2. The term „criminal presidents” applies to the U.S. presidents nr. 41, 42 and 43 (George H. W. Bush, William J. Clinton, George W. Bush) due to numerous reports of their alleged crimes. The term „opium republic” is applied to the U.S.A. in an effort to avoid the cliché „banana republic”.

3. Specifically, the history of narcotics trade is intertwined with the history of the British Empire and its successor empire (Niall Ferguson), the American Empire. For the American empire, the basis of black finances in the narcotics trade is the subject of numerous learned books, reports and articles with undisputed and undenied detailed content, for example:

● McCoy, Alfred W., The Politics of Heroin, CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003 (history of secret drug wars and trade; with large bibliography)

● Stich, Rodney, Drugging America; and other books, at

http://www.defraudingamerica.com

As a result of these books and the numerous reports incorporated in them, we may suspect that George H. W. Bush has been for decades the world’s top drug lord and his successors in the office of president, Clinton and Bush Jr. are officers in the line of command of what some call the „Bush-Clinton Crime Syndicate”. In this line of thought, the possibly unelected President-Pretender in the White House is the grandson of a Hitler financier (Prescott Bush Sr.) and the son of the world’s top drug lord.

4. There are specific reports about the deep involvement of (not only) American banks in the money laundering industry. Perhaps the largest such entity (in the successorship of BCCI) is AIG (American International Group), the world’s largest insurance conglomerate based in New York. See report by this author at

http://www.gallerize.com/Wall_Street_Terrorist.htm

including details how the criminal elite had its hands in profiteering in the magnitude of several billion dollars from its precise pre-knowledge of the staged inside terror attacks

(for this aspect, see the entire site http://www.gallerize.com)

on September 11, 2001.

B. THE AMERICAN COURTS OF PLUTOCRACY

5. It is a carefully hidden secret of the legal profession to what great extent American district attorneys and judges (at the state and the federal levels) are dependent on fixers in the political establishment. Other cultures describe such structures with the word „corruption”. In other words, the notions of „independent courts” and the „rule of law” are not more than myths. The reality of the matter is that the „rule of law” derived from British legal theory has been subverted and perverted into a rule of thuggery and crime.

6. The terrorism we are witnessing is synthetic and self-made by uncontrolled intelligence agencies and their myriad interconnections with global crime. See

● Tarpley, Webster G., 9/11 Synthetic Terror, Terror Made In USA, The Myth of the 21st Century, 2005

7. The seedbed for terrorism is the terroristic perversion of law into crime in the American Empire. This is a seedbed that has been carefully cultivated by legions of treacherous lawyers for over a century.

8. The procedural principle behind the law of the opium republic is „plea bargaining” and the right of the prosecutor to „nol pros” (i.e. to not prosecute) crimes. The prosecution of crimes is highly selective, targeting minorities and drug end users and protecting the governing elite and global drug pushers such as, reportedly, Carlyle Group and the alleged Bush-Clinton Crime Syndicate.

9. The entire system of appointments, promotions and loyalties is 100% politically controlled. There is to all practical effect no controlling independent decision-making personnel in the court systems of the U.S.A. including the highest court, the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D. C.

10. Since its creation in 1870 under President Grant during that ultra-Republican era, the U.S. Justice Department has had the partisan function of a private law firm in the disguise of a public agency working for the benefit of the ruling moneyed elite. This role first became manifest to history during the period of the great strikes that lasted until President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s „New Deal”.

11. This was a now mostly forgotten period when the U.S.A. was torn in a bloody class war lasting for decades almost like South Africa was more recently torn by apartheid. It was the time of forging the high plutocracy as America’s governing force behind the curtain of ancient democracy. The result were the present American courts of plutocracy with secret strings and trap doors – not in the books.

C. HOW THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL WAS THWARTED

12. The partisan plutocrat role of the U.S. Justice Department persists until today and has merely grown more and more extreme, to the point of subverting the U.S. Constitution through the legal back door of protecting insidious and treasonable government crime in the highest places.

