Harry replies:See attached:Ken Smith of Golden CO suffered a harrowing ordeal with federal judges. He summarized partially in the attached, unfiled, I-wish-I-could-file-it brief which points out a terrible reality: by stomping on a litigant's constitutional rights, a judge virtually begs for someone to assassinate him.
Why terrible? Well few would disagree that assassination is a terrible way to obtain relief from judicial tyranny. But then most would agree that tyranny is a terrible way to govern.
Our problem here is that Smith wanted to prosecute federal judges in their own courts for crimes he alleged that they committed against him. They would not allow it.
It seems just terrible that US Attorneys refuse to prosecute crooked judges, and that only 15 in the entire history of the USA have been impeached, and only 8 of those convicted. It seems terrible that crime victims no longer have the right of private prosecution in most jurisdictions, particularly in federal jurisdictions. It seems terrible that crime victims cannot manage to get evidence of the crimes into the hands of competent grand jurors. It seems terrible that we have such low standards for both electors and grand jurors.
What can a crime victim do whom tyrannical government operatives stymie in every effort to use the courts for their rightful purpose - a civilized substitute for fisticuffs, brawls, knife fights, gun battles, and civil war?
Steve responds:[Steve], I would strongly suggest that you do not make any statements whatsoever like this about assassinations. This is completely inappropriate under any circumstances and taints everything that is being discussed in this blog.
I'd just like to add a comment or two of my own:[Harry], I encourage you to read my REPORT again for better understanding, and then direct your attention to the subject matter of the message, not to the messenger. Let us not become (in our discussions) like children afraid to get out of bed in the dark because a monster might lurk beneath it.
Let us try to remember that the truth can always withstand honest investigation.
Take note that the Islamic jihadists who have made their way to our once Judeo-Christian-centric land seem to favor suicide bombing and assassination as a means of making people fear opposing them. In effect, they use such extreme actions in order to make themselves and their confederates into auto-immune oligarchs.
Do you have that picture clearly in mind? They terrorize us in order to paralyze us into non-resistance.
Here's a Western society counterpart: the entirety of the Liberal Elitist establishment uses similar social terror tactics, making people fear that those liberal elitists like will point accusing fingers at them as deviant or deranged misanthropes.
So now people feel leery of or embarrassed about discussing stereotypical Negroes, Jews, Mexicans, Muslims, homosexuals, cross-dressers, Baptists, rednecks, Communists, etc. Only liberal elitists have managed to exalt themselves above that accusing finger.
Jihadists and liberal elitists have their ways of assassination. Jihadists go ahead and assassinate non-Muslims individually or in groups when and where they choose, often indiscriminately. Liberal elitists assassinate the CHARACTERS of non-liberals when and where they choose by dehumanizing them with labels like racist, misogynist, hater, birther, truther, etc. Get the idea?
And now you come along and show fear-mongering disdain for the topic, trying to finger-point me into silence.
Well, [Harry], reality is upon you. Obama (and Hillary, if she gets the chance) invite HORDES of jihadist refugees into the country, and those already here have already started suicide bombing people by the thousands and assassinating people by the scores. They have not started in on judges and government leaders yet. I imagine it's only a matter of time before they do. Right now they don't seem to have much motive to go after judges.
Judges, you see, have made themselves untouchable by bestowing judicial immunity upon themselves. And that has destroyed the right of petition.
Meanwhile, judges have pressured legislatures to hamstring crime victims by making it impossible for those victims privately to prosecute criminals, and by stripping petite juries of their power to judge the law and grand juries of their power to investigate all crimes (some jurisdiction have no grand jury, and in some the grand jury investigates only capitol crimes). Legislatures have corrupted the electorate through the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments by allowing people to vote without any demonstration of responsibility as productive citizens. Recall that in Independence era states, only free, white, propertied men (a clear demonstration of responsibility) could vote. Now almost anybody with a pulse can vote. And because we now have an irresponsible electorate, and electors can sit on juries, NO WONDER the judges and legislatures do not want jurors to have the powers they once had.
As a consequence, virtually NO POWER exists outside of summary excision from government, or in extreme cases from the planet, to remove a corrupt judge from office. No, impeachment does not constitute a viable option, and neither does grand jury indictment.
