Summons to our Leaders
and the Judiciary for Review of Defects and Amelioration
by Gary Trieste,
(libertarian), Nolan Chart
7-24-09 --
In light of the above, we of the judicially aggrieved
class, and the People of the United States of America,
do hereby indict the judiciary as responsible for all of
the above defects and infirmities incumbent in our legal
system. It is they who have let it go astray, and who
are always in the position to reform it instantly. . . .
We assert that this condition is a cancer upon us and
distinctly unAmerican in its state. . . . All we as a
people ask and seek from our judiciary, the most
important branch of our unique form of government, is
adherence to the principles and implementation of due
process and respect for the precepts of the U.S.
Constitution. . . . We would be satisfied with judges
and courts that are simply professional, unbiased,
neutral, attentive and even dispassionate/ indifferent
to the cases and litigants before them. . . . We want
the triers of law (and often times of the facts) to
adhere simply and formally to the written rule of law,
showing no favoritism for particular litigants or causes
or social platforms, and bereft of the tendency to
reinterpret or expand the law into something other than
what is exactly written. . . . Conversely we want the
judiciary to not shy away from the liberal application
of its legislation-invalidation powers, i.e., the
striking down of laws and statutes that either [1] do
not comport with the bald edicts of the U.S.
Constitution, [2] are prima facially ambiguous or
incomplete, or [3] are logically inconsistent with their
own construction or with that of other existent laws. .
. . Our hope and expectation is that with such proper
policing, a message would be sent to our lawmakers that
the end product of their legislative process should be
released only after proper investigation, conference,
public comment and consideration, and a true weighing of
the pros and cons of the ramifications the subject law
would have, and thus would regain the level of
conciseness, integrity and true form that has been
sorely lacking in the past few decades. Instead of laws
designed more for the acronyms they moniker (e.g., USA
PATRIOT ACT, RICO), the Legislative should be concerned
with the viability and cohesive substantive content of
the laws they produce.
Sharon Tidwell, Council
Hill / published in Muskogee Daily Phoenix
6-27-09 --
I couldn’t disagree more with the opinion stated in the
June 21 article of “Editorially speaking” regarding the
Pittsburg County child rape case. The punishment Judge
Bartheld imposed on David Earls is shameful. It is high
time that people (yes, even judges) are held accountable
for their actions. . . . Regardless of who initiates the
action of removing Bartheld, public opinion is clear and
stands firmly on the side of right. I applaud the
resolution Reps. Mike Ritze and Mike Reynolds have
submitted. These gentlemen are elected officials who are
speaking for and acting on my behalf. Since I don’t have
the resources to voice my concerns to the Council on
Judicial Complaints, I am thankful they are making an
effort to correct what is wrong with our society and
judicial system. . . . Why not let of the people, for
the people, and by the people work for a change?
6-26-09 --
Had Anthony Abbate been Black, he would have had the
book thrown at him. But Anthony Abbate is an arrogant
fat pig of a Chicago cop who was caught on tape in a
drunken stuper beating the crap out of a young female
bartender. I don’t mean “fat” as just some kind of
pejorative adjective, although that certainly hangs
easily around Abbate’s dirt bag neck. . . . At 250
pounds, he’s overweight and that only added to the
disgusting video scene as he pummeled, pounded, beat,
kicked and dragged mercilessly the 125-pound Karolina
Obrycka as she tended bar where she was working in
February 2007 and where Abbate was drinking himself into
an alcoholic stupor. ***** Instead of throwing that fat
dirt-bag cop in to jail, Cook County Circuit Judge John
Fleming gave the 40-year-old Anthony Abbate, a slap on
the hand: home curfew of 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. and 130 hours
of “community service.” . . . Who is this Fleming?
Here’s his bio from one of those legal web sites:
Legal Experience:
1980-83, assistant general attorney, Chicago Park
District (in house counsel); 1983-91, assistant state's
attorney, CookCounty (traffic 4th Municipal
District and Felony Trial Divisions); 1991-94, deputy
general attorney, Chicago Park District (supervise the
Litigation Division); 1994-1995, ALJ, City of Chicago
(Personnel and Parking departments); 1996-1996, Director
of Administrative Adjudication, City of Chicago. . . . .
