Lawyers representing the families of U.S. citizens tortured and murdered by the Mexican drug cartels, yesterday filed a dynamite federal civil suit against HSBC bank in the U.S. District Court in Brownsville, Texas. The suit charges that HSBC’s “material support” to the cartels through the laundering of their proceeds, makes it liable under the Anti-Terrorist Act for those tortures and murders.

The case is a de facto indictment of Obama and his Department of Justice, which knowingly refused to prosecute HSBC—the modern form of the British Hong Shang Bank Corporation founded to run the opium trade against India and China two centuries ago—and thereby are complicit with the cartels.

The suit filed, demands a jury trial, where evidence can be brought before the public. It argues:

“This is an action brought by American victims of horrific acts of international terrorism committed by some of the most powerful and ruthless of Mexico’s drug cartels… For the decade leading up the attacks at issue, and with full knowledge of the drug cartels’ terroristic activities the HSBC Defendants … knowingly provided continuous and systematic material support to the cartels and their acts of terrorism by laundering billions of dollars for them… Over the course of the 21st century, the Mexican drug cartels…have risen as the greatest single threat to Mexican national security and one of the greatest threats to the United States… The ability to conceal the source of their illicit proceeds and gain access to the international financial system is vital to the existence of the drug cartels and their ability to execute widespread acts of terrorism. Money laundering is the lifeblood of the Mexican drug cartels.”

The suit cites evidence revealed in the devastating report produced by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in 2012, which documented HSBC’s money laundering for drug cartels and terrorists around the globe. The Obama administration refused to take action, instead negotiating a “Deferred Prosecution Agreement” (DPA) with HSBC in 2012, under which HSBC paid a small fine and promised to “be good” for five years, and the Feds would monitor it to verify.

The Monitor report produced last year under the terms of that DFA, some 1,000 pages long, found that HSBC has continued violating U.S. money-laundering statutes right and left. This past January, in response to a suit brought by a Philadelphia mortgage holder whom HSBC had robbed in its usual way, U.S. Federal Court Judge John Gleeson in Brooklyn, NY, ruled that the monitor report should be partially released to the public.

HSBC and Obama’s Justice Department have appealed the ruling, on the grounds that confidentiality is key for such deferred prosecution agreements.

Hubert Dean Moore, Jr., the mortgage holder fighting for the report’s release, told the New York Post, as published in yesterday’s edition, that the Department of Justice is “siding with a criminal organization under wraps, under seal, under the veil of secrecy…. Who benefits from this DPA? The people don’t benefit. It’s the bank and the DOJ.”

The centerpiece of Barack Obama’s program to shut down coal plants across the United States in the fraudulent name of “reducing carbon emissions”, was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court Feb. 10, with its 5-4 ruling granting a stay on implementation of Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” until the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rules on whether the plan is legal or not. That won’t be soon; oral arguments on the lawsuit filed by 27 states and industry opponents contesting its legality, begin on June 2, 2016, and a decision could come months afterwards.

“U.S Supreme Court Torpedoes Paris COP21 Accord,” green genocide supporters screamed. Unable to get legislation passed with sufficient “climate change” restrictions to shut down U.S. industry as demanded by the British Royal Family, Obama walked into the December COP21 climate change-conference in Paris bragging that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations his Clean Power plan imposed on the U.S. coal industry would do the trick. The New York Times warned today that the global warming accord reached in Paris “had as a cornerstone Mr. Obama’s assurance that the United States would carry out strong, legally sound policies to significantly cut carbon emissions,” and that is now in peril. A Chinese government thinktanker told the Times that if “low carbon development” is overturned in the U.S., opponents in China of these policies will use that to overturn such policies in China, too. An Indian “climate diplomat” similarly told the Times that the decision “could be the proverbial string which causes Paris to unravel.”

The Supreme Court stay is not the final word, but it was considered “stunning” and “extraordinary,” because the court so rarely intervenes in this way while a matter is still before a lower court. Furthermore, given the conditions cited in the Supreme Court’s own “Reporter’s Guide to Applications Pending Before the Supreme Court of the United States,” the granting of the stay gives grounds to believe that, should the DC court rule Obama’s plan legal, the Supreme Court could overturn that decision. The Reporter’s Guide cites “general criteria that the applicant normally must satisfy in order for the Court to grant a stay,” including that there is a reasonable probability that four Justices would agree to hear such an appeal, and that “there is a fair prospect that a majority of the Court” would overturn the lower court decision upon review.

White House Press Spokesman Josh Earnest blustered that the administration “will continue to take aggressive steps to make forward progress to reduce carbon emissions,” but representatives from the 27 states who joined the suit are celebrating. West Virginia’s Democratic Senator Joe Manchin warned the EPA it must stop its “reckless actions… immediately,” and applauded the Supreme Court “for recognizing that these regulations are simply unlawful.”