Posts

This isn’t a Democrat or Republican thing; this is non-partisan. These people are all dishonest and have been for many years.

It is possible that there is bribery.  Judge Michael Ciavarella in Pennsylvania was just sentenced to 28 years in prison for accepting $1.5 million in bribes from the owner of a private prison.  Ciavarella and fellow Judge Michael Conahan sent kids to prison for cash.

It is clear that big law firms have a “special relationship” with the judges.  Whether there is money involved or not in Atlanta, I do not yet know.

Attorneys will not pursue dishonest judges because they cannot risk their careers.  Attorneys tell me that their career would be dead if they even handled a civil case against federal judges.

The news media is similarly afraid of the judges.  An investigative reporter with the Atlanta Journal & Constitution wanted to write the story of what I have uncovered, but she took it to her boss, and she was told she couldn’t.  The judges have tyrannical power, and the paper would not risk it.  Recently, investigative reporter Mark Winne with Channel 2 in Atlanta was in the lobby when I was trying to get to meet with the Grand Jury, and when he found out what I was doing, he disappeared.

We now have an entire branch of the federal government that “self-polices” — acting in any inept, corrupt manner they choose without fear of accountability, have lifetime appointment to the bench and freely abrogate basic legal standards to grant “winks and nods” to parties in favor with the court — evidence and law be damned.

These judges are protected by Congressional Judiciary Committees that arguably have a conflict of interest because all Judiciary Committee members are attorney and members of the same professional organization as the judges they are supposed to provide oversight over  the Bar Association. Members of the Judiciary Committees risk professional suicide by taking legislative action on judges.  When an election is lost, they would be back practicing law in front of judges who would be unhappy by legislation passed.

Judges commit crimes because they can.  They can break the law and get away with it.

Judges Do Not Have Immunity for Criminal Acts

Many people are confused and think judges have immunity.  Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts.  ( O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974).) 

Judges have no immunity for crimes committed by them during the terms of their office or prior thereto. United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 976 (1974). (See also  Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 429, 47 L. Ed. 2d 128, 96 S. Ct. 984 (1976); Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 627, 33 L. Ed. 2d 583, 92 S. Ct. 2614 (1972); United States v. DiCarlo, 565 F.2d 802, 806 (1977); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, supra at 581, United States v. Craig, 573 F.2d 513 (7th Cir. 03/22/1978); United States v. Anzelmo, 319 F. Supp. 1106, 1118-19 (E.D. La. 1970).

No federal official has ever been held exempt from prosecution for his commission of a federal crime. (United States v. Manton, 107 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1938); United States v. Gillock, 587 F.2d 284 (6th Cir. 11/01/1978).)

  The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court of Cook County is a criminal enterprise under the RICO Act. ( U.S. v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th Cir. 1985).) [emphasis added.]

The United States Supreme Court acknowledged the judicial corruption in Cook County, when it stated that Judge “Maloney was one of many dishonest judges exposed and convicted through ‘Operation Greylord’, a labyrinthine federal investigation of judicial corruption in Chicago.” (Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 117 S.Ct. 1793 (U.S. 06/09/1997).

Turning the pages of history, the Supreme Court said in an 1882 decision, United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220, that:

No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law as defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.

It is the only supreme power in our system of government and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.

In Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit, 398 U.S. 74, Mr. Justice Douglas said in his dissenting opinion, Ibid. at 140: “If they [federal judges] break a law, they can be prosecuted.” Mr. Justice Black in his dissent said, Ibid. at 141, that “* * * judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted, and punished for crimes * * *.”

In United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, a Senator was charged with a § 201 violation. The trial court held that the Speech or Debate Clause precluded criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court reversed and found no constitutional violation for online casino.

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, was concerned with the validity of a subpoena requiring the assistant of a Senator to appear as a witness before a federal grand jury. The Senator intervened and asserted a violation of his constitutional privileges. With reference to the Freedom from Arrest Clause, the Court said, 408 U.S. at 615:

It is, therefore, sufficiently plain that the constitutional freedom from arrest does not exempt Members of Congress from the operation of the ordinary criminal laws, even though imprisonment may prevent or interfere with the performance of their duties as Members. * * * Indeed, implicit in the narrow scope of the privilege of freedom from arrest is, as Jefferson noted, the judgment that legislators ought not to stand above the law they create but ought generally to be bound by it as are ordinary persons.

Finally, we have O’Shea v. Littleton, decided January 15, 1974. The Court said: “…we have never held that the performance of the duties of judicial, legislative, or executive officers, requires or contemplates the immunization of otherwise criminal deprivations of constitutional rights. Cf. Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880). On the contrary, the judicially fashioned doctrine of official immunity does not reach “so far as to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by an Act of Congress. . . .” Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 627 (1972).

“We conclude that whatever immunities or privileges the Constitution confers for the purpose of assuring the independence of the co-equal branches of government they do not exempt the member of those branches “from the operation of the ordinary criminal laws.” Criminal conduct is not part of the necessary functions performed by public officials. Punishment for that conduct will not interfere with the legitimate operations of a branch of government. Historically, the impeachment process has proven to be cumbersome and fraught with political overtones. We believe that the independence of the judiciary is better served when criminal charges against its members are tried in a court rather than in Congress. With a court trial, a judge assured of the protections given to all those charged with criminal conduct. The issues are heard in a calm and reasoned manner and are subject to the rules of evidence, the presumption of innocence, and other safeguards.” (United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 at 519-520.)

“On the basis of the text of the Constitution, its background, its contemporaneous construction, and the pragmatic consequences of its provisions on impeachment, we are convinced that a federal judge is subject to indictment and trial before impeachment and that the district court had jurisdiction to try defendant Kerner.” (United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124 (7th Cir. 02/19/1974).)

William M. Windsor

{jcomments on}