The worst nightmare imaginable for federal magistrate judges IVAN DARNELL DAVIS and MICHAEL STEFAN NACHMANOFF is now a reality! A lawsuit detailing their false statements, misrepresentations, and materially untrue affidavits is now a public record. Read it here. LAWSUIT DAVIS & NACHMANOFF.
The lawsuit was filed in Circuit Court in Alexandria Virginia on July 9, 2019. Copies of the suit have been provided to national media and more copies will be provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which investigates the backgrounds of federal judges.
Federal Judge Myths
Federal judges are not the knowledgable, wise, or fair people they would have you believe they are. Rather, as demonstrated through objective analysis and common sense, they are simply political hacks and ne'er do wells who prostrated themselves at the feet of the party in power to get a lifetime job.
No Transparency, No Accountability - How Cases are "Fixed"
There is no transparency and no accountability in federal courts. For instance, the Courts refuse to give a list of who are the employees taxpayers are paying for. They refused to even give a list of people who apply for political jobs in the court system - like applicants for public defender. Yes, public defenders are hand picked by the judges. This is one way cases are "fixed". Public defenders do nothing but plead cases out because they don't want to make more work for their bosses - the judges. That's because the judges don't get paid anything extra for all the extra time a trial takes up! Its a bureaucratic conspiracy!
More Case Fixing
Federal Judges make their "decisions" based on what their political party requires, what their lawyer friends ask, or what their personal ignorance and prejudices dictate. These points are not debatable. The notion that federal judges are competent to do the job they were appointed to do is a hoax - it is the product of a well financed (by taxpayers) propaganda machine.
Federal Judges - Utterly Incompetent
Just how incompetent are federal judges? Can you count to ten? If so, then you're smarter than a lot of federal judges. Oh, you think we're kidding... we're not. In helping unfortunate inmates who where victimized by incompetent, lazy and biased judges, who believe they have been magically transformed into dispensers of Solomon-like wisdom after passing through the "robe-a-dope" room next to the courtroom, we have encountered numerous federal judges who can't count to ten - literally! Here are just two examples from our files:
In United States V. William Herrera, 292 Fed. Appx 382, 2008 U.S App. LEXIS 19827 (5th Cir. 2008), the 5th Circuit reversed Northern District of Texas Judge SAM CUMMINGS, who could not count his fingers or thumbs to ten, and see that defendant Herrera had filed a timely appeal, within ten days. Cummings was given an extra chance to understand simple math, when he was asked to alter or amend his judgement with the aid of a calendar and count-to-ten flashcards we sent him! He failed again and had to be reversed by the circuit, which can count to ten, sometimes.
Ditto in Hector Ramirez Jr. V. United States - U.S District Court, Laredo, TX, Case L-09-4. In that case, federal Judge MICAELA ALVAREZ dismissed Ramirez's habeas corpus petition on May 21, 2009 because she couldn't count to ten (as in ten days to file an appeal) either. We then sent her a special calendar for people with special needs, it had only ten days on it, and a copy of the Fifth Circuits Order in Hererra's case. As if by magic, the light bulb came on, and she reversed her prior deficient Order on June 29, 2009. The list of such mindless blunders in the federal Judiciary goes on and on.
Federal Judge Myth Number 1 - Judges Are Qualified To Interpret The Law
President Trump has labeled the federal judiciary a "sad, sad, mess". He has also said federal court proceedings lack fairness, due process, and impartiality. He is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Unlike virtually every other human on the face of the earth, like royalty, federal judges took no intelligence tests to get their job, they did not take any law test, and there was no experience requirement. In fact, unlike any other U.S Government job, federal judges didn't even have to compete against anyone to get their job.
Federal judges are appointed to the bench on a regular basis with absolutely no experience as a lawyer or a judge. Rather, federal Judges who got appointed did nothing more than suck up to the senior U.S senator of the state they want to work in, and pledge undying party loyalty if the senator will submit their name to the President of the United States for nomination. The sad fact is that the best and brightest, those who would be fair and even-handed in dispensing true "justice", are never even considered, because they refuse to put party and politics ahead of principles.
