PETITION TO CHANGE THE LAW THAT GIVES PERMISSION FOR CORRUPT JUDGES TO MAKE WRONG DECISION

SUMMERY:

For over 200 years, we the people have suffered, slavery, black code law, seperate but equal, civil right movement and more from a law hidden in the rules and regulations of judicial misconduct proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Section 351 to 364. This law gives judges the sole permission to  make wrong decisions even very wrong decisions on the bench. This is why the judges are rarly being held accountable. These judges are suppose to make what they believe to be correct decisions even if its wrong. See Holy Bible G.N.T. Deuteronomy 16, verse 18 to 20. It is time for these judges state and federal to be held transparent and accountable for their action. Useing 18 u.s.c. 241,242, 2076, and 371. Also see http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php These judges are not above the law and we are not beneath the constitutions

 

WE THE UNDERSIGN: In recent years, we have witnessed an unprecedented number of instances in which federal judges have been accused of criminal behavior and other serious acts of misconduct. This raises major concerns regarding the scope and enforcement of canons of conduct for members of the judicial branch.

It would be presumptuous for anyone to suggest a complete understanding of the notion of “good behavior” for federal and state judges, or to claim a fully satisfactory prescription for the problem of judicial misconduct.

That is not my object. In reflecting on these issues, however, I have come to realize that I may not share certain assumptions that appear to underlie legislative enactments, initiatives directed at the regulations of judicial conduct.

In defining good behavior for federal and state judges, and in seeking solutions for judicial misconduct and disability, I start with the principle of judicial independence. The independence of the judge is requisite to guard the constitution and the rights of individuals against legislative encroachment and from the effects of those ill humours which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves.

Its been nearly 200 years that have passed since Hamilton wrote these words, we have endeavored to preserve an independence judiciary.  But infact: we as a people must dismantal the judicial independence to prevent the ability to make partial and bias decision.

G.N.T. Holy Bible: Appoint judges and other officials in every town that the lord your God gives you. These men are to judge the people impartially. They are not to be unjust or show partiality in their judgements, and they are not to accept bribes, for gifts blind the eyes even of wise and honest men, and cause them to give wrong decisions. Always be fair and just so that you will occupy the land that the lord your God is giving you and so that you will continue to live there….

In essence, 28 U.S.C. SECTION 351 TO 364 Allows judges, state and federal to make wrong decision even very wrong decision so long as they do their wrongful acts in their judicial capacity. The Judicial body is not looking at the act itself to determine a wrong, but rather the capacity of the judge.  Clearly lifting form over substance to absolutely immune the judge.

This is why the judicial corruption is so open and free to do what they want on the bench. To take that policy of being allowed to make wrong decisions away from their judicial independence is simple.  First and foremost, all judges should and ought to be required to make what they believe to be correct decision even if its wrong.  Having the NO- POWER ability to make wrong decisions should be done by holding the below named judges transparent and accountable.  Before a judge performe any duties of office he or she makes the following oath of office:

  Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath

          or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:

 

 

       "I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice

    without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the

   rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform

   all the duties incumbent upon me as ________ under the Constitution and

                   laws of the United States.  So help me God."

28 u.s.c. section 351 to 364 gives these judges the permission to make wrong decisions even very wrong decisions so long as they do this within there judicial capacity. These judges, uses the above law to committ civil right crimes on the bench in violations of 18 u.s.c. section 241, 242, 2076, and 371. They must be held accountable.

 

 

 

It is a misinformation that this is a system of justice.  It is a system of power that is often misused.  In the US money is power.  The legal system has degenerated to the best legal system that money can buy.  It is a self-regulated judicial system gone wild.  The law books lining offices make an impressive wallpaper.   The extent of the callous disregard for the truth and of the law, should not leave anyone shell shocked who comes in touch  with what is supposed to be a "civil" court system.  It is still difficult to accept that while the constitution is advocated as the source of inalienable right, it has become discretionary with many judges whether they follow its dictates. Even if finally a party prevails in a lawsuit it is at an enormous financial cost and expense of time and can be a traumatic experience.

