From the AIM newsletter
By Anonymous Patriots, April 15, 2025
In a shocking betrayal of American sovereignty, a cabal of unelected federal judges has unleashed a coordinated assault on the will of the people, brazenly obstructing President Donald J. Trump’s overwhelming mandate to dismantle the lawless immigration programs of the defeated Democrats. Re-elected on November 5, 2024, with a historic landslide victory as a resounding rejection of open-border chaos—Trump was entrusted to secure the nation’s borders and restore law and order.
Yet, in the mere weeks since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, a cadre of activist judges, cloaked in the robes of impartiality, has conspired to thwart his every action. This is no mere judicial oversight; it is a deliberate, unethical, and probably impeachable violation of the The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, orchestrated to prop up the failed policies of their evident Democrat sponsors who were crushed at the ballot box. At the heart of this scandal stands Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., whose dereliction of duty—tainted by foreign allegiances, his wife’s ties to globalist elitists, and a sinister plot involving the Inns of Court—has allowed this conspiracy to flourish, threatening the very foundations of our republic.
A Coordinated Attack on Trump’s Mandate
The evidence is undeniable and chilling. From April 11 to April 25, 2025, federal judges across the nation have issued a relentless barrage of rulings to sabotage Trump’s immigration reforms, each decision dripping with political venom. U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco blocked Trump’s order to withhold funding from sanctuary cities on April 24, 2025, shielding lawless jurisdictions that openly defy federal immigration enforcement. Judges Charlotte Sweeney in Denver and Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan halted deportations of Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, demanding excessive due process for alleged gang members tied to Tren de Aragua. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., the notorious FISA Court chief judge, threatened contempt over deportation flights, accusing the administration of “willful disregard” of his prior orders. Other judges struck down Trump’s voter ID requirements, anti-DEI guidance, USAID funding cuts, and transgender military ban, all within a two-week window. The synchronized timing and ideological uniformity of these rulings cannot be dismissed as coincidence—they scream of a sinister conspiracy among unelected judges to undermine a president elected by an overwhelming majority of Americans.
Rogues in the current judicial coup attempt against the American Republic
U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco.
Judge Charlotte Sweeney in Denver.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan, making the 666 sign—the Mark of the Beast.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C.; Seve-year FISA judge
This pattern exposes a judicial cabal acting as a shadow government, defying the American people’s mandate. Trump’s landslide victory was a clarion call to end the Democrat-driven immigration chaos—sanctuary cities, unchecked borders, and dangerous deportee protections. Yet, these judges, unaccountable to voters, are trying to nullify the electorate’s choice, serving not the Constitution but the political machine that lost in a historic rout.
The Code of Conduct: A Shield Trampled
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, enshrined to protect judicial integrity, explicitly forbids such treachery. Canon 1 demands that judges “uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary,” maintaining an impartial stance free from external influence. Canon 2 commands judges to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities,” a directive these judges have obliterated with reckless abandon. By issuing near-identical rulings in rapid succession, judges like Orrick, Sweeney, Hellerstein, and Boasberg create a glaring appearance of coordination—if not outright conspiracy—to undermine Trump’s agenda. Canon 3 requires judges to “perform the duties of the office fairly and impartially,” yet their rulings consistently prop up Democrat-aligned policies, betraying a bias that reeks of partisan sponsorship.
The Code is unequivocal: judges must not only be impartial but must appear impartial to the public. When these judges repeatedly block Trump’s orders—often with nationwide injunctions that overstep their jurisdiction—they fuel suspicion of a partisan agenda orchestrated to thwart the will of the people. Their actions violate the ethical canons, eroding public trust in the judiciary and inviting accusations of impropriety. Such grievous breaches are not mere oversights; they are impeachable offenses, as they undermine the separation of powers and defy the democratic process that elected Trump by an overwhelming mandate.
Chief Justice Roberts: The Derelict Overseer with Divided Loyalties
At the apex of this judicial travesty stands Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., whose failure to enforce judicial impartiality is nothing short of a dereliction of duty—compounded by shocking allegations of divided loyalties, his wife’s ties to globalist elites, and a clandestine network of legal elites conspiring through the Inns of Court to advance a pro-British agenda. As head of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Supreme Court, Roberts is tasked with overseeing the federal judiciary’s adherence to the Code of Conduct, available at the U.S. Courts website.
Yet, under his watch, federal judges have run amok, issuing rulings that align suspiciously with the Democrat and British agendas, unchecked by any meaningful oversight. His inaction is not merely negligent; it is a betrayal of the American people, made all the more egregious by a bombshell complaint in a 2020 Supreme Court case (Arunachalam v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 19-8029) and a century-old exposé of the British Pilgrims Society’s plot to re-annex America to British rule. See March 14, 2001 Judicial Conference convoluted new rules relaxing mutual fund reporting requirements so judges can hide their corporate holdings inside conspiring mutual funds.
The Arunachalam v Lyft complaint exposed Roberts’ alleged membership in the Knights of Malta, English Priory, a secretive order tied to the British monarch, overseen by the Princes of Wales. The complaint alleged this created a profound conflict of interest, raising questions about whether his true allegiance lies with the U.S. Constitution or the British Crown. The docket states that Roberts’ recusal on May 18 and June 29, 2020, was an “admission” of this conflict, claiming he “engaged in conflict of interest against inventors as a member of the Knights of Malta with fealty to the Queen of England who controls SERCO and QinetiQ Group Plc, both British companies, in services that prejudice the inventor’s patent properties.” The complaint argued that these companies, controlled by a “Special Share” held by the British Crown, manage the U.S. Patent Office, undermining American inventors’ rights. The complaint tied the Knights of Malta to the City of London’s financial networks, historically linked to the Jesuits and Rothschild banking family, amplifying the narrative of foreign influence.
The same complaint revealed Jane Sullivan Roberts’ entanglements with over one hundred globalist clients, listed on PDF pages 49–63 (Appendices 10A–24A), from her time at Major, Lindsey & Africa, before she became Managing Partner at Macrae. These include law firms like Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, and Linklaters, and corporations like Google, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs, many with ties to London’s financial hub. The complaint alleged these clients are aligned with City of London banks (e.g., Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds) and companies (e.g., BP, GlaxoSmithKline), creating a web of influence that compromises Roberts’ impartiality. While the docket does not confirm direct funding, Jane’s transatlantic work and client list suggest relationship interlocks to globalist elitists, echoing concerns about her $10 million in commissions from 2007 to 2014.
