Why did the Daily Beast censor this great advice?

Sometimes one bumps into a sheer mystery. Consider this piece I saw in the Daily Beast – about judges deciding cases where one of the parties is a company in which the judge has an investment, contrary to the (non-enforceable) court rules.

Judges are parties to the case they are adjudicating? As I know full well, that’s a routine, so I started reading though the comments. And right on top, was this wonderful heart-felt one:

neongranny Does anyone have respect for the court system in this country anymore?  If you do, you’re stupid.  And, if you think there’s only malfeasance in the higher courts, you are really a babe in the woods!  Of course, I live in the Land of Walker.  This is common everyday practice here…well…nowadays, it’s common everywhere.  What to do…what to do…

To which I replied: @neongranny I don’t know if your “what to do” is just rhetorical – but, as a practical step, I’d suggest you visit the site of the Coalition Against Judicial Fraud, www.cajfr.org – offering some really good ideas (like hiring logicians to do judging, not enthroning former lawyers) as well as providing a sample letter to the legislators to bring the issue of brazen judicial fraud (which is rampant in federal courts) to their attention.

This highly rational advice was censored out by the Daily Beast.

I wonder why…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Yet another reminder – from Gov. Christie this time – that “judicial impartiality” is a myth

Give this a listen, and ponder the question: why on Earth would Governor Christie of New Jersey want to replace his state’s judges? Why would he want to “remake the court in a more conservative image?”

If the judges were impartial, than what difference would it make who sits on the bench? Judges would have no preconceived notions of who should win and who should lose. They would impartially weigh parties’ argument, and then impartially give victory to the stronger one. Why would it matter that it is a Democrat Joe who’s doing this evaluation, or a Republican Jim, a conservative Mary or a liberal Jane? Facts and law adduced by the parties are same no matter who’s the judge; logic is a science, so the result of deducing whose argument is stronger should not vary depending on who’s examining the facts and applying the logic to them. The end result of the case should be exactly the same no matter who – a Republican or Democrat, a liberal or a conservative – is occupying the bench.

But as politicians like Gov. Christie know full well, this is not how judges work. While the powers that be want the public to believe in judicial impartiality so the system isn’t upended, judges do not operate in an impartial, logical, rational manner. They do not care about facts, and when they do apply the logic, they apply it to the facts they themselves invent, not those presented by the parties. “Judicial process” is utterly arbitrary, its result having nothing to do with what parties argued, but only with judges’ whim; this is why who’s on the bench makes all the difference in the world.

We get this lesson from the politicians every time there is a judicial nomination, yet we are unable to grasp its implications, which are as follows: judicial impartiality is a myth; parties’ argument makes no difference whatsoever; the exchange of motions is just for the show; judges neither serve the cause of justice, nor follow the law; “due process of the law” is but a legalized swindle; the only one who fully figured out the system is Kafka.

This lesson stares us in the face; yet our power of reason is so dimmed and subdued by social brainwashing that no matter how often this lesson is being repeated – and it is being repeated with every single judicial nomination – we just can’t get it. Bizarre!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Two singularities: of the black hole, and of the “due process of the law”

There are phenomenally interesting objects in the universe called “black holes,” astrophysicists tell us. They are tiny, but very powerful. They are former stars that instead of emitting light – like stars normally do – they suck light in; and they suck in any object – be it a comet, a planet, a nearby star, or, to move into realm of science fiction, a too-adventurous spaceship – that comes too close.

And whatever falls into the black hole gets compressed beyond imagination; a million stars would be packed into a pinhead.

What goes on inside a black hole, no one knows – and no one can know, for that matter. Physicists call that condition “singularity” – the breakdown of laws of physics.

Thus, at a safe distance from the black hole, regular laws of nature, laws that allow us to predict events, still operate. Stars emit light according to the laws of nuclear physics. Planets move on their orbits according to the laws of gravity. Substances combine and dissolve according to laws of chemistry. Plants grow and animals live according to the laws of biology. But inside of the black hole, there are no rules, no laws, no predictability – a complete breakdown of rules and laws.

Fascinatingly, the above picture of perfectly predictable order embodied in strict adherence to laws and rules, but circling around an all-powerful center that recognizes no rules and no laws, but acts arbitrarily, is also the picture of the federal judicial process.