What's the difference between this dummy and a federal judge? The judge gets paid $200,000 a year to do the same thing as the dummy!
Kings spend their days on the throne, feasting on the spoils from taxation of the masses, simply warming the seat while doing nothing!
Federal Judge Myth #2 - Federal Judges Themselves Obey The Law
A. Federal Judges Are Not Trustworthy
A federal judge who refuses to follow the law is no longer acting as a judge. His court is not a court of law, and the judge is no longer fit to serve! Orders from that judge need not be obeyed. Federal judges break federal law, breach ethical duties, and fail to adhere to their oath of office to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States every day.
In the case of United States v. James Niblock, Eastern District of Virginia Case No. 02-cr-568, Mr. Niblock has been waiting more than fifteen (15) years for the Court to make a final ruling on his habeas corpus claims. That’s right, FIFTEEN YEARS and counting, even though the law commands judges to make rulings in habeas cases a priority and to rule on them "promptly". Is 15 years prompt"? Hell no.
Time after time, Niblock asked the Court to rule on four (4) habeas corpus claims which were filed in 2004 and have never been ruled on. The Courts refusal violates the United States Constitution. On March 28, 2019, Niblock filed his latest Motion, asking for a Final Ruling on the four claims. In that motion, Niblock asked for a hearing, at which time he would produce a copy of the original habeas corpus motion, and a copy of the 2005 Opinion, which FAILED to rule on the four claims. The United States has never disagreed that there are habeas claims never ruled on!
It would be a simple matter for anyone of reasonable intelligence or math skills to easily see that four claims were never ruled on. Unfortunately, federal judges lack reasonable intelligence or simple math skills. See cases cited above and below as indisputable proof! They also don't want to grant Niblock any justice for political reasons.
The magnitude Niblock's claims is such that any one of them would result in a mandatory overturning of his conviction. For instance, Niblock claimed his lawyers were ineffective for failing to have Judge Henry Hudson dismissed from the trial and sentencing. The idiot attorneys refused to file the motion. After Niblock was sentenced, he filed the motion himself. Judge Hudson himself agreed with Niblock and signed an Order stating he was biased and never should have heard any part of the case! Under the law this means a new trial was required. Hudson Order of Recusal - Admitting he was Biased against Niblock. But the judges in Alexandria and Richmond will not rule on this habeas claim, because it would mean that their employees, Nachmanoff and Davis were incompetent for not filing the motion Niblock told them to file. What an embarrassment that would be!!! A complete cover-up.
Judge T.S. Ellis III Refuses to do his Job, Refuses to Follow the Law and Make a Ruling
The Clerk of the Court received Niblock's motion and set a Hearing for 9:00 am on April 12, 2019, in Courtroom 900 before district Judge T.S. Ellis III (docket entries 430 and 431). On April 12, 2019, Niblock appeared at Court for the scheduled hearing. He was informed by Judge Ellis’ courtroom assistant that “the hearing is cancelled, Judge Ellis is going to make a paper ruling on that motion”. Now, more than 3 months later, there is still no ruling. Newspapers call T.S. Ellis III "Caeser".http://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/us/politics/judge-ellis-manafort-trial.html. Others correctly observe he considers himself to be "above the law". http://abovethelaw.com/tag/t-s-ellis-iii. And then there's the body of opinion that Judge T.S. Ellis III is not quite mentally up to the job labeling him an "idiot".http://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/01/manafort-trial-judge-ellis-757141
On May 17, 2019, a Supplement to the pending motion was filed. Attached to the motion is a SWORN STATEMENT from a highly respected attorney stating the 2005 Court Opinion failed to rule on all the habeas claims. Connors declaration. The Supplement cited a Fourth Circuit case that an evidentiary hearing is a “simple matter”; it is not “complicated”.
Why is there no ruling 15 years after the motion was filed?
