Part Twelve of a Series
Pepsi-Cola is Really Coca-Cola?
by Sherman H. Skolnick 1/12/04
This series has raised issues that Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola have ostensible secret links, financial, marketing, and advertising, using among other things, market and pricing tricks, to divide up among themselves the major markets, monopolizing the same, in apparent violation of the Anti-Trust and other Anti-Monopoly laws. We have contended they thus marginalize and x-out lesser beverage companies from various major markets. Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola have apparently procured and instigated a propaganda attack against our issues. At or about 3:45 p.m.,Central Time, Monday, January 12, 2004, was run a segment that sounded as if Coke/Pepsi prepared it. That ran on "All Things Considered", on National Public Radio. The broadcast piece asserted that Coke/Pepsi no longer monopolize the markets, and that R.C. Cola is now permitted to better enter the beverage markets. We continue to believe we are correct and that Coke/Pepsi have launched a smoke screen. By the way, NPR is run by the Rockefeller Family, hence we label it National PETROLEUM Radio. Thanks to Internet and various websites, we have drawn the liars out in the open. -- Sherman H. Skolnick.
In America, the commonfolk have somehow come to believe that the Federal courts are the site of honest judges, not subject to local political pressures or corruption. On the other hand, there is the widespread perception that the state courts, unlike the federal courts, are subject to operating pursuant to the local moneyed interests and politics.
The federal judges are generally immune from being the target of finger-pointing in the popular press. Why?
Contrary to popular wisdom, starting as long ago as 1966, we have dared point out as court-reformers that federal judgeships are bought and sold. And moreso than the state courts, big bucks are involved.
[See our website story "Buying A Judgeship".]
The federal courts are the very foundation of stiff control by the Establishment, "the powers that be", the ultra-rich, the Ruling Class---in short, THEM. Throughout the history of the United States, the larger outlets of the popular press promoted the fairy tale, that the federal judges, all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, are not "for sale".
Seldom mentioned is a heavily-documented book that shows the major corruption is in the U.S. Supreme Court and on-down the federal court chain. ["The History of the Supreme Court" by Gustavus Myers.] Most university and other large law libraries do not have the book. The librarians of the same would deny that there ever was such a book.
Many law schools have hanging on their wall a gold-framed portrait of John Marshall. Early in the 19th Century, he was Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for upwards of thirty five years. Law students, and later, as members of the Bar, read and mouth-off his pronouncements as if they were issued by a Deity, in beautiful, cast-in-stone language.
In the colonial America period, and then in the beginning of the United States of America, the ultra-rich were principally land swindlers. By their fundamental nature, the State Courts were well-equipped and set up to punish the dirty business. The federal courts, all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, were not. Why?
The difference is the Constitutions, of the States, as compared to that of the Federal. Generally, State Constitutions grant great power to the central authorities of the State and the People therein. The basic U.S. Constitution is not that unusual of an instrument. As a parliamentary system, the federal Constitution has many loopholes and defects. So, early in the history of the U.S. of A., the so-called Founding Fathers, primarily of the moneyed and mercantile class, were forced to add a Bill of Rights. Without that, the U.S. Constitution may not have been accepted by the common people of the colonies. [Study the 1794 Whiskey Tax rebellion as well as the Sedition Laws.]
Most of the first Ten Amendments repeatedly and forcefully have the word NO. They are a shield against the tyranny of a federal central government. The State Constitutions, on the other hand, are primarily a sword.
The U.S. Bill of Rights set forth supposed guarantees to the ordinary people, to prevent the U.S. from having an Emperor operating with Executive authority in conjunction with a Parliament that is "for sale", beholden to the Aristocracy.
But early on, Chief Justice John Marshall practically destroyed the powers of the State Constitutions. Using flowery language in Marbury versus Madison, he took away the basic powers of the State Court Judges. Such judges thereafter were no longer effective against the land title surveyors and robbers, to whom the Chief Justice was obligated.
And who benefitted? Why, the Chief Justice's own brother, a land criminal. When the high court had his brother's case, Chief Justice Marshall did NOT disqualify himself. Guess who won in his crooked high court?
The Bench and the Bar, hand-cuffed to the media fakers, promote fairy tales. They even have John Marshall Law School a few steps away from the Federal Courthouse in Chicago, the Dirksen Building. Shackled to the Federal Courts, the law professors are forever praising the federal Banker-Judges.
Another seldom-mentioned, heavily-documented book is "The Corrupt Judge" by Joseph Borkin, published in 1962. Generally nothing happens to a crooked federal judge in cases involving an underdog against a large corporate interest. On the other hand, a federal judge, as the book points out, is subject to being crushed if the Judge gets in the middle between two large money interests, fighting each other. This has been moreso in patent cases, much mentioned in the book. And it is true, as well, in the related trademark and copyright cases.
[Borkin's book deals mostly with the impeachment of federal judges. On the other hand, in the entire history of the U.S., the bulk of all the state and federal judges ever sent to prison for bribery and other high crimes, occurred within the last forty years, a direct result of the work of our group, the Citizen's Committee to Clean Up the Courts.]
The key matter that may make the difference is massive publicity of federal court corruption, often difficult to obtain.
What, on occasion, prevents a small-timer from getting Equal Justice Under Law, are the customs, practices, and usages, a legal jargon term meaning the entrenched not always codified habits of public officials and big money baggers. Two block-buster cases that show this are in the Federal Courts in Chicago. One is a copyright and contract case against Coca-Cola. The other is a trademark and contract case against Pepsi-Cola.