For, following the court-prescribed, strict choreography of plaintiff’s and defendant’s argument and counter-argument, all based on constitution and law, all logically and convincingly structured and argued, all submitted within the strictly specified timeframe, all those documents, prepared with extreme care and enormous expense, wind up on judge’s desk for decision.

Welcome to singularity, the breakdown of rules, of laws, of logic. The federal judge does not examine the argument as submitted by the parties, which is their (and everyone else’s outside of the world of “law”) reasonable expectation. Abandon reason: what follows is the arbitrary substitution of all the facts and the law argued by parties with those generated by judge’s fantasy and whim; everything is twisted out of shape; the ruling as it comes out of the singularity zone that is federal judge’s chambers is a spectacle as bizarre as that of a spaceship that had the misfortune to get into the singularity of a black hole; the expense of the parties on forming their argument is as utterly wasted, as that of building the spaceship that the black hole sucked in.

Astrophysicists and litigants, unite! You are talking of the same thing, whether you discuss the physics of black holes, or the mysteries of the federal judicial process!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Error vs. fraud: “wrong” decisions by judges vs. “non-judicial” ones

The members of the legal profession I talk to about judicial fraud invariably resort to the same histrionics. They spread out their arms, they roll up their eyes, they give their faces a somewhat painful expression, they sigh – in short, they pose as appropriate for one about to deliver some particularly painful, yet profoundly deep and necessary morsel of wisdom.

Having primed themselves to look like Jesus Christ about to deliver the sermon on the mount, they proceed with disburdening themselves of the following gem: “judges are humans, and sometimes make a wrong decision.”

The contrite tone of the voice, the implied invitation into deeper mysteries of wisdom that admits to fundamental imperfections of this world is clearly calculated to win us to their argument.

Yet the temptation to look wise, and to accept it must be resisted, for the argument itself is nothing but hogwash.

Here is why.

Let’s start by asking a very basic question: what is an error? Here is a simple mathematical example: compare the values of “zero” and “ten.” It would be an “error” to say that “zero is equal to ten;” it would likewise be an error to say “zero is greater than ten;” it would NOT be an error to say “zero is less than ten.”

This established, let us turn to federal judges deciding a case. Plaintiff, a private individual suing the government, puts before the judge ten’s worth of factual and legal argument. The defendant, US, replies with a zero worth of argument.

How should the federal judge decide so the decision could be considered as “wrong?” He should obviously point out in his or her decision that plaintiff provided a ten’s worth of argument in favor of his position, and the government provided a zero’s worth of argument to prove that it is in the right, and that therefore government wins, and plaintiff loses.

This would clearly be a decision that could be called “wrong” – yet such decisions are virtually non-existent.

Why? Because any reader of that decision would see that the judge who made it is a moron.

Yet federal judges, just like anyone else, do not particularly like it when that particular word is being applied to them. On the contrary, they want to be seen by us as fountainheads of unreachable wisdom and learning, speaking down to the lowly us from the tall Olympus of high-minded rightfulness. They want to impress and to awe us – certainly, not to become laughing stock to which the attribute of a “moron” would relegate them.

So what do they do when government presents zero’s worth of argument, and plaintiff a ten, and yet they want to decide for the government? Do they make a “wrong” decision?

No, they are not that foolish; they know the math pretty well. So what they do do, is they make a fraudulent decision. As my litigation experience in federal courts shows, they either substitute in their decisions government’s argument with “facts” they fabricate out of thin air, and with “law” that government’s lawyers never mentioned, giving the government a “twenty” worth of argument instead of the “zero,” or by making the facts and the law that plaintiff adduced simply vanish into thin air, substituting plaintiff’s “ten” with a judge’s “zero.” And then, the judge simply proceeds to write the decision that says “the government won because twenty is greater than ten” or “the government won because plaintiff provided zero’s worth of argument.”

So although the decision is patiently unjust, it is not “wrong:” twenty is indeed greater than ten, and zero is indeed a negligible number. The problem of course is that both the “government’s” “twenty” and the “plaintiff’s” “zero” are not “government’s” and “plaintiff’s,” but judge’s own.

This renders judge’s decision to be not merely unjust, but non-judicial. It is parties to the case who supply the argument, because the very purpose of the argument is to convince the judge to decide the case in a particular way. Once a judge starts creating argument, he or she of necessity becomes a party to the case. And since it is axiomatic that a judge cannot possibly be party to the case adjudicated before him or her, but has to be impartial, the judge cannot possibly be acting as a judge while supplying the argument for parties. The use of substitutionary procedure aimed at avoiding a “wrong” decision, renders that decision non-judicial.

So here we are. It is often wrong to speak of a federal judge’s decisions as “right” or “wrong.” We should rather talk of “judicial” and “non-judicial” decisions; of decisions that are “legitimate,” and decisions that are “fraudulent.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New York Times talks of “Unpalatable judges”

I don’t know how exactly they define those, but recently the editors of the New York Times used in their editorial the term “unpalatable judges.”
The term was hyperlinked, and pointed to an article on which I also commented in the past, concluding that “both President Obama and the Senate know that “due process of the law” is a sham.”

Whatever New York Times’ editors mean by “unpalatable judges,” their editorial still carries a very important lesson, namely the mainstream press’ clear acknowledgement that judges are NOT necessarily the honest, honorable, and upstanding people we are brainwashed to acknowledge them to be in an all by a knee-jerk reaction. We should stop ascribing their modus operandi and their decisions to some higher, incomprehensible to us perhaps, yet ultimately righteous wisdom, but subject them to the same careful and critical public scrutiny as other politicians are subjected to, thus putting them under full public control.

They should be fired when they act “maliciously and corruptly,” when they judge not the parties’ argument, but judges’ fraudulent substitution of parties’ argument.

There should be no room in the federal legal system for “unpalatable judges;” yet under the present “case law” created by the federal judges for the federal judges, and which allows federal judges to act arbitrarily, no other kind of federal judges than the “unpalatable” ones exists.

So insofar as the New York Times is a mainstream paper, the notion that federal “due process” is but a legalized swindle should also go mainstream, allowing us to rid ourselves of “unpalatable judges” who currently occupy every federal bench in the land.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why have Bernie Madoff and his associates gone to jail?

The news came that Madoff’s staff was found guilty, and would likely be serving time in jail.

The question is, is it just?

They were all scoundrels, and guilty as sin? So what?

Let’s calm down and look at the bigger picture, and consider their behavior in the framework of the socially acceptable standards.

Who shows us the ethical light, who’s on top, in the public mind at least? Of course, the men of the cloth, the holy people – the pope, and the clergy generally. No matter what your religion is, you’ll defer the place on the top of the ethics heap to your clerics.

And not far below the very top (perhaps just under the medical professionals) we’ll find the judges, those honorable, upright, wise, and honest people.

Below them, are the more common kind of folks; whose ethical duty it is to emulate the already-mentioned ones who are on top of the ethical hierarchy, and to aspire to do what they would do.
So is it right to do what a federal judge would have done? Of course! That’ the high standard to aim at; that’s what’s good, that’s what’s right, that’s what’s proper!

And what did Madoff and his employees do? They told the investors a lie – that they would invest their money, not re-distribute it. It sounds bad on the surface, but is it bad? Does it represent a lower standard of behavior that of a federal judge?

Not at all. Federal judges have the right to act “maliciously and corruptly;” federal judges have the right to substitute the argument for which parties paid their lawyers huge sums of money with utter nonsense of judge’s own fabrication, thus swindling the parties of their argument, of the money spent on building it, of their victory, of their rights, and ultimately of justice.

Since such conduct, being permitted to judges, properly belongs at the very top of the pyramid of ethical behavior, why should the society treat Madoff and his employees as deviants? They only did what the most honest, honorable, upstanding citizens – the federal judges – do. So why would Madoff and his cohorts serve time?
Go figure…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A lesson in justice from the late Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church

I haven’t heard of the man before, and paid no attention when NPR announced the segment on the passing of “Anti-Gay activist Fred Phelps, a widely reviled figure… Phelps led the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Its members are infamous for picketing funerals with signs proclaiming God’s hatred of gay people.”

But a piece of his rhetoric caught my attention. Here is a snip from the transcript:

FRED PHELPS: That’s my job, man, to cause this evil country to know her abominations.

MORRIS: Fred Phelps, speaking here eight years ago in the paneled office of his small Topeka church. In his mind, every catastrophe, attack or misfortune was God’s retribution for America’s failure to castigate gays.

PHELPS: We’re insisting that this country take the cup of the fury of God’s wrath, we’re putting it to their lips, and we’re making them drink it.

Whatever you think of Mr. Phelp’s diagnosis of our country’s problems, the larger question is this: can all those problems be indeed attributed to a single cause?

I think they can be; though I would rather argue that our country’s problem is a systemic, constitutionalized absence of justice. Judges’ right to act “maliciously and corruptly” and to substitute parties’ argument with judges’ fabrications and falsehoods – the rights which turns “due process of the law” into a travesty, combined with America’s apathy and lack of the slightest protest against this obvious and blatant violation of the biblical injunction to “seek justice” is I think at the root of the country’s obvious decline.

Here is how it works. Since justice is unachievable, and our rights and liberties (including the right to free speech) are being denied so the establishment could run the country, abuses are being covered up, free discussion throttled, reasonable ideas (including the rationale for religious violence and terrorism – which is the area of expertise of yours truly) are being suppressed. Hence, the possibly right views are being excluded from the public debate, while the definitely wrong (albeit “multicultural” and therefore “politically correct”) ones are given the right-of-way. Why than be surprised that the country goes to hell in a hand basket?

Much can happen “for want of a nail,” as the proverb has it, and when that “nail” is justice, huge negative consequences follow – such as terrorism, wars, and man-made technoligical disasters.

No matter what you think of Mr. Phelps’ views on gays, the big picture he saw – that “for want of a nail the kingdom was lost” – is essentially right.

So let’s take that lesson to heart, and restore justice to our so-called “justice system” that is presently so obviously devoid of justice – before our kingdom is gone, too…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Molested Hasidic boy’s story is testimony to bipolar, schizophrenic nature of judicial process

Here for a change is a story with at least a spec of justice in it – a highly convoluted tale of a Chassidic boy who told his father that he had been molested by a cantor (i.e. a leader in Jewish prayer service); of the boy’s father’s attempt to go to authorities; of his arrest by them for bribing the witness to testify against the cantor; and of the dismissal of the charges against him because those accusing him of bribery were themselves highly unreliable as witnesses.

This seems to be a story of judging done right (though the alleged molester apparently managed to escape charges); and yet, it points to a bizarre procedural dichotomy: while the judge did the right thing by dismissing unreliable evidence as inadmissible, judges themselves routinely engage in fabricating such unreliable (and often, patiently false) evidence out of thin air on behalf of the parties (turning themselves into parties to the case before them), which they use as clinching argument in their decision-making.

Which creates an unsertainty on whether corrupt practices are admissible in the federal court; and it looks like it depends on whose currupt practices we are talking about: if parties’, than answer is likely to be “probably not.” If judge’s own, than the answer is an emphatic, ethusiastic, extatic “yes!”

The moral of the story? Despite some instances of honest judging, judicial process lacks any coherence, any rhyme or reason, depending entirely on judge’s whim, it is bipolar, it is schizophrenic, it is irrational, it is arbitrary, it is unfair, it is undemocratic, it has nothing to do with following the “law,” it is not based on any “court rules,” for all the heavy volumes that contain them both.

In other words, it is not a “process” at all, but a record of utterly random, unpredictable, inscrutable, illogical moves on the part of a person we call “the judge.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

2 official theories of why the press is not interested in covering judicial corruption – and 2 unofficial ones

The other day, I attended a book talk by two very brave journalists (and most vivacious ladies), Wendy Ruderman and Barbara Laker discussing their book “Busted: A Tale of Corruption and Betrayal in the City of Brotherly Love”  in which they describe their incredible feats of investigative journalism courageously performed in the heart of the inner-city drug dens, which resulted in the Pulitzer-prize-winning series of articles on Philadelphia police corruption.

I won’t dwell here on their most exciting adventures (for that, I’ll refer you to their book), but I want to focus on the question that I had a chance to ask them: how about the untold stories of corruptions – in particular, of judicial corruption? Why isn’t the press interested in those?

