(7/23/2025) | AUDIO CHAT 182 | SG Sits Down w/ JudicialPedia Founder Janice Grenadier: Petition to Impeach Chief Justice Roberts

➡ In this audio chat, the host, Q News Patriot, talks with judicial activist Janice Grenadier about her fight against corruption in the judiciary. Grenadier has been actively challenging the system, even calling for the impeachment of Chief Justice John Roberts. She believes that the Constitution is being ignored in court cases and that there is a deep-seated corruption within the judiciary. Grenadier also criticizes the exclusive nature of certain judicial societies and the misuse of government buildings for private events.
➡ The text discusses an impeachment case against a Supreme Court Justice for misuse of the Supreme Court building, dereliction of duty, and ethical issues. The Justice is accused of allowing private parties in the building, ignoring misconduct, and showing bias. The author believes this behavior is a violation of the judiciary’s integrity and independence, and is asking for the Justice’s removal from office. The author also encourages others to share their experiences of judicial misconduct on a website.
➡ The speaker is expressing concern about perceived corruption and foreign influence in the U.S. court system. They believe that the courts are not providing fair trials and are withholding evidence. They also suggest that the judiciary is not properly investigating itself and that lawyers are profiting at the expense of ordinary people. The speaker calls for action from the top to rectify these issues, including the impeachment of certain judges and the right to sue judges who are not performing their duties correctly.
➡ The discussion revolves around the potential impeachment of Justice Roberts, citing past cases of impeachment and laws related to misuse of government property. The speaker also expresses concerns about the influence of foreign powers on the judiciary, the political climate, and the erosion of individual rights. They mention a website, Judicialpedia.com, where people can support their efforts. The speaker ends by thanking the host for the opportunity to discuss these issues.

Good afternoon, Patriots, and Welcome to the 183rd audio chat on the Q News Patriot Rumble Channel series. I am the Q News Patriot, joined again today by founder of Judicialpedia and judicial activist, Ms. Janice Grenadier. My name is SG and on Patriots, since last we spoke and had Ms. Grenadier on the show, she has been an absolute flurry of a one man show or a one woman show, if you will, submitting multiple FOIA requests and apparently rattling the cage significantly enough to be ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Believe it or not, there’s a tremendous amount of things that we’re going to unpack today, including her recent call for Chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, John Roberts to be impeached.

Ms. Grenadier, thank you very much for joining the show again. How have things been? A little bit on the crazy side. You know, the sadness is that the corruption within our judiciary goes so deep and until it happens to you, most people don’t even realize it. Because we look at these people, judges and lawyers and doctors, as being such upstanding citizens and they wouldn’t lie to us and they want the best for everybody and they’re going to follow our Constitution. And what I’m finding is that our Constitution no longer has a role in our courts. And I think I started to see it with the J6, but now I’m seeing it in for instance, my own case which brought us together was where I was charged with obstruction of justice and assaulted by the sheriffs in Virginia Beach.

And what I’m seeing is in my case is I’m being limited to the evidence, just like the J6ers were being limited to the evidence. So we have to think, where is all this coming from? We need to look at the very top. We need to look at Justice John Roberts, Chief Justice. He’s the one. It’s a trickle down effect from him. We have 50 other Supreme Court Justices. They decide for their states while he decides for the whole country what our judiciary is supposed to be like. And when he allows judges and lawyers to lie in court, lie in court documents and ignore the Constitution and our constitutional rights, it goes back to him.

But how do we get what we need done? I filed a writ of mandamus in prohibition, June 14th of 2024 and it was to for an investigation of the fact that the judges were lying in court. They were allowing the prosecuting attorneys to lie in court about the defendants. It was a bias for religious purposes. It was biased for the Constitution. The judges were outright you’re not allowed to use the Constitution in the courts. They were complicit to the lying of the district attorneys, the Department of Justice, and not handing over evidence to the people. So my writ of mandamus was about 500 pages and it’s exhibit 17 in here because it specifically shows the corruption and the Brita Mandamus, if you don’t remember, it, asked for three things.

What gave me standing is what they had done to me in my court cases in that court, which I never even got an open courtroom to have them heard, which was my constitutional rights against the state of Virginia. The other one was against Richard Roberts. He was the chief judge there who had raped a 16 year old. And that was in the Washington Post. All the articles are in there. He was retired early instead of being held accountable. Now, it wasn’t a recent rape. It was one 30 years ago when he was a district of attorney and he was going after a gang that had harmed this girl and then he harmed her.

And then you have the J6ers, which every single J6 was listed. So all of that, you know, they, they denied it. They basically, they kept it. They ran it through, however many people they run it through, or at least you have to assume they did. We’re supposed to just believe they’re doing what they’re supposed to do, but there is no way for us to be ensured that they are. And then they dismissed it right after Trump won, which he also made a third of it moot because the J6ers were then pardoned. But that will be another one because show because they’re still not totally pardoned, a lot of them, and some of them are still in jail.

But he ignored me and he ignored what had happened with Roberts. So we then fast forward a little bit. Trump gets elected. Trump gets sued for everything in the District Court. And I intervened in some of these cases and the Department of Justice wasn’t doing their job because the lawyers that were showing up, you have to remember, were the lawyers that hated Trump. So they were just letting the. Now I think it’s changing a little bit. I did intervene in some of those cases, asking for Judge Busberg and whatnot to be retired. All of a sudden there’s an article about a secret society, I consider it, that called the ends of court.

The American ins. The headquarters is right in the city of Alexandria. I wasn’t even really aware of it. And they do a gala every year at the Supreme Court building. And all these pictures, I know. And it’s all Accolades for these judges like Boasberg and Howell and all, you know, and so. And there are different chapters throughout the country, but ours is probably right here in Alexandria, the main one and the most powerful one. And so more things came out, More things came out and it wasn’t even in. It’s a British society of the bar. And the bar becomes the question has Europe become a did and not being held to the highest level in our courts because you can have a statute, shouldn’t have any standing, but all of a sudden, our Constitution is not allowed in our courts.

It’s not being followed by our judges. So where does it start? Does it start with our Supreme Court justice who has this European background, who was high up in the ends of court in Europe? Did he bring it over here? Actually, it was brought over in the late 70s by Justice Berger. And you have to think about it. It’s been really the last 30 years that we’ve had issues that have become so public in our courts. That’s when Justice Roberts came back to the United States in 2005, you know, is when he became Supreme Court justice.

2004, 2005. And he did his famous speech. We’re umpires, we call balls and strikes. We don’t intervene into a case. But yet my Second Amendment complaint is Judge Roberts warned Trump if he tried to impeach any of his judges. So when I saw that they were doing the gay law, I thought, wouldn’t it be great for Judicial Pedia to host a dinner at the Supreme Court building? Plenty of other business government buildings are rented out for events. The building Museum, the Museum of Art, all of them. All across our country, these museums and different government buildings can be rented for events and whatnot.

So I googled it and it said, oops, you’re not allowed to rent the Supreme Court building for anything. I was like, well, that’s not true. The gala’s there. The gala’s been there every year. We can look at these black tie pictures and it’s going to be there July 26, Friday night, next week. So I went online to the get the email address. Couldn’t get an email address. So it said, you know, do the email right online. So I did that asking for to talk to somebody about hosting an event for a dinner at the Supreme Court Building.

Justice Roberts doing it. Why can’t I? So I also start tried to join the ends of court because I could walk to their office. I walked right up to it. They wouldn’t even let me in the building. Just my understanding to be a member of this club. And their mission statement states, we’re trying to make the judiciary better. Well, are you making it better when you don’t allow an ADA advocate or a mediator to be a party to this group? Because I’m certified for both. So I called and they gave me the email, the PIO at Supreme Court.