The constitutionally guaranteed rights have been reduced to a meaningless rhetoric, when they have become unenforceable, including in the federal courts. Unfortunately, many judges assume that their job is to appropriate your money, your assets, your property and they can use it to curry favors with lawyers and other judges. Often the facts are whatever suits the end result.  The facts can be altered and the law can be rewritten or wholly disregarded.  Generally, one judge will uphold another judge.  Once in a while a judge is apprehended by the system as you may read in our News and Articles but, that is the exception, creating the impression that it is a few judges who taint the system.

Lawsuits are now being filed in the USA at the rate of over one hundred million a year.  Where there is money to be made there will be a lawsuit. Lawyers can walk into the courthouse to file a lawsuit and sue anyone, even on fabricated facts, that berate the opponent and is tailored into a lawsuit on some legal theory or resembling one, which is then often treated by the courts as a lawsuit worthy to be litigated. Many of these lawsuits have nothing to do with right or wrong, nor with the facts and the law, but are based on the desire to extract money or property from the party sued and to provide fees for lawyers. The case becomes simply a means to transfer wealth, to enrich some in the legal profession.   America is no longer the land of opportunity it is the land of the opportunist.

When a potential plaintiff walks into a lawyer’s office, before filing a lawsuit, the lawyer will ascertain if the potential defendant has sufficient assets, especially when the attorney is working on a contingency fee basis. Prior to commencing a lawsuit, the plaintiff’s attorney will perform a financial investigation of the target defendant’s assets, and seeks to locate any real estate, bank accounts or other valuable property. If the investigation reveals that the defendant has substantial assets the lawsuit will proceed. If all the facts are not there, as can be seen from some of the individual cases presented here by CJA, facts can be created and even falsified as a means to achieve the desired end result.

In many types of lawsuits the plaintiff can obtain a pre-judgment writ of attachment, or a restraining order, or can secure the appointment of a receiver for the property, effectively freezing all of the defendant’s funds pending the outcome of the case. This is often the single most potent weapon available to the plaintiff. Without access to funds to meet business and personal expenses the defendant will not be able to survive financially during the lawsuit. The tactic will often force a defendant to enter into an unfavorable settlement regardless of the merits of his or her defenses. Even where no property is frozen just the potential expense of a litigation will force a defendant into an unfavorable settlement, which is often akin to turning the civil justice system into legalized extortion.

In cases where there is no contingency fee, or where a defendant seeks to retain counsel, the attorney will investigate the finances of his client. The attorney will take a substantial fee in advance, generally at an hourly rate depending on the "prestige" of the attorney or of the "firm". When the retainer fee is used up in the manner accounted by the attorney, more fees are extracted, often at a crucial time, such as when an important response is due or even on the eve of a trial. If the client fails to comply the attorney threatens withdrawal from the case.

In cases where no property is involved, but the case is based on some kind of claim, where David is facing Goliath, in spite of the evidence it may very well be that it is  Goliath who is going to prevail, or depending on which way the interest of power structure lies. Lawyers who dare to tip the balance of power, or speak out on wrong-doing, may be ostracized and are even punished by suspension or disbarment.  A function of the lawyer is to keep the client under control. A person who goes to court without an attorney called a "pro se" litigant, is disfavored by the judges and such litigants are often treated unfairly. The United States Court of Appeal for the The Ninth Circuit's Prepared an Interim Report titled "Task Force on Self-Represented Litigants", which shows a deferential treatment of the self represented.  A formidable response  has been prepared by the organization A Matter of Justice, "Comments on the Ninth Circuit pro se Task Force Report" setting forth the problems faced by the pro se litigant.  However, it is noteworthy that this maybe the case even if the litigant is represented by counsel.  To read the report and comments click here.  Since intimidation is obviously one of the tools of the legal system, it is essential not to be intimated and to know what your legal rights are. Do present it in your paper, but don't be shocked if it is disregarded.

In many cases alternative dispute resolution by mediation or arbitration may be more desirable.  In the least it saves time, the exorbitant legal fees, and avoids the emotional strain and enormous loss of time. A recent approach is the Collaborative Practice which is different from mediation.  A neutral, third party helps the disputing parties settle their case. In collaborative practice, the spouses and their attorneys make these decisions in four way discussions click here.

