Updated: Mar 8, 2019
There is a growing belief that the U.S. courts, from municipal courts to the Supreme Court, are sufficiently corrupt to question their very legitimacy, and, are at war with the American People. Due in large part to the government having allowed the courts to create their own rules on the go, and, to police themselves, people increasingly believe far too many court judges develop God complexes, which is only reinforced by the language used in the courts dating to when rulers claimed that their power to rule came from God, and, which still inhabits the text of our law and legal practice. All who are paying attention are aware of the growing public hostility to the 'coup d'etat' which the Supreme Court stealthily implemented against the People of the United States, and democracy itself, when it began imposing 'corporate personhood' upon the unsuspecting American People. But, unless one has lived the experience of litigating upwards through the self-interest and biases of municipal courts, through all the courts leading to the Supreme Court, one would find it hard to believe the extent of corruption and malfeasance permeating the courts, the municipalities they serve, and the practitioners of law, thereby legitimizing complaints of corruption in our courts.
I used to think that people who found themselves at odds with the courts must be unreasonable in their actions or expectations, if not downright wrong. My own experience of being victimized by municipal actions, the extra legal harassment by the prosecuting attorney's office defending the municipalities, the bias of the judge in favor of the municipality which they work for, the Bar Administration protecting the unethical behaviors of practitioners of law, the 'inter se' conspiracy to perpetuate that bias in the appeals courts, and, the apparent bias of a Supreme Court Chief Justice in apparently sheltering a lower court judge's bias and malfeasance, has taken me to a federal court with a case, where I no longer expect justice to necessarily prevail, based only upon indisputable facts, than for it to prevail. However, while listening to Attorney General Dave Yost's inauguration speech, including the following comments;
"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/.
I was pleased to hear that there seems to be enough honesty and legitimacy among those who practice law and within the courts, that, with perseverance and collective effort, the American People may be able to salvage our America and it's system of justice from the "sword of oppression" and "shield for evil," long employed against us by the Corporate Deep State. But, we can not expect the self-serving official to police themselves alone, effectively. It will always require the public looking over the shoulder of justice to ensure that the job is being performed correctly. This is never more true than when considering the Ohio Attorney General's response to being questioned on whether the Attorney General will vote for Donald Trump if he is a candidate in 2020, to which he answered, "Yes." If anyone was truly committed to the rule of law, enforcing the law, justice, and holding those in public office accountable for their actions, it is unequivocally self-contradicting to state that one would not only seek to hold Trump accountable for his countless violations of governmental norms, social norms, and laws, as well as incessant lying to the American Public, and, arguably, treason. Attorney General Yost also purports to be a Christian. Yet, he publicly declares that he will continue to support and promote a man who has committed all of the '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 self serving behavior. One is, therefore, compelled to question whether the Ohio Attorney General is factually committed to equal justice for all and accountability of public officials, and, whether he is a Christian, or, whether all of his proclamations of such are merely campaign propaganda and more 'fake news.' Can one truly stand for the convictions they claim to stand for, while promoting the most flagrant violation of all of those convictions in the United States?
Even more disturbing than having been confronted with what I must characterize as official corruption and unethical practices, is a violation of the social contract between the American People and the governments they employ to serve them, that confronted me early on, many years ago. In a city counsel hearing taking comments from the public on how and where the garbage in a historical neighborhood should be collected, the waste management department wanted to mandate that collection of refuse should be moved from the alleyways, where it had always been 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 that 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 must be collected in front of your home?" She needn't have answered yes, even though she did, because it was rather common knowledge. That was not my principle concern, however. I reminded the city counsel that all of the utilities; the gas, water, electricity, telephone, cable, with overhead lines and underground pipes, serving that community ran through the alleyways. "If, waste collection has a difficult time getting through the alleyways after all of these years, how are the utility companies expected to get through them? If the city abandons its responsibility for maintaining clear passage through public thoroughfares, and, another one of our very frequent wind storms takes down 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 a discussion about how little service the city can give to the taxpayer for their tax dollar. Shouldn't this be a discussion about how much service can we give the taxpayer for their dollar?"
I continued on, but that portion isn't directly related to the issue of compromised justice in the courts. It continues to strike me; as I continue to read court cases and the case law established by them, along with statutory law and the rules made by each court itself - (wouldn't you like to make the rules that everyone who interacts with you has to obey?), is that the law, in general, is designed for the convenience and expedience of the courts, and those practicing in the courts, (those whom we employ), at the inconvenience of the taxpaying public seeking justice in times of duress. How is that for the tail wagging the dog? It confounds me that the employees of the people make all the rules so as to disturb the courts as little as possible, no matter how much it burdens the American People. If a citizen pursuing a case in the courts, by divine insight alone, can't divine where every little bit of information or case law relevant to a case is scattered all over the various statutes, court rules, rules of civil procedure, and numerous cases where law is developed as they go, -so to speak-, assemble it and put it correctly all in one place, at one time, then that citizen can be smacked down before ever getting to court and might be barred from pursuing that case again when they are forced to realize that there were still a few bits of relevant information scattered about that they didn't trip over. Because, while judges are free to pull law out of the air and apply it to a case in the direction they may want the case to go in, the citizen isn't free to pull newly encountered law out of the air and apply it in an appeal. Since there is no self-updating comprehensive encyclopedia of all law relevant to every possible case and scenario, readily available to the average citizen, then claims that the courts are stacked against the average citizen by default have considerable merit.
Shouldn't a continuously updated encyclopedia of all law 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 law relevant to issues routinely in the courts is not available to the public, can it truly be said that every citizen has equal access to justice? Without ready access to the law, even the constitutional guarantee that each citizen has equal and ready access to the courts, under the 'right to petition clause,' is violated, because, without the appropriate law to take into court, a proper petition can't be formed. Depriving people of the law, deprives them of a proper petition, which denies them equal access to the courts, because courts reject petitions that don't conform to precise rules or laws, which then denies them justice. How this relates to the issue of collecting garbage in the alleyways instead of on the front street curbs, is that the courts have been permitted to create rules and laws which convenience themselves at the inconvenience of those who employ them and pay for their efforts. This is yet another instance of the tail wagging the dog, and of our own employees devising ways to give the taxpayer as little service for their tax dollar as possible, instead of strategizing how to give the taxpayer as much service for their tax dollar as possible. I've read in legal institution literature that the courts are overloaded with cases, the judges are overworked and earning too little money for the hours they work, and for the level of education and experience required for them to serve on the bench, and for the level of their responsibility. If this is the case, isn't the solution to hire more judges and to expand the court, rather than to deny justice to the American People and taxpayer? If this means that the corporate takers and parasites which feed from them have to pay for a little more of what they take from society, then I'm ready to do my share of all that's necessary to see that it gets done. How about you?