13. The plutocracy itself has gradually turned away from legitimate business and has adopted the noxious practices that have brought all empires down – crimes of the worst proportion, such as global narcotics trade, arms trade, war mongering, the laundering of trillions of blood money every year through banks, insurances, the Pentagon black budget.

14. Politicians with their need for hundreds of millions $$ of „campaign financing” are pawns in the game of the global elite. The principle of democracy is played in the long-term favor of the moneyed elite alone.

15. The American legal system especially holds politicians who play the game exempt and immune from any meaningful criminal prosecution. These politicians are, in substance, not democratic for they are like princes of old who were not accountable to their citizens.

16. President Nixon tried to stop criminal prosecution against him for the Watergate affair by firing the special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Then, however, Nixon could no longer keep up with the pressure and resigned from office. As a result of this experience, Congress passed a law providing for an „Independent Counsel”. Much has been written about this law. Kenneth Starr (a nephew of one of the founders of the reported AIG-CIA money laundering empire and corporate counsel of alleged Clinton bribers such as the Lippo Group) let himself be used to make a farce of this law and the institution of the Independent Counsel. The law thus was not extended and expired in 1999. This brought a fatal tendency in the American legal development to a head. The law itself was brilliant and would have been highly successful – if it were not for the corrupt clique into whose hands the execution of the law was given.

17. At the end of the Clinton era, an audit reported in December 2000 revealed that several trillion (yes, tr…) U.S. dollars were missing from the Pentagon budget. There is strong suspicion that this money was embezzled over years from the American people by their alleged worst enemy, the reported Bush-Clinton Drug & Crime Empire. No prosecutor has ever given a hoot for this, which is a scandal that is as huge as it is under-reported. Instead, tens of millions of $$ were spent for a dead-end sham prosecution of Clinton’s trumped-up sex scandal.

18. There is a key distinction of constitutional value: Whether the head of state is beneath or above the laws. The traditional constitution of the U.S.A. used to be that the Presidents are subject to the law. Since the Bush-Clinton-Bush era, it appears that this constitutional key factor has reversed; and now the President is above the law like an emperor. In European constitutional dogma this is termed „absolutism”.

19. The American experiment seems to show that absolutism of this type is compatible with democratic elections. The only requirement is that the candidates are fixed (Bush-Kerry) and the election methods are rigged (in 2000 and 2004).

D. SPECIAL PROSECUTION IN CHICAGO

40. In this situation since 2003, there is a test case: The Valerie Plame leak case under supervision of a Special Prosecutor (note: not an „Independent Counsel” under the expired statute) in Chicago, U.S. District Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald.

41. There are jurisdictional objections that prosecuting a sitting president violates the Constitution because the Constitution limits proceedings to impeachment only; and only once a president is impeached can he be made subject to a regular grand jury proceeding.

42. In the case of George W. Bush, this argument may not hold water since it is doubtful to say the least whether George W. Bush was ever elected as President in accordance with the Constitution, and especially if he was elected in 2004. It is to my mind quite evident that Bush was not the winner of the 2004 elections, and that he is a pretender in the White House without viable standing in constitutional law as a „President”. This could be a workable and valid rebuttal to any and all constitutional objections per the foregoing; and it could well be Bush’s downfall if that is what America’s owners and hidden oligarchs want.

43. Details of the grand jury proceedings in Chicago are just slowly transpiring. It will be interesting to watch this case develop as a case with major constitutional ramifications in light of all of the above.

44. Legally, it would be simple for the President to replace the Special Prosecutor with a candidate of his liking (not an „Independent Counsel” per the expired law). The central question is whether Bush will get permission to do this or not.

45. The fact that the prosecution exists would tend to indicate that Bush will not get permission of intervene. That assumption raises the question if Bush would become a rebellious stooge, and what might happen then. We shall see as the case unfolds.

46. We rest assured that the true holders of power will never face a court, in keeping with the unwritten law of American history. If this expectation were to be disappointed then we would be living through events worth the name „revolutionary”. Such court will be that of public opinion, if any.