Litigation can become crowded with a court appointed supporting cast of so-called fiduciaries and their professionals, who not infrequently degenerate into CATS - Court Appointed Thieves.  These court appointees are the trustees, receivers, guardians and so forth, who are put in charge of your assets. In turn each of them will be represented by a lawyer is also appointed by the court and often the fiduciary can act as its own lawyer for a double fee. There can be  further appointment of accountants, all being paid from a business or from the assets of one of the parties, or of the incompetent.  In a divorce case each party is generally represented by an attorney and if there are children involved, they will generally be appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL).  Then there are the forensic experts, who write reports of psychological evaluation costing  thousands of dollars.  Often there is supervised visitation with the children, so it will cost you if you want to see your child.  Not to leave out the court reporters and their transcribing the hearings at many dollars per page.  So, that any financial problem is compounded and can lead to bankruptcy.  A bankruptcy can be the final stroke for the small business there is no Chapter 11 reorganization it is a Chapter 7 liquidation.  In bankruptcy each creditor is entitled to its own counsel, which of course is paid by the estate of the bankrupt.  So, there is no way that a financially troubled small business has a chance of being rescued, with all these added on fees. A number of lawyers receive repeated fiduciary appointments from their judges and make a good living off these estates or litigants.  Remember, these fees and expenses are administrative expenses that come out of the assets of the estates before any one else gets paid.   

Some people maybe lucky to have avoided involvement in litigation, but upon their death it may very likely catch up with all that they possessed and worked for in their lifetime. The personal representatives of decedent’s estate and their lawyers are guaranteed their fees by statute and they receive additional fees if there is litigation. They become the unnamed true heirs of the decedent, because their fees as "administrative expenses" come first. However, that involvement may come sooner in the lifetime of the individual such as upon becoming incapacitated in an accident or because of advancing years a  guardianship maybe set up. If there are no liquid assets then the property of the ward and even the ward’s home may be liquidated, to provide funds and the ward often ends up in a nursing home and when the money is gone in a publicly supported facility.  Both in probate and guardianship cases the assets of the decedent and ward come under control of the court.  The presiding judge awards the fees to the personal representatives, to the guardians, their lawyers, accountants and so forth from the estate of the decedent or incapacitated person.   So, that the fees are usually not negotiable not even by the immediate family.

The fees are generally based on "billable hours", which in practice means whatever is billed by the attorney.  Even if objections are filed to the fees, if there is any money the fees are generally approved by the presiding judge.  Billable hours often include traveling time to court and other non-legal activities charged at an hourly basis as legal fees by attorneys, which have been adopted by other professionals such as accountants and so forth.  Often the time to bill the "billable hours" and if there is a hearing on the fees, that time is also billed. Also more fees are charged for the time to defend against objections, which are also generally approved by the court.  It is not unusual to have one's assets  converted to the court appointees under disguise of fees and expenses. This maybe the case where the court has the authority to award fees, such as in divorce, bankruptcy, foreclosure, and so forth. The divorce industry is a very lucrative practice, especially with clients of means.  In many cases as long as the parties have the money the litigation goes on, condoned by the judges.  So, that no matter how many judges sit on the bench, there is never enough judges.  In effect these lawyers with their endless litigation are subsidized at tax payers' expense. 

In many cases the litigation is taken on by the attorney on a contingency fee basis.  That is the plaintiff pays no fees, for the attorney to take on the case, win or lose.  However, many type of cases depend on experts.  If the plaintiff loses, then will be taxed with the costs, which can include the expenses of a court reporter, and of the experts all in substantial sums.

The trials and tribulations of the middle class litigants who are stripped of their property, of their livelihood, or of their rights, are generally not news worthy and so they are rarely if ever reported by the news media. What gets coverage are the sensational murder trials, or lawsuits involving large corporations with deep pockets, who are hit with a big judgment creating the impression that justice has been done. We at CJA receive numerous complaints.  We are presenting here a few these cases in detail as told by the victims based on the record, to make the public aware of what transpires in court with regard to these silenced litigants and to demand reform from governmental bodies. The general response that ours is an adversary system where one party wins and it is the disgruntled loser who complains cannot be applied on cart blanche basis.  Not when a party fails to prevail because the law and the facts of the case are disregarded, or the laws and rules and changed or because of other illegal and unlawful activities by the judges and lawyers.

