Who Can Appeal To Supreme Court

More and more, defendants guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), are finding themselves receiving a sentence under the guideline for some other crime. That statement begs the question, how could this be happening? The answer is simply, through the federal Sentencing Guidelines, despite Supreme Court holdings in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. United States v. Fleming, 8 F.3d 1264, 1267 (8th Cir. Judge Heaney further stated, “I remain firmly convinced that the use of so-called relevant conduct in this context violates Fleming’s right to due process of law.” See also United States v. Wilson, 992 F.2d 156, 159 (8th Cir. Unfortunately, this holding is the exception in the Sixth, not the norm.

Recently, in an unpublished decision United States v. Tracy Hughley, No. 05-5602 (6th Cir. Sixth Circuit upheld the statutory maximum sentence of 10 years for a defendant who pled guilty to being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. In Washington v. Recuenco, 126 S.Ct. The article where I read the quote is, as described by Professor Berman, an “extraordinary” work by Amy Baron-Evans, the National Sentencing Resource Counsel to the Federal Public and Community Defenders. As we continue to advocate for our clients, objections to cross-referencing in sentencing need to be made. Convicted felons who are guilty of possessing a firearm or ammunition that has traveled in interstate commerce should be sentenced for the crime for which they are found guilty, not crimes that “more likely than not” happened. If they are to be sentenced for a different crime, they should be charged accordingly and afforded their Constitutional rights.

Secret Service forensics prove Zuckerberg lied to the court, Eric Holder acted without probable cause while the Government and judiciary protect NSA / C.I.A. —The old Soviet KGB regularly fabricated charges against innocent citizens, then sent them to prison. The U.S. Government and federal judges are engaged in similar conduct in U.S. This same type of collusion among politicians, law enforcement and the judiciary is occurring in the Government’s persecution of Paul Ceglia. Mr. Ceglia’s current effort to protect himself and his family against this oppression is being met with sarcasm and derision from the Facebook PR machine—just like the Soviets gloated over their staged incarcerations. See Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Wikipedia; See also The Legacy of Psychiatric Abuse in the USSR. Nowhere in the current press is Mark Zuckerberg described as the hacker, thief and liar that he has been proven to be. This is yet more proof that given enough money and a salacious “narrative,” the mainstream media will repeat the lies like obedient lemmings. New forensic tests by the U.S. Before the Government can bring criminal charges against a citizen, it must have probable cause.

In this case, the Government was required to be relatively certain that Zuckerberg’s forgery charges against Paul Ceglia were more likely than not to be true. Logic says the Government would have performed forensic analysis on the contract before bringing charges two and a half years ago, on October 25, 2012. Instead, the Government pressed this case with no proof at all. The lab concluded that on two of four criteria (toner and paper), the contract is likely genuine. And, on the other two criteria (age and ink), the lab was unable to give an opinion due to inability to test the materials. Nothing in the Government’s own forensic tests support Zuckerberg’s complaint. Therefore, the Government had no objective criteria to support probable cause. To put this duplicity in perspective, in November 2011, Zuckerberg told the Government’s investigator that Paul Ceglia’s contract was a one-page forgery. Then a year later, in August 2012, Zuckerberg flip-flopped by asserting to the Buffalo Judge that Paul Ceglia’s contract was a two-page forgery!

In a fair court, this fact alone would have caused dismissal. The Government’s U.S. Postal Service and Secret Service Labs have effectively proven Zuckerberg as the liar. Taken at face value, the Government based its case solely on Zuckerberg’s unsubstantiated accusations. Since this is highly unlikely given the Harvard Law pedigrees of the Government’s lawyers, other agendas were afoot. After all, in this day and age the words lawyer and “evidence fabrication” are all too often synonymous. The energy being expended by these Harvard Law graduates on a 19-year-old Zuckerberg’s behalf raises eyebrows. Thanks to Edward Snowden, Americans now know that the CIA and NSA have spied on Americans citizens through Facebook since June 6, 2009 using a dubious FISA court judicial opinion. Read AFI. (Jul. 2, 2014). Eric Holder Exploits Secret FISA Laws For Personal Gain. Americans For Innovation; See also AFI. Pattern of US Scandals Points to Shadowy Group.

