Real Criminals ARE The Judges!

Who are the real criminals? The JUDGES!

This is what WE are doing to supply the Trump administration with EVIDENCE that the Federal court judges and clerks are violating the people's rights.

Grab your popcorn this is worth a watch.

There is no remedy what so ever in this country and Trump and his team will never see what we are seeing because they've never filed suits at common law.

Watch a fraudulent foreclosure in this video.

The courts state they can't take suits at common law but in 2024, the SEC v Jarkesy VEHEMENTLY stated there are, and they are the ONLY courts that can do so.

This case was also emphasized in the April 19th Trump Memorandum. Look it up, it's got 10 recent SCOTUS cases.

In his concurring opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, emphasized that the Constitution prohibits administrative agencies from adjudicating cases involving private rights, such as life, liberty, or property,
outside of Article III courts.

READ THAT AGAIN!
ARTICLE III COURTS

Gorsuch highlighted that matters concerning private rights must be decided by an independent judiciary, ensuring due process and the right to a jury trial as guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment.

He cautioned against the expansion of the "public rights" exception, asserting that it should not be used to bypass constitutional protections in cases traditionally handled by courts of law.

This stance signals a broader skepticism toward the constitutionality of administrative adjudication in cases affecting individual rights.

THIS CASE IS FROM 2024.

And today in 2025, these are the ARTICLE III, SENATE CONFIRMED judges we have evidence of violating this SO FAR:

Melissa Damian
Troy Nunley
Dale Drozd
Daniel Calabretta
Maryellen Noriekano
Tiffany M. Cartwright
William Frederic Jung
Michael J. Davis
Caroline Gentryno
Amos L. Mazzantno
Wendy W. Berger
John F. Walter
Beth Phillips
Thomas O. Farrish
Sarala V. Nagala
Sheri Polster Chappell
Holly Teeter
Brooks Severson
Gwynne Birzer
Eric Melgrin
Aileen M. Cannonnono
Kathryn Kimball Mizelleno

Justice Gorsuch underscored that when a legal action mirrors traditional common law claims—such as fraud—it inherently involves private rights.
He asserted that such matters must be adjudicated by Article III courts, which provide the constitutional safeguards of an independent judiciary and the right to a jury trial.

Gorsuch emphasized that administrative agencies, like the SEC, lack the constitutional authority to unilaterally adjudicate these private rights disputes through in-house tribunals.

He cautioned against expanding the "public rights" exception to encompass cases that have historically been the domain of common law courts, warning that doing so would erode the separation of powers and individuals' rights to due process.

Beyond the Seventh Amendment, Justice Gorsuch highlighted potential violations of Article III and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

He argued that allowing agencies to serve simultaneously as prosecutor, judge, and jury in cases involving private rights undermines the constitutional framework designed to prevent the concentration of power and to protect individual liberties.

In summary, Justice Gorsuch's concurrence in SEC v. Jarkesy reinforces the principle that adjudication of private rights must occur within the judicial branch, preserving the constitutional guarantees of impartiality and the right to a jury trial.

Yes, Justice Neil Gorsuch did highlight historical grievances related to the Revolutionary War in his concurring opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy.

He emphasized that the right to a jury trial in civil cases is deeply rooted in American history and was a significant factor leading to the American Revolution.

Specifically, Gorsuch noted that the British practice of circumventing jury trials by using admiralty and chancery courts without juries was among the colonists' chief complaints, ultimately contributing to the Declaration of Independence.

This historical context underscores the Framers' insistence on including the Seventh Amendment in the Constitution to preserve the right to a jury trial in civil cases.

Gorsuch argued that allowing administrative agencies like the SEC to adjudicate cases involving private rights without a jury undermines this constitutional guarantee.

He cautioned against expanding the "public rights" exception, asserting that it should not be used to bypass constitutional protections in cases traditionally handled by courts of law.

We either have a Bill of Rights or we do not.

Join our fight at https://InalienableUniversity.com