09-11-29 Real Way to bring justice to judges - Alex Kozinski as best example.

Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:13:23 -0800
To: CTBC Director
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Real Way to bring justice to judges - Alex Kozinski as best example.
Cc: [redacted]
Bcc: [redacted]
RE: Real Way to bring justice to judges - Alex Kozinski as best example.


Dear All:
I fully agreed with the messages below. "The Light of Publicity" and "Voting Them Out" could obviously be parts of the same in many instances. As far as "picking ONE really good example of BAD judicial behavior" - my favorite was Alex Kozinski. As noted in the example from Colorado, it simply did not make sense to deal with small fish. You had to start from the top.
Alex Kozinski provided an example that was second to none, and as close to perfection in "BAD judicial behavior" as you could get:

• The offending conduct was simple, easy to explain to any person.
• It did not involve any complicated concepts such as Judicial Activism, Disqualification, Conflicts of Interest, Bias, etc.
• It could be summed up in a sound-bite of 10-15 seconds in lay parlance: "Alex Kozinski was Chief Judge of a Court that was second only to the U.S. Supreme Court in authority. Alex Kozinski issued a fake order that looked like a true court order. Alex Kozinski did so to keep in jail a 70 yo guy who was fighting against corrupt judges in Los Angeles. The guy was kept in jail with no papers at all - not even a warrant - by now for 7 months."
• It could be even more simply explained in lay parlance, covering only the implied guarantee of honest services as follows: Let's say you owed a guy $10,000, but you knew he was in jail, and could not do anything about it. So you just sent him a check for $10,000 - unsigned.
• The visuals are second to none - Twin Towers Jail, etc, we even have videos of various aspects of the case.
• It involved the deprivation of Liberty itself.
• The true subject matter was cover-up of Judicial Corruption - it kept the whole matter in focus, by bringing you back to the subject itself.
• The criminality alleged in the conduct of Alex Kozinski in this case was likely not to be covered by any immunity whatsoever, It was part of extrajudicial conduct that was fraudulently represented as judicial conduct.
• The evidence consisted of total of one (1) document and two (2) pages (below).
• The offending fraudulent text was merely 167 words (MS Word 2000) (see below)
• Almost nothing else was required for evidence (The docket would also be required - a fraud court record in and of itself).
• Whatever Richard Fine wrote or did not write in his petition did not even matter here.
• The case in full could be argued in one page, or one paragraph.

I do not think that any PR person or media consultant could ask for any better case than this.

Joseph Zernik
CC:

Richard Posner
Richard Posner, Professor
University of Chicago Law School
Law Faculty of various schools
By email and by fax, as a kindly request that Prof Posner initiate corrective actions pursuant to the Code of Conduct of U.S. Judges.
______________

Alex Kozinski
ALEX KOZINSKI
Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Alleged criminal conduct from the bench, fraud that was not covered by any immunity whatsoever.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued on June 30, 2009 an unsigned, unauthenticated, false and deliberately misleading, purported Order (Dkt #4) in Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) ("Order" -Exh #1). Such alleged fraud in the issuance and misrepresentation of False Court Records was compounded by alleged Mail Fraud. The alleged fraudulent Order was purported to be served through alleged Mail Fraud on Richard Fine in jail, and on Joseph Zernik at his home address.
The alleged fraud in the subject matter of the Order involved the purported denial of the Emergency Petition of Richard Fine to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Emergency Petition originated from a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), at the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.
In such conduct, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, affected the alleged Denial of Access to the Courts, Denial of Fair and Impartial Hearing, violation of Implied Guarantee of Honest Services, continued False Imprisonment, by now - for over 7 months, with no warrant, no judgment, no sentencing, of anti-judicial corruption activist Atty Richard Fine.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski allegedly denied Richard Fine Liberty itself.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski set an example permitting conduct that was common practice in courts throughout the U.S. today - issuing invalid, ineffectual, unauthenticated, and at times also unsigned, orders and judgments that were contrary to the law in their subject matter, but were deemed inconsequential by the issuers, since they such orders unauthenticated, and/or unsigned. It was alleged that such perversion of justice was the most common, serious abuse of Human Rights in the U.S. today. It was routinely practiced on habeas corpus petitioners, who were unlikely to be able to tell whether court papers were or were not authenticated, valid, and effectual.
Such conduct must not be tolerated. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski must initiate corrective actions in compliance with the Code of Conduct of U.S. Judges - by immediately resigning from his position as U.S. Judge.
______________

Richard Fine
______________
Imaged Records - Exh #1

_
______________
Text

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD I. FINE,
Petitioner,
v.
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
Respondent.
No. 09-71692
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW
Central District of California, Los Angeles

ORDER

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The court is in receipt of petitioners original petition for a writ of habeas
corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. An application for a writ of habeas
corpus must be made to the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(a); see also 28
U.S.C. 2241(b). Petitioner has an application for a writ of habeas corpus pending
in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, case No.
09-1914.
To the extent petitioner requests that this court order the district court to act
on or grant his petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioners filing is construed as
a petition for writ of mandamus. We note that on June 12, 2009, the district court
issued its findings and recommendations in petitioners case. Accordingly, petitioner
has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means
of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court,
557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). The petition is denied.
______________
167 words were counted from "The court" to "denied".
_____________________________
At 17:18 28/11/2009, CTBC Director wrote:

The REAL real way to bring justice to judges: Get them OFF THE BENCH!

The means will vary - some instances will require complaints to be brought, others may require the light of publicity.

One remedy available in many states is quite simple: VOTE THEM OUT!

Whether in contested elections or "retention" votes, it is a simple, constitutional remedy that does not require a great deal of institutional change, convoluted legal procedure, or even (in many cases) huge expenditure of effort.

Case in point: the coming elections in Colorado (November 2010) presents an opportunity to remove FOUR extremely activist, partisan, anti-constitutional Colorado Supreme Court justices from office.

This opportunity is clearly important not just for Colorado, but has the potential to send a very strong message on a truly national scale that judges CAN be held accountable to the law - to the Constitution, and their oath to support the same.

This represents a tremendous opportunity to educate the populace at large as to the importance of holding judges accountable (in particular) and the importance of the judicial branch and need to uphold the rule of law (in general).

Clear The Bench Colorado (http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org) is the organization I founded to research, analyze, communicate, and popularize the issue and remove FOUR "unjust justices" from office.

I would welcome and appreciate the support of anyone on this list (and beyond) interested in actually having a concrete, measurable impact in effecting judicial accountability and reform. Yes, it's one state - and not a terribly prominent or populated one at that - but the opportunity to remove a majority on a state Supreme Court on the basis of failure to adhere to the standards and adherence to the Constitution we should have a right to expect of judges IS very important.

Thanks -

Matt Arnold
Director, Clear The Bench Colorado

Website: http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Clear-the-Bench-Colorado/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ClearTheBenchCO
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Brad Henschel <crusaderjd@yahoo.com> wrote:

You've heard the old saying there is strength in number. The obvious way to get the attention of the Judicial Performance Commission is for ALL OF YOU to pick ONE really good example of BAD judicial behavior, then ALL of you make a complaint and get others to make a complaint as well. THEN if the matter is denied to seek judicial review to the Calif Supreme Court. - Brad

HENSCHEL NOTICE OF PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY:

This message is private and confidential. It contains confidential and privileged information which is both privileged & confidential under state and federal law and/or exempt from disclosure under law, including but not limited to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521. NO reader may disclose, distribute or copy this email. If you get this e-mail in error, notify me immediately by electronic-mail reply and delete this original message. No recording, printing or sharing of this email, which has been sent over telephone lines, is allowed, and recording it is illegal. Cal. Penal Code 632.