And I sent my emails. I’d like to have an event. I’d like to find out about it and set it up. I didn’t get any response from either of them. So finally I called them and I got hung up on until no, you don’t get to do an event here. So now we have something very simple. We have a Supreme Court justice, his abuse of power to using the Supreme Court building for him and his friends to have a party, a gala black tie event, and pat each other on the back. But we, the people, we’re, we’re not allowed to have anything.

We’re not even hardly allowed in the building. And even if you go to their website, you can see pictures of their gala and they do give out different accolades at this. But we want to talk about also the different issues with it. And you can find the impeachment on Judicialpedia.com if you put an impeachment, you’ll see that the links to it and then you’ll see the links to all of my exhibits that go with it. And the jurisdiction is Article 1 and Section 2, Article 3, Section 1 for it to go to the House. And the House is where you go to impeach people.

And then the Senate does the trial to see if the impeachment is going to take place. So this was sent on July 3rd to Jim Jordan and others. He has oversight over it, the Judicial Committee in the House. And this is for the misuse of the Supreme Court building. They’re not allowed to use it for their parties if we’re not allowed to use it. And it’s July 26th at 5:00 to 9:00 is when they’re having their party. And the ca. You know, there’s several different. Under 28 USC 33, 31 and 32, the Chief justice presides over the conference and bears institutional responsibility to ensure effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.

His failure to correct obvious misconduct, despite actual notice, amounts to willful dereliction of duty. When I presented the corruption of the judges in the District Court of Columbia and other courts, he ignored that. So when he ignored that, it was a dereliction of duty there’s several other things, but what we should probably get to is the legal and ethical, because this also has ethical issues. Canon 1. A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. If the judiciary is giving accusation aids to lawyers and judges or special privileges to. Because they’re members of this club, we don’t know.

We don’t know if what’s going on inside because we’re not allowed in there. They should. A judge should avoid impropriety, and the appearance of impropriety in all activities is canon too. A judge should not lend the prestigious of the judicial office to advance the private interest of others. Now, if you’re a member of the Inns of Court and you’ve been at a gala with the Supreme Court and you were to put something like that on your website, wouldn’t you think that that’s going to bring you clients? Because they’re going to think that you’ve got some say? You know, we also have.

A judge should perform the duties of the office fairly and partially and diligently. We don’t. If we’re not allowed to use our Constitution and get due process in our courts, how are they doing that? And there’s the bias, there’s the extrajudicial activities that conflict with judicial obligations. You know, we think the. And if you know of something that’s dishonest, fraud or deceitful, you’re supposed to report it. They’re not reporting them. They’re. They’re covering them up. I went into quite a few different, different abuses of the property and of the dereliction of duty. And what I’m asking for relief is I’m asking that he be removed from office.

I do not think he has shown, especially with his letter that he wrote at the end of the year in 2024, where he basically said to the American people, when you go to court and you get an order, you follow it. You don’t get to question it. You don’t get to question a judge or claim your constitutional rights are being violated. We’re supposed to go through their system in appeals and whatnot, and we’re supposed to spend every penny we have on these court systems and on their friends, the lawyers. So this was the start of it.

And if you go to judicialpedia.com and you put in impeachment, you’ll see the exhibits. And the exhibits even show where he was a master of the bench in the Middle Temple, which was over in Europe, it wasn’t here in the United States. Different ends of courts, they’re throughout the United States. And what really brought me to this could be an issue was here in Virginia. I had shown up at one of the judicial hearings the House was having House and Senate and they were reviewing judges and they had a judge from Virginia beach who got up and said how he was Jewish and how he did all this volunteer work and he did this and he did that.

And I had googled him and I had two comments about him. But my main comment was he created the ends of court in Virginia beach. And for the very first time I have ever seen it, he did not get appointed. His appointment was put on the back burner. Now, I don’t know what else was said in the background, but it’s curious that in all the years that I’ve been doing this since 2010, I’ve never seen a judge put on the back burner like that. And the only thing I can think of is his involvement that I exposed to the ends of court.

