And the Score is: California v Illinois - 2:0!

Seeking references of indictments, prosecutions, or convictions of judges on racketeering anywhere outside California...

Some of the best legal advice I got in recent years was from Sarah, the black old lady who vacuums at Kinko near the court downtown.  After a couple of times she saw me copying papers there, and after we compared notes about our kids, and about education in general, she told me: 

"Sir, you have no business spending your time in California Courts.  There are two cities that are the most corrupt in the U.S. - Chicago and Los Angeles. I lived in both, and let me tell you  the difference:  In Chicago we had style... in Los Angeles the corruption is crude!"

However, at present I claim Los Angeles in particular, and California in general, leave Chicago in the dust...  To wit - in the recent letter to the Ambassador of Norway I quote two cases of indictment and convictions of California judges on racketeering [1] in the past 15 years... Give me any case from Chicago, Illinois, or anywhere else in the U.S. to match that...

Any information would be greatly appreciated, since the claim in action in Washington DC court is of failure of FBI and USDOJ to accord Equal Protection in California. Therefore, the data is of significance...  Also pursuant to International Law - Universal Declaration of Human Rights [2], allowing the ongoing alleged racketeering of judges in LA is not permitted.

[1]  Allegations of racketeering by judges may appear scandalous.  Not so! California judges were previously prosecuted and convicted of racketeering:

a. Criminal RICO prosecution against U.S. Judge in California - USA v Robert P Aguilar:

Attempts to download the U.S. District Court records of this case from Pacer, the U.S. Courts case management system, repeatedly resulted in an error message: 

• "The webpage at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?59286 might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address."

This type of error message had never been encountered in any other case. The records in this case were not marked as sealed, they were simply excluded from the Pacer docket.  This writer is not aware of any Rule of Court or any law or regulation that allows selective inclusion or exclusion from Pacer dockets by the courts, at will.  In and of itself this practice may constitute violation of First Amendment and Common Law rights to inspect and to copy court records per Nixon v Warner Communications (1978).

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-ct-supreme-usa-v-aguilar-515-us-593-1995.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-01-90-02-06-san-jose-federal-judge-aguilar-on-trial-in-a-racketeering-case-nyt.pdf

b. Criminal RICO prosecution against California State Judges - USA v Frega et al:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-docket.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-racketeering%20indictment.pdf f

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-verdict-adams.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-verdict-frega.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-verdict-malkus.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-01-96-10-18-san-diego-racketeering-judges-california-bar-journal.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/03-05-06-san-diego-judges-racketeering-met-news.pdf

c. Civil RICO complaints against LAPD - Hunter v Gates et al:

Attempts to download the U.S. District Court records of this case from Pacer, the U.S. Courts case management system, revealed the following - Neither original complaint, nor first, second, nor third amended complaint are accessible online.  The records were not marked as sealed, they were simply not included in the Pacer docket.  This writer is not aware of any law, Rule of Court, or regulations, which allow the courts selective inclusion or exclusion from Pacer dockets,  at will.  In and of itself this practice may constitute violation of First Amendment and Common Law rights to inspect and to copy court records per Nixon v Warner Communications (1978).  Of note - the judge presiding in this case, the Honorable Gary Feess is the Overseer for Civil Rights in LA, per the Consent Decree!

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-hunter-v-gates-et-al-docket.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-huner-v-gates-et-al-02-02-14-order-to-dismiss-with-prejudice.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-04-20-racketeer-suits-in-rampart-ok-ed-lat.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/01-07-13-use-of-rico-law-in-rampart-cases-weakened%20-%20Los%20Angeles%20Times.pdf

[2]  Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 2: 

No distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs.

Article 7 

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

Article 8 

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 10 

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.