From:

To:

Cc:

Sent: Sat, November 28, 2009 2:16:37 PM

Subject: RE: How to bring justice to judges

While I really do appreciate your exhaustive analysis of whether judges should be liable and how to enforce liability, if you should, Bob, and I'll keep it for future reference, the issue is not all that complicated. Judges should be held liable for breach of duty causing injury, the same as any of us. If the state wants to immunize judges, then it must stand in the judges liability shoes, just as any employer must do ... the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Judges won't be liable for wrong decisions, only wrong decisions negligently or wantonly arrived at, or in conspiracy cases with the prosecutor, for wrongs done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

But I do appreciate your exhausting statement of possible remedies.

Wolf

---

From:

To:

CC:

Subject: How to bring justice to judges

Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:51:01 -0500

How to Bring Justice to Judges

Suing Judges

I just read Suing Judges, A Study of Judicial Immunity, by Abimbola Olowofoyeku. Yeah, I broke my mouth trying to say the authors name.

The book gives a few hints but pathetically little hope to people seeking evidence of true judicial integrity throughout America. The author spends most of the pages describing the immunity of the judges and quasi-judicial actors like clerks (Not my fault. I just obeying orders.). But it differentiates between judicial and administrative functions. It alleges that a judge must have immunity for defaming people in court because we give him that authority as one who judges and expresses that judgment. Maybe we shouldnt split hairs. If a judge can sentence a perp to death, why shouldnt the judge simply pull out a gun and kill the perp, or smack him on the nose for good measure? Lots of perps deserve both death and a smack on the nose, right?

We Must Identify ideals

No. We must settle this issue: Can and should a judge get away with abusive behavior that falls outside the scope of a purely judicial act? Should we forgive a judge for calling a defense counsel a slut in court, or for any other torts, except punishment meted out to the defendant? Must or should the law must punish malicious acts committed outside self-defense, regardless of who does them?

We must ask ourselves how justice regarding judges evolves. I believe it evolves with the general ethics of the society. We tend to permit behavior of judges that we generally find acceptable because they are only human. But if we look around at the impact of political correctness, we see people expressing disdain for use of the N word, gender-specific pronouns in gender neutral sentences, and almost anything people might find embarrassing or demeaning. On the other end of the spectrum, we witness all manner of defiantly ignominious expressions, and we tolerate most of them as protected under the First Amendment. Which of those standards should we apply to judges?

Maybe its too late for that question. Attorneys have tolerated and condoned bad judicial behavior as a matter of group policy. The bar refuses to act to discipline judges (such as by canceling bar membership). And now judges even get away with murder.

The Meaning of Immunity

Immunity is a right of the public to have their judges speak and act honestly, no matter how ignominious it might seem to any given observer. Political correctness has no place in court. In a sense, judges are the mommies and daddies of society, and until we flat outlaw all forms spanking, cursing, malnourshing, neglecting, and abusing of children by parents, we will get similar behavior from judges. AS a matter of public right and public policy and practical operation and practice. Those of us who dont like this can move to Louisiana or South Africa where judges enjoy less liberal immunity for malicious acts. Everywhere else in the USA judges may publish defamatory remarks in the context of the case, with absolute immunity.

How to Go After a Judge

In any case, some remedies do exist against judicial excess and abuse (we should never think punishment of the judge constitutes redress, for it doesnt):

1. Seek appellate review habeas corpus, certioari, prohibition, mandamus.

2. Lodge with a U.S. military or other officer (18 USC 4) a criminal complaint against the judge and all who obstruct prosecution of the judge for the associated crime consider criminal RICO, Wire or Mail Fraud (including Honest Services Fraud)

3. Public outcry inform the news media of the facts and get all friends and family and associates to do the same, demanding an investigation

