top of page


Salim Mansur - Candidate for London North-Central for P.P.C. There is no longer any dispute that the presidential election was riddled with frauds of ballot harvesting, malpractices at voting arenas, and rigged computer voting system in favour of Joe Biden. The dispute is over the extent of the steal, and how much of these frauds and irregularities would alter the result of the election that the mainstream media has peddled in pushing the narrative that Joe Biden is the president-elect. The 7-2 denial of the Texas bill of complaint by the U.S. Supreme Court closed the judicial door of weighing the evidence of the frauds and irregularities and the violation of the Electors Clause in Art. II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution. The consequence of this decision is unavoidable, that the justices decided deliberately to let the clock run out on any complaint relating to the 2020 election having been rigged. Since the courts, I say advisedly, have denied the Plaintiff (Trump’s legal team) to provide the evidence collected on the DNC and the Deep State’s coordinated rigging of the election, the Executive Order 13848 of September 2018 signed by President Trump will provide the platform to reveal the full extent of fraud perpetrated domestically in the stealing of the election and foreign interference (China and a number of countries that will be revealed, as a result of the electronic monitoring and surveillance of the election) for the public. I also offered my view that this decision of the Supreme Court will be seen eventually as ignominious as the 7-2 ruling of the Supreme Court in 1857 in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. That ruling lit the fuse of the Civil War, and the denial of the Texas bill of complaint has set the stage for the EO 13848 to be triggered with the consequences to follow should violence break out for which Chief Justice John Roberts will be as much responsible as was Chief Justice Roger Taney with his ruling on the “Dred Scott” case in 1857 and the Civil War that followed. Taney’s political sympathy or support for slavery and the slave-owning states of the south in the Union was, it might be said, baked into his political DNA. Taney (1777-1864) was born into a wealthy slave-owning family in Maryland, and his rise in the Democratic party reflected his pro-slavery views on the most important and divisive issue at the time in American politics. The majority ruling that Taney wrote in the “Dred Scott” case was consistent with his politics and his life-long thinking on the subject of slavery in the United States. Ergo, Taney was compromised by the history and politics of slavery in the Union as he was a beneficiary of the arrangement which, as Lincoln described ahead of the 1860 election, made the Union permanently half slave and half free into “a house divided against itself [that] cannot stand.” Taney should have recused himself from the “Dred Scott” case instead of wading into the ignominy he brought upon the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice. Taney’s “Dred Scott” ruling illustrates that legal opinion more often than not is intimately bound with the political views and/or personal beliefs of the individual. When law and politics cannot be squared or reconciled then the “why” question emerges. The two dissenting opinions in the “Dred Scott” came from the justices who gave precedence to Morality, not Politics, over Legality on the issue of Slavery in the reading of the Constitution. Similarly, Chief Justice John Roberts's decision to deny hearing the Texas bill of complaint and six justices joining him forces the American people to ask why was this done? Since Roberts did not provide Texas the reasons of why it lacked standing in filing the bill of complaint – the two dissenting justices (Thomas and Alito) were of the opinion that the court did not have the discretion to deny Texas from a hearing as the court of original jurisdiction “on Controversies between two or more States”, as per the Constitution – the American people are left to speculating the motive of Roberts behind his denial of Texas’s bill of complaint. There have been rumours since Roberts's role in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling to uphold the contentious requirement of the individual mandate as tax in Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act of 2010, that there might be something improper lurking in his past. In other words, rumours about Roberts raised concern if he was vulnerable to blackmail and extortion by machinations of the Deep State about which the American public has come to know much during the past four years with revelations of how Obama’s Deep State operatives drove the hoax of Trump-Russia collusion to oust President Trump from the White House. Lin Wood, the high-profile Attorney in Georgia who joined Sidney Powell, the Attorney representing Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Retd) in the fraudulent case against him launched by the Obama FBI operatives, has gone public in calling for the resignation of Chief Justice Roberts from the Supreme Court for his past impropriety compromising him. The accusation, or rumours, against Roberts is the suspicion surrounding the name “John Roberts” appearing in the flight log of the pedophile and sex trafficker Jeff Epstein’s plane named “Lolita Express.” Lin Wood claims in a series of tweets that “John Roberts” in the flight log is none other than Chief Justice John Roberts taking a pleasure trip to Epstein’s infamous “orgy island” in the Caribbean visited among others by Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew, the Duke of York. If Lin Wood’s allegation is proven, then the American public will know the most likely reason why Chief Justice John Roberts denied hearing the Texas bill of complaint has to do with his compromising past. It appears now, unless disproven in a defamation libel case if launched by Roberts against Lin Wood, that the Deep State kept the Chief Justice on a leash to do its bidding. This would also explain Roberts’s ruling on Obamacare, since he was the swing vote in the 5-4 decision that turned the disputed individual mandate to buy health insurance into a tax within the taxing power of the Congress. But Lin Wood is not alone in bringing to public notice Chief Justice John Roberts alleged sordid act in visiting Jeff Epstein on his infamous orgy island. Howell Woltz, an expatriate American author and blogger with likely intel connections of his own published an alleged undated picture of John Roberts, the Chief Justice, swimming in the Caribbean waters of the orgy island in the company of Bill Clinton. Woltz’s article containing the picture of Roberts in explaining his judicial failing on the Texas case is linked below. Salim

9 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page