Judicial Experience: Judge Fleming was first elected to
the bench in November of 1996. He was originally
assigned to the 1st Municipal District of the Circuit
Court of Cook County. He served in Traffic Court,
Domestic Violence and Misdemeanor sections. He is
currently assigned to Felony preliminary hearings and
Central Bond Court at the Criminal Courts Building. .
He has the “culture of
corruption” stamp padded all over him.
6-26-09 --
For more than 20 years as a columnist, I’ve kept my
mouth shut whenever a judge or a jury makes a decision
that I don’t believe is right. Even when every
opinionizer in the country was fuming over the jury’s
acquittal of O.J. Simpson of murder charges, I didn’t
write in disagreement, although I was mightily shocked.
. . . The reason is that I wasn’t in the courtroom,
hearing all the facts and law. I wasn’t in the jury
room, listening to peers shift through the evidence.
Second guessing the justice system is a dangerous sport,
weakening our respect for the law and criminal
proceedings. . . . This self-imposed silence on my part
is now challenged by one Cook County Circuit Judge John
J. Fleming, who sentenced a big cop to two years
probation for beating up a tiny woman bartender, as
shown on a security camera tape that circulated
digitally around the world. The 250-pound cop, Anthony
Abbate, also was ordered to perform 130 hours of
community service at a homeless shelter, attend anger
management classes, observe a strict 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew during
the probation period and undergo drug and alcohol
evaluations. . . . Sounds like a lot, but it’s not much
compared with the licking he handed out to the
bartender, Karolina Obrycka. Fleming could have
sentenced Abbate to as much as five years in prison, but
the judge said, “If I believed sentencing Anthony Abbate
to prison would stop people from getting drunk and
hitting people, I’d give him the maximum sentence. But I
don’t believe that’s the case.” Well, judge, deterrence,
is supposed to be a part of it.
By Cameron Langford ,
Courthouse News Service 6-19-09 --
A law firm in Robertson County conspired with a district
judge there to extort money and steal land and mineral
interests from residents for 15 years, a group of
landowners claim in Federal Court. . . . Attorneys Bryan
Russ and James McCullough, with Palmos, Russ, McCullough
and Russ have cultivated a cozy relationship with
Robertson County District Judge Robert Stem that allows
them to use shell companies to claim interest to land
they don't own, buy property at reduced prices and
influence settlements, the plaintiffs say. . . . "Russ
and McCullough target three primary groups: poor people,
African-Americans, and outsiders, i.e., people who
reside outside of Robertson County," the complaint
states. . . . "It is widely known in and around Robertson County that Judge Stem
will rule in favor of the clients of The Firm with no
regard to the facts or the law," it adds. . . .
According to the complaint, it works like this: "When
stealing land or mineral interests, Russ and McCullough
often use shell companies to create sham transactions.
Shell Company A, for example, will purport to transfer
its land or mineral interests to Shell Company B, even
though Shell Company A never owned the land or mineral
interest in the first place. Russ and McCullough, acting
through The Firm, then seek a declaratory judgment that
Shell Company B owns the land or mineral interest.
6-18-09 --
A 32-year-old woman from Brainerd, Minn., owes $1.92 million in
damages to recording companies for downloading their
music, a federal jury in Minneapolis decided Thursday. .
. . That amounts to $80,000 a song for the 24 songs
Jammie Thomas-Rasset was accused of downloading. . . .
The damages are eight times more than Thomas-Rasset, a
mother of four, was ordered to pay the first time she
faced six record companies in court on claims that she
downloaded more than 1,700 songs. The judge granted a
retrial after deciding that he had wrongly instructed
the jury. . . . "The only thing I can say is, 'Good luck
getting it from me,'" said Thomas-Rasset, who looked
tearful immediately after hearing of the decision, but
then appeared resolute.
6-9-09 --Jeffrey
Deskovic heard a TV talk show host announce President
Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court last month, and
his mind raced. That name; he remembered that name. . .