4. File an Ethics complaint, if relevant, with the Judicial Qualifications Commission or equivalent

5. File a complaint against the judge with the bar

6. Dig up the judges bond or insurance policy and file a claim against it for damages, sending copies to the news media, House Judiciary Committee, bar, JQC, and Chief Judge

7. File a complaint with the State/Federal House Committee on the Judiciary and demand impeachment.

8. Send a copy of every complaint to the news media, military officer (preferably JAG), JQC, House Judiciary Committee, chief Judge, bar, bars insurer, judges bonding/insurance company, CFOs risk management department, your state and US senators and representatives, area lawmakers, and a huge BCC list of attorneys, law makers, the targets friends and family, mailing list owners, etc. (always show the number of BCC recipients). You could put others on the CC list. That tends to subject them to real spam, but it also encourages them to comm with one another.

9. Attack the judges credentials campaign contribution violations, financial entanglements with enterprises that create a conflict of interest, missing loyalty oath, dummied bar exam, law college not accredited, improper or missing loyalty oath (see CUSA Article IV Section 4, 4 USC 101 & 102, 5 USC 3331, state oath laws), improper or missing voter registration and electors oath, improper or missing bar oath, improper or missing public officers oath of office. Look for forged signatures on the oath document (I saw Jeb Bushs 1998 oath of office he signed in the proper place and in the jurat so he did not lawfully hold his first term of office, and in the second term, his Secretary of State Harris had removed the jurat from the election forms, so he did not lawfully hold office in the second term either).

10. If you dig up irregularities that make the judge an imposter, file a Qui Tam lawsuit, for the judge made fale claims to the CFO for an unwarranted paycheck. State law might give you up to 15% as a reward for recovery of the money.

11. In the event of those irregularities, file a Quo Warranto lawsuit and makethe judge prove the irregularities dont exist. Appeal any ruling in the judges favor.

12. Encourage courtwatchers to attend the judges proceedings and file into the casess and with the JQC, news media, bar, and House Judiciary Committee, affidavits of probable cause showing the judge abused the constitutional rights of litigants, witnesses, or observers (crooked judges seem to favor jury tampering).

13. Hire a private investigator to dig into his family, finances, and personal habits if hes dirty on the bench, hes dirty elsewhere, and you can and should expose him, regardless of the problems he suffers as a consequence. Tough titty. Cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Be sure to look into finances very hard. Crooked judges win bets (the kind they didnt really win) at the poker table, golf links, etc. In California, many judges have recently received mortgage loans which mysteriously got fully paid off a few months later. Journalist Janet Phelan (in hiding in Switzerland) has reported on a number of them in the San Bernardino paper. And lets not even get into the incredible retirement benefits judges obtain. However, do look for investments into seriously conflicting enterprises that own or benefit from owning jails, prisons, and related properties or industries, or companies selling products manufactured with prison labor. Look hard for evidence of pornograpy, child abuse, and sexual indiscretions, and get them splattered on page 1 of the newspaper. Take all of the judges family and friends to task for their peccadilloes, misdemeanors, crimes, and indiscretions. Expose their wrongs to public scrutiny and let them know the judge stands at the root of their problems. Then they too will hammer the judge into line. Use every possible lawful pressure to convince the judge to behave, then put his figurative head on a figurative pike for other judges to observe and ponder lest they end up in a similar fix. In this very guerilla war, the wicked shall have no rest.

14. Send the judge notice and demand estoppel letters and assign a value to your work (time, expenses) for administering it. This does tend to perfect evidence of exhausting administrative remedy and building up a obligation to you for your expenditure of time and resources protecting your rights from the judges abuse.

15. Hire a ghost writer and PR firm to send out announcements and releases challenging everything about the judge and making him look bad without actually libeling him. Start numerous anonymous blogs to expose the perp. Hire a marketing company to distribute the links via email (lawfully) to everybody possible. Get Web Position Pro (software) and use it to enhance the ranking of your web site/blog in the search engines. Read the stuff at http://thegaryhalbertletter.com and become an expert at direct marketing so that you can make your messages and web pages effective. Example, create your expose on paper. On the letter, put a call to action (join the protest group, write to the judge and House judiciary committee and local editors of news media, etc), and a web site to get more info. Stick two shiny new pennies to the top. Boldly headline it with Shameless bribe to read this letter. Stuff it in an odd-sized colored envelope. Get it hand-addressed in a womans lovely handwriting, drop a dot of perfume on it. Take a pile of them to Tijuana, and mail them to the USA recipient with a huge obviously Mexican lick-and-stick stamp on it. Beyond all doubt, every recipient will tear into the letter and read it. Many will take action if you do the letter properly.

16. Campaign against the judge at the next election, and get all the attorneys you know to do the same.

17. Support the bad judges opponent at the next election.

18. Run for office to replace the judge with yourself.

19. Last resort file a tort lawsuit against the judge and seek remedy that will not interfere with judges judicial functions. See Slavin v. Curry, 574 F.2d. 1256 (5th Cir., 1978) Ask for equitable relief through a declaratory judgment under 42 USC 1983, 1988 that the judge and fellow conspirators violated your constitutional rights. See Jacobson v. Schaefer, 441 F.2d. 768 (7th Cir., 1971). Also, respecting jail for non-jailable offenses, see US Supreme Courts 5-to-4 Blackmun ruling awarding injunction and attorney fees in Pulliam v. Allen, 80 L. ed. 2d. 565 (1984). Blackmun analyzed the Kings Bench use of the Great Writs (habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus) to control inferior courts. American common law does support collateral relief from judicial abuse, even if you cannot collect a damages award.

20. Ultimate resort file a tort lawsuit against the government for injuries caused by improper control of its rogue judges. The state has vicarious liability (rejected in the 1980 Owen v City of Independence ruling, but see the Federal Tort Claims Act 1988 amendment in 28 USC 2674) because of the judges status as a servant of the state, and therefore of the people from whom all state sovereignty flows. In the alternative, the state has primary liability for wrongful exercise of sovereign powers by its jjudiciary, of which the judge operates as a component, and which is an element of government, the representative of the state (you might want to block-diagram this). Remember that under 28 USC 2680(a) you might file a claim for failure of the judge to perform some non-discretionary function (see Cromelin v. U.S.). You might see a non-discretionary function as administrative, not judicial. 42 USC 1983 subjects EVERY PERSON acting under color of state law to liability for depriving any person in the US of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. Of course this does not abolish common law immunities (meaning judges can rule so as to protect themselves).

21. Whimzy file a RICO lawsuit against all the bar members of the state, and actually target the 10 or 20 most egregious (jurists and attorneys, state and federal) central to the cause of complaint. After all, they ARE racketeers. The Florida Supremes integrated (absorbed) the state bar association into the Supreme Court in 1949. This violated Article II Section 3 of the State Constitution (separation of powers bar members infest/infect every branch of government, some constitutionally, but most not), and CUSA Article VI clause 3 (guarantee of a republican form of Government). Florida (and I imagine California) operates under a Judicial Oligarchy which prevents the People from knowing all of the relevant common law (by sealing or not publishing salient cases, under the Supremes Rules of Judicial Administration rule 2.420, for such spurious and fallacious reasons as public policy and government interest) . This warrants a lawsuit for judicial correction, if not outright violent rebellion against the judiciarys rulers.

Relying upon the Constitutions

Bottom line, the Constitution must mean what it says. You do have constitutional rights which the state, government, judiciary, and judge MUST respect and protect. In point of fact a real conflict exists between the Bill of Rights (and State equivalents) and the concept of judicial immunity, and rights advocates simply must use every possible tool to hammer the judiciary into compliance with the Constitution, regardless of the cost. Judges wrote the common law, and it constitutes a conflict of interest for them to use that to establish immunity doctrines that protect them from all damage claims for their violations of rights, procedures, rules, laws, and other guarantees of due process, access to the courts, and timely justice.

Common law immunities have no constitutional foundation. In fact, the Declaration of Independence specifically railed against immunities enjoyed by the King and his agents and military in the Colonies. Circumventing those immunities constituted a major reason for the War of Independence from English Rule.

All men have the right to redress of grievance in the courts, to due process of law, and to constitutional protection of privileges and immunities. And the contravening judicial immunity doctrine is fundamentally and unconstitutionally arbitrary and capricious, in spite of Chief Justice Finesilvers opinion in Chrietensen v. Ward, BECAUSE the Constitution does not authorize it as a technique for undermining the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. It falls in the same class as whimsical imprisonments for contempt of court without a trial by jury, also unconstitutional. If an act by any person would violate constitutional rights, then the same act by a judge also unconstitutionally violates those rights.

Nothing Constitutional about Immunity

In Mason v. Melendez, 525 F. Supp. 270 at 275 (USDC Wisconsin, 1981), Judge Doyle opined Immunity from damages, whether absolute or qualified, represents a sharp departure from the principle that persons are responsible for the harm they inflict upon one another, and that the victims may seek compensation from the perpetrators.

Even when some means exists to discipline a rogue judge, that does not provide a real remedy unless some power forces the judge or chain of command to compensate the victims of that rogue behavior, including monetary damages for the infringements of constitutional or common law rights. If the judge does not have to pay, then the State must pay, or justice remains undone, and God will have to exact penalty in the hereafter (or the Mob in this lifetime). Take heed lest God exacts penalty from us for doing NOTHING EFFECTIVE to put the judiciary back in its box.
Good for one, Good for all

In principle, the law provides a mechanism for the group (nation of states and people) to punish a perp criminally (jail, fine) who hurts someone, and to compensate (monetary damages) a victim directly from the labor of the perp. If for some reason the group has fallen asleep on that obligatory mechanism and allowed some custom (common law) to emasculate it (such as with judicial immunity), then a smaller group (vigilante, mob) has incumbent responsibility to provide remedy. This happened by, with, and through the Declaration of Independence, all but two of the signatories of which suffered dire consequences for signing it. It can, and perhaps should, happen through the Mafia, community action groups, lynch mobs today, or violent general rebellion. Jucial independence cannot and should not be bought at the price of tolerating judicial abuse in the name of immunity or amnesty for rogue behavior. Otherwise all judges will become rogues, and, taking their cue, all attorneys will become rogues along with them. Birds of a feather DO, after all, flock together.
Gratifying Our Quest for Balance

In the final analysis, we must seek balance in th judicial integrity equation.

First and foremost we need to know what each judge does. A civilian courtwatcher group becomes indispensible to this effort. Courtrooms need to provide critique forms to observers, and they should rate the judge, attorney, and bailiff performance, but most credence should go to professional courtwather analyses and reports, and all reports should go into a free, publicly accessible database which people can access at election time.

1. Judges must have immunity from liability for honest mistakes, but EVERY mistake should incur a penalty of enhanced training and correction, at the judges personal expense, so the judge wont make it again. Every error needs to go on the judges public score card.

2. Judges must receive punishment for malicious errors and incompetence (repeating an error, or making a case go to appeal out of malice, fear, sloth, or political expedience), and they must compensate the people they injure from their own pockets, and get thrown off the bench.

3. We must insist upon laws that punish violations of loyalty oaths.

4. All judges must have bonds in the amount of $1,000,000 minimum, and they must pay the bonding fee out of their salaries, not out of public money.

5. A special grand jury (SGJ) drawn from the pool of jurors with bachelor degrees and no bar membership should receive all complaints against judges for malicious abuse or rights violations, and rule as to the guilt or innocence of the judge. They should approve or deny damage awards from the judges bond/insurance policy, and have the power to order a non-reviewable revocation of the bond or elevation of the bonding fee. No government attorney would have the right to attend or advise in this process, but the SGJ could hire consulting attorneys, ex-attorneys, law professors, judges, ex-judges, and other experts for help sorting through issues.