Why - because every judge in the Eastern District of Virginia has circled the wagons to protect their friends - two serial perjurers and liars – the attorneys formerly appointed to represent Niblock who are now magistrate judges in Alexandria, Virginia’s federal courthouse. IVAN DARNELL DAVIS AND MICHAEL STEFAN NACHMANOFF. Who voted for these two liars to be magistrate judges, that's right, the very same judges in the Eastern District of Virginia who are blocking Niblock from any hearing.
Rather Than Admit Their Mistakes Ivan Davis and Michael Nachmanoff Lie in Their Affidavits To Cover-Up Their Incompetence and Laziness
Before Niblock's trial, he told Davis and Nachmanoff to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a Contitutional violation. On November 22 and December 4, 2002, Davis sent Niblock letters claiming he had reviewed the search warrant affidavit and falsely stated: "there is simply no legal basis for filing a motion to suppress at this time." November 22, 2002 letter, paragraph 2. See Davis' letter here. Davis 11-22-2002 letter to Niblock. The letter makes clear, Davis, the alleged lawyer, wanted Niblock to tell him what was wrong with the illegal search!
Davis also filed an affidavit with the Court falsely swearing as true he conducted "all necessary and appropriate investigation and research." See his affidavit here. Davis Affidavit. But the truth of the matter was that Davis never had reviewed the search warrant affidavit when he swore to the court he did, because it was still under seal and no one was allowed to read it! See letter from U.S. Attorney to Nachmanoff dated February 28, 2003. Boente 2-28-2003 letter. So if the affidavit wasn't unsealed until 2/28/2003, how did Davis review it in November and December 2002 and determine there was "no legal basis" to file the motion? That's right, he never saw the affidavit - he just lied about it to Niblock, to the Court, and to his boss Frank Dunham.
Why did the affidavit suddenly get unsealed on February 28, 2003, which was months after the deadline to file the motion? Because on 2/23/2003, Nachmanoff told Niblock in a phone call that he had also reviewed the search warrant affidavit, and HE HAD COPIES OF IT! Here is a copy of the email from Niblock to Nachmanoff memorializing that phone call: "Michael, you mentioned you have copies of the search warrant affidavit, I do not, please send me a copy". Niblock2-23-2003 e-mail to Nachmanoff.
Of course the truth was Nachmanoff did not have any copy of the search warrant affidavit; neither did Davis. Nachmanoff's official time sheets show that, after receiving Niblock's February email, he immediately telephoned AUSA BOENTE to get the affidavit unsealed because he did not have any copies and had never seen it, as he falsely stated. It was standard operating procedure in the Office of Public Defender in Alexandria Virginia to simply lie to the clients about everything in an effort to coerce guilty pleas and thereby save the public defenders the extra time of going to trial.
Davis and Nachmanoff - The Twin Towers of Prevarication
Both Nachamnoff and Davis refused to do the right thing and admit their mistakes. They refused to tell the truth, merely to save their meaningless political careers. With depraved indifference, they let Mr. Niblock sit in prison for 16 years, knowing full well he never would have been convicted if they had done the job they falsely swore they did. Do you think you can trust them as judges to judge honestly and fairly. HELL NO.
Why the Search Warrant Affidavit is a Big Deal
To be legal, a search warrant affidavit must contain "probable cause" that a crime has been committed, and that evidence of that "crime" will be found in a particular location. Had Davis and Nachmanoff actually read the search warrant when they said they did, Mr. Niblock would not have lost his liberty for 16 years, his personal and family relationships, and all his property. That's because the affidavit gave no indication any crime had been committed! Not only was there no reason to believe any federal crime was committed, there was no indication ANY crime was committed. Alleging a violation of the federal wire fraud statute, there is no mention of any wire whatsoever in the affidavit, there is no individual or company "victim". Not only was there no probable cause, the affidavit is dated TWO YEARS before any search.
Competent attorneys who have read the so called "affidavit" say every item of evidence would have been suppressed. Read it for yourself. Affidavit in support of sw. But once 50 rogue officers started going through Niblock's home and business offices on a fishing expedition, they manufactured a case out of thin air.
More Indolence and Incompetence
Davis' official time sheets show he never worked late or a single weekend on Niblock's case until two days before trial; he viewed his job as 9 to 5, Monday to Friday. Although the case was pending for nine months, Davis never filed a single motion until one day before trial. The judge ruled Davis filed too late and denied it! Davis never prepared for a trial as he should have, he put forth zero effort and has been adjudged incompetent anyway.
When Niblock asked Davis and Nachmanoff's boss, Frank Dunham, to get involved in the case, Dunham delegated tasks back to the same two lying dirtbags. For instance, Niblock told Dunham to have the indictment dismissed for violation of the Speedy Trial Act. Nachmanoff wrote Dunham a memo saying the court found "good cause" to delay the trial. First of all, there is no such thing under the law as a "good cause" delay and any second year law student knows that. An "ends of justice" delay is legal, but the Court in Niblock's case made no such finding. That didn't stop Nachmanoff from falsely telling Dunham the Court had made the "good cause" finding it never made.
Here's the official transcript of the hearing. The court never found good cause, never found an "ends of justice" delay was warranted. Transcript of Arraignment 11-2002. Now compare Nachamnoff's lying letter to Dunham. Nachmanoff 3-14-2003 letter to Dunham.
Davis' Sworn Statement is Shown to be Perjury By His Own Notes
In Davis' affidavit he also told the Court he "developed an appropriate trial strategy" after his alleged "investigation" including attempts to locate and interview witnesses Niblock wanted for trial. But Davis' personal notes in the case file from two days before trial actually state he had "no theory, no theme and no strategy." Ivan Davis 3-27-2003 case notes.
Davis clearly perjured himself before the very court he now works for, and where he stands in judgment of others. Talk about a cruel joke on the system and a fraud on the American people!
The public defender's investigator has admitted to Niblock, in writing, that neither Davis nor Nachmanoff ever asked him to interview the witnesses Niblock wanted for trial and any claim that they did is FALSE. Further, he conducted no such interviews in any event. More "alternative facts" (also known a s lies) from Davis and Nachmanoff.
Davis Files A Fraudulent Motion to the Court
Before Niblock's trial even started, Davis was lying to the Court and Niblock every chance he got. Davis filed a motion asking for a delay in the case because he falsely said he was involved in plea negotiations and was trying to resolve the case. Here's the Motion Davis filed. motion to extend time to file indictment 8-2-2002. But guess what Davis' actual notes for that time show? You guessed it - there were no plea negotiations, no attempts to resolve the case - another brazen lie to the court! Compare the Motion Davis signed to his actual timesheet for that period of time! Davis Timesheet 7-11 thru 8-5-2002
Nachmanoff and Davis Use Old Tactics
When they filed their affidavits opposing Niblock's habeas motion to overturn the conviction, Nachmanoff and Davis said Niblock's allegations against them were "untrue". In other words, Niblock was allegedly lying. Notably, this was before all the evidence Nachmanoff and Davis was suppressing came to light years later. As shown above, the evidence proves it was Nachmanoff and Davis who are the liars. These two employed an old tactic, accuse the other party of that which you yourself are guilty of! Where did Nachmanoff and Davis learn such tricks, besides law school? Here's one possible source:
Other Judges Ignore the Lies and Misconduct
On April 4, 2018, the district clerk for the Eastern district of Virginia docketed Niblock's Motion for Emergency Hearing and a Sworn Affidavit in support of that motion (case no. 02-cr-568, de#'s 407 & 408). Under the district Court's Local Rules, any party who disagreed with the allegations and sworn statement had 14 days to file a response. If no response is filed, all parties are deemed to be in agreement that the cited facts are uncontested. DAVIS and NACHMANOFF did not disagree they had committed criminal acts in lying to the court in sworn affidavits and in covering up their crimes. The United States filed no opposition - how could they disagree with the overwhelming evidence Niblock accumulated?
Based on those undisputed and documented facts, on May 22, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit opened formal investigations into the conduct of DAVIS and NACHMANOFF ( case numbers 04-18-90067 -IN THE MATTER OF IVAN DARNELL DAVIS and case no. 04-18-90068 - IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL STEFAN NACHMANOFF). As expected, the 4th Circuit whitewashed the whole thing in a July 20, 2018 Order signed by Chief Judge Roger Gregory, saying: "The complaints are dismissed because the two named current magistrate judges were not judges subject to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act at the time of the alleged misconduct". 4th Circuit 7-20-2018 Order.