. He emerged from bed and riffled through the boxes of
motions, appeals and letters he had accumulated
in the 16 years he spent in a New York prison for a
rape and murder he did not commit.
. . . And there it was, a ruling from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated April 26,
2000, and barely two pages long. It was co-written by
Sonia Sotomayor. . . . “We have considered all of
petitioner-appellant’s remaining arguments and find them
to be without merit,” the ruling said. . . . Imprisoned
at the age of 16 for the killing of a high school
classmate, Mr. Deskovic, now 35, filed a habeas corpus
petition in 1997 in Federal District Court contesting
his conviction. The court denied the request because the
paperwork had arrived four days late. Mr. Deskovic and
one of his lawyers — who he said had been misinformed
about the deadline for filing — appealed the decision to
the federal appellate court on which Ms. Sotomayor sat.
. . . Ms. Sotomayor, along with the other judge on the
panel, ruled that the lawyer’s mistake did not “rise to
the level of an extraordinary circumstance” that would
compel them to forgive the delay. There was no need to
look at the evidence that Mr. Deskovic insisted would
affirm his innocence, they said. . . . Mr. Deskovic
spent six more years behind bars, until DNA found in the victim not only cleared him, but connected another man to
the crime.
Jeffrey Deskovic was wrongly imprisoned
for 16 years and at one point had his appeal rejected by
Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. (June 11)
by Roger Shuler Cross
Posted at Legal Schnauzer, www.opednews.com
4-30-09 --
News came recently that Alabamians soon will have one
less bad judge to worry about. That's because Jefferson
County Circuit Judge
Allwin Horn is retiring,
effective June 1. . . . That's good news because we've
seen Horn in action, and he's a lousy judge. It's
frightening to think Horn has played a major role in a
multimillion-dollar lawsuit, one that has connections to
the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
. . . Former HealthSouth Corp. CEO Richard Scrushy, the codefendant in
Siegelman's criminal case, has long been embroiled in a
civil case in state court. The case is styled Tucker v.
Scrushy, and
Horn has been right in the middle of it.
. . . Tucker v. Scrushy started in 2002 when HealthSouth
shareholder Wade Tucker filed a derivative claim on
behalf of the company in state court. Several
settlements have been announced in the consolidated
case, but I believe it still has not been fully
resolved. . . . Will Horn take more more action in the
case prior to his June 1 retirement date? Stay tuned.
4-29-09 --
Iowans may as well issue a formal declaration of
surrender to the oligarchs on their supreme court if the
governor and state legislature are allowed to forfeit
their duties to uphold the state constitution. Why waste
billions of dollars keeping them in office? Death to
liberty needn't be so expensive. . . . After 152 years,
the Iowa Supreme Court had a judicial epiphany. On April
3, the judges divined an "equal protection" right to
"same-sex marriage" in the Iowa Constitution. The court
declared in Varnum v. Brien,
"the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil
marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the
statute, and the remaining statutory language must be
interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and
lesbian people full access to the institution of civil
marriage." . . . The fact that the Iowa Legislature
reaffirmed traditional marriage in a 1998 statute was of
no moment to the court. You'd think that the only branch
vested with
legislative authority would react to the court's ruling
by issuing a declaration reaffirming the statute's
constitutionality and its refusal to pass a law
permitting "same-sex marriage." Not yet.
NOTE:
If ordering from Jurisdictionary,
please click from a VoL ad
1-23-09 --“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be
vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts
as the Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior
Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour .
.
.”
Art. III, Sec. 1.
. . . While this provision says nothing about the
duties of the judges, the dictionary states that a judge
is a “presiding official in a court of law having
authority to hear and decide cases . . .” The
historical concept has been that the law is, and should
be, essentially “blind” with respect to the parties
involved, their backgrounds, character, status, or other
defining attributes or characteristics. . . . To put it
simply, a judge should decide a case solely on the
merits and not on the parties involved. Further, in the
case of the Supreme Court charged with deciding whether
a case is within its jurisdiction, it also makes the
decision based on the compatibility of the situation
with respect to the Constitution. In other words, the
Judges of whatever court, do not have the power nor the
authority to “make law,” only to interpret the law as
determined by Congress and, in the case of the
Constitution. to decide if a law is consistent with the
constraints of that document. . . . Unfortunately, ever
since Roscoe Pound became the Dean of the Harvard Law
School in 1916 we have had a continuous and steady
infection of the judicial cadre with what we shall call
the “international socialist syndrome.” A
better term for it might be “cancer in the courts”,
since the concept of law as expounded by Dean Pound has
infected the judicial system ever since. Dean Pound’s
idea was that judges should “bend” the law to suit the
situation irrespective of what was right or wrong. His
goal was to use “judge-made” law to make the federal
government the supreme and ultimate authority. . . . It
was Thomas Jefferson who said, “The Constitution
is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary,
which they may twist and shape into any form they
please.” . . . To see how farsighted that
statement was, let’s list a few of the “changes” brought
about by judicial decree. Such decrees were without
constitutional basis or compliance. . . . In the early
1960s, the Supreme Court outlawed state laws that had
always allowed prayer and Bible reading in their
schools. The cap on this came in 1973 with the
Roe v. Wade
decision striking down long-standing state laws against
abortion. No matter how one might view this, the fact
remains that under the original concept of our
government, both these activities were state areas of
responsibility, not the federal government. (Amendments
IX and X).
1-22-09 --
The Indiana Supreme Court on Wednesday issued its formal
disciplinary finding against Allen Superior Court Judge
Kenneth Scheibenberger, setting three days for an unpaid
suspension. . . . In November, Scheibenberger and the
Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications – an arm
of the Supreme Court – agreed to the three-day
suspension. The agreement stemmed from a November 2007
incident in which Scheibenberger unleashed an
obscenity-laced outburst in another judge’s courtroom. .
. . He will begin the unpaid suspension Feb. 11, court
documents said. . . . The commission, which oversees the
ethical actions of judges, filed a formal disciplinary
action against Scheibenberger, alleging he committed
judicial misconduct during that outburst. . . . In
August 2007, Scheibenberger’s 27-year-old son died from
a cocaine overdose. Three months later, Scheibenberger,
while wearing his robe, went into Judge Fran Gull’s
courtroom and sat in the gallery to witness the
sentencing of a man accused of a weapons violation. . .
. As the hearing concluded, Scheibenberger approached an
AllenCounty deputy prosecutor and
“created a disturbance,” telling the deputy prosecutor
the defendant was a “drug dealer,” according to court
documents. . . . Then Scheibenberger turned to the man’s
parents, seated in the front row, and used profanity
when asking them whether they were related to him,
according to court documents. . . . The man had not
appeared before Scheibenberger, according to court
documents. The judge has said he believed the man sold
drugs to his late son.
1-16-09 --
A $10 million force-fed verdict by a duo of circuit
judges in MaconCounty has played a large part
in returning Alabama to the dread "Judicial Hellholes"
list annually compiled by the American Tort Reform
Association. . . . ATRA recently announced the list,
which companies nationwide recognize as a warning signal
to beware pockets of lawsuit abuse. The list often plays
a role in company decisions on where to locate or expand
business. . . . Until now, the award had garnered little
attention outside the area, but it is a bit of tricky
business. . . . While Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit
Abuse has not heard trial lawyers cry out about the
circumvention of jury privilege, members of the business
community who are familiar with this thing view it as a
threat to contracts overall. . . . Judges Steve Perryman
and Ray Martin bestowed a holiday present of $10 million
on a patron of MaconCounty Greyhound Park. The
patron bet 25 cents on an electric reel-type bingo game
with a clearly stated maximum payout of $10,000. The
machine malfunctioned and wrongly rang up an award of 40
million credits, and Perryman ultimately took it on
himself to award the patron $10 million. . . . That is
just so wrong. It is the nature of machines to
malfunction. The park's video clearly shows the
malfunction, according to its defense. . . . Martin
starred in Act I of this legal fiasco, denying MCGP the
right to present any court evidence that the bingo
machine in question malfunctioned by awarding credits in
huge excess of what it was designed to provide, and led
the patron to claim a $40 million jackpot, even though
the maximum payout for the machine was $10,000.
1-15-09 --
In November, 13,402,566 California voters expressed
themselves for or against Proposition 8, which said that
their state's Constitution should be amended to define
marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.
The voters, confident that they had a right to decide
this question by referendum, endorsed Proposition 8 by a
margin of 52.3 to 47.7 percent. . . . Now comes
California's attorney general, Jerry Brown -- always a
fountain of novel arguments -- with a 111-page brief
asking the state Supreme Court to declare the
constitutional amendment unconstitutional. He favors
same-sex marriages and says the amendment violates
Article 1, Section 1, of California's Constitution,
which enumerates "inalienable rights" to, among other
things, liberty, happiness and privacy. . . . Brown's
audacious argument is a viscous soup of natural-law and
natural-rights philosophizing, utterly untethered from
case law. It is designed to effect a constitutional
revolution by establishing an unchallengeable judicial
hegemony. He argues that: . . . The not-really-sovereign
people cannot use the constitutionally provided
amendment process to define the scope of rights
enumerated in the Constitution; California's judiciary,
although established by the state's Constitution, has
the extra-constitutional right to supplement that
enumeration by brooding about natural law, natural
justice and natural rights, all arising from some
authority somewhere outside the Constitution; the
judiciary has the unchallengeable right to say what
social policies are entailed by or proscribed by the
state Constitution's declaration of rights and other
rights discovered by judges.
The Supreme Court should
agree to hear the case of a firefighter who was denied a
promotion because he is not black.
by Stuart Taylor
12-13-08 -- Frank
Ricci, a firefighter in New Haven, Conn., worked hard, played by
the rules, and earned a promotion to fire lieutenant.
But the city denied him the promotion because he is not
black. Ricci sued, along with 16 other whites and one
Hispanic firefighter. After a 7-6, near-party-line vote
by a federal Appeals Court to dismiss the lawsuit, the
plaintiffs petitioned for Supreme Court review. . . . If
the Court grants the petition, the now-obscure case will
vault to the top of the nation's racial policy agenda,
presenting a tough issue not only for the justices but
also for President-elect Obama. He could come under
great pressure to take a position for or against the
blessing conferred by eight liberal lower-court judges
on what many voters -- and, I would guess, five justices
-- would see as a raw racial quota. . . . To be sure, it
is far from clear that the Court will take the case, one
of dozens scheduled to come before its confidential
conference on December 12. Although a dissent by six
conservative and moderate Appeals Court judges urged
Supreme Court review, the case does not involve the kind
of clear split among lower courts that only the high
court can resolve. So it may disappear without a trace,
with no occasion for Obama or his Justice Department to
take a position.
North Georgia Judge
follows the GA Child Support Guidelines And Rules
According to the LAW!!!!!
By PrancnWolf,
11-15-08 --
After 5 years of continuous abuse towards me and my
daughter from four previous Judges, numerous unlawful
rulings and obvious bias, a Judge finally rules
according to the law! The abusive "not in the best
interest of my daughter" treatment from the opposing
attorney and her "Pocket Judges" has not prevailed for
once. In this case an act of justice by a
"non-manipulated and unbiased" Judge has benefited my
circumstances and benefited the best interest of a
child, my daughter. . . . After 2 years and 2 months of
an extensive conspiracy of extortion by opposing
attorney, my daughter’s mother, and involving a couple
other Judges, I have finally received a 32% reduction in
child support payments. Obviously this Judge seen the
corruption and these ridiculous acts committed against
me and my daughter and thought it was his duty to
correct injustice with a lawful ruling. I believe the
economy has also played a major factor in this Judges
decision, but all in all, he followed the Georgia Child
Support Guidelines and ruled according to the law,
unlike any other previous Judge I have been in front of.
. . . This is a major victory for me and my daughter but
yet my war is not over, OUR war is not over. I feel it
may never be over considering the hateful mother and her
notorious lying and child abusive attorney. This
unethical attorney still has pull with another bias and
controllable Judge here in this circuit and this will be
explained further in a future writing.
On October 27, Judge Beth
Freeman ruled against tenants seeking affirmation of
East Palo Alto's authority to enforce and implement its
own Rent Stabilization Ordinance. . . . Tenants eager to come out
and demonstrate for their rights rallied in the early
morning before a critical hearing in Redwood City
yesterday. . . . Unfortunately San Mateo Superior Court
Judge Beth Freeman ruled against the tenants at that
hearing. The East Palo residents were seeking
affirmation of their city's authority to enforce and
implement its own Rent Stabilization Ordinance.
Hard-working people, most with families, the tenants
have become victims of landlord Page Mill Properties'
predatory equity practices. Minority families have in
particular been hit hard by the investor-landlord's
actions. . . . Tenants and the City of East Palo Alto
have been in a legal dispute with Page Mill.
Properties/Woodland Park Management since January 2008
over Page Mill’s repeated violations of the city’s Rent
Stabilization Ordinance, raising tenant rents 2 or 3
times in one year totaling raises of 20%, 30%, and even
up to 100%. . . . Monday's hearing was to address Page
Mill's challenge of the legitimacy of the revised Rules
and Regulations for Implementation of the Rent
Stabilization Ordinance that East Palo Alto's Rent Board
passed in early July. These revised Rules and
Regulations keep the intent of the original 1984 rent
stabilization ordinance very clear; it is illegal for a
landlord to raise anyone's rent more than the annual
general adjustment in a given year--averaging around 3%
each year.
New York Lawyer, By Lynne
Marek, The National Law Journal
9-24-08 --
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen and
two other organizations advocating free speech filed a
joint friend-of-the-court brief urging a federal judge
to dismiss a lawsuit by Jones Day over what the law firm
alleges was trademark infringement by a Web site that
reported on real estate transactions by its attorneys.
(See "BigLaw
Firms Take On Web Site That Posts Staffers' Home
Purchases ") . . .
The organizations in a press release urged the judge in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois to dismiss the case, arguing that is is founded
on "baseless trademark claims" and aimed at quashing
speech by the online news site Blockshopper.com. Jones
Day brought the case in August, saying that the posting
of two real estate transactions on the Web site that
listed its attorneys along with the firm's name and a
link to the firm's Web site might "deceive and cause
confusion" among its customers. Jones Day v.
Blockshopper.com, No. 08-4572. Judge John Darrah is
presiding over the case.
9-14-08 --
The watch on my dresser is broken, its face smudged with
dried blood, but the time still shows through. It
perpetually reads 12:07. . . . The watch belonged to my
uncle and namesake, Tommy Pietrzak, who was killed 33
years ago when a driver police believed to be drunk
slammed into him after his car broke down on an
expressway. . . . The driver, who hit Tommy so hard that
he flew more than 200 feet, turned out to be politically
connected, the son of a top CookCounty prosecutor. After my
uncle's funeral, a judge from the same courthouse
sentenced the driver merely to probation for involuntary
manslaughter. . . . Never mind that the guy refused to
take a Breathalyzer test. The merciful Judge James
Sullivan did not see fit to even suspend his license.
8-22-08 --
I have a new hero. He calls himself Sam I am and he´s
from Texas.
He has bravely decided to take on a gang of thugs, liars
and thieves armed with nothing but a camera. He put his
life and fortune at risk to expose these criminals. He
rattled their cages a little and got under their skin.
He took a big chance, realizing the violence they could
perpetrate upon him, and yet he stuck to his quest and
managed to film their shady activities for all the world
to see. You can see the results here:
http://www.youtube.com/ObscuredTruth
If you go to the above link
and watch the videos, you will see that Sam I am is
taking on the Texas justice system. He felt that there
was an inherent conflict of interest in the system and
wanted to demonstrate this for all to see. As he
explains, he was pulled over by two armed men and
detained for forty five minutes while they questioned
him. According to Sam, they did not show him proper ID
and did not tell him why he was being detained. They
demanded he appear to be judged by one of their black
robed men under the threat of being kidnapped and thrown
in a cold cage if he should have decided not to show up.
Knowing that any black robed man behind a bench would be
paid by the same people that paid the uniformed men who
had detained him, Sam felt that perhaps there was a
conflict of interest here and that he would not be
fairly judged. He decided to confront these people who
seem to believe they are better than the rest of us. He
armed himself with a video camera for his own protection
and thought he might ask a few questions to get a better
understanding of the nature of our convoluted justice
system. What he found was deeply disturbing to anyone
who loves freedom and wants to live their lives free of
tyranny.
8-26-08 --
One sign that the Democrats will raise the Supreme Court
as a campaign issue will come Tuesday night when Lilly
Ledbetter addresses the Democratic national convention
in Denver. Ledbetter, you may recall, was a Goodyear
tire worker who
lost a 2007 Supreme Court case based on her claim of
unequal pay (pdf).
. . . The justices, in one of the most criticized
rulings of the Roberts Court,
ruled that her claim was untimely because it was
filed long after the initial pay decision was made.
She worked for the company for more than a decade before
realizing the disparity. Democrats reacted with outrage,
and Ledbetter became a symbol of the effects of the
Supreme Court's conservative turn.
1-22-09 --
The Indiana Supreme Court on Wednesday issued its formal
disciplinary finding against Allen Superior Court Judge
Kenneth Scheibenberger, setting three days for an unpaid
suspension. . . . In November, Scheibenberger and the
Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications – an arm
of the Supreme Court – agreed to the three-day
suspension. The agreement stemmed from a November 2007
incident in which Scheibenberger unleashed an
obscenity-laced outburst in another judge’s courtroom. .
. . He will begin the unpaid suspension Feb. 11, court
documents said. . . . The commission, which oversees the
ethical actions of judges, filed a formal disciplinary
action against Scheibenberger, alleging he committed
judicial misconduct during that outburst. . . . In
August 2007, Scheibenberger’s 27-year-old son died from
a cocaine overdose. Three months later, Scheibenberger,
while wearing his robe, went into Judge Fran Gull’s
courtroom and sat in the gallery to witness the
sentencing of a man accused of a weapons violation. . .
. As the hearing concluded, Scheibenberger approached an
AllenCounty deputy prosecutor and
“created a disturbance,” telling the deputy prosecutor
the defendant was a “drug dealer,” according to court
documents. . . . Then Scheibenberger turned to the man’s
parents, seated in the front row, and used profanity
when asking them whether they were related to him,
according to court documents. . . . The man had not
appeared before Scheibenberger, according to court
documents. The judge has said he believed the man sold
drugs to his late son.
Note: U.S. District Court Judge
William G. Young labeled me a "rogue" juror in a 43-page court
memorandum issued July 25th.
I’ve corrected them on my blog.
The
Honorable
William G. Young
Chief
Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
8-13-08 --
During jury service earlier this year I sat in a judge’s robing
chambers and was asked to take an oath that I expect no juror in
American history was ever asked to take before or since: . . .
"Would you be able to set aside your own reading of the
Constitution, the judge’s past instructions, and judge the facts
based solely upon the judge’s explanation of the law?" . . . The
judge, U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young took
43-pages in a court memorandum last month to call me a
"rogue" for not taking this unusual oath. . . . I’m not always the
quickest on my feet, but on the drive home from the courthouse that
day I thought a clever reply would have been: "Other than the actual
words that are written in the Constitution, what words would you
have me substitute when I think of the Constitution?" I wouldn’t
have given him such a smart-alec reply even if I had thought of it
at the time, though, as I was worried about a contempt of court
charge. I stayed polite. . . . Judge Young’s oath had two parts: 1.
Disregard the wording of the Constitution and 2. Follow only the
instructions of the judge. . . . It was an oath to pledge to act as
if we are not a government of laws, but instead act as if we are a
government of men, respectively. If I had taken the oath, the judge
could have said "the law says all Italians are guilty" and I would
have been bound to declare the defendant guilty because the
defendant was of Italian heritage. . . . I didn’t take the oath, and
was immediately dismissed from jury service.
You
can access the opinion of U.S. District Judge William G. Young of
the District of Massachusetts atthis link.
8-14-08 --
US District Court Judge William G. Young misuses the
term if he wrote that [jury] "nullification led to
notorious acquittals in the South of white defendants by
all-white juries". Those verdicts were not disagreements
with whether the statutes under which the defendants
were charged were constitutional or justly applied,
which is the standard definition of "jury
nullification". That was bias, which is a different
matter. A judge has the duty to interpret and apply the
law in deciding motions before the court, but a jury, in
reaching a general verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty"
in a criminal case, is necessarily reviewing those
decisions in the ways it reaches its verdict, and must
therefore be informed as what those decisions were and
receive the same legal arguments the judge did. [Stettinius
v. United States,
22 F. Cas. 1322 (1839); 5 Cranch C.C. 573] Contrary to
what they might want people to think, judges and lawyers
are not experts on what the law is, and if a judge
claims he is then he should step down from the bench and
testify as an expert witness, subject to
cross-examination and rebuttal. Judges and lawyers might
develop informed opinions on that during the course of a
trial, but honest persons can and do disagree on what is
the law. A court precedent, when that precedent was
wrongly decided, or is not understood, is not law. A
constitution is law, the Supreme Law, and it supersedes
all other official acts that may conflict with it. The
removal of juror Thomas R. Eddlem was jury tampering.
One couple's encounter
with corrupt judges, slimy lawyers, and incompetent
prosecutors in Alabama. . . and how you can avoid being
cheated by the vermin who make a mockery of our justice
system.
8-13-08 --
The new president of the American Bar Association is
from Birmingham, and at first glance, it seems we should
be proud that one of our residents has attained such a
lofty position. . . . But if you listen to Thomas Wells
Jr.'s public statements--and if you have some personal
experience with the real ailments of our justice system
(as I, unfortunately, do)--you might see the
new ABA head as a grandstander
who isn't interested in making substantive change. . . .
Our impression at Legal Schnauzer is that Wells, like
many of his professional colleagues, is more about
protecting the interests of lawyers and less about doing
what's best for citizens--or our struggling republic. .
. . This post is not meant as an across-the-board
condemnation of lawyers. Heck, we spend much of our time
in SchnauzerWorld standing up for lawyers--Don Siegelman,
Paul Minor, Wes Teel, John Whitfield--who have been the
victims of wrongful prosecutions. Two of the biggest
heroes in SchnauzerWorld--Scott Horton and Jill
Simpson--are lawyers. In fact, I think it's safe to say
that we never will get to the bottom of the Bush Justice
Department scandal without the smarts, courage, and
toughness of noble and honest lawyers.
February 2008
Juli
Alexander, Executive Director of Redress, Inc. on video
Juli Alexander, Executive
Director of Redress, Inc. candidly discusses the present
condition of the American judicial system. Examples of
life destroying decisions void of common sense, morality
and law handed down by judges are cited. The newest
malady evolving from courtroom encounters called "Legal
Abuse Syndrome" is explained. The accountability,
qualifications and even the sanity of some judges are
questioned and with good reason. The self policing or
rather non-policing of judges is discussed and
questioned. The fact that many actions have now been
undertaken by judicial officers to protect themselves
from the very people that they are sworn to protect is
offered as a prime example of their fear of retaliation
by those they "judge." The phenomenon of "power
addiction" is also introduced. Don't let yourself become
the next court room victim leaving a hearing wondering
what happened to justice. See and hear what Juli has to
say. One Hour $10 (+$.75 shipping)for studio quality DVD. Make copies for every American you know!
For about the last 15 years, judges of the Connecticut
Superior Court in conspiracy with lawyers and the members of the Sheriff
Department have been extorting Connecticut residents with fraudulent
documents, without commencing a civil action in a court of law. This
site provides you with a clear examples.
We Are Pulling the
Curtains
Back on
Judicial Misconduct &
Lawlessness &
'Each
time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others,
or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope,
and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and
daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest
walls of oppression and resistance.'
- Robert Kennedy, South Africa, 1966-
Victims-of-Law has
compiled this list for educational
& research purposes.
The inclusion of links to any site in no way constitutes
an endorsement by Victims-of-Law.
