Federal Judiciary

Our Goal

When adjudicating the case, federal judges feel free to bring in their own legal and factual argument with which they replace the argument presented by lawyers hired by the parties. Obviously, such “judging” cannot possibly be fair since no one can be impartial to one’s own argument. It is axiomatic that a party cannot adjudicate its own case; yet federal cases are routinely adjudicated by judges acting as self-appointed lawyers to the parties, adjudicating their own argument rather than that of the parties. OUR GOAL: make it impossible for judges to act as lawyers; they should act strictly as evaluators of lawyers’ argument.

The other way of looking at it is that federal judges do not adjudicate cases filed by the parties; instead, they rule on bogus cases created using the “argument” which judges invent out of thin air, and attach the outcome of their bogus case to the real one. OUR GOAL: make judges adjudicate the actual case by evaluating parties’ argument, not the bogus case based on the argument of judge’s own manufacture.

Federal judges claim that like anyone else they can make mistakes and decide cases “wrongly.” However, it is not error, but fraud to inject judge’s own argument into the case. Federal judge’s protestations that deciding the case against a party based on judge’s replacement argument that is the exact, polar opposite of the argument of party’s lawyer is “the classical application of the judicial function” are bizarre. OUR GOAL: make it impossible for judges to commit judicial fraud of replacing parties’ legal and factual argument with judge’s own. Errors in evaluating parties’ argument may happen, to be addressed via appeal, but it must be parties’ argument that gets evaluated in the first place, not judge’s.

Federal judges feel at liberty to change the very definition of words describing the rules that are supposed to guide judicial procedure. For instance, federal judges “must” view plaintiff’s argument as true, and consider it in the most favorable light when the defendant moves to dismiss the case. But a federal judge does not, and cannot be made to do so; to a federal judge, the word “must” does not signify a mandatory action. “I must” means “I may, if I feel like it; if I don’t, I won’t.” OUR GOAL: make words directing judicial procedure meaningful.

To defend their fraudulent proceedings, federal judges gave themselves the right to act “maliciously and corruptly.” But the whole purpose of public scrutiny of the government officials is to prevent government appointees from becoming malicious and corrupt. If one branch of the government – the federal judiciary – is made an exception to that rule, then the whole government becomes corrupt and malicious, to the detriment of the public. Besides, federal judges being the benchmark of responsible and respectable citizenry, such a “right“ allowed to federal judges means that everyone has the right to act corruptly and maliciously – acting maliciously and corruptly becomes a moral standard of conduct. OUR GOAL: strip federal judges of this bizarre self-assigned “right.”

To further protect their ability to commit judicial fraud, federal judges claim “sovereign immunity” from legal prosecution as members of the government. But in a republic sovereignty belongs not to an individual (as it does in monarchy, the government being just the extension of the king), but to the people. US government does not have sovereignty, and hence its employees cannot possibly have sovereign immunity. OUR GOAL: Make federal judges liable for fraud committed while adjudicating cases.

To entrench their ability to commit fraud, federal courts insist on considering only the “appearance” of judicial impropriety (rather than judicial impropriety itself) as the precondition for removing a judge. Judge’s improper decision, fraudulently obtained through replacement of parties’ argument will be vacated only if there is an accompanying “appearance” of impropriety, i.e. if judge was found to have been drunk, or to have used drugs, or to have hired a prostitute. Without such “appearance of impropriety,” the actual impropriety of substitution of parties’ argument with the bogus one of judge’s own invention will be ignored, and the improper decision will be left standing. OUR GOAL: remove the judge, and vacate the decision based not on “appearance” of impropriety, but on the fact of actual impropriety of a fraudulently-made decision.

Federal judges think that their job is to “interpret the law.” They are wrong – this is the business of lawyers. Judges’ job is to evaluate parties’ argument, and award victory to the stronger one. OUR GOAL: make judges evaluate performance of the lawyers, not replace it.

Federal judges are deliberately chosen for being biased: be it “conservatives” who are in power at the moment, or “progressives,” they vet candidates, and approve only those judges who share biases with the party in power. OUR GOAL: professionalize judging, so judges perforce follow the strictly-defined procedure of adding to, and subtracting from the balance sheet of the parties’ argument to arrive at a mathematically-precise decision. Just as law schools graduate lawyers whose job it is to engage in advocacy on behalf of parties, there should be schools of judging, graduating workers whose job it is to evaluate lawyers’ respective argument on the basis of its relevance, veracity, and relative strength, and award victory accordingly. Only such professionals can be hired as judges, not the currently-serving political appointees.

Three-tier federal review system is a myth: the Supreme Court has no capacity to hear cases submitted to it; it can only take 200 cases per year out of the submitted 10,000. Thus, only 2% of the Supreme Court exist, 98% doesn’t. OUR GOAL: make the 3-tier system a reality by removing the arbitrary, political element from the judicial procedure, thus making collective judging unnecessary, and by hiring as many Supreme Court judges as needed to adjudicate cases professionally.

As every legal professional knows, justice is neither the goal of judging, nor its outcome; legitimating judges’ and their backers’ political agenda is. OUR GOAL: make justice the purpose of judging.

The word “Justice” in the “Department of Justice” can only be understood in the Orwellian sense. OUR GOAL: make outcome of the case dependent on a clearly defined, and strictly followed procedure, rather than on judge’s whim and bias. It should make not one bit of a difference to the outcome of the case whether it had been adjudicated by a judge who is Democrat, a Republican, or a well-programmed Intel chip.

Judging is defined by images of Lady Justice, assuring the public that the judge impartially weighs plaintiff’s argument against defendant’s, giving victory to the stronger one. Today, Lady Justice gives us a lie. OUR GOAL: make the actual judicial procedure follow the Lady Justice model.

In brief, OUR GOAL is to give meaning to the notion of the due process of the law, thus stopping judicial fraud.