6. We need to undo hundreds of years of this is how weve done it for centuries tradition by eliminating the bulk of common law through codifying it in statute. This of course will eliminate the vast majority of judicial rulings as precedents. The legislature would review all panel court rulings, and add it to the list of rulings in support of the meaning of the statutory law, or enact an amendment or replacement to the respective law and cite the ruling (if any) that led to it. The law could require the legislature not to get more than a year behind on any case. At first this would create a huge expense. But in time it would settle down so some minimum. All statutory law and supporting case law would go in a nationwide government-operated free, on-line database that would also include the statutory and common law of England that provides the basis for American law. This would break the monopoly on law databases maintained by the ALI, Westlaw, and Lexus Nexis and reduce the legal services monopoly enjoyed by lawyers. It would finally make the law easily knowable by the people. And it would break the hegemony enjoyed by the judiciary over Americans. Judges should not have the power to make law at their whim.

7. We must replace all public policy and government interests with statutory law. They amount to nothing more than whim, CYA, and political expediency. They have no rightful place in jurisprudence.
Summary Judges Cannot and Will Not Control Judges

Until our world and its people become much more spiritually oriented, self-interest (money, job, fame, ego) will always provide the highest motivation for the decisions judges make. Next to that comes family well-being. Then comes the legal profession (cronyism). Then government obligation. Then, maybe, finally, the litigants rights. If we expect something better from that in the next 500 years, we expect way too much.

Axiom: the FOX shall not guard the HENHOUSE.

We chickens violate that axiom at our peril.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Hurt

2460 Persian Drive #70

Clearwater, FL 33763

+1 (727) 669-5511

Donate to my Law Scholarship fund

Learn civil litigation with Jurisdictionary

Subscribe to Lawmen Newsletter FREE

Download Files FREE from the Lawmen Archive

Improve your financial fortunes with GetZooks!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 12:20 AM

To:

Subject: RE: Ken, (1)what are you talking about? & (2) MOVING CONSTRUCTIVELY FORWARD -- RE: What are you talking about, Sean? RE: You are right, Sean -- RE: Can someone enlighten me -- RE: No thanks to Elena Sassower's constant DEMAND everyone listen to her.

I had spoken with Elena on the phone some time ago regarding her "Critique" of the Breyer Report and related materials. My private criticism, which Elena insisted that I render, was that her critique and memoranda contained too much scathing invective to be taken seriously as a scholarly work. As I have conveyed to certain other persons I hold in high regard, it has been my experience that writing a brief (or a manifesto) to the judiciary saying --in effect-- "Y'all are a bunch of corrupt thugs. Now grant me the relief applied for herein" is arrantly ineffective. (Yes, I know the difference between arrant and errant, and I intended the word as written).

In my phone conversation with Elena, I then mentioned a few professors who have published works in this area, who are taken seriously. Elena was annoyed by my comments, pointing out that one or more of the purported judicial misconduct experts (e.g., Prakash & Smith, Martin Redish, Charles Geyh, Stephen Lubet, Arthur Hellman, to name a few) declined to reply to her numerous letters and inquiries and, therefore, she presumptively contended that I/we should discount their scholarship and question their motives. Although I am aware that some of these fellows may have certain interests to protect, I try very hard not to view our world in black and white.

Now, Elena is doubly angry concerning my "fair question" from a few days ago, and has made an issue out of the perceived attack on her scholarship.

If anyone else here has spent more time than I did skimming Elena's "critique" and disagrees with me and found that it had persuasive qualities to send to the U.S. Judicial Conference and House & Senate Judiciary Committees, then please speak up and disabuse me of my foolish notions.

Sean