Sure, "we the people" might embarrass a judge into early retirement if he drops his penis pump on the floor during trial or prosecutors might get a conviction against the judge who exposes his genitals while dropping the pump, but such means of dispatching a naughty judge are relatively rare. And sometimes the Justice Department decides to crack down on an array of corrupt judges when enough people complain. But I imagine a lot of corrupt judges slide under the DOJ radar.
And what about all the corrupt judges who wrongfully rule in favor of government attorneys? Congress allocates half a billion dollars per year for secret cash awards for government employees who perform well. I have often wondered whether prosecutors and judges can get that award money for cheating litigants out of justice.
I keep pushing the discussion toward this pinpoint question: what effective action can a person take to obtain justice when a judge refuses to make a just ruling? And what shall a victim of judicial abuse do after having repeatedly exhausted all peaceable and lawful options available?
I have not exhausted the topic of "How do you know you are right and the judge is wrong?" I'll simply point out now that over the past 7 years I have discussed legal and litigation problems with HUNDREDS of people via telephone, and I have read thousands of articles, emails, and commentaries about law and litigation by lawyers and people with varying degrees of law education and experience. I have concluded that the typical judge knows vastly more about the law than the lawyers and litigants appearing in court. Many lack the legal knowledge and litigation competence to expect to win. Many make serious mistakes out of neglect, ignorance, misunderstanding, irrational thinking, or incompetence. And most who lose for such reasons come away complaining that the judge was crooked, stupid, incompetent, etc. So, I have developed a pretty thick unwillingness to accept the loser's explanation of what happened and what went wrong and why.
As a result, I suggest that people should develop a very high tolerance for judge behaviors, giving them every possible benefit of doubt, and prepare cases assiduously, carefully studying associated legal precedents for the related issues, artfully crafting pleadings, motions, notices, etc, and painstakingly learning the rules of court and evidence code, observing and obeying timing requirements, and treating the judge with as much love and respect as one can muster while still standing up for one's rights and demanding judicial intolerance for the errors of one's adversary, knowing that most of them are incompetent in litigation.
THAT is, I admit, a TALL ORDER. It takes a lot of study and no small measure of common sense and perspicacity, which most have not done and do not have, to sufficiency.
And so it means that before we ever get down seriously to the philosophic question of how to correct or excise a bad judge, we must take a good hard look in the mirror because there we will likely find the most culpable culprit in the litigation equation.
I recently read Ron Chernow's excellently written Alexander Hamilton. I enjoyed the Chernow's depiction of Hamilton's lawyering, which many of his peers considered a quality of genius. Hamilton himself claimed that he seemed like a genius because he infused himself with everything he could discover about the issue at hand and related law with total concentration and devotion until he had mastered his knowledge and understanding of it. Then, according to Chernow, he could extemporize for hours on the subject, and often did just that in court, citing a plethora of expert sources foreign and domestic, modern and ancient, written in any of several languages.
Those who have trouble with judges might try to emulate Hamilton's method. Then we might never need to discuss how or whether to excise the judge.
First, and a bit off point, although Alexander Hamilton was undoubtedly brilliant and competent, he also worked diligently against the best interests of the American people. It was Hamilton who first invited the camel's nose under the tent in the form of the international banking cartels. Therefore, while I can respect his abilities, and the methods [Steven] mentions, I nevertheless view Hamilton with contempt.
More to the point, [Steven's] comments reminded me of a quote from author Kurt Saxon who once wrote:
I've always found that quote significant in light of a very long compendium of history in which a people long-denied justice inevitably take it by force if necessary.If government bans guns, terrorists will use bombs and be thankful government helped them make the choice.
The Lawful Path is all about helping people find peaceful resolutions. However, groups of people who scheme to insulate themselves from the law should re-read the history of the French Revolution, and remember how that worked out.
I believe there are many more good people than bad. People who look the other way, and are afraid because of the same kind of intimidation of which [Steven] writes. If you're reading this and you're one of those good people, please realize there's never been a better time to stand up and heed the call of justice, while peaceful change is still possible.