No. 20-8229

Martin Reiner v. John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, et al.

Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2021-06-04
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: constitutional-rights due-process hazel-atlas-glass-co-vs-hartford-empire-co integrity-of-american-jurisprudence joint-anti-fascist-refugee-committee-vs-mcgrath judicial-misconduct obstruction-of-justice procedural-due-process procedural-integrity supreme-court title-18-united-states-code
Key Terms:
ERISA DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2021-12-03 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

What is the obligation of SCOTUS Justices when faced with evidence of criminal malfeasance and extrinsic fraud by judicial officers?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (Of Acute National Importance) 1. Respectfully, what is the obligation of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS”), under HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO. vs. HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. 322 U. S. : 238 (1944) (“HAZEL”), when the Chief Justice, John Roberts (“Roberts”), and Associate ; Justice, Elena Kagan (“Kagan”), along with SCOTUS Deputy Clerks Laurie Wood (“Wood”), and Mara Silver (“Silver”), are participating in surreptitious criminal malfeasance of violating Title 18 United States Code Sections 241, 242, 1341, and 1512(c)(2), by their imposing extrinsic fraud upon the institution of the Court by deprivation of a litigant’s federal constitutional right of Procedural Due Process, and its component part of having a meaningful opportunity to be heard, in SCOTUS case Number 18D3030, through secrecy in violation of JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMMITTEE VS. MCGRATH 341 U. S. 123 (1951)(“JOINT”), as well as in the subsequent matter of United States District Court for the District of Columbia (USDC-DC”) : case number States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (“USCOA”) case number 20-5190, by prohibited ratification of a legally null and void conviction (which is null and void on its face) that was contrived in defiance of the admitted failure to meet the required burden of proof at trial (as admitted by the involved judicial officers in the judgment roil of the case) to cover-up the malfeasance of persons they wish to wrongfully protect by the obstruction of justice, to enable those persons to evade justice? What is the obligation owed by the Justices of SCOTUS to the defrauded litigant so victimized? What is the obligation owed by the Justices of SCOTUS to our American society, to protect our society’s interest in the integrity of American jurisprudence? i

Docket Entries

2021-12-06
Rehearing DENIED. The Chief Justice and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2021-11-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/3/2021.
2021-10-29
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2021-10-04
Petition DENIED. The Chief Justice and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2021-07-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-06-14
Waiver of right of respondents Roberts, John to respond filed.
2021-06-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 6, 2021)

Attorneys

Martin Reiner
Martin Reiner — Petitioner
Martin Reiner — Petitioner
Roberts, John
Brian H. FletcherActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Brian H. FletcherActing Solicitor General, Respondent