**********************

SUMMARY: Bush, Jr. made his way into the White House back in 2000 through bribery. Legal details below. The key judge Antonin Scalia was bribed by giving his son John valuable shares. This motivated Scalia Sr. to act in an unethical way. Scalia’s vote swung the balance of the U.S. Supreme Court to the present occupant of the White House in the 5-4 decision of December 12, 2000. The thing reads like the sad saga of corruption that high-level U.S. jurisprudence today too frequently is:

A. HOW SCALIA, JR. WAS GIVEN SHARES

1. There is reason to continue part 1 of this series by the following remarks, see Greg Szymanski about the veteran Chicago judge-buster Sherman H. Skolnick:

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/31285.htm

2. The relevant quote in part 1 to be continued here is the following (from part 1, paragraph 5):

„It is a carefully hidden secret of the legal profession to what great extent American district attorneys and judges (at the state and the federal levels) are dependent on fixers in the political establishment. Other cultures describe such structures with the word ‘corruption’.”

3. The persons who are meant here are a proto-fascist on the United States Supreme Court and his under-reported fixer in the political establishment in the year 2000 in Bush v. Gore (531 U.S. 98 [2000]). The names of these two people are Justice Antonin Scalia on the one hand, and attorney Marvin S. Rosen of the Miami law firm Greenberg Traurig LLP (present name of firm) on the other hand.

4. Justice Antonin Scalia. See article by Greg Szymanski above.

5. Marvin S. Rosen. For a photo and his professional biography see

http://www.gtlaw.com/biographies/biography.asp?id=1165

Rosen with Hilary Clinton new picture coming

Bush Crime Syndicate Bag Lady Hillary Clinton at the Marvin Rosen Home (photo: Rosen, left), 2-18-04 evening cocktail reception at the home of Janice and Marvin Rosen in New York City.

Source: (leading to a detailed photo show of four pages)

6. Now, before going on to the steps below, you are asked to digest my book chapter excerpt from „The Brotherhood of the White Monks” (2000, links active per then) about Marvin S. Rosen, following – a key piece of unknown history about America’s shadow government:

Rosen was serving as Florida Chairman of Senator Kennedy’s presidential primary campaign. In 1982, Rosen raised money for the Senator’s re-election campaign.

In 1983, Marvin Rosen helped found Royal Palm Savings Bank of Palm Beach, becoming its principal legal counsel and a shareholder. In the mid-1980s, Rosen joined the influential Miami law firm Greenberg Traurig Askew Hoffman Lipoff Quentel & Wolff, P.A. Rosen brought Royal Palm Savings Bank with him as a client into the firm. In 1984, Rosen raised more than $300,000 for Walter Mondale’s pre-nomination campaign. In 1988, Rosen became Chairman of Michael Dukakis’ national finance board of directors. All along, Rosen rounded up donors for several Democratic Senators.

Note: The popular Democratic governor of Florida, Lawton Chiles, had reportedly also been an attorney at the Greenberg Traurig law firm in Miami, the same law firm that Marvin Rosen belongs to. Governor Chiles, in good health, died of a sudden and unexpected heart attack in 1998 when he was challenged by Jeb Bush for the governorship of Florida. Jeb Bush thereby won the election and became Florida Governor. See CNN report:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/13/chiles.obit.01/

With the booming economy, Rosen’s client, Royal Palm Savings Bank, rose swiftly. In 1989, however, Royal Palm collapsed abruptly, as did numerous savings and loan banks in the late 1980s and early 1990s. When federal regulators took over, they found a tangle of what they said were improper loans and stock transactions. They said that Marvin Rosen, his law firm Greenberg Traurig and two other lawyers in the firm were responsible for substantial missing funds and other problems that made the bank collapse.

Royal Palm’s board of directors filed a complaint for damages in federal court in Miami. The directors said that Rosen and two other lawyers in his firm had serious conflicts of interest for several years. The Resolution Trust Corporation took over the lawsuit in 1989 when it became the receiver for Royal Palm. The complaint said, among other things, that Rosen grossly overstated the value of the Royal Palm stock in security transactions, and that Rosen borrowed $750,000 from Royal Palm’s chairman while Rosen was Royal Palm’s lawyer.