Now, I have other justices ever been impeached? Yes, in fact, in West Virginia, which is my exhibit, 15 articles of impeachment for the justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Now, theirs was regarding the misuse of funds. For some reason, when a judge acts unethical, the courts don’t have a problem with it. But when they spend, they financially act unethical. That’s an issue. And that can be impeached. So there’s no reason that Justice John Roberts cannot be impeached for using the building for personal use. That’s not his living room. That’s not his home.

He doesn’t get to party there and make it exclusive to only the people that are judges and lawyers or maybe others who are high in the government. We don’t know exactly who the list of people that are invited to this gala are they maybe not just be the ends of courts. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them are political figures who have extra importance to him. Yeah, so that was on July 3rd. And then I found a little bit more information that I thought needed to go in there as I thought about it. And so I did a First Amendment amended complaint and to the impeachment which I again sent to our legislatures.

Now, one of the things you’re going to find if you were to go to judicial pd I keep tooting my horn here. Sorry, but is I have done a letter that you can fill your name in and you can add to it the information that you feel that you how you have been harmed by the choices that John Roberts has made or by the choices of other judges. And we just lost our audio connection for a hot second there. They hit me hard and took me right offline. But we were able to recover sort of on the fly, like a walking fall.

Let me just recap for the audience out there and let me share the screen really quick here so that the recap makes a little bit of visual sense for everyone. This. This segment’s going to be after we splice that other segment out. But we’ve got counts warranting impeachment with Justice Roberts. And this is what you were terming a moment ago. You know, people can go to judicialpedia.com they can actually find a letter where they can essentially sign on to give testimony or supportive, you know, credence to this, to this effort. And so we’ve got a number of counts.

Abuse of public property and honest services. And that’s covered under respondent knowingly authorized or permitted exclusive private use of the SCOTUS building by the American ends of court, misappropriating government property and depriving citizens of the honest services of his office. Dereliction of constitutional duty and obstruction of judicial oversight and violation of 28 U.S. code subsection 331. 332, subversion of equal protection and due process. That’s a constitutional violation. By endorsing discriminatory policy that favors an elite legal fraternity while denying comparable civic use, Respondent violates the fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee, undermines due process. This is the one that I find very interesting, and if you could, Ms.

Grinder, I’d like you to double down a little bit and explain more about this. Count four is a pretty significant allegation, providing aid and comfort to factions hostile to the Constitution, which would qualify as treason in the expanded impeachment sense. Respondents actions, though not levying war in the classical sense, effectively empower a self interested faction to subvert constitutional equality. This constitutes an impeachable offense within the broader historical sense of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. And I want to add really quick to that. We do have Supreme Court precedent. I believe it’s Cooper versus Aaron, if I’m not mistaken.

That discusses when a judge violates his or her oath of office, that is tantamount to the levying of war, and that judge is engaged in acts of treason. Do you mind to expound a little bit here on count four? Yeah. Basically, they are saying to judges and lawyers, you’re better than the average person. You are. You. You get to come to this party where the average person can’t come to the party and in return for that, you’re no longer going to use the constitution in our courts in return for that. And I’m sure they’re not coming out and saying it like that, but subliminally what has happened is our constitution has been taken out of our courts.

So the question becomes, have the British invaded our courts and have they invaded it through this ends of courts? We know that China has invaded our country, we know that China’s invaded it with fentanyl. Has the same thing happened with Britain? Have they invaded our courts and our ethics? I, I mean I know that’s kind of an odd analogy, but certainly applicable. Murdering us the same way because of the. When you go to court and you expect that everything you’ve been raised with and that you live in the United States and you have this constitution that gives you the right to due process, a fair trial, a judge who doesn’t say, I don’t think this case has merit anyways, but I don’t have a choice but to be here.

