Home 911Truth Ziglar, a Shocker of a Supreme Court Case: Mueller and Ashcroft Walk...

Ziglar, a Shocker of a Supreme Court Case: Mueller and Ashcroft Walk Free

22

Inscription on the Liberty Bell is from Leviticus 25:10 — “Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants” 

by Mary Maxwell, currently a candidate for US Senate

The 18th century Founding Fathers of the United States were only too aware of the likelihood of powerful “gentlemen” belittling the ordinary Joe. The fact that we have such a strong Constitution is thanks to that very awareness. James Madison, George Washington, George Mason and others – God bless ’em – had a mathematical sense of how to constrain the powerful.

I’ve lived outside the US for most of the last four decades. But before that, when I was here in the Sixties and Seventies, I saw the Supreme Court very nearly perfecting the plan of the Constitution to protect the ordinary Joe. Perhaps it was the Civil Rights litigation that heated things up, or maybe it was just the potential of the Constitution to expand to where the little guy would indeed rise up above his oppressor.

An unusual ruling was handed down yesterday by the US Supreme Court, in Ziglar v Abbasi. It seems that a former US Attorney General and a former FBI Director have been sweating it out for several years while a case proceeded against them in the lower courts.

The plaintiffs are some Muslim men who had overstayed their visas in 2001. They got picked up by INS (in that year we still had an “Immigration and Naturalization Service” – it is now part of Homeland Security. Everything but the Post Office seems to have joined Homeland Security!)

Bad things happened to these men in prison, where they were kept for eight months. Can you guess what redress they were entitled to? There is specific legislation whereby a person who is mistreated “under color of law” — that is, by a cop or other official – can sue for damages. If federal, the law can be found at 42 USC 1983. Many states have a similar item.

Outcome of Ziglar

The federal district court allowed the men to file for damages, and the Second Circuit considered it but sent it to the Supreme Court, I think, for a ruling on whether Ashcroft and Mueller — the aforementioned Attorney General and FBI Director in 2001 — had immunity. The decision has now been made – Mueller and Ashcroft cannot be sued, but possibly the jail warden, Dennis Hasty, can.

I am in shock, but not for the reason you may think. I don’t say that the immunity is wrong. The purpose of the immunity granted to all legislators, judges, and certain bureaucrats, is to let them make decisions without having to calculate what personal consequences there may be, down the track. I will now present a bit of the case and postpone telling you “where I stand.”

Note: we are not discussing here the liability of an official for any crime he may have committed. A crime is a crime – no legislator, judge or official is immune from prosecution. This is a tort case for monetary compensation.

The Case

There were two dissenting opinions and two recusals. The new judge, Neil Gorsuch, did not participate. The four ruling justices worried that if such officials had to pay damages, future officials would hesitate to take necessary action in similar circumstances.

Six months ago, Attorneys Rachel Meeropol for the plaintiffs and Jeffrey Lamken for the jail-warden defendant, presented their oral argument. The biggies – Ahcroft and Mueller – were represented by the US Solicitor General, Ian Gershengorn. He began:

“Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:. This case marks the return of Iqbal as Plaintiffs seek to hold essentially the same defendants liable for the same actions arising in the same extraordinary circumstances in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.”

The Solicitor General continued:

“First, the Bivens remedy should not be extended to national security and immigration policy decisions by senior officials in the wake of the September 11 attacks.  If the damages remedy is to be imposed, it’s for Congress, not this Court, to do so.

(Part of the plaintiffs’ case is that government knew they were not terrorists – a fact which the defendants do not dispute.)

 “There is no allegation that Ashcroft and Mueller or Ziglar created the punitive conditions, or that they required the putative conditions.  They had the right, as the Second Circuit itself held …  to presume that the policy would be implemented lawfully.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:  Is the argument you’re presenting a — a Bivens argument or a qualified immunity argument?

GENERAL GERSHENGORN:  So, Your Honor, [it] is the qualified immunity, Iqbal argument.  It’s the personal participation.  But we do think the Bivens remedy should not be extended here at all.  It would be quite an extension of Bivens, unprecedented, to apply this to national security and immigration policy decisions…

Mr. Hasty and Sherman are jailers.  They’re expert in ensuring secure conditions.  They are not trained in determining security classifications or connections to international terrorism.  They cannot be held liable for failing to overturn the FBI’s determinations.

 … The jailers don’t get to release people because they decide the court system got it wrong and that the people are actually innocent.