A recent study on data compiled by the federal court system, was prepared by Marc Galanter, who teaches law at the University of Wisconsin and the London School of Economics, for the American Bar Association.  The study shows that only 1.8% of the civil cases in federal court go to trial.  William G. Young, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in Boston, stated in a telephone interview, that this "is nothing less than the passing of the common law adversarial system that is uniquely American."  We know that this change is not a positive but is detrimental to many litigants.   It is no longer a litigant's right to have their day in court, but "now they have their day on papers submitted". The study found that in 1962 a federal judge conducted an average of 39 civil and criminal trials a year, but have now dwindled it down to 13 a year.  The judges spend the rest of their time on deciding pretrial motions and urging or approving settlement and plea bargain. To read more on this issue click here.  However, what is omitted is that federal judges have magistrate judges and much of this work is done by them, with the federal judges merely putting their stamp of approval on the paper. The same is apparent in state court, where litigants are also denied their day in court. It has become common standard to dispose of motions or of even cases on paper with a mere "denied"; "dismissed"; by claiming it to be a "reargument" or labeling it to be be "res judicata" when those matters were never heard.   So, that it is not a disposition with well reasoned orders and judgments.  What this obviously ads up to is the denial of the constitutional right to f due process, the right to be heard, to present and receive evidence and to give and take testimony.  Although, it has been found that the public prefers jury trial over a judge it has been found that plea bargaining and arbitration are often resorted to avoid  trials click here.

Should an appeal be taken, often that is a mere pretense of a review by the higher court, which simply never happened just merely a PCA "Per Curiam Affirmed" a rubber stamp, that all the judges agreed, or some further fictionalized version of the case, supported with authorities that are relevant only to the fictionalized version and not to what was before the court or should have been before the court.  So, that those rights guaranteed under the constitution become a mere illusion a rainbow in the sky.

Some of the cases presented here show the misuse of contempt powers by judges to intimidate and to eliminate opposition to whatever they wish to accomplish, to the extent of even throwing individuals into jail, middle class law abiding citizens whose only "crime" generally is an attempt to be heard in their cases. This treatment in some cases is also accorded to lawyers who fail to conform to the system. There is also retaliation against judges who expose wrongful activities in the courthouse. So, that the system operates in a "conspiracy of silence".  Those who report corruption in the system are often described in derogatory terms such as "whistle-blower".  We are also including articles by lawyers and reports and statistics from the courts telling us from the inside the pitfalls of the legal system.  The Bar's and the judiciary's response to the complaints by the public is that they do not understand the legal system and their perception has to be changed, but without changing the objectionable practices.

However, many lawyers are coming to recognize that the legal profession is not the  "noble profession" it pretends to be, but, it often brutalizes those it touches.  That the objective is not to seek justice or finding reasonable resolutions to the conflict, but how to destroy the opponents by any means possible, such as nasty fights, vicious accusations, twisting the truth etc., to win at any price  Click here  Incivility in court between lawyers is a growing problem. Click here  The courts are not what it used to be is candidly described by a judge.  Click here.

Yet another problem is a large segment of the population who do not qualify for legal aid or their problem is not one that qualifies for legal aid, or who do not have funds to retain counsel, or when they run out of money without resolution but, the litigation continues. These persons then often appear representing themselves known as pro se and many times receive unfavorable treatment in the courts. To read such concerns Click here.  That does not mean that one should give up.  If rights have been violated that is a reason for continuing on.

In a recent landmark decision the Florida Supreme Court quashed the lower court's appellate decision that approved the lower court judgment prohibiting the father from seeing his son for six years in a judgment that was not written by the trial judge but by the wife's lawyer.  The Florida Supreme Court rejected that judgment because the trial judge discouraged the husband from submitting a proposed judgment and thereupon adopted the wife's lawyer's judgment in two hours without making any findings of fact.  It was noted that the wife paid her attorneys  $850,000. while the husband represented himself.  In a specially concurring opinion one of the Justices recognized that "this case is an example of a continuing trend in appellate review in this state to apply the cloak of judicial discretion to approve lower court decisions riddled with errors. In rendering the decision today, this Court takes a modest step toward rectifying a pattern with which many have had a growing concern that we are alienating the public’s trust in the judiciary".  To read further Click here.

