JUSTICE IN CRISIS - The Judicial War Against the American People
Updated: Jan 28
Many believe that from U.S. municipal courts to the Supreme Court judges are so corrupt that the legitimacy of the entire justice system is questionable and that the courts are at war with the American People for our constitutional rights.
Because our government allows the courts to create their own rules, which vary from court to court and to police themselves, people increasingly believe that judges develop God complexes. That tendency is encouraged by the language used in the courts that date back to when rulers claimed that their power to rule came directly from God and when people had to beg for justice as if it were a gift and not a constitutional right prepaid for with taxes.
Those paying attention recognize the growing public hostility to the 'coup d'etat' that the Supreme Court stealthily perpetrated against the American People and democracy by giving constitutional rights to corporations and canceling People's constitutional rights. Unless one has experienced litigating upwards through the self-interest and biases of lower court judges to the Supreme Court, it is difficult to comprehend and believe the extent of corruption and misfeasance that permeate our courts and the practice law.
Our government counts on us expecting that judges are fair and impartial and that we will obtain justice in our courts, and like most people, I used to believe it was true. My experience of being victimized by the organized crime of municipal officials, harassment by officers of the court, the corruption of judges, the Bar Association, the Office of Disciplinary Council, and all the courts protecting the unethical or unlawful conduct of public officials en route to the U.S. Supreme Court have proved that to be false.
Although our laws demand that it be true, I found it ironic and false that Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost made the following comments in his inauguration speech,
"Each of us at law has equal value, rich or poor, president or pauper...;
But in a justice system run by passionate, flawed human beings, the building as built doesn’t always look like the drawings...;
...the most critical division in America is not between left and right, or even '“haves”' and '“have-nots,”' but between the protected and the unprotected...;
There’s more than one reason why people are unprotected, but a major one is the lack or misapplication of the rule of law...;
...'”the rule of law”'—means something pretty simple: the same rules for everybody, applied evenly and justly. The rule of law constrains both politicians and predators in the marketplace…;
But too often, the rule of law is bent out of shape to become the plaything of the clever—used as a sword of oppression or a shield for the evil and the corrupt…;
The role of the attorney general—the role I take up here today—is to protect the unprotected...;" https://daveyost.com/inauguration-speech-attorney-general-dave-yost/,
because his office is fully aware of the public corruption in Fayette County and other courts but defended it when I sought to enforce the law in the Ohio and U.S. Supreme Court.
Those lofty words recognize the purpose and duties of Yost's office, whether he conceived them or quoted someone else. The implementation and enforcement of those words are necessary to salvage and restore what has become an injustice system. Our justice system will not repair itself, and we can not expect self-serving corrupt officials to police themselves. Only WE, the American People, can restore our injustice system into a justice system, and it will always require public oversite of the courts to ensure that judges abide by their obligations expressed in Yost's words.
This seems pointedly true when considering the Ohio Attorney General's response to the question of whether he will vote for Donald Trump if he is a candidate in 2020, to which he answered, "Yes." If anyone is committed to the rule of law and holding those in public office accountable for their actions, they could not support Trump, a poster child for public corruption, in any way. It is self-contradicting to state that one is devoted to upholding the law but would not seek to hold Trump accountable for his constant violation of the law and incessant lying to the American People, and arguably for treason.
Yost purports to be a Christian. Yet, he publicly declares that he will continue to support and promote a man who has committed all seven 'Deadly Sins', pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth,"as well as multiple adulteries, attacking and preying upon the disabled, weak, and innocent, and the ultimate 'original sin' of animalistic self-centeredness and selfs-serving conduct.
One must question, therefore, whether Yost is factually committed to equal justice for all and to holding public officials accountable, and whether he truly is a Christian or whether his claims are merely campaign propaganda and rhetoric. Can one truly stand for the convictions they profess while supporting the most flagrant violation of those convictions in recent history? But, Yost is merely a case study for the same falsity and lawlessness of most officials working in the justice system that created and maintain our injustice system.
Even more disturbing than being a victim of official corruption in local government and mulitple courts is the systemic violation of the social contract between the American People and their government employees that widespread corruption represents. In a city counsel meeting taking comments from the public on how and where garbage in a historical neighborhood should be collected, the waste management department wanted to mandate that the collection of refuse should be relocated from the alleyways, where it was always collected, to the front streets as they do in some newer neighborhoods without alleyways. The waste department claimed that brush overgrowth in the alleyways impeded garbage collection and imperiled garbage collectors. The mayor claimed she didn't mind having her garbage collected in front of her home and asked, "so why should others?" I stood in line to speak and eventually asked, "Mayor, doesn't your home back up to a golf course so that your garbage has to be collected in front of your home?" She needn't have answered yes, even though she did, because it was common knowledge.
That was not my principal concern, however. I reminded the city council that all the utilities, gas, water, electricity, telephone, cable, overhead lines, and underground pipes serving that community ran through the alleyways. "If waste collection workers have a difficult time getting through the alleyways after all these years, how are the utility companies expected to get through them to service the utilities? If the city abandons its responsibility for maintaining clear passage through public thoroughfares and another storm downs the utility lines, and the utility companies can't enter the alleyways to repair those lines, isn't easy passage for garbage trucks going to be less of a crisis than a community without utilities?", I asked. "If the alleyways are sufficiently cleared for utility trucks with booms and lifts to enter, then surely garbage trucks can get through them too. But," I continued, "what strikes me the most about this discussion is how much it sounds like an effort to determine how little service the city can give the public for their tax dollars. Shouldn't this be a discussion about how much service the city can give the taxpayer for their dollar?"
I continued, but that portion isn't directly related to the issue of public officials serving themselves instead of serving the public that these two situations have in common. As I continue to read court cases and the law construed from them, along with statutory law and the rules made by each court, it appears that the law is increasingly designed for the convenience of the courts at the inconvenience of the public. Without a single source of all law on a given issue that citizens representing themselves can consult to prepare their case, the perpetrator of a wrong can use any scattered bit of case law, as well as every local rule, rule of civil procedure, and statute to shut a harmed person's case down before a first hearing. That person can then be barred from pursuing that case again if they later discover a bit of previously obscured beneficial information.
Judges have given themselves the freedom to pull law out of the air and apply it as they will to a case, but the private citizen isn't free to introduce a new law in an appeal of an unjust prior decision. Since there is no continuously updated compendium of all laws relevant to every possible legal issue readily available to the average citizen, claims that the courts are stacked against the average citizen by default are valid.
Shouldn't a continuously updated encyclopedia of all laws relevant to every issue that goes before a court be readily available to the average citizen, at least on the internet, if not in public libraries? Why not in every public library? Because the American Bar Association did/would lobby against it to deter citizens from representing themselves. Let's leave the dramatic increases in citizens forced to represent themselves due to the gutting of the American economy and Middle Class aside for the moment.
If a readily accessible compendium of all laws relevant to issues routinely in the courts is not available to the public can it factuallly be said that every citizen has equal access to justice? Without ready access to the law to properly prepare a complaint or petition, the constitutional guarantee that each citizen has equal and ready access to the courts under the petition clause is meaningless. Depriving people of ready access to the law controlling the issues they want to present in court effectivley deprives them of equal access to the courts.
As the city wanted to rewrite the law and rules to collect garbage on street curbs instead of in alleyways for the convenience its workers, but at the inconvenience of taxpayers, the courts have been allowed to write rules and laws for their convenience at a great inconvenience to taxpayers going to court. This is yet another example of the tail wagging the dog and of our employees strategizing how to give the taxpayer as little service for our tax dollar as possible instead of working to give us as much service for our tax dollar as possible.
I've read that courts are backlogged with cases and that judges are overworked. I've read that judges are chronically tired and angry because they earn too little money for the hours they work and for the education and experience required of them to be judges. If this is true, isn't the solution to expand the court and to hire more judges rather than to deny justice to the American People and taxpayer? If this means that the corporations taking a free ride on society have to pay for a little of what they take from society to pay to expand the courts, then I'm ready to do my share of all that's necessary to see that it gets done. How about you?
Judicial Immunity Has Stacked The Courts Against Us And Our Constitutional Rights