I mean these are the kinds of things that are being done in our courts and the, in the criminal court especially the prosecuting attorneys are deciding what evidence you’re going to see. They’re not turning over all their evidence or all the reports, they’re only turning over part of the evidence. So are we going to allow this? Because we are the ones that have to stop it. And the only way to stop it is from the top. Because it’s from the top, possibly that the invasion of our courts, whoever could be our puppet master in the courts and as I had gotten on to the next part, which was my first amended complaint amendment to this was the fact that when Trump said I’m going to impeach these judges and Roberts came out and said, no you’re not.

I thought we had separation of powers when one did something wrong, the other one investigated. But instead in our judiciary they’re self investigating and they’re not doing their job. They’re not self investigating themselves. They’re creating more of a platform where the standard is that we’re afraid of them and that we bow down to them and that they can, as you know, they did with me with the mental evaluation paid by state ordered by the judge, wouldn’t allow me to stay it so I could get my own. You know, this is what happens in guardianships, this is what happens with parents.

And who makes all the money? The lawyers? The parents don’t have the money to send their kids to private school anymore. The parents don’t have the money to take their kids on vacation. But boy, those lawyers, look at where their kids are going. Look at that BMW their kids are driving. I mean, it’s something we really need to think about. It’s a way the courts that are equity courts have, no, nobody is, has oversight over them really. And there’s so many different things you have to do to try to get some kind of justice. And take my word, I’m doing all of.

So basically, if we impeach Roberts and we put somebody up there that doesn’t have these ties and let me get back to the First Amendment complaint because with this complaint with the First Amendment, I go into the fact that he, he verbally and publicly told Trump, you do not impeach my judges. So if, and again, you can find this online. If you’re not allowed to impeach his judges, who’s got oversight and who’s doing something? He didn’t do anything with the riddle, Mandamus. And I know I’m not the only person that has complained to the Supreme Court.

I know that there are plenty of other people that are complaining to the Supreme Court about what’s going on and they’re all being ignored. And so he has an obligation under the judicial canons and ethical obligation that when there is a complaint against a judge, it’s to be followed through on, not to just be ignored, which is what they’re doing in the states. And they’re doing it in the states because the federal government’s doing it, because he’s doing it, because it’s a trickle down effect. You’ve got the leaders saying, you don’t have to do that, I’m protecting you, I got your back.

That’s kind of like a gang mentality, a gang leader who says, you go do this and then I have your back and you’re not going to be harmed. It’s, I, I, I know that’s not, maybe not a great analogy, but it’s I think mafia style behavior. It is. And not only that, so, but Trump had his way of getting around this when he said, don’t impeach my judges. He sued the judges right after that. He sued the judges. Now it didn’t come out for about a month or so, but so now we have a lawsuit in Maryland against the federal judges.

And actually that is almost a bigger blessing because that opens the door for any judge to be sued. We’re saying the government’s even saying you get to sue these Judges, those judges also had to get their own lawyers, according to the. And that case is up on Judicial PD also. And if you, if you look at the different plaintiffs and who the plaintiff or the defendants and who the defendant’s judges are, they’re not the Department of Justice. So those judges, because they broke the law, had to go get their own, their own attorneys. Now, when I sued 43 federal judges and I had standing and my case shows it, and it’s up on Judicialpedia, the Department of justice came in and said, no, you don’t get to do this.

And they had one of their judges, Henry Hudson, who is a real scumbag, excuse my language, but he has a book out and in it he talks about the mockery of the court system. But anyways, I don’t want to take this off. So if we’re not allowed to impeach them, we’ve been given permission now to sue them. And that is a real important thing for every person in the United States to understand. We are setting up. Trump is setting up again for us possibly our rights, our rights that we own our government, we employ our government, and they are our employees.

And when they don’t act right, we do get to go after them one way or another. The Second Amendment one, which has just gone in is basically it gives kind of a timeline of the courts. Like from 1970-79 was when it originated here in the United States with through Warren E. Berger. Once he had visited England and was impressed by the British ends of Gore and he was inspired and they mentored him. So that leads to 1980. The first American ends of Court was formed with the backing of Berger and the input from Judge Alden J.

