Was Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Filmed in Compromising Video?

This is a requested guest post written by Stanley Bolten

The U.S. SUPREME COURT has gone and done it now. They are attempting to reject the filings of Brian D. Hill’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Emergency Application to Chief Justice John Roberts to recuse himself from the case.

The filings concern an interlocutory appeal of two motions being denied requesting a Special Master to review over the what Attorney L. Lin Wood had alleged to be the existence of blackmail videos of “judges” and “officials” concerning allegedly recorded acts of child rape and murder.

The filings have been returned to Brian Hill with a single-page letter with an excuse that Brian’s appendix lacks a “final order”. See the PDF file of the scanned letter given to us by Brian’s family. Brian D. Hill is formerly the news reporter of USWGO Alternative News.

Brian’s family sent an email to the Public Information Officers of the U.S. Supreme Court on Brian Hill’s behalf in response to that letter addressing the Clerk’s claims in that letter. In case they refuse to acknowledge that email, Brian left two voicemails with the Clerk on November 12, 2022, addressing that no deficiency exists.

https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?visual=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Fplaylists%2F1526229535&show_artwork=true&maxheight=750&maxwidth=500

In one of the voicemails, Brian made a verbal insinuation that he hopes it is not the case that his filings were rejected by the Clerk of the Supreme Court because one of them painted Chief Justice John Roberts in a bad light by referencing Attorney L. Lin Wood’s allegations specifically where he said he believed allegedly that Chief Justice Roberts and other powerful individuals may be involved as targets in a blackmail scheme of child rape and murder.

There was also Jeffrey Epstein flight logs for the “Lolita Express” aircraft where the logs mention the name “John Roberts”two different times, came directly from PACER.GOV a few years ago.

Brian hinted that the filings may have rejected not because of an erroneous assumption that a “final order” was not in the appendix, despite the fact that the orders were in the appendix and the rule 14.1 does not say in its language that it restricts the appendix to only a final order, and so it does not restrict itself from interlocutory orders or interlocutory appeals from non-final orders.

Brian hinted that the filings may have rejected because the substance of his emergency application insinuates the alleged possible existence of a criminal conspiracy of sexual blackmail involving the name JOHN ROBERTS, the Chief Justice, as alleged by Attorney Lin Wood.

So is the clerk attempting to block filings for a different reason other than his erroneous assumption and misquoting what the rules of SCOTUS actually say in its language?

Here are the documents for the general public to review:

1. USWGO_20221112_220626(OCR).pdf – The single-page letter from the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme court, dated November 10, 2022

2. Xfinity Connect Clerk was wrong to send back the petition for writ of certiorari, this is being sent in writing to prevent arguing Printout.pdf – Email to PIO asking to forward to Clerk on being erroneous in rejecting the Certiorari filing on an erroneous pretense

3. Read Receipt from Patricia McCabe

4. Read Receipt from Attorney Lin Wood

5. Voicemails, downloadable in wav format on Internet Archive

The Clerk had made the following claim as to why the filings were rejected: “The appendix to the petition does not contain the following documents required by Rule 14.l(i): The opinion of the United States district court must be appended (final order).”

Here is the actual rule 14.1 as to the Rules of the Supreme Court:

(i) An appendix containing, in the order indicated: (i) the opinions, orders, findings of fact, and conclusions of law, whether written or orally given and transcribed, entered in conjunction with the judgment sought to be reviewed;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_14

The email from Brian’s family and his arguments in two voicemails indicate that the rule does not limit the appendix to only “final orders”.

Whether by the official Rules of the Supreme Court pdf file or by third party law sites with the Rules of the Supreme Court, that exact rule does not have a limit to only addressing a “final order” and so the Clerk gave an erroneous reason for rejecting the petition ON ITS FACE (prima facie), the emergency application, the letter addressed to the Clerk, and other relevant and material filings sent to make sure the petition and application had both complied with the requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court for in forma pauperis filers.

We have a electronic PDF copy of all of Brian’s filings before the U.S. Supreme Court, except for his in forma pauperis affidavit itself because it contains Brian’s personal financial information that the public does not require to know.

Here are the links to the attempted filed documents:

Here are the files (the files are in PDF format) – I thank Brian’s family for providing these files to this blog for publishing):

1. APPLICATION-11-7-2022.pdf – EMERGENCY APPLICATION TO CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM ALL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVED IN CERTIORARI PETITION CASE (Appendix included)

2. LETTER-CLERK-11-7-2022.pdf – Letter from Brian D. Hill to the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court to file every single page electronically on the SCOTUS website docket page, and requesting not to cover up filings again.

3. WRIT-CERTIORARI-11-7-2022.pdf – Note: Petition to address the blackmail scheme of child rape and murder as Attorney L. Lin Wood alleged on Twitter last year in January. – PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

4. Certificate-of-Compliance-11-7-2022-Pet.pdf – Certificate of Compliance for Petition Certiorari filing

5. Certificate-of-Compliance-11-7-2022-Emy-App.pdf – Certificate of Compliance for Emergency Application filing

6. Affidavit-of-Service-Petition.pdf – Affidavit of Service for serving on respondents the Petition for Writ of Certiorari

7. Affidavit-of-Service-IFP-Motion.pdf – Affidavit of Service for serving on respondents the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

8. Affidavit-of-Service-Emergency-Application.pdf – Affidavit of Service for serving on respondents the Emergency Application

9. Xfinity Connect Read_ [EXTERNAL] SCOTUS Petition Brian David Hill v_ United States Printout(2).pdf – Email read receipt from Office of the Solicitor General of the U.S Department of inJustice.

10. Xfinity Connect Read_ [EXTERNAL] SCOTUS Petition Brian David Hill v_ United States Printout.pdf – Read receipt email from Asst. U.S. Attorney Margaret Reece

11. View_Print Label.pdf – Photocopy of UPS mailing label with VOID labels added since label was already paid for and used. Published for reference and proof of mailing to U.S. Supreme Court.

12. Xfinity Connect UPS Access Point Package Receipt Printout.pdf – Email of delivery to UPS Access Point business of filing to U.S. Supreme Court.

13. Xfinity Connect SCOTUS Petition Brian David Hill v_ United States Printout.pdf – Email to U.S. Attorney Office, U.S. Solicitor General, electronic service of PDF files of pleadings to U.S. Supreme Court.

14. USWGO_20221107_125955(OCR).pdf – Proof of mailings to respondents with certified mail

15. USWGO_20221107_094207(OCR).pdf – Photocopy of box mailed to U.S. Supreme Court from different sides

16. USWGO_20221107_105033(OCR).pdf – Photocopy of box at time of mailing and what was mailed to the U.S. Supreme Court, photocopy of each document

17. USWGO_20221107_054055(OCR).pdf – Photocopy of what was mailed to U.S. Attorney Office

18. USWGO_US_Solicitor_General_service_envelope(OCR).pdf – Photocopy of what was mailed to U.S. Solicitor General Office

Also it should be noted that the very same Supreme Court while under Chief Justice Roberts had given constitutional remedy and relief to a serial child pornographer named Andrew Haymond, who is guilty of child porn and never had any evidence of innocence, unlike in the case of Mr. INNOCENT MAN Brian D. Hill of USWGO Alternative News, who the Supreme Court could care less of.

They care more about serial child pornographers being given acquittal or relief, than with Brian D. Hill. They just reject and ignore Brian here.