Obama Dismisses Indictment Against Fugitive Bombing Terrorist - Part II

In my last post, I described the curious case of USA v. Duke which resulted in the dismissal of the indictment by the Article I Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. (Pictured at right).

In sum, I discovered that neither the law nor the facts granted Magistrate Judge Robinson the authority to dismiss the indictment against Elizabeth Duke. Accordingly, on July 26, 2013, I filed my Third Verified Motion for Reconsideration of Order Dismissing Indictment. 

In response, Magistrate Judge Robinson entered an order denying my Third Verified Motion.  What the order says, the public cannot know as she has sealed it from the public. Here is the docket entry in USA v. Duke:

07/30/2013

9

LEAVE TO FILE DENIED - Third Verified Motion for Reconsideration of Order Dismissing Indictment and Motion to Intervene or to Appear as Amicus Curiae as to ELIZABETH DUKE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson on 7/30/2013. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. (dr) (Entered: 07/31/2013)

Wait a minute:  I demonstrate that Magistrate Judge Robinson was without authority to dismiss this Indictment charging Elizabeth Duke with bombing the Capitol and that she plainly lied in her Order dismissing that Indictment and her reaction is to seal her Order denying my Third Motion for Reconsideration?  What has she to hide?

And what of her supervisors, the thirteen (13) Article III Judges to whom I wrote a letter detailing that Article I Magistrate Judge Robinson exceeded her jurisdiction and lied in her Order dismissing the Indictment.  I know they received the letter yet not a single one has responded.

Thus I feel it is particular apt to quote the United States Supreme Court opinion in Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115, 124 (1956):

The untainted administration of justice is certainly one of the most cherished aspects of our institutions. Its observance is one of our proudest boasts. . . . Therefore, fastidious regard for the honor of the administration of justice requires the Court to make certain that the doing of justice be made so manifest that only irrational or perverse claims of its disregard can be asserted.

Make no mistake:  Article I Magistrate Judge Robinson has "tainted" the "administration of justice". My claims of malfeasance by Article I Judge Magistrate Robinson are neither "irrational" nor "perverse" and hence I have only one locale to discharge my duty to see that “the Government be administered according to law.” Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 130 (1922).

So off I go . . .