Another lawyer at Greenberg Traurig had taken out loans of $49 million (yes, $49,000,000!). These loans were not adequately secured and should never have been approved, according to a report by federal regulators in 1992. The Resolution Trust Corporation demanded $38 million in damages in the Royal Palm case. After three years of litigation, the lawsuit settled in 1992. Greenberg Traurig paid $8.15 million (!). The other amounts (mostly outstanding loans) were never paid back. The savings and loan bank ended in destruction.

Okay, Marvin is a scoundrel-attorney. He stole millions from a Savings and Loan bank that collapsed. He managed never to get prosecuted. I’m not hinting he croaked Governor Chiles. But the story continues:

We found more of the same type of unethical „tangle” or schlamassel. It runs like a red string through Marvin Rosen’s professional career. According to Ralph Nader and Wesley Smith, the combination of legal and corporate powers is typical for the perversion of American justice. In the case of Marvin Rosen, however, the combination is different than what Nader and Smith mention. With Rosen, a Congressional investigation Committee has suspected a political influence:

Thomas Kramer, a German citizen, was represented by the German law firm of Heuking Kuehn et al. This was the same firm of Albert Cramer’s German attorney, Dr. Frank Mitzkus. (As you might know, Germany has its own issues of political financing through formed Chancellor Helmut Kohl and others). In 1994, Thomas Kramer lived in Florida and controlled sizeable real estate in the South Beach area of Miami. Im Miami, Thomas Kramer was a client of Marvin Rosen.

Under Rosen’s (legal) advice, Thomas Kramer illegally contributed more than $322,600 to national, state and local candidates of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The Tampa Tribune noted the donations and published an article on September 28, 1994 questioning whether or not Kramer was eligible to make political contributions (Developer’s Donations Questioned, by: Louis Lavelle, in: Tampa Tribune, September 28, 1994, at Florida/Metro 1). The following week, Thomas Kramer, a German citizen like Albert Cramer, „voluntarily” disclosed his illegal activity, claiming ignorance as to the illegality of his campaign contributions.

Upon learning that Thomas Kramer’s contributions might not be legal, almost all of the contributed money was returned to Thomas Kramer by the parties involved. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) ultimately fined Thomas Kramer, his secretary Terri Bradley, the law firm of Greenberg Traurig Hoffman Lipoff Rosen & Quentel, P.A. and the Republican Party of Florida for giving or receiving Thomas Kramer’s contributions. The penalties associated with the Thomas Kramer contributions totalled $503,000. Thomas Kramer was individually fined $323,000, which is the largest penalty of its kind ever assessed by the FEC.

When asked who at the firm besides Rosen solicited contributions from Kramer, the FEC reported that: „The only Greenberg-Traurig individual specifically identified as a solicitor of Mr. Kramer’s contributions in the file of this matter is Marvin Rosen.”

In September 1995, Marvin S. Rosen reached the peak of his overt political power:

In September 1995, Marvin S. Rosen reached the peak of his political power: He became Finance Chairman of the Democratic National Congress (DNC). He oversaw the collection of record $140 million in the next 16 months, and thereby paid for the November 1996 re-election of U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton. Mr. Rosen did not take a formal leave of absence from his private law practice upon assuming his chairmanship. This resulted in criticism from some of his colleagues for mixing personal and party business. Mr. Rosen said that he did stop actively practicing law during his time as Finance Chairman.

As Finance Chairman, Rosen led a staff of 110 people. According to then-DNC Chairman Don Fowler, Rosen conducted his fundraising under the control of Deputy White House Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, and the finance division „took their mission and charter from the White House and seemed to do what the White House wanted done.”

According to www.washingtonpost.com, there were at least ten „White House coffees” during which Marvin Rosen was present (on 12/18/95, 2/22/96, 3/5/96, 4/1/96, 5/17/96, 6/3/96, 6/6/96, 6/17/96, 6/18/96 and 8/21/96).