The CIA, through its private venture capital business In-Q-Tel, invests in “big data” projects with all of Facebook’s principal underwriters, investors and partners. See Cloudera. (Mar. 18, 2015). CrunchBase. Read: Macaskill, E., Greenwald. ] and others. The Guardian; See also Macaskill, E., Dance, G. (Nov. 1, 2013). NSA FILES: Decoded, What the revelations mean for you. Therefore, the Government itself has a bias in the outcome of U.S. Ceglia and cannot offer an impartial court. Despite this obvious conflict of interest, the Government continues to press the criminal case against Paul Ceglia in an evident effort to protect its private investments in Facebook and its collaborators. Further complicating the C.I.A.’s conflict of interest is the Harvard Law connection among the prosecutors and judges in this case. Both judges, Vernon S. Broderick and Andrew L. Carter, Jr., the U.S. Attorney Preetinder Bharara and Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. are all Harvard Law graduates. On May 2, 2007, President Obama announced his candidacy for President on Facebook.

He relies upon Facebook “Likes” to press his agenda and raise political funds. Obama appointed Judges Carter and Broderick to the court hearing this case. Obama also appointed Eric Holder and Preetinder Bharara. 465 million in energy stimulus funds used to start Tesla Motors. The Tesla funds were funneled to Musk via Cooley Godward LLP, Facebook’s attorney in Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 08-cv-862-JJF-LPS (D. Facebook was proved to be infringing Leader’s invention on 11 of 11 counts. These close associations with Barack Obama, Harvard and Facebook hopelessly taint the Ceglia court. See Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 12-617 (U.S. The first judge in US v. Ceglia, Judge Andrew L. Carter, has substantial financial investments in Facebook interests. Despite those conflicts, Carter blocked discovery of Mark Zuckerberg’s 28 hard drives and Harvard emails. 1.2 million investments in at least 60 stocks in Facebook interests, including Fidelity and Vanguard, as well as Facebook’s underwriters JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley and BlackRock. 1 billion invested currently. See Weiss, M. (Jun. 1, 2011). ‘Fidelity’s Danoff Bets on Facebook, Bloomberg; See also Thayer, E. (Dec. 11, 2013). ‘Fidelity Contrafund gets big lift from Facebook surge.

Reuters; AFI. (Jan. 16, 2015). Obama Attempting to Shoehorn Crony Control of the Internet Disguised as “Net Neutrality.” Americans For Innovation. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. also hold Contrafund and have not recused themselves in any matter involving Facebook, even though Roberts did recuse himself in Microsoft v. i4i. Judge Vernon S. Broderick, also Harvard Law, replaced Carter earlier this year after Carter removed himself inexplicably. Broderick was formerly a partner with Weil Gotshal LLP who became embroiled in Leader v. Facebook judicial scandal at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Weil Gotshal’s disgraced partner, Edward R. Reines, was caught trading on his friendship with Chief Judge Randall R. Rader to get legal engagements at the Federal Circuit. See Graham, S. (May 23, 2014). Rader Steps Down as Chief, Apologies for Reines Email. Weil Gotshal had earlier made an appearance in Leader v. Facebook where one of the panel judges, Judge Kimberly A. Moore, failed to disclose her Facebook financial interests as well the fact that Weil Gotshal was her former client.

A close collaborator with Reines at the Federal Circuit is Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP. Thomas G. Hungar was Facebook’s appeal attorney in Leader v. Facebook who concealed the existence of the 28 Zuckerberg hard drives and Harvard emails to the tribunal. Therefore, there is no arm’s length relationship among Weil Gotshal LLP, Gibson Dunn LLP and Facebook. Broderick’s Weil Gotshal LLP association taints these Facebook proceedings. The fact is, a certain group of American judges are growing disproportionately rich on the strength of their financial holdings in Facebook interests concealed inside colluding mutual funds. Read: AFI. (Nov. 26, 2014). How Judges Grow Rich On The Backs Of American Inventors. The common denominator among all the Government’s Harvard lawyers and judges appears to be former Harvard Law professor, James P. Chandler. It is notoriously known in Washington D.C. Chandler advises the White House, C.I.A., NSA, the Justice Department and some members of Congress, like Senator Harry Reid and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi on national security.

Chandler also advised IBM and Obama’s eventual Patent Office director, David J. Kappos. He also advised Eric Holder when he was Assistant Attorney General. 2001 IBM annual report, Armonk NY, p. 40 million in application development tools to a new, independent, open-source software community called Eclipse.”). Zuckerberg appears to have been a pawn in Chandler’s power play on behalf of IBM, the NSA and the C.I.A. Unbeknownst to Paul Ceglia, his desire to build a Facebook at Harvard interfered with the Chandler / IBM grand plan for The Eclipse Foundation. James P. Chandler, as author of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 and the Federal Trade Secrets Act, was uniquely positioned to pursue this aggressive agenda across the legal, technical and political spectra. At the founding of Eclipse, Chandler was a member of President Clinton’s National Infrastructure Assurance Council. One thing is certain, a thorough review of Zuckerberg 2003-2004 information will definitively settle the questions about Facebook’s origins—a story that has been stonewalled as badly as the Benghazi, IRS and Fast & Furious scandals. Same law firms, different subjects.