In other words, no one denies that Nachmanoff and Davis are liars, perjurers, and despicable people occupying positions of public trust, but the Fourth Circuit decided that if they lied and perjured themselves before they became judges they don't care. This is like saying well, if someone sexually abused or harassed someone in the past, we don't care!
As you can see from the picture of Nachmanoff and Lee, the "good old boy network" is alive and well in Virginia; attorneys and judges all party together, cover up for each other, and don't make waves for one another. The Fourth Circuit doesn't care to expose the criminals in their midst, because to them the reputation of the almighty "brethren" is more important. Well Fourth Circuit, you're really going to wish you had addressed it when you had an opportunity, just wait till you see the lawsuit against Davis and Nachmanoff - constructive fraud, actual fraud, conspiracy to violate civil rights, false imprisonment, breach of trust, and on and on - coming to the internet near you very soon! But as you say, they weren't judges then, so they have no judicial immunity either! Choke on those words you cowards!!!
Rat Lawyers in Alexandria, VA
A Ruling So Wrong It Points to a Cover-Up
Interestingly, Davis was adjudged to be an incompetent attorney in federal court proceedings in Alexandria Virginia 2007 (Spivey v. United States). His incompetence occurred in the exact month and year he was purportedly "representing" Niblock. So it is only natural that he was generally incompetent on all his cases during that time frame. Davis' general incompetence, lack of intellectual depth and or perjury in Niblock's case and others was then rewarded by making him a judge in 2008. Government at its finest!
ATLANTA, GEORGIA - U.S. District Judge JACK CAMP was arrested and charged with violating drug distribution laws while he was a federal judge. The judge had a mistress. He was buying drugs for her and exchanging the drugs for sex. The judge was tape recorded making statements that he was prejudiced against minorities. Even though the FBI and Justice Department knew he was a crook, they allowed him to continue sentencing defendants and conducting trials. All those who were convicted and sentenced by CAMP were denied any relief to their convictions or sentence. Why should any ruling or sentence by a crooked judge be allowed to stand? That's easy! His "brethren", fellow judges, didn't want to do any extra work by giving the victimized defendants a new trial or sentencing. The judges are too lazy, and didn't want the public to be reminded any more of this huge embarrassment.
WACO, TEXAS - After years of sexually harassing female courthouse employees, and then lying about it to investigators, federal judge WALTER SMITH, JR's reign of terror came to an end. Smith was allowed to continue his misconduct for more than ten years because the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit fails to properly supervise or discipline its employees until the publicity is just too much to take. Everyone in the Waco courthouse and the Fifth Circuit knew about SMITH'S philandering for years. When the Fifth Circuit finally conducted a limp, half-hearted investigation, SMITH failed to accept responsibility and misled investigators. The public outcry for SMITH'S ouster was too much for the circuit court judges to handle, so SMITH had to go. It wasn't what he DID that made him a liability, he was now an embarrassment because the PUBLIC knew about it! OH, and the best part, despite all this misconduct and probable federal crimes committed by SMITH, he was allowed to keep his full pension!
SHERMAN, TEXAS. Judges are supposed to be impartial and not have any conversations with any party to the lawsuit outside of the court or without all parties present. To do otherwise smacks of "fixes" and secret deals. It was really no surprise that Magistrate Judge ZACK HAWTHORN had to be recused from a case because he WAS having ex parte conversations with one of the parties, outside the presence of the other party. Sure, he knew better, but the fix was in!! See Morrison v. Walker, U.S. Dist. Case No. 1:13-CV-377 (E.D. TX - Sherman).