On January 10, 1997, the New York Times published an article with a photo of Rosen on the front page (A Fund-Raiser Faces Trouble, by: Jane Fritsch and Douglas Frantz, in: New York Times, front page and page A18). The article focussed on the Royal Palm litigation. Further, however, it reported that a federal grand jury subpoenaed Rosen’s records at Democratic headquarters due to problems that „have engulfed the party and forced the return of $1.5 million in questionable funds.” (New York Times, page A18)

Several days later, Rosen indirectly replied to the New York Times article in an interview with The Miami Herald (Fund-Raiser Downplays Role in Controversy, by: Tom Fiedler, Herald Political Editor, in: The Miami Herald, section: Front, page: 17A). The Miami Herald wrote: „There’s no ducking that on Rosen’s watch, the party’s unseemly rush to collect unprecedented sums has spawned scores of embarrassing headlines and stories.” According to the Miami Herald, Rosen described his job as that of „unpaid volunteer” expected to gladhand rich donors, not operate the party’s money-gathering machinery.

Rosen is quoted as saying: „My mission was to expand the fund-raising base and to raise as much money as we could.” Further: „I never thought I should be concerned about the day-to-day operations.”

The Miami Herald further wrote: „In the minds of many, however, Rosen should be called to account for controversies spawned by the party’s mysterious Indonesian donors, the Florida drug dealer who made it to a White House Christmas party after giving $20,000, and allegations that Clinton virtually sold nights in the Lincoln Bedroom to the party’s biggest donors.”

Further statements of Rosen quoted by the Miami Herald are: „I saw that article [the New York Times article] and I just couldn’t believe I was reading about me.” „When I took the job [as Finance Chairman] I was told that I might have to spend about three or four days a month at the office.” „Nobody asked me to give up my law practice and they didn’t seem to expect me to. I was just an unpaid volunteer.”

According to the Miami Herald, Rosen agreed that the party was lax in catching some of the tainted money. Rosen conceded: „I think you’ll find that, certainly, some procedures fell apart.”

Dated November 5, 1998 (105th Congress, 2d Session, House Report 105-829), the Congressional Committee on Government Reform and Oversight (chaired by Indiana Republican Dan Burton) in its Interim Report on the Investigation of Political Fundraising Improprieties and Possible Violations of Law (Chapter V, B: FEC Enforcement Practices and the Case Against Foreign National Thomas Cramer: Did Prominent DNC Fundraisers Receive Special Treatment?, in the internet,

http://www.house.gov/reform/reports/fundraising/index.htm) reported on the question why the FEC failed to prosecute Marvin Rosen in the Thomas Kramer case, despite the FEC’s finding that Rosen had been a solicitor of Kramer’s donations.

With relation to Marvin Rosen, the Interim Report states: „Although he was the key DNC finance official during the 1996 campaign, Marvin Rosen has to date been largely overlooked in the campaign finance investigation. During his tenure as DNC Finance Chairman, Rosen was connected and involved with a number of questionable activities: … .” „The Committee also discovered that Rosen solicited $60,000 from Kramer at an event in March 1994 and another $65,000 from Kramer through his companies. Both of the contributions violated 2 U.S.C. § 441e.”

At „V. Conclusion”, the chapter of the Interim Report concludes: „Perhaps more important, the FEC appears to have done nothing to pursue the allegations of wrongdoing against Marvin Rosen. Although the Committee recognizes that the FEC must prioritize its many cases, few things would rival in importance the possibility that one of the titular heads of either the Democratic or Republican parties is involved in criminal conduct that cannot be explained away … .”

In two articles on February 1, 2000, the Tampa Tribune reported on a possible repetition of the non-prosecution of Marvin Rosen in another case of allegedly illegal campaign funding: „Marvin Rosen, a possible repeat violator of campaign law, had time on his side. The Federal Election Commission let the statute of limitations expire rather than pursue a politically powerful South Florida lawyer, even though commissioners agreed they had reason to believe he violated federal campaign law in connection with the Future Tech International Case.” The other article reports: „Future Tech in Miami and four executives agree to pay a fine for violating campaign laws.” The fines total $209,000, but Marvin Rosen was not fined.

7. In November and December 2000 the U.S. Presidential election went up in flames. It ended up before the United States Supreme Court to appoint the President.

To all appearance, a powerful democratic national law firm based in Miami helped give the swing. Greenberg Traurig. The law firm of Florida’s most powerful fixer: Marvin S. Rosen.

Take the style of Rosen’s activities reported above, put it in the context of the election litigation, and you’ve got what likely went on behind the scenes. -- Details:

8. When the Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush wound up in legal difficulties in Florida, which Miami law firm did he appoint as his counsel?

Answer: Greenberg Traurig, the Democratic powerhouse law firm. The firm where the DNC Finance Chairman of 1995-97 Marvin S. Rosen was and is the politically most powerful senior partner, a well-known fixer of the political scene.

9. A note aside: Power politics in the U.S.A. have little to do with the distinction between „Democrats” and „Republicans”. Real power is held by a secret one-Nazi party sometimes referred to as the Republocrats, in other contexts referred to as America’s „shadow government”.

10. This most important litigation for U.S. politics was fixed in secret, not decided according to proper procedure and law. For the general framework of this system of fixes and imbalances outside the U.S. Constitution, see part 1 of this series linked at the top of this page.

11. I make reference to an archived report of CNN: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/12/supreme.court.conflict/

If you leave out the „buts”, CNN reported this (direct quotes):

- Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia both have family connections to George W. Bush’s side.

- Two of Scalia’s nine children are connected with law firms representing Bush.

• Eugene Scalia, 37, is a partner in the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where Bush lawyer Theodore Olson also is a partner.

• John Scalia, 35, has accepted a job offer with the Washington office of Greenberg Traurig. Another Bush lawyer, Barry S. Richard, is a partner in that firm’s Tallahassee office.

Neither son is directly involved in the case. Eugene Scalia specializes in labor law. John Scalia won’t actually join the Greenberg, Traurig firm until sometime next year, according to partner Joe Reeder, who said the job was offered weeks before the election and has no connection to the Florida case.

12. Actually, there are numerous Bush-Greenberg Traurig connections of a shady political nature, see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greenberg_Traurig

13. As a further bribery pay-back, President-Pretender Bushfraud appointed Eugene Scalia to the post of Solicitor of Labor in a recess appointment a year later on 11 January 2002,

http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/pr01112002.cfm

14. About John Scalia, the Greenberg Traurig firm announced in a company press release as follows:

Company Press Release

Attorney John Scalia Joins Greenberg Traurig LLP’s Tysons Corner Office

TYSONS CORNER, VA -- January 10, 2001 -- The international law firm Greenberg Traurig LLP today announced John Scalia has joined the firm’s Tysons Corner office as a shareholder in the labor and employment law practice.

Previously a partner in the San Francisco office of Curiale Dellaverson Hirschfeld Kelly & Kraemer LLP, Scalia focuses his practice on labor and employment law, with an emphasis on representing employers in wrongful termination, employment discrimination, sexual harassment and trade-secret litigation matters. He also provides preventative counseling to employers on a broad range of employment law matters. In addition, he has extensive experience in general business and insurance coverage litigation.

Scalia holds a law degree from Northwestern University School of Law and a bachelor’s degree from Santa Clara University.

http://www.gtlaw.com/pub/pr/2001/scaliaj01a.htm

15. Specifically the Greenberg Traurig law firm provided services to the Bush camp for over $1.3 million for free, see quote at paragraph 12 above. That is in itself not illegal but is highly unusual and implies the existence of unpublicized deals and pay-offs.

16. The timing inside the Greenberg Traurig law firm is actually more than suspect, see the following quote from

http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/jphuck/Book10Ch.3.html

The other son, John Scalia, accepted a position with the Miami-based firm Greenberg Traurig on November 7. The next day, Barry Richard, a partner in the firm, said he was called about representing Bush in Florida.

17. On November 7th, John Scalia gets a promise for the job (actually only joins the firm in January 2001). On November 8, the Bush camp calls Barry Richard in the same firm about representing Bush in Florida

Common sense tells us: This was no coincidence but give and take.

18. When John Scalia joins the firm, he reportedly becomes a „shareholder” in the firm according to the law firm’s own press report (above, item 14). Was that a gift? There is no report that John Scalia ever paid for the shares that he reportedly received. Further, there is no report of the proper valuation of the shares that he reportedly received.

Common sense tells us: There is suspicion of graft right here.

19. The proceedings in Bush v. Gore were unusually crooked and unethical. The true vote of the Florida voters was brushed aside and ignored thanks to the key vote of judge Antonin Scalia. Two of his sons, Eugene and John, were rewarded handsomely by the winner, Bush and his law firms. This includes, as far as we can research this suspicion from public materials, the giving of valuable shares to John Scalia for free or under their true value. That all might be construed as bribery and corruption and needs to be investigated until the full set of facts sees the light of day. May God grant that any corrupt rats who are responsible will be scraped off the bench and go to jail.

B. WHAT WAS THE TIMING?

20. According to published information, the time table ran thus:

Tuesday, November 7th, 2000: election day

Same day: Greenberg Traurig LLP offers John Scalia a position

Wednesday, November 8th, 2000: The G. W. Bush camp makes a phone call to Barry Richard, a partner at Greenberg Traurig inquiring if they would take the case for Bush if any legal fight would arise over the election (a very early date to call!)

For many details of the unfolding news events see overview at: http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/florida.html

Friday, December 8th, 2000: The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of recounting all the disputed votes (after a string of lower court decisions, all based on Florida state election laws).

Saturday, December 9th, 2000: The U.S. Supreme Court through a majority of five judges versus four dissenting judges enacted an emergency order to stay the Florida election recount, see pdf.

Tuesday, December 12th, 2000, shortly before midnight: The U.S.Supreme court majority of five judges, against blistering dissent of Justice John Paul Stevens and the other judges, stops the

Florida election recount and, in practical effect, declares G. W. Bush the winner of the elections. See pdf.

January 10th, 2001: The Greenberg Traurig LLP national law firm announces in a press release that

John Scalia has joined the firm’s Tysons Corner office as a shareholder in the labor and employment law practice.” (see paragraph 14 above)

Subsequent recounts have shown that the Florida election was won by a margin by Albert Gore, Jr. and that the decision by the five-judge majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is false and in violation of the vote.

C. WHAT IS THE MEANING?

21. Courts have ruled that bribes can be given to a son or other close relative (such as a grandson or granddaughter, etc.). John Scalia is the son of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He may have acted as a conduit.

22. Bribes can be arranged prior to the act but actually paid after the act in an escrow type situation. The timing has to be in close connection with the arrangement and the act. The timetable above running from November 7th, 2000 to January 10th, 2001 is in such close conjunction.

23. The meaning of this is that there is bribery apparent if the shares that the Greenberg Traurig LLP press release mention (above, paragraph 14) are something „valuable”.

24. According to the GT LLP bio,

http://www.gtlaw.com/biographies/biography.asp?id=1512

John Scalia was a young lawyer somewhere in the age group around 35 years in 2000. It is a great success to become a partner of a national law firm in a leading position (shareholder, member of the labor law steering committee) at that age. Only less than 1% (estimated) of all lawyers succeed in such a career at such an early age.

a) Upon my estimate, the position is lucrative with a potential annual income of more than $500,000 at year 2000 money value.

Given the young age of John Scalia at the time when he was made a shareholder, he still had in the vicinity of 30 to 35 years of working and income-generating life ahead of him.

The upper limit of valuation is to multiply $500,000 (at today’s value) by 35, namely:

35 years x $500,000 = $17.5 million

b) Discounts have to be made:

aa) There should be a discount for the future earnings, but considering that the income from a well-going law practice generally increases distinctly faster than the devaluation of money through inflation. It is not sufficient merely to depreciate the future earnings by their interest value. The middle value between the first and the 35th year is the 17th year. At an average annual interest rate of 5% the factor for depreciation is 0.371. To account for the future increase in earnings from a well-going law firm this should be doubled to a factor of 0.742. That results in a time-depreciated value of 0.742 x $ 17.5 million =

$12.985 million

bb) There should be another discount for the fact that shares in a law firm are not publicly tradable. However, this principle does not apply strictly because owning these shares provides substantial advantages in changing to other comparable job positions, advantages and chances which people who are not shareholders do not have. Another consideration is that the shares do not yield a pure capitalistic rent but open the door to a working job that costs work. I deem it appropriate to take one-half of the foregoing value, to wit:

$6.5 million

$1 million was the reported bribery price for buying an appellate federal judgeship in Chicago in 1966 money. To allow for inflation by the year 2000, the aforementioned price might as well be doubled ($13 million). See discussion at

http://www.skolnicksreport.com/judgeship.html

about the pricing for corruptly buying judgeships in comparable positions over the past decades.

cc) There are other methods of evaluating the value of shares in a law firm. More precise numbers and projections can be used if these are either investigated by a criminal investigation or disclosed by the secret-holders at the firm. Until such more precise numbers are available, the foregoing figures may stand as a practical estimate of the worth of such a crown-jewel position in the national legal industry for a person of the given relatively young age.

As a result of this discussion we have ascertained that the shares that G. W. Bush’s law firm gave to the son of the key judge in timely connection of Bush v. Gore are something „valuable” (estimated $6.5-13 million, see above).

Hence, based on published materials and acknowledged valuation principles, there is suspicion of major bribery apparent.

25. A different question is, whether the High Court in Washington had its decision „affected” by the bribery apparent. I would like to point especially to the High Court’s five-to-four emergency order dated December 9th, 2000. This pronounces the principle that there is an emergency if the state of Florida recounts the votes of the year 2000 presidential elections (after the Florida High Court in Tampa had ruled that the recount should move forward).

a) According to the most detailed published legal opinion about the unethical (and hence, illegal) behavior of the five judge majority, Scalia Sr. breached professional ethics by his own incentives and the fact that his two sons worked for the law firms of a party in litigation, George W. Bush. See specifically:

Richard K. Neumann, Jr., Conflicts of interest in Bush v. Gore: Did some justices vote illegally? in: The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Spring 2003, online edition at:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200304/ai_n9221306

pages 10-14.

In his summary on Justice Scalia, Neumann finds (supra, p. 14):

If informed that one of Justice Scalia’s sons was a partner in the firm representing the Bush campaign in the Supreme Court and that another son had accepted an offer of partnership in the firm representing Bush in the Florida courts, would the law’s disinterested lay observer doubt that Justice Scalia could decide Bush v. Gore impartially? The issue is not whether he would decide impartially. The issue is whether a disinterested lay observer would doubt his impartiality. Although the [sec] 455(a) cases are few, their reasoning is unquestionable and it takes us to the same conclusion as the [sec] 455(a) cases discussed earlier in regard to a judge’s own ambition: an appearance of partiality.

As a further consideration I tender that there is nothing in logics or in the facts of the case that would suggest that the proper counting of election votes constitutes an emergency. Simply nothing. Case law would describe this as undue, corrupt and malign influence on the court, such as in a fraud upon the court by the five-judge majority.

b) To all appearance, the bestowal of multi-million dollar of Greenberg Traurig LLP shares to John Scalia on or before January 10, 2001 as reported resulted directly and corruptly in the unethical behavior and constitutionally incomprehensible rulings of Justice Scalia, Sr. in the U.S. Supreme Court decisions on December 9 and 12, 2000 in Bush v. Gore. To my mind, that was a criminal violation of applicable bribery laws, both on the side of the bribe taker (Antonin Scalia) as well as on the side of the bribe giver (Bush Jr. through his aides).

The absence of comprehensible legal, ethical or factual reasons implies that the true reasons of the five judges were extraneous to the law and the Constitution. I.e., at least one of the judges in the narrow 5-4 majority vote was bribed and sold the country to hell back in 2000. The High Court decision is therefore legally tainted by fraud and other criminal activities and is, in consequence, void and without legal effect. To my mind, this vitiates and nullifies the 2000 and all subsequent elections (i.e. election fraud contests) and places them outside of the law as well.

This is a legal question that should be presented to the appropriate jurors in a criminal court proceeding against Justice Antonin Scalia and any of his possible co-conspirators (grand jury and subsequently trial jury).