Anderson and Dean Rex e. Lee in 1985-89 is when they nationally expanded. He became Berger became the honorary chair at that point in time. In the 2000s onward, it became Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. Institutionalized under him. And Roberts participates in the events. Many federal judges and some SCOTUS justices are inducted into this chapter. So the questions, you know, I presented was has Roberts operated under the influence or allegiance to a foreign entity, namely the British Inns of Court in violation of the Constitution? Did he facilitate or allow the expansion of the ends of court into the United States judiciary without congressional oversight? We go back to Virginia.

They didn’t like the fact possibly do the Chief justice born financial entanglements and real estate holdings pose a threat to the judicial independence and national sovereignty? He owns homes there. Is impeachment the constitutional appropriate remedy to protect the integrity of the judiciary and secure separation of powers. So it goes into a little bit about his income and stuff like that. That’s public. And regarding the transparency, the redress of grievances and the demand for action, because we can’t allow a foreign influence on our courts. I mean we, we’re supposed to have the golden system. We’re supposed to believe that when we walk into the court and we tell the truth and we hand them our documents and we can prove we have standing and we can prove all this other stuff that we’re going to be heard and we’re not being heard.

We’re being told that we’re crazy. We’re being told we need a mental evaluation. And then when we go and file a complaint, we get the judges even more up. Mentally ill problem with that person. You tell the truth and you get harmed by it. No one person can do this alone and no one person can convince them that they need to follow through with an investigation and hopefully impeachment and have the hearings. And so what I do have is a letter that I created and a, a white paper that under the name of judicial PDF and that people can put their cases and their thoughts together and email.

And you don’t have to mail it and you can mail it in, but you can also email it. I provided the email addresses and I need to update some of them. We need to take control of our courts back because our courts make every decision on what the legislature does or a president does or anything like that. And they need to be run by our Constitution. The real insurrection itself lies centered in our storied judiciary. Give me a moment here. I want to ask one final question and then I’m going to ask you to direct patriots where they can go.

You’ve mentioned judicial PD a couple of times, but I just want to pull it up and show people. But my question immediately prior to that is going to be about page 6 of your 11 page petition with the impeachment of Justice Roberts. You know, it’s very interesting, the case law that you cited here and line item 17, although abuse of courthouse property does not meet the classical definition of treason, Congress has long treated willful subversion of constitutional guarantees as an impeachable high crime or misdemeanor. And we can reference that from the articles of impeachment against both Judge Pickering from 1804 and then just 15 years ago from Judge Porteous in 2010.

And then line item 1818, US code section 641, theft of government property, section 1346 honest services and section 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States. A public official’s misappropriation or misdirection of federal resources can constitute felony conduct. So my question is, you know, in the world of prognostication, just a little bit, if this goes forward, perhaps it gets run through the House Judiciary Committee and does, in fact, make it out to a full House discussion on whether or not we should be talking about impeachment for the Chief justice of the Supreme Court. If we go in that direction, what is, what should we expect here as Americans, perhaps with a new justice or a new, you know, a new appointment to that level? And how do we prevent that problem from occurring again in this process? Well, as we know, Donald Trump will make that choice.

Our president will make that choice. We would hope that he would do a very deep dive into whoever was chosen and maybe look to the public for recommendations of people. But I think also you have to look at one of the things I was looking a little bit at, the Epstein and the Pam Bondi thing and the way it was presented to all of us and the disappointment of not really a list of people, but at least more explanation as to what took place and especially regarding the victims. And I’m not sure that all of this and who’s controlling it or whatever isn’t a part of this, because when you think about it, that’s all English, that’s coming from the Crown and everything.

And if the, one of the things with Pam Bondi, when I was looking at what was her relationship with this and her Senate oversight where she had to disclose everything, she admitted to being a part of it in Florida up till 2010, and then she no longer was. So I, I don’t know what happened in 2010 that would have separated her from it, but I think those are the kind of things we have to look at. I don’t believe in coincidences anymore. I believe that there are a lot of God winks and God puts you in certain places at certain times where you see certain things you don’t expect to see.

And I, I think that being in Virginia, being in the Virginia legislature, saying this guy’s a part of the ends of court, being that Pam Bondi was open about the fact. Yeah, I was there, but I’m no longer there. You know, I don’t think this is a society that you walk away from very often, because I think it is a powerful society because it’s not just our judiciary, it’s the British judiciary. Remember, this has strong ties to that. And that’s kind of what I’ve tried to outline here. There’s a lot to unpack and there’s a lot of articles on it, you know, with the accolades going to the judges in the District Court of Columbia.

So, you know, I think it’s, I would hope that people would be able to support this. And even though they’re going to have their dinner on the 26th, I hope the media comes out and does some stories on it. And I hope that people who can’t afford milk and eggs right now or gas in their car and different things think for a minute. Well, wait a minute. There’s this gala going on in the Supreme Court, and yet somebody wanted to host a dinner to people who are pro se and who have issues with the court and they’re denied it.

You know, what’s wrong with this picture? It’s not a pretty picture. Foreign interference and foreign allegiances will be a talking point of our nation for many decades to come. Ms. Grenadier? Oh, go ahead. I’m sorry. That’s okay. I just would like to make one other comment. I was very pleased to see that our Department of Justice is going to be looking into this with on Obama and Hillary Clinton and the Russian collusion and try to start unpacking how deep the, how deep we we’ve gone into having where the Democrats and I, you know, I don’t like to get political.

I don’t want to say this is Democrat or Republican because on both sides there are issues. But I think it’s becoming quite clear the Democrats and the socialism that they’re trying to empower and how, you know, it started several years ago, I think, with trying to take away people who have the right to guns, to having guns, to, you know, now forcing all these mental evaluations on people, forcing, you know, not allowing us all of our evidence when we’re in a criminal case so that we can defend ourselves properly because it’s done in such a subliminal way, we don’t even realize it anymore.

And we just have to wake up. And I want to thank you for having me on to be able to discuss and to ask people for their help. Wise and sage words indeed. Ms. Greenadier, you’ve mentioned judicialpedia.com a couple of times, but I would like to plug it just one more time for the audience out there that can participate actively in a lot of your work that you’re putting out, including signing off on petitions and lending their populism support to the efforts here. Is judicialpedia.com the best way for people to connect with you about this particular allegation or, excuse me, petition for impeachment of John Roberts, among other efforts.

They can reach me there. They can also reach me@judicpediamail.com and, you know, I am a certified ADA advocate and mediator and I’m seeing a lot in the courts where I’m, I’m going in and trying to help people establish their rights, especially parents who aren’t allowed to see their kids and different things. We Judicial PD is solely funded by me and I get several cease and desist letters. You know, we’re going to sue you for this or sue you for that. And fortunately I come under the 240, Facebook and LinkedIn and everyone else where I supply the platform, I don’t supply, you know, except for my own personal stuff as far as the information.

And we want to, we want to grow. We definitely want to grow and make it easier to use and to have, you know, kind of streamline it a little more where you can find certain documents and things like that. And so we’re working on that. So just be patient. But if you have any issues, please feel free to give me a call or to email me about it. Fantastic. Ms. Grenadier, thank you very much for coming back on the show to give us updates about these ongoing efforts and for standing in the gap with the judicial insurrection that’s overtaken our great nation.

For the audience out there, if you’d like to learn a little bit more, navigate to judicialpedia.com or see the links in the description box below the video. I hope you’ve enjoyed today’s conversation as much as I have. And this is SG and on. I’ll be back with each and every one of you again soon on the Q News Patriot Rumble. God bless everyone. Stay safe today. Thanks. Bye bye.
[tr:tra].