5 layers which is about what one would expect from anyone who doesn't know a particular subject matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #11)

Wed May 30, 2018, 05:36 PM

25. The naysayers are basically ignoring 100 crimes transpired

 

Protected by federal corruption.

Their argument is - Judge said this & that...


As if judges never make illegal rulings contrary to what is right & decent.

Worse thing is, they drive away conversation about Goldman Sachs partnership with Bain Capital; and the focus in the dynamic Wall Street has undue power & influence over our federal systems of Justice.

And that's what this news story is about.

People are choosing which side they are on - to their shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #25)

Wed May 30, 2018, 05:47 PM

26. A recent case in point is Sup CT decision employees lack rights

 

If Wall Mart and every other employer get in line to require all employees sign cut-throat employee contracts - then we all ate doomed.

Justice Ginsburg points out, in great detail, how the (GOP controlled) US Supreme Court got it wrong.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/16-285/dissent5.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue May 29, 2018, 12:13 AM

15. How is the F-Deck hiding a case? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tammywammy (Reply #15)

Tue May 29, 2018, 01:03 AM

17. I've filed tons of briefs, motions and such - over 17 years

 

Never once, has any filing been stamped "F-Deck".

This reporter suggested "F-Deck" means we are F'd when it comes to Donald Trump's Administration dealings.

The record clearly shows the case docket is tampered with.



/photo/1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #17)

Tue May 29, 2018, 10:03 AM

19. So you don't know what F-Deck means.

Googling for it shows plenty of civil cases assigned to the F-Deck. I would just assume that they refer to the various case decks by letter instead of something nefarious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tammywammy (Reply #19)

Tue May 29, 2018, 12:22 PM

20. I emailed the Clerk

 

If they don't answer - today - I'll ask another way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tammywammy (Reply #19)

Tue May 29, 2018, 07:49 PM

21. It appears to be the DC district court's designation for "pro se general civil" litigation

 


Courts usually receive filings electronically these days.

Nonetheless, there is a regular flow of whacky claims filed by pro se litigants who also file for in forma pauperis status (i.e. I don't want to pay the filing fees either) on paper. So, some staff member has to scan them in.

The types of cases that are assigned to the "Pro se Gen. Civil" docket, F-Deck, of the DC district are gems like this:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914e115add7b049348e0b4f

Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident. She sues a judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Plaintiff alleges that her case was dismissed while she "was locked up without medication for several days and [without a] CPAP machine." Plaintiff further complains about other unfortunate events that seem to have nothing do with the named defendant. She seeks $999 billion in damages.

https://casetext.com/case/sharp-v-dolan

The plaintiff is a resident of Arlington, Virginia. He sues Archbishop of New York Timothy Cardinal Dolan and "the leaders of U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops," Compl. Caption, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. The plaintiff alleges that the "Catholic hierarchy [has] added books to the original 66 book structure of the Bible," which along with "other additions . . . have distorted not only the simple purpose of the Bible and its message but with such additions have manipulated private business and governments here and around the globe . . . ." Compl. at 2. As a result, the plaintiff generally blames the Catholic Church for a host of activities covered by the RICO statute--including money laundering, acts of terrorism, and sexual exploitation of children. See id. at 1.

-----------

It appears to be the general designation for "crazy shit filed by pro se litigants".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #21)

Tue May 29, 2018, 08:08 PM

22. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #21)

Tue May 29, 2018, 09:06 PM

23. "Crazy s--t filed by pro se litigants" Seems about right. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tammywammy (Reply #19)

Tue May 29, 2018, 10:41 PM

24. The Clerk didn't answer

 

I will escalate the inquiry, on the morrow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue May 29, 2018, 08:52 AM

18. Clerks are ministers of the courts - they have no rights to tamper

 

Each document not properly forwarded is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2076, which provides for a fine and up to one year in jail. Each document concealed or destroyed is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 and provides for a fine and up to three years in prison:

"a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread