The future Attorney General and Me

Update February 1, 2020:  I have given a 40 minute interview on the letter I sent to the judiciary which can be viewed on YouTube.

I would be remiss in my duties as a Citizen to raise the "hue and cry" about President Biden's nominee for the Office of Attorney General if I were to remain silent.  As such, I have this day mailed to the Senate Judiciary Committee a letter detailing my concerns about Judge Garland.  In that letter, I describe Judge Garland's use of his discretion to hide the misfeasance of a fellow judge which makes him unsuitable, in my mind, to be Attorney General - an office of unlimted discretion. The letter has three parts:

Elizabeth Anna Duke:  The Fugitive, Capitol Bombing, Domestic-Terrorist

The time-line and location of the U.S. v. Elizabeth Anna Duke events are as follows:

November 7, 1983 – A bomb was detonated inside the United States Capitol.

May 24, 1985 – Elizabeth Anna Duke (“Duke”) was arrested and arraigned for that Capitol bombing.  She jumps bail and is a fugitive wanted by the FBI. Duke was connected with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1970s anti-war movement and the organizers of “Progressives for Obama.”  In 1995, Ayers and Dohrn hosted a gathering in their home for Obama and raised funds for and promoted his candidacy.

Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson Dismisses the Indictment of Elizabeth Anna Duke

Twenty-five (25) years later, on June 17, 2009, Attorney M. Jeffery Beatrice, from Obama's Department of Justice, appears before Magistrate Judge Robinson for a hearing in the matter of U.S. v. Duke. At that hearing, Beatrice makes an oral motion to dismiss the Indictment of and quash the outstanding fugitive arrest warrant for Duke.  On the record before her, Magistrate Judge Robinson grants this extraordinary oral motion and in her Order dismissing the Indictment signs it as an Article III  “United States District Court Judge” ‒ a position the Article I Magistrate Judge Robinson does not hold.  Too,  in that Order, Magistrate Judge Robinson stated that the dismissal was: “for the reasons set forth in the government’s motion and for good cause shown” – a clear misrepresentation of what actually transpired at the hearing as no such “reasons” or “good cause” was mentioned as the Transcript clearly reveals.

Chief Judge Merrick Brian Garland Buries The Misfeasance Of Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson

Merrick Brian Garland is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He has served on that court since 1997. President Joe Biden has nominated Garland for the position of United States Attorney General.

January 15, 2014 – Chief Judge Garland enters his order dismissing my Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Magistrate Judge Robinson stating for his reasons that: “Because the allegations lack[] sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred on the part of the magistrate” the complaint against Magistrate Judge Robinson “must be dismissed.” This is absurd.

Falsifying a federal record is a felony.  By entering her Order stating that “good cause was shown” when no such cause was shown, Magistrate Judge Robinson falsified the record. Moreover, by dismissing the Duke indictment, the Article I Magistrate Judge Robinson knowingly exceeded her Congressionally-granted jurisdiction. Last, Magistrate Judge Robinson is an Article I judge, not an Article III judge.  Hence, by signing the order of June 17, 2009, as the latter and not the former, she violated 18 U.S. Code § 912 - “Officer or employee of the United States”, another felony.

Our Country has been here before. In Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115, 124-125 (1956), the Supreme Court stated: “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.” (Emphasis added).     The "claims of disregard" by Judge Garland of the "administration of justice" that I raised above fall well below the standard set in Communist Party of "irrational or perverse claims". That is to say my two claims of felonious behavior by Magistrate Judge Robinson are not "irrational or perverse"; indeed, supported by irrefutable documentary evidence, I believe they are due to be heard by a grand jury.

So by my letter to the Senate Judicial Committee I have beseeched those permitted to ask question of Judge Garland to inquire of him about the Elizabeth Duke/Magistrate Robinson matter described above and if that is his idea of "honor[ing the] administration of justice"?