As to criminal law see the article on a Report issued on prosecutorial misconduct by Center for Public Integrity.  State and local prosecutors who bent or broke the rules to help put 32 innocent people in prison, some under death sentence, since 1970, according to the first nationwide study of prosecutorial misconduct.  To read more about it Click here.

The United States Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) released a study showing the tort system costs U.S. small businesses $88 billion a year. "As a small business owner, I have seen first-hand the devastating effect legal costs can have on small businesses," said Maura Donahue, Vice President of Donahue/Favret Contractors, Inc., of Mandeville, Louisiana, and Chair of the U.S. Chamber's Small Business Advisory Council. "Money that should be used to expand and hire new employees is instead siphoned off to pay for legal costs. Small business owners are the engine that drives the U.S. economy. They create 75% of the new jobs in this country, but are clearly being handcuffed by a steep rise in frivolous litigation." The study, conducted for ILR by NERA Economic Consulting, found that the total annual cost of the tort system to U.S. businesses (large and small) is $129 billion per year. Small businesses with $10 million or less in revenue bear 68 percent of that cost, paying $88 billion a year. That equates to about $150,000 a year for each small business - money that could be used to hire additional employees, expand operations or improve health coverage.  For full story Click here.

However, it is not only financial losses that is suffered by individuals but, the failure of the legal system has been found by a noted psychologist, Karin Huffer to inflict severe psychological harm as well on the victims, to which she coined the terms "Legal Abuse Syndrome" a form of "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder".  The victims are traumatized not only by the crass treatment accorded to them in the courtroom, but upon being confronted by the fact that fundamental civil rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are trampled upon.  Many victims do start out represented by attorneys, but unable to continue to pay their fees, or out of frustration  end up as pro se litigants.  They continue on the litigation in some faint hope that the truth and law will prevail or it must prevail because that is what the constitution and the law says.  However, that would apply only in a court of law, administered by men and women of honesty and integrity, but unfortunately not where the judiciary have made themselves unaccountable and clothed themselves with absolute immunity.

The lord your God is Supreme over all gods and over all powers. He is great and mighty, and he is to be obeyed. He does not show partiality, and he does not accept bribes.

 

Our inherent rights and the bill of rights are from God to protect us against the Government. And since the judcial system uses the judicial independence against us, we should and ought to use the declaration of independence against them inherent in nature.

 

 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

"The contest is not between Us and Them, but between Good and Evil", and if those who would fight Evil adopt the ways of evil evil wins.              

 

Usurpations

Usurpation is the exercise of powers by an agent which have not been delegated to him by the principal. In a constitutional republic like the United States of America, acts by officials are legitimate only if they are consistent with and based on a constitution, a body of laws which are superior to all subsequent statutes and other acts of officials, which embodies all delegations of power, and which may recognize certain rights to further define the limits on the powers delegated. It is a fundamental principle that all acts of officials not derived from the delegated powers of the constitution are null and void from inception, not just from the point at which a court may find them unconstitutional. Every person who has an encounter with the acts of officials has the duty not only to obey legitimate official acts, but to help enforce them, but, when there is a conflict among acts of officials, to enforce the superior one, which, when an act of an official is in conflict with the constitution, means enforcing the constitution and not the act in conflict with it. Judges and other citizens do not decide constitutionality, but discover it, and every person who is involved with any act by an official has a nondelegatable duty to make a determination of the constitutionality of that act. This determination is called constitutional review, and, when exercised by a judge in a case, judicial review.

Since the ratification of the Constitution for the United States and each of its properly ratified amendments, there have been numerous acts by officials, including statutes, regulations, executive orders, court rulings, and ordinary decisions and actions taken while on duty and under color of law, which have been unconstitutional, and in many cases, in violation of civil rights of persons and of constitutional laws. We will try to identify some of the worst of such violations of the Constitution, and discuss how compliance with the Constitution can be restored.

 

Abuse in general

Besides usurpations, there is a larger class of abuses which include corruption and violations of constitutional statutes. It becomes a matter of special concern to citizens when officials conspire with one another to not enforce the law against such corruption, and use the resources of government and the powers of their offices to cover up such crimes or otherwise protect the perpetrators, whether such crimes are committed by officials themselves or by powerful persons who are allowed to become a privileged class that is above the law. When officials fail to enforce the law, citizens must step in and take action to see that the laws are enforced, and replace those officials with others who will do their constitutional duty.