The replies, to my mind, were unconvincing. Wendy Ruderman: “media’s resources are limited, and have to be focused on what’s more important.” Really? The federal judiciary openly gave itself a legal right to act “maliciously and corruptly,” to substitute parties’ legal and factual argument with non-existing “facts” and off-the-wall “law” of judges’ own concoction (or even with the exact, polar opposite of parties’ argument), brazenly throwing “judicial impartiality” to the winds isn’t a “story?” Full third of the federal government being openly corrupt and malicious is not worthy of a newspaper article? What is a “story” than? Barbara Laker’s response (“you’ve got to deliver the goods, to have a definite proof that this actually occurred!”) was likewise off, given my reply of “the goods are there; it’s the interest that’s missing!”

Yet another theory was advanced by one of the fellow-attendees: “it is because the issues are so obscure.” But absence of judicial impartiality is not an obscure issue at all – since impartial judging is supposed to be at the very foundation, the front and the center of our legal system. So that isn’t it, again.

So finally, I had to think of my own theory. Cowardice can be all but ruled out: what those ladies did was brave indeed – for they braved not just the police, but whole neighborhoods of drug users and drug dealers. They could have easily bearded a fraud-practicing federal judge like Lettow or Vitaliano or Jacobs or Katzmann or Livingston if they only wanted.

They clearly didn’t want to, however. Why?

I wonder if it is because the media feels that it itself is the power-that-be, that it itself is one of the mainstays of our establishment, a pillar of the social order, a keeper of governance system, one of the guarantors of the obedience of the governed. While it rocks the boat, it deliberately knows to keep this within bounds – just enough for the populace to be proud of America’s “free press,” yet not so as to actually challenge the grip of the ruling establishment on the levers of power.

The reforming influence of investigative journalism, of the “fourth estate?” Forget it – for all the brave reporting of journalists like Wendy Ruderman and Barbara Laker, and for all the Pulitzer prizes in the world…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Judicial inequality: US judges gave themselves the right to act “maliciously and corruptly” and to “see things” that aren’t there, yet deny Euadorian judges the same right

The alarm clock rang, I yawned and cussed and got out of bed and turned on the radio – and was suddenly fully awake. Apparently, according to the news segment upon which I hit – “U.S. Judge Sides With Chevron In Amazon Pollution Case,” not all judges are equal: the reason for judge’s decision was that Ecuadorian judge who ruled against Chevron and whose decision this US judge now reversed, was that Ecuadorian judge acted “maliciously and corruptly.”

Huh? Since when is a judge forbidden to do so? American federal judges do enjoy the self-given right to act “maliciously and corruptly,” insisting that it somehow upholds “public good;” they also gave themselves the rights to substitute parties’ factual and legal argument with their own, off-the-wall fantasies; and to substitute parties’ factual and legal argument with its exact, polar opposite.

So why can’t Ecuadorian judges do the same? Apparently, because they took bribes (per detailed analysis of the story on Bloomberg).

But bribes are just a red herring. Just think for a second. Judges shouldn’t take bribes (or heroin, or too much alcohol) so they don’t pervert justice; the prohibition is aimed against making judges “see things” that are not there.

But what is the difference between judges “seeing things” because they want to (which is the modus operandi of the American judges), or “seeing things” because they are paid to (the modus operandi of Ecuadorian ones)? Either way, the justice gets perverted; either way, the litigant is defrauded of victory; either way, judicial fraud triumphs.

Based on my own, vast litigation experience, let me give Steven Donziger, Zoe Littlepage, Richard Friedman, and Deepak Gupta, the lawyers representing the losing side, a good legal advice: appeal on the basis of the cases which establish American judges’ rights to pervert justice: Pearson V. Ray (establishing federal judges’ right to act “maliciously and corruptly”); Tsitrin v. Lettow (establishing federal judge’s right to substitute parties’ factual and legal argument with judge’s own baseless fabrications) and Tsitrin v. Vitaliano (establishing federal judge’s right to substitute parties’ factual and legal argument with its exact, polar opposite) to argue that Ecuadorian judges did nothing out of the ordinary, but simply acted in pursuit of their right to be “corrupt and malicious.” If anything, they merely emulated American judges; and moneys they got don’t change that picture one bit.

It would be most interesting to see how US judges wriggle to deny Ecuadorians the right they themselves so greatly enjoy!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment