An epidemic of government corruption in America has led to economic decline, and social unrest. Evidence increasingly points to a major source as the Judicial Branch – the most powerful part of the government, expected to have the most integrity. It is no longer just conjecture, as citizen complaints of racketeering and misconduct by members of the Judiciary, are rampant across social media. A study published by Yale University Law School supports this reality, that judicial corruption is a major U.S. problem.
Over the course of decades, the American Judiciary has been replaced by a ruthless legal industry, structured strikingly similar to a tightly networked criminal enterprise. The most incomprehensible element is the judges managed to get control of their own disciplinary process, making the participants in this widespread corruption, virtually untouchable. In retrospect, allowing the privilege of judicial immunity, with the independent “confidential” self-disciplinary process – was a train wreck waiting to happen.
The Judiciary members claimed these provisions are necessary to maintain their independence from outside influences, while simultaneously espousing that campaign contributions do not interfere with their “independence,” even though most of the money comes from attorneys that appear before them, creating an obligation for some form of repayment. The appointed federal judges are not above the moral bankruptcy, as their lifetime tenures are gifted after years of being teamplayers in this decayed system. Add the pretzel logic of allowing self-recusal for conflicts of interest, with unregulated hourly attorney fees and you have the perfect crime syndicate. Abused litigants will have identical descriptions of how judges cooperate with lawyers to drain personal savings, by facilitating masses of unnecessary filings, that go on for years- and often decades, to maximize legal fees. The outcome of the cases rarely have anything to do with the law- but more to do with the amount of dollars that will ultimately be dispersed to members of the legal profession.
Capitalism Does Not Mix with Justice
As what some refer to as the black-robed mafia, there have been reports of judicial ties to businesses such as private prisons, and the inmate food and email services. As covered in the nationally debuted documentary DivorceCorp, they turned the family court system into a $50 billion dollar a year industry nationwide, which has its own cottage industries of guardian ad litems, counselors and mediators, run through the law firms. Lawyers incite child custody battles to extort money from parents, which often results in their homes being forced into foreclosure as revenue for county courts. Class action lawsuits are a mere self-serving device which funnel millions of dollars to law firms, while the damaged parties receive miniscule percentages of the awarded compensation.
While the FBI is currently the only recourse, they impotently try to tackle the massive systemic fraud – one judge, one lawyer, one legislator at a time – as people struggle to survive being trapped in the court system, their lives and assets being wasted away. The Department of Justice reported that the court system in Ferguson, Missouri, was focused on revenue production rather than justice, in their investigation of its courts after the angry protests in that city. A task force was initiated in Connecticut, consisting of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, resulting from massive complaints of family court extortion and abuse. In Orange County, California- a judge disqualified 250 prosecutors– citing a total infestation of corruption in their criminal justice system.
But perhaps no State has had more indictments of its judiciary members than Pennsylvania. America only has to keep their eyes on Attorney General Kathleen Kane, to see just how difficult it is to remove the corruption from the system. She has become a target of this ”good old boys network” and veritable crime syndicate, after she exposed them via release of thousands of pornographic and racist emails, and as seen in this interview aired nationally on CNN:
Over the last decade, Pennsylvania has had three Supreme Court Justices removed or forced to resign. One was sentenced to prison for campaign fraud, and two others have resigned for their involvement in what the media has coined “Porngate,” Two County judges are in prison for the well-known Kids for Cash scandal, after seven years of kickbacks for sending thousands of children to a private prison, and the entire Philadelphia traffic court bench was fired. Another Pennsylvania County Judge resigned when he was caught texting with a District Attorney during litigation.
When citizens feel they are victims of judicial misconduct, the only remedy in most states is a judicial conduct or review board. However, the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board had also apparently been compromised, as thousands of legitimate citizen complaints were ignored for decades. Just recently the Chief Counsel of the Board was found to have concealed his part in the election campaign of the Supreme Court Justice implicated in the Porngate scandal, and taking part in the dismissal of that complaint. There is a complete lack of oversight to the entire system.
The Decline In To Pay to Play
The mafiaesque courts focus solely on the distribution of money, and not the delivery of Justice. Court filing fees have become excessive. As an example, it costs over $400 to file a claim, and $500 for an appeal in Pennsylvania federal court. There seems to be no basis for this when the employees are already paid through your taxes. Just to view a docket online there are unexplainable fees. Recently a lawsuit was filed against PACER, the company that runs it.
The deterioration of the courts appears to have started in the late 1960’s. The lawyers unionized through the American Bar Association, forming local branches in every state and county, and proceeded to obstruct access to appeals and jury trials. Substitution of the word “shall” with the word “may” in every court rule, gave judges unbridled discretion. This allows them to make arbitrary decisions with no basis in the law- to rig the outcome of every case. The edited procedural court “rules,” are nothing more than a “Catch 22”- so people become trapped in litigation, that only ends when they are depleted of all of their funds.
Contributing to this denigration of the Judiciary, was the exemption of lawyers, from the Constitutional provision the precluded them from serving in public office, contrary to the principles of the United States Constitution. (See A Case in Point Below for an example)
Much of this was accomplished outside of legislature by redesigning the procedural rules. Changes to increase “judicial discretion” has practically eliminated jury trials, putting the public at the mercy of one judge. Unless you can afford the “graft” i.e. a campaign contribution or pay an expensive law firm, you will receive no justice.
The government will never announce a systemic problem, because that would open up the flood gates for demands for retrials and restitution that go back decades. The lesson here is that the existence of a justice system based on profit has destroyed the integrity of the U.S. government. Only by the efforts of private citizens is there any shred of hope that order will be restored to America.
Clearly, the Judicial Branch cannot police itself. The checks and balances between the three branches of government needs to be restored. Lawyers cannot serve in the Legislature, as they have a conflict of interest. The local county bar associations must be demolished- they serve no purpose other than for devising conspiracies and collusion. Next time you see a judge, think of the photo above – this is really what many of them are at the present time. It is up to the citizens to take action, or it will remain this way for future generations.
A Case in Point: The Systematic Manipulation of Pennsylvania Courts
The reason why the U.S. Constitution in effect, prohibited anyone from holding two public offices, was specifically to prevent relationships between branches of the tripartite government. As Officers of the Court, lawyers were not eligible to serve in Congress. It is in two places in the Constitution – :
Article VI § 2. Incompatible offices. No member of Congress from this State, nor any person holding or exercising any office or appointment of trust or profit under the United States, shall at the same time hold or exercise any office in this State to which a salary, fees or perquisites shall be attached. The General Assembly may by law declare what offices are incompatible. (May 17, 1966, 1965 P.L.1928, J.R.10)
However, in Article II at some point attorneys were exempted. It is not in the original constitution of 1776.
6. Disqualification to hold other office.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under this Commonwealth to which a salary, fee or perquisite is attached. No member of Congress or other person holding any office (except of attorney-at-law or in the National Guard or in a reserve component of the armed forces of the United States) under the United States or this Commonwealth to which a salary, fee or perquisite is attached shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office. (May 16, 1967, P.L.1036, J.R.2)
In 1968, Article V Section 10(c) was amended to the PA Constitution, forming the “Unified Judicial System”- essentially giving the courts administrative power. A power play ensued between then Governor Milton Shapp and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in their interpretation of just what the Judiciary administrative power should be. They proclaimed exclusive, non-reviewable rule-making authority. This is contrary to the functioning of every other goverment agency – which has outside review of their rules for constitutionality. Fascinatingly, a current U.S. Assistant District Attorney wrote a very extensive research article warning about the danger of Article V Section 10(c) back in 1998.
They blocked all review of their rules for constitutionality, including from the Department of Justice and the public, adding Section 1702 (below). This was challenged by Governor Shapp in 1978 in an attempt to restore democracy- as you can see below in Section 1703 where he signed an Act mandating the courts comply with the Open Meeting Law (aka The Sunshine Act). The PA Supreme Court unilaterally repealed this Act, which would have ensured oversight by the public to the rule-making, by claiming it was “unconstitutional.”
(a) General rule.
Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), the Supreme Court and all agencies or units of the unified judicial system when exercising the power to adopt general rules or other orders in the nature of regulations pursuant to the authority of the Supreme Court under section 1721 (relating to delegation of powers) shall be an agency within the meaning of the act of July 31, 1968 (P.L.769, No.240), known as the “Commonwealth Documents Law,” and shall be subject to all of the provisions of such act except section 205 (relating to approval as to legality). All such general rules and orders shall be published pursuant to Part II of Title 45 (relating to publication and effectiveness of Commonwealth Documents).
(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days)
The Supreme Court and all other agencies and units of the unified judicial system when exercising the powers to recommend or adopt general rules or other orders in the nature of regulations shall be an agency within the meaning of the act of July 19, 1974 (P.L.486, No.175), referred to as the Public Agency Open Meeting Law.
(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days)
1978 Amendment. Act 53 added section 1703.
Constitutionality. Section 1703 was declared unconstitutional on November 14, 1978, by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in a letter to the Governor and the General Assembly. See In re 42 Pa.C.S. § 1703, 482 Pa. 522, 394 A.2d 444.
References in Text. The act of July 19, 1974 (P.L.486, No.175), referred to as the Public Agency Open Meeting Law, referred to in this section, was repealed by the act of July 3, 1986 (P.L.388, No.84), known as the Sunshine Act. The Sunshine Act was repealed by the act of October 15, 1998, (P.L.729, No.93). The subject matter is now contained in Chapter 7 of Title 65 (relating to open meetings).
They have gone so far as to promulgate a rule to discriminate against people who attempt to represent themselves in court, and interfere with their profitable racketeering:
Rule 233.1. Frivolous Litigation. Pro Se Plaintiff. Motion to Dismiss.
(a) Upon the commencement of any action filed by a pro se plaintiff in the court of common pleas, a defendant may file a motion to dismiss the action on the basis that:
(1) the pro se plaintiff is alleging the same or related claims which the pro se plaintiff raised in a prior action against the same or related defendants, and
(2) these claims have already been resolved pursuant to a written settlement agreement or a court proceeding…
The provisions of this Rule 233.1 adopted March 8, 2010, effective April 8, 2010, 40 Pa.B. 1490.