Note: in the 1971 Bivens case, versus federal narcotics agents, concerning the entering of a home without warrant, we heard the Supreme Court say:

“[The agents] seek to treat the relationship between a citizen and a federal agent unconstitutionally exercising his authority as no different from the relationship between two private citizens. In so doing, they ignore the fact that power, once granted, does not disappear like a magic gift when it is wrongfully used. An agent acting — albeit unconstitutionally — in the name of the United States possesses a far greater capacity for harm than an individual trespasser exercising no authority other than his own….”.

Back to the Ziglar case:

JUSTICE GINSBURG:  What about — what about all the conduct that was not directed by the attorney general or the FBI?

MR. LAMKEN: Yes, Your Honor. This is actually an action for individual damages against Mr. Hasty for conduct committed by others. In order to establish a plausible

JUSTICE GINSBURG:  Yes.  Am I right that as to those, the Second Circuit was unanimous?

MR. LAMKEN: Yeah. … the And each time, the Court has reemphasized that Bivens is about deterring individual Federal officer misconduct. Now, when a — when a Federal official creates an unconstitutional policy, he’s creating policy, but he is also acting as an individual to violate what in this case would have to be clearly-established constitutional norms.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:  I understand that. But the point made by your friend on the other side, though, of over-deterrence, when you have the attorney general, the director of the FBI, the director of INS sitting down and making — what are we going to do to respond to this crisis, and — and people in the – were of — old enough, 9/11, sort of have a better sense of what that crisis was like.”

My Shock

I have not bothered to mention the pain, fear, and humiliation the prisoner were subjected to, as it should by this point be well known to Americans – and objected vehemently to, by Americans – that bad things are happening in prison all the time.

My shock had to do with listening to the highest voices in the land –the veritable “conscience of mankind” – talk gibberish about the need to protect the nation from the terrorists that brought down the WTC buildings.

By now most people around the world understand that 9-11 was a classic false-flag operation. The buildings were brought down scientifically by controlled demolition. The point was to justify the many wars in the Middle East that were already on the drawing board. (The drawing board was publicly described by General Wesley Clark in 2007.)

So the Ziglar case could have given the Supreme Court justices, or the lawyer for the plaintiff, a chance to say that the entire persecution of Muslims that began on 9-11, was based on fraud and indeed malice.

The justices, instead, are concentrating on the deterring effect it would have on officials if they had to worry about mistreating prisoners. This is a worry they should have, not one they should be spared from. The suffering of the prisoners in this litigation is the big deal. If the prisoner were you, or your uncle, and you had been raised as a respecter of the Constitution, you’d expect the justices to be talking excitedly about the strange circumstances that caused these men to be held in jail for 8 months.

9-11: Who Knew?

I believe that Robert Mueller knew that 9-11 was an inside job. He had just been appointed FBI Director a week before – on September 4, 2001. Had this FBI Director not been “in the know” he might have said the wrong thing on that occasion – and we can’t have that!

It is very telling that, as the years went by, Mueller never listened to any of the good arguments for the WTC buildings having brought down by controlled demolition – arguments loudly proclaimed by a huge group of professionals called Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.

Of course I also believe John Ashcroft was in the loop. He had become US Attorney General in January, 2001. I don’t see how he could have functioned to cover up the matter so well if he did not know all the aspects. Many cases came forward concerning 9-11 and the US Attorneys dealing with those cases were all employed by Ashcroft’s Department of Justice. They had to keep mouthing the [surreal] position that 19 Arab hijackers brought down the planes.

What Did I Know and When Did I Know It?

In 2005, I got past the point of being deceived by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld gang. (My first clue came from Britain’s Hutton Inquiry into the death of Weapons Inspector David Kelley. I noticed Lord Hutton breaching protocol – and yes the experience was very frightening for me and I hate to frighten newcomers – but it’s survivable.)

From that moment, 12 years ago — I have felt a duty to share what I know with everyone. I tried running for Congress in 2006 from New Hampshire, but was not elected. Then I tried writing relevant books: Prosecution for Treason, Fraud Upon the Court, and others.

(L) Robert Mueller and (R) John Ashcroft at Press Conference – 9/13/2001

On the Internet you can find many excellent spokespersons for the correct story, which is that 9-11 was a classic false-flag. Jim Corbett of CorbettReport.com is one.  Dee McLachlan of GumshoeNews.com is another. False flags have been standard in history.

Back to Mueller and Ashcroft

This makes all of the in-the-know federal officials of the last decade indictable for treason, in my opinion. Mueller and Ashcroft would be high on the list. (And Mueller was still FBI Director during the Boston Marathon false-flag incident! Please see my book Marathon Bombing: Indicting the Players, at Amazon.)