BUYING A FEDERAL JUDGESHIP
In the Coca-Cola case, as shown by the undisputed federal court record, a reputed gangster bought and procured the Chicago U.S. District Court Judgeship for Judge Blanche M. Manning [(312) 435-7608.] Paid was One Million Dollars. Part of an elite government team contacted our group and informed us they were investigating the buying of the judgeship by a known gangster---but, get this---that the amount stated by my testimony in the court records, was inaccurate. They confirmed, they said, that the gangster paid TWO MILLION DOLLARS. The government took no action against the gangster, however.
The traditional mafia used to be located in Chicago's old West Side, a few blocks from the Federal Courthouse. The Mob moved just West of Chicago to Du Page County. The former State's Attorney of Du Page County, a reputed pal of the Mob, and willfully blind to their activities, was William J. Bauer. By 1970, he was the Chief Federal Prosecutor in Chicago, with the title of U.S. District Attorney. He went on to be a judicial-fixer, and cover-up artist for major corporate criminals and sits as a Senior Circuit Judge [(312) 435-5810 ] in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Chicago.
On tape we once interviewed a top offical of the popular suburban newspaper, The Daily Herald.
Citizen's Committee to Clean Up the Courts: "As Associate Editor, can you tell us why your publication never prints anything about the gangsters in Du Page County that moved from the old West Side?"
Associate Editor of the Daily Herald: "There is nothing to print. No news. There are no gangsters, no Mafia, in Du Page."
(I presumed he was sheepish about this, afraid the Boys would bomb his delivery trucks.)
In Du Page County was a local state court Judge, John W. Darrah, sitting in the Du Page County Circuit Court, in Wheaton, Illinois. In 1993, Judge Darrah stopped to talk to a television reporter.
TV Reporter: "Judge, I see where the powers that be have rejected you for a judgeship in the Illinois State Appellate Court in Elgin." [Called Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, one step below the state high tribunal, the Illinois Supreme Court.]
Judge John W. Darrah: "Yes, I suppose that is true. I guess they must have figured I am not acceptable."
Funny thing. Some time AFTER 1993, "the Boys", "the Syndicate" apparently as a front for the moneyed class and the Aristocracy, reportedly found Darrah "acceptable" and reportedly paid several million dollas to buy and procure him a better job, as Chicago U.S. District Judge [(312) 435-5619 ].
The Establishment would have you believe that cases when filed, are assigned to a federal district court judge's docket by "random selection", that is, in fairy tale style, while the Court Clerk is blind-folded picking a Judge's name out of a fishbowl. After years of investigating the process, we are convinced that certain big money cases against major financial interests---such as against the two largest beverage firms---are fixed from the beginning. That is, the cases are corruptly assigned to a certain known federal district judge "in" on the obstruction of justice.
A maxim we found to be true over a period of forty six years of our research and investigations of court corruption and judicial bribery, is YOU NEED A CROOKED CLERK'S OFFICE TO ASSIST CROOKED JUDGES.
Some years ago, because of our work, the Chief Deputy Clerk of the U.S. District Court in Chicago, Robert P. Steine, was sent to federal prison for various criminal offenses, getting sentenced to two five-year prison terms. At the time, when we first publicly accused the Chief Deputy Clerk, the Chief Judge of the Court, William J. Campbell, himself having escaped charges of bribery by big-time real estate interests, was quoted in the Chicago Tribune as calling me a "liar" and my public accusations "a diatribe".
Shortly thereafter, we also accused the Chief Clerk of the U.S. District Court, Elbert Wagner, of various criminal offenses. BUT, he dropped dead before he was to be indicted by a federal grand jury as a result of our work.
CROOKED HABITS OF THE JUDGES and their GANG
In the case against Coca-Cola, plaintiff Robert E. Kolody caused to be filed some six Motions, with specifics, that Judge Manning had perpetrated a fraud upon her own court, while the judge was operating under a malign if not corrupt influence to benefit Coca-Cola and their attorneys. This included, but was not limited to, Judge Manning committing Judicial Perjuries---straight-out lies, as shown by the undisputed court records. To evade the accusations, the Judge fraudulently and unlawfully changed the title of the accusing Motions.
After several other obstructions of justice occurred by the federal judges in the federal appeals court, the case was sent to a secret court that supposedly investigates bribery and corruption of federal judges. [See "Coca-Cola, the CIA, and the Courts, parts 10 and 11.]
What is seldom if ever mentioned in the oil-soaked, spy-riddled monopoly press, is that Congress has unconstitutionally abandoned their power to investigate and impeach Federal Judges. Instead, federal judicial bribery matters are sent to a secret court where they are torpedoed. [Serious researchers need to study and ponder Title 28 United States Code, Section 372.]
SITTING AS A JUDGE IN THEIR OWN CASE
Fundamental to Anglo-Saxon Law, over the centuries, is that no man can sit as a Judge in their own case. Despite that, implicit in what Judge Manning did in the Coca-Cola case, she sat as a Judge in her own case, and declared herself innocent of having corruptly obstructed justice and committed a fraud upon her own court.
In the Pepsi-Cola case, as of the time of this posting, Chicago Federal District Judge John W. Darrah is set to sit as a judge in his own case, to consider Robert J. Corr's Motion to Purge, etc., accusing Judge Darrah of specific matters that the judge committed obstructions of justice and frauds upon his own court, while acting under a malign if not corrupt influence, in combination with Pepsi-Cola and their attorneys. [See, Part 11 of this series.]
Hey, Judge Blanche M. Manning and Judge John W. Darrah never heard of fundamental law? That a person cannot sit as a judge in their own case?
Have Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola used their overseas facilities to process dope?
More coming. Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment