"The Law
is the Weapon;
the Courtroom
the Battlefield,

The Judge
is your Enemy,
your Lawyer
is an Enemy Spy"

Anti-Constitutional Federal Judges

  What President Trump Can and Should Do

            Donald Trump isn’t the first President of the United States to have problems with federal judges.  Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Franklin Roosevelt had problems with them as well.

            The federal judiciary has become increasingly arrogant and irresponsible.  Put your grievance before a judge or even panel of judges, especially in a federal criminal case.  The judge won’t read what is put in front of them, they will not address the issues raised, and they will certainly not apply the proper legal standards.

            Why should they?  They have given themselves “judicial immunity”.  They are immune to lawsuits for money damages.  Worse, they allow law clerks and staff attorneys to ghostwrite most of their opinions for them. Consider:

Richard Arnold of Arkansas, a judge who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, is a product of the Old South school of courtly manners.  He is equally comfortable holding forth on an early 19th-century British case, the U.S. Constitution or a richly embellished anecdote. But he is less genteel when talking about what is happening to the federal courts.  Speaking at the Drake University Law School last week, Arnold was asked about a story in The New York Times reporting that because of crushing workloads, some federal appeals courts are resorting to perfunctory one-word rulings—”Affirmed” or “Denied”—with no written opinion giving the court’s reasoning.
 
The practice is an “abomination,” Arnold said.  He told of participating recently in a court session where more than 50 cases were decided in two hours.  “We heard many, many cases with no opinions or unpublished opinions,” Arnold said. “I felt dirty.  It was a . . . betrayal of the judicial ethos.  It makes me feel terrible.”
 
Perfunctory justice:  Overloaded federal judges increasingly are resorting to one-word rulings, Des Moines Register (March 26, 1999).

The aggrieved party read and reread the briefs as well as the transcripts.  His mind is fed on nothing else during the three months waiting for the action of the court.  He knows every point raised.  He can repeat every argument advanced.  All his savings through a lifetime are tied up in the case.  He knows he is right.  Then comes the decision.  It deals with none of the points argued.  It shows on its face the court refused to read the brief.  He had been tossed aside like a white chip.  He knows, and his friends know, he has been denied his day in court.

To that man, to his family and to his friends, organized society is organized iniquity.

And the present system is manufacturing citizens of such sentiments by the thousands every year.

Underneath the social unrest of the world today, as its main underlying cause, is the feeling in the breasts of the masses that justice is not for them.  They do not know the cause, nor can they suggest the remedy,—and so they only want to destroy.  Society to them has come to mean organized injustice.

John Rustgard, Dry Bones—The Remedy for the Evil, 88 Central Law Journal, p. 341, 344 (May 9, 1919).

            How does this happen?  Someone other than a federal judge actually does the research and writing of “their” (the judges) opinions.  Someone who doesn’t have life tenure and serves at the pleasure of the judge he – or she – works for.  Someone who doesn’t want to “rock the boat” or disturb the status quo.  Someone like a law clerk or staff attorney.

            So how does the President bring these misbehaving federal judges under control?  It is simple.

            The published opinions are full of references to “public confidence in the judiciary.”  I.e., once the public loses confidence in federal judges and recognizes them for what they are (welfare recipients in robes) and loses respect for them, the game is over.

            How does the President do this?

            It’s simplicity itself.  All the President has to do is have his pardon attorney pick out one federal criminal case a month in which an American citizen got shafted by a lazy judge who didn’t follow the law.  Then pardon him (or her) and explain why the pardon power had to be exercised.  I.e., the President had to do the job the judge was too lazy to do.

            The judge then becomes an object of public ridicule.  As Mark Twain once said, “Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand.”

            How would you like to be a federal judge who just made the national news for not doing his (or her) job?  After the first half dozen or so federal judges are held up to public ridicule, how long do you think it will be before others will “straighten up and fly right” for fear of them being the next target of the Presidents wrath?

No legislative body ever gave Judges immunity.  They gave it to themselves.  Read our Legislation to take away the Immunity from Judges set for introduction in Alabama.

The Latest from ERSOL....

New Book by Michael H. Brown:

CRIMINAL DEFENDANT'S BIBLE

Read more...

The   American   Criminal   Justice   System

How   It   Really   Works

How   To   Beat   It

         The first thing you have to understand about the American Criminal Justice System is that it is a complete fraud. The methods for overcoming a fraud are entirely different from those used to play a game that isn’t rigged. You have to know what to expect in real life, not what the books tell you that you should expect.

         You can win in a game in which the other side cheats continuously. You just have to know how the other side is cheating and then devise a strategy to overcome it. Let’s start with the players.

The   Judge

         The judge is supposed to be an impartial referee. At the federal level, there is even a statute that says so:

28   U.S.C.   § 453.   Oaths  of  Justices  and  Judges

         Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or          affirmation before performing the duties of this 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.”

         In real life, the judge will (almost) always “put his thumb on the scales” in favor of the government. This is most readily seen in rulings on pretrial motions. No matter how much merit a motion may have, especially if a motion should result in a dismissal of the case, the judge will deny it.

         Why? The judge is attempting to demoralize you into taking a “plea bargain.”

         Your strategy is to file pretrial motions in order to build a record for appeal.

The   Prosecutor

         Prosecutors routinely stack bogus charges on indictments for two reasons.

The first reason is that if the prosecutor can make you think that you are facing conviction for a lot more charges than he had the right to bring against you, then it is that much easier for him to terrorize you into a “plea bargain.”

         The second reason is that the prosecutor has a much better chance of persuading a jury that you are guilty (of at least something) if a jury has an impressive array of charges to convict you of. How are a dozen average citizens supposed to know what a bogus charge is and what isn’t?    What the prosecutor did (stack bogus charges) needs to be pointed out in your pretrial motions.

The   Defense   Attorney

         Counsel for the defense is often the biggest problem. You can survive the denial of your pretrial motions by the judge and the stacking of bogus charges by the prosecutor. Surviving the machinations of you own lawyer is another matter entirely.

         In the last decade or so “defense” lawyers have come up with a way to get their clients to plead guilty and save themselves the bother of doing your pretrial work and defending you in a trial (which consists merely of “going through the motions”).

         What defense attorneys do these days is simply ask for repeated continuances, often for months at a time. The judge always grants the continuances and the prosecutor never objects. They’re in on the game.

         The defendant, after months (more often years) of sitting in a cockroach-infested jail cell, finally “breaks” and takes a “plea bargain” in order to get to a regular prison, where he will hopefully be able to get some fresh air and decent food.

         Your objective should be to get to trial as soon as you have filed all your pretrial motions. The feds and all the states have what are called “statutory speedy trial” statutes. I.e., the judge can give you “excludable time” (the clock isn’t running) while he is considering your motions. Once he thinks he has you demoralized, you hit him with a demand for speedy trial. At the federal level, that is 70 days.

         Your attorney will tell you “he’s not prepared.” He is never going to be prepared. Get it through your head you will get convicted. The results will be the same whether your attorney fights your case tooth and nail (don’t hold your breath on this one) or you turn your back to the judge and just sit there for the entire trial.

Read more...