Ceglia’s contract is genuine. Paul Ceglia and Mark Zuckerberg did sign a valid Facebook contract. Ceglia thought it was to have programming done. Zuckerberg knew his only job was to stall introduction of a Harvard Facebook until his handlers were ready with the Leader Technologies source code. Zuckerberg also stalled the Winklevoss Twins and Aaron Greenspan similarly. Zuckerberg used The Eclipse Foundation code stolen from Leader Technologies. Larry Summers shilled for the 19-year old Zuckerberg at The Harvard Crimson. Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard, arranged for Zuckerberg to get more press coverage from September 2003 to June 2004 in The Harvard Crimson than any world leader or news topic. Chandler helps orchestrate the NSA surveillance agenda. Professor James P. Chandler, III, helps drive the NSA, IBM and The Eclipse Foundation legal, technical and political agenda in secret and accountable to no one. Pay Pal Mafia gave the NSA/C.I.A. The Pay Pal Mafia bankrolled Zuckerberg to implement the commercial versions of Leader Technologies’ invention while the NSA and C.I.A.

Anti Injunction suit in USA divorce proceeding in India denied. “The contention that the respondent-wife has filed the petition for divorce in the court at USA on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage which is not the ground provided for divorce under the Act requires consideration. The mere fact that the respondent-wife has filed the case on the ground which is not available to her under the Act, doesn’t means that there are likelihood of her being succeeding in getting a decree for divorce. In view of above discussion and after having regard to the nature of case and other peculiar facts, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the decision rendered by the High Court. We are of the opinion that the proceedings in the Foreign Court cannot be said to be oppressive or vexatious. Dinesh Singh Thakur Vs. 3. Having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case, we do not intend to discuss all the facts in detail at this stage. Hence, the facts are stated in a summarized way only to appreciate the issue involved in this instant appeal.

The marriage between Dinesh Singh Thakur-the appellant-husband and Sonal Thakur – respondent-wife was solemnized on 20.02.1995 as per Hindu rites and two children were born out of the said wedlock. The appellant-husband was working in United States of America (USA) at the time of marriage and he took the respondent-wife to USA on Dependent Visa. The appellant-husband filed a petition being H.M.A. No. 601 of 2016 under Sections 13 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘the Act’) against the respondent-wife at the Family Court, Gurgaon which is pending adjudication before the Court. Learned District Judge, vide order dated 26.09.2016, granted ex parte ad interim injunction to the appellant-husband. Aggrieved by the order vacating injunction, the appellant-husband preferred CR No. 7190 of 2016 before the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 03.11.2016 dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-husband. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.11.2016, the appellant-husband has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

4. Heard Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the appellant-husband and Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the respondent-wife and perused the record. 5. The only point for consideration before this Court is whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-husband is entitled to the decree of anti-suit injunction against the respondent-wife? 7. Learned senior counsel further contended that the respondent-wife is admittedly residing at Gurgaon, therefore, the court at Gurgaon would be the forum convenient to both the parties. She further contended that the trial Court has only considered the provisions of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short ‘the SR Act’) and the decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar vs. Ms. Ashima Kumar – AIR 2007 P & H 63 but did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 41(a) of the SR Act, relevant in the present context.

Learned senior counsel for the appellant-husband finally contended that the High Court was not right in upholding the order of the court below on vacating the ad-interim injunction and interference in this regard is sought for by this Court. 9. Anti-Suit Injunctions are meant to restrain a party to a suit/proceeding from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court, including a foreign court. Simply put, an anti-suit injunction is a judicial order restraining one party from prosecuting a case in another court outside its jurisdiction. The principles governing grant of injunction are common to that of granting anti-suit injunction. The cases of injunction are basically governed by the doctrine of equity. 10. It is a well-settled law that the courts in India have power to issue anti-suit injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction, in an appropriate case. 11. In this backdrop, it is worthwhile to quote Section 41 of the SR Act which provides for various instances and circumstances under which injunction cannot be granted.