So it is extremely disconcerting to see both those men get off, courtesy of SCOTUS. Not that the Justices were wrong in applying a law that makes officials immune to civil action.  That’s OK –but their discussion in court was way-off reality.

The Justices kept referring to Ashcroft not being able to let these plaintiffs out of jail, even after it was clear they were only visa-overstayers, not terrorists “because he couldn’t know for sure if there might be a terrorist or two among them.”

Again I say, I can respect the procedural argument. But it entails the lawyers and the judges speaking a phoney language – the language of 9-11 having been done by “genuine, dyed-in-the-wool Arab hijackers.”

We need to deal with this as soon as possible. It poisons everything

Ah, I see today’s Washington Post has just reported the case, quoting Justice Anthony Kennedy:

“There is therefore a balance to be struck, in situations like this one, between deterring constitutional violations and freeing high officials to make the lawful decisions necessary to protect the nation in times of great peril,” Kennedy said, before concluding: “The proper balance is one for the Congress, not the Judiciary, to undertake.”

Goody. Let me into the Senate and we’ll see what we can do.

Yours Truly at Alabama Law School, June 18, 2017

—Maxwell purveys her false-flag ideas at her Youtube channel, Mary W Maxwell, and at Gumshoe’s Youtube channel: Flipsidenews.

Libery Bell -- Expedia.com
Maxwell's photo-- E. Shuford
SHARE

22 COMMENTS

  1. Here is an odd fact:
    the plaintiffs’ attorney, Rachel Meeropol, working for the Centre for Constitutional Rights, is the granddaughter of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who were executed for espionage.

    • Lest I caused any confusion above, the William Sessions who was a Director of FBI is not related to the current Us Attorney General Jeff Sessions — the Alabamian who so kindly gave up his Senate seat so that I could have it.

  2. At 2.55 minutes Mueller says:

    “Acknowledging that we make mistakes and then fixing those mistakes is essential to assuring the credibility of the [FBI] institution before the American people.” Then he says “Integrity is at the heart and soul of what we do.”

    OK. Sounds good. Mr Mueller, please start by admitting that you made a mistake in killing Tamerlan Tsarnaev in custody, and also in pretending that you did not know him (“and only found him by examining videos of the Marathon”). You were the boss that night in 2013, so please email me via my website, MaxwellForSenate.com, to explain the following:

      • Oh, Berry, Waco is so Nineties.
        Have a glance at this:

        “WASHINGTON, July 19— President Clinton today dismissed William S. Sessions, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who had stubbornly rejected an Administration ultimatum to resign six months after a harsh internal ethics report on his conduct.

        “Mr. Clinton said he would announce his nominee to replace Mr. Sessions on Tuesday. He was expected to pick Judge Louis J. Freeh of Federal District Court in Manhattan.”

        • And now from Russ Baker (who scooped the Dun Meng story in Boston) on a 2014 car accident involving Louis Freeh:

          “First: local Vermont media are reporting that, just prior to his crash along a relatively straight and flat portion of a rural stretch of Vermont Highway 12, Freeh, 64, nearly took out three motorists, whose evasive actions saved themselves.

          “Second: a still unidentified FBI agent quickly materialized at the scene of the crash.”

  3. Great pic of you at the Alabama Law school! Great article too! The case was not really a shocker to me. We have seen this over and over. It seems no high gov officials are ever held accountable for anything, and for those looking to the supreme court for justice, rarely find it. The sooner you get elected to the senate, the better. With you there, maybe there is some chance for things to improve. You would be a zealous and passionate advocate for truth and justice.

  4. Your Beliefs concerning guilty parties to what you term ‘treason’ has no standing in a court of law Mary – you need hard evidence for such wrongdoing.

    As for the arrest of those two Muslim males that gave rise to this article – did they or did they not overstay their visa requirements?

    You have suggested that they did – hence the reason for the arrests and incarceration but under what law though – which is not mentioned. Are we able to assume that the arrests occurred after 9/11?

    The United States had become an increasing target of disaffected Muslims ever since the Palestine Partition of 1947 that created the state of Israel – those officials you mention as having committed ‘treason’ would have been well aware of such animosity that would have ‘colored’ their thinking in this case, if in fact, they should have a finger pointed at them.

    Obviously, those who arrested and detained those two Muslims would also have interviewed them as to their misdemeanour offence, but an offence subject to immediate deportation.

    So what happened to stop them from being immediately deported?

    We need to know why they were not immediately deported and we need to know what it was that they ‘fessed up’, if anything at all, during their interviews that would warrant them being detained for such a lengthy period.

    There is a lot missing from this story. We need more information on which a more accurate assessment can be made of those whom you believe have committed wrongdoing?

    • Missing from this story?? The whole 9-11 story is MISSING – Gone AWOL by the MSM. Had we got a fraction of the facts of 9-11, then maybe evidence would be forthcoming/visible for a crime of treason.

        • Possibly the whole Ziglar case was created in order to re-affirmm the immunity thing. I’m sure — sure — Judge Marilyn Patel’s ruling in the Korematsu coram nobis petition was to re-afirm the 1944 SCOTUS decision that martial law is OK.
          Yay! Go tyrants type thing!

          Here is an oddity. The 42 USC 1983 bit that allows a person to sue for police brutality is limited to state employees, not federal, even though anything in the USC is federal!

          If you want to sue feds you do a bivens action ( not a typo; the guy’s name was Bivens but now it’s s lower case adjective).
          My beloved Cornell Legal Information Institute clarifies:

          “There are some exceptions to bivens actions. Nixon v. Fitzgerald 457 U.S. 731 (1982) held that the President of United States is entitled absolute immunity from bivens actions. Butz v. Economou 438 U.S. 478 (1978) found that officers engaged in adjudicatory functions are entitled to absolute immunity from damages for their judicial acts.”

          And now Ziglar has made sure the FBI Director and the AG can sleep well at night no matter what they do.

          Note: World Government always dots its i’s and crosses its t’s.

          But all of that — Korematsu, Economou, Ziglar — is really testament to World Government’s fear of the power of LAW.

          • Fair, Prez could tweet [I’m quoting from the video]:

            Heed me, Peeps, “To do that kind of destruction [takes] even more than a big plane. I couldn’t believe it because there was a hole in the steel.”

            You’d be proud of me, Fair. I’ve discovered the 140-character limit of a tweet.
            Still haven’t sent one, though.
            I can’t think of anything to say….

          • hehe Mary 🙂
            start of by saying “G’day Alabama – things are looking up! Mary’s here! #Alabama”
            dont forget the hashtags #########
            if you tweet about aussie politics.. put in the hashtag #auspol
            if you tweet about us politics .. hashtag #USPolitics

            or a hashtag #USCongress or #911Truth or #whateverisrelevent

            many people follow hashtags like that..

            also, if you want to tweet the prez directly, make sure you include @realDonaldTrump ‏ to make sure he sees your tweet

  6. In the 1970s, someone blew the whistle on the FBI’s COINTELPRO operation. The word means Counter-Intelligence Program. Many of the FBI’s actions were criminal.

    But ALTHOUGH THE MATERIAL WAS PLACED BEFORE CONGRESS AT HEARINGS (Perhaps by Senator Frank Church?), no member of the FBI was indicted (as far as I recall).

    Of course Congress itself is not an indicter, but it can refer suspects to the Dept of Justice.

  7. So far as I can ascertain spending an unexplained amount of time in a U.S. prison per an expired visa is far from unusual; I’m not aware of any provision that confers any sort of “constitutional right” to aliens.

    It all boils down to the fact that those who put the U. S. constitution together were no more righteous than their Brit predecessors: They simply countered in the fact that there were a significant number of settlers , whole communities who’d abandonned Europe for political and religious purposes, who wouldn’t stand for anything less.

  8. I’m not familiar with this case, other than what you’ve stated here, so please forgive me if I’ve misunderstood any facts. But, as far as I’m concerned, mistreating prisoners is never okay for any reason, including homeland security/terrorism, blah, blah, blah. Never! And it’s not okay to imprison people who have not clearly committed an actual crime — at least without a strong suspicion that can be backed up by some sort of actual evidence.

    Wouldn’t it have served the country better to send the violators back to their home country ASAP? Somebody should be punished, at least have their hands slapped and receive a good talking to, for violating the human rights of the petitioners. Some wrongheaded rules and laws should be changed and abolished. And, as you stated, most of all, everyone must be made aware that there were no Arab hijacker/terrorists. Maybe an actor or two, a patsy or two or so, but no actual terrorists. It’s a phony story and must stop carrying any validity whatsoever regarding the laws of this land. Fortunately, its credibility is being diminished every day by people like Mary Maxwell, Dee McLachlan, and many, many others.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.