Drag to reposition your photo

Darrin Green

Male. 60 years old. Is married.

Joined Groups3

41 Members

Leather Latex And PVC Fashion

Community

82 Members

Biblical Truthers

Spirituality or Religion

131 Members

American Revolution Network

Politics and Elections

Liked Pages9

27 Likes

Leftist Hate

Politics

1396 Likes

WWG1WGA Q ANON

Company, Organization, or Institution

1874 Likes

JOE BIDEN IS NOT MY PRESIDENT

Politics

Darrin Green

Report this User

Darrin Green shared

March 29, 2025 10:05 pm

Wolf Track

March 29, 2025 8:43 pm

DOGE FOR THE WIN! CONFIRMED - DOGE SAYS USAID GAVE CHELSEA CLINTON $84 MILLION - WHICH WAS 'SUPPOSED' TO GO FOR RELIEF IN HAITI - LINE ITEMS SHOW 3 MILLION, OF THE $84 MILLION, WAS SPENT ON CHELSEA C... View More

Darrin Green shared

March 21, 2025 6:59 am

Knights Templar The Patriot Party

March 21, 2025 5:17 am

Here is why SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts MUST BE IMPEACHED & charged with TREASON. SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts at Epstein Island with Bill Clinton. The Trump administration MUST KNOW Chief... View MoreHere is why SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts MUST BE IMPEACHED & charged with TREASON. SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts at Epstein Island with Bill Clinton. The Trump administration MUST KNOW Chief Justice Roberts is an Epstein island guest. Yep fully corrupted country. That's why they aren't releasing the Epstein guest list or arresting anyone. ARE WE BEING PLAYED, or what? https://imgflip.com/i/9o4dfo President Trump needs to invoke Chapter 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES and send treasonous U.S. District Judge James Boasberg AND Chief Justice Roberts to El Salvador or to the gallows. §2381. Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.) Chief Justice John Roberts Tied to Exclusive, Private Network of Prominent Judges and Attorneys, Including James Boasberg, Beryl Howell, Amit Mehta, and Ketanji Brown Jackson A recent report has brought attention to Chief Justice John Roberts’ involvement with a private, high-profile gathering, raising questions about judicial impartiality. According to documents uncovered by investigative outlets, Roberts received an invitation to an elite retreat hosted by a prominent conservative organization, known for its influential attendees and hefty price tag—upwards of $25,000 per person. The event, held annually, attracts a mix of political figures, legal minds, and wealthy donors, offering a secluded setting for networking and discussion. Sources familiar with the matter suggest that Roberts’ name appeared on a leaked guest list, though it remains unclear whether he attended or merely received the invite. The revelation has sparked debate, given the Supreme Court’s tradition of maintaining an appearance of neutrality. Critics argue that such connections, even if tangential, could undermine public trust in the judiciary, especially amid polarized times. Supporters, however, contend that justices, like any citizen, can engage with private groups without compromising their rulings. Neither Roberts nor the Supreme Court has issued an official statement addressing the matter. The organization behind the retreat has long been a lightning rod, praised by some for advancing legal scholarship and criticized by others as a hub for partisan agendas. Its events are invitation-only, with details closely guarded, fueling speculation about their purpose and influence. This isn’t the first time a justice’s off-bench activities have drawn scrutiny. Past instances involving travel, speaking engagements, or affiliations have periodically stirred public interest. Yet, with the court’s 2025 term underway and several high-stakes cases looming, the timing of this disclosure adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing conversation about judicial ethics. As of now, no evidence suggests Roberts violated any formal rules, but the episode underscores the delicate balance justices navigate in their personal and professional lives. Further developments may clarify the extent of his involvement—or leave it as another footnote in the court’s storied history.

View Less