The Eastern District of Texas is also one of the most notorious districts in the nation, taking as much as four years to rule on simple federal habeas corpus cases. One must surely wonder, why does it take four years to resolve habeas cases in the Eastern District, when any NFL player can get an emergency hearing in a week on his whining complaint that he can't play football for six Sundays! What's more important, a man's constitutional right to liberty, or the ability of some millionaire ball player to miss six games? Well, in Texas, football is more important!! See NFLPA (representing Ezekiel Elliiott) v. NFL, 270 F. Supp. 3d 939 (E.D. TX 2017) (NFLPA filed suit on 9/1/2017 and an emergency hearing was held on 9/5/2017, a lengthy opinion and Order were filed on September 8, 2017).
In Corpus Christi, Texas, federal judge HAYDEN HEAD made this ruling when defendant Keelon Senegal asked for a new trial because the judge that convicted him, SAMUEL KENT, was drunk on the bench and under investigation for federal crimes: "The time limits in Rule 33 are jurisdictional." A Rule 33 motion is one that asks for a new trial. See United States v. Senegal, Crim. NO. G-06-08(2) (S.D. TX 11/24/2010) (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124551). The problem with this blatantly wrong "Opinion" is that the United States Supreme Court ruled on October 31, 2005 (MORE THAN 5 YEARS PRIOR) that Rule 33 was NOT jurisdictional. See Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005). Claiming Rule 33 was "jurisdictional", when it was not, allowed HEAD to deny Mr. Senegal's motion for a new trial. This means judge HEAD twisted the law to cover up his brother judge's drunkenness and criminal activity. No one, not even a federal judge could be that incompetent. The error was pointed out to HEAD in a detailed letter on January 13, 2011. HEAD still refused to follow the law or do the right thing. By gosh he was not going to allow a fellow King to be shown to be a crook. HEAD didn't care that Senegal was forced to suffer an illegal conviction and sentence. Protect the Kings, at all costs, even the truth!! Senegal is in prison due to a federal judge's fictitious rulings. A judge who refuses to follow the law is no longer entitled to have any of his orders followed.
And you know who else doesn't have to wait years for their motions to be ruled on? That's right, anything filed by the United States. Federal judges move faster than any other time of the day when an Assistant U.S. Attorney files ANY motion. The judges can't wait to prostrate themselves at the feet of their masters, and they rule (almost always for the Government) within just hours to a day or two. Why? Keep reading.
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA One of the biggest problems with federal courts is that they are manned largely by former federal prosecutors. These lying, spineless jellyfish will twist the law and the truth to satisfy their personal agendas at every opportunity. A recent ruling by former Assistant U.S. Attorney LARRY BURNS proves the point to even the most uneducated layman. In the case of United States v. Brent Wilkes, Southern Dist. of California case no. 15-cv-2841-LAB, BURNS sat on Wilkes' exceptionally well founded 2255 habeas petition for almost two years without doing anything. Wilkes went to the 9th Circuit, which ordered BURNS to make a ruling in 90 days. Predictably, BURNS issued a factually twisted opinion, lacking any intellectual depth or common sense. For instance, BURNS denied Wilkes any access to exculpatory Brady information in the case, despite an affidavit from Wilkes' former attorney that the Government had hid an enormous amount of evidence from Wilkes at his trial. BURNS also ruled that Wilkes had to show how the lack of access to that evidence prejudiced him at trial! This was more nonsense. How could Wilkes possibly show how he was prejudiced from not receiving the evidence, when the judge was still denying him access to that evidence!!!
GALVESTON, TEXAS - Judge SAMUEL KENT was another one who couldn't keep his hands to himself, harassing any female in the courthouse he could, using his robe to hide what his hands were doing! He ended up getting kicked off the bench too when he brought too much heat on the "Kings". Kings don't like it when they are exposed for who and what they are!
In the case of United States of America V. James Eric Jones, the poor and uneducated prisoner attempted to use the writ of Habeas Corpus to show how his incarceration was illegal, because he had been unconstitutionally convicted. 419 Fed. Appx. 365, 2011 U.S App. LEXIS 5930 (4th Cir. 2011). On December 1, 2010, Mr. Jones filed a brief to the U.S Court of Appeals on his case. Now, before a court of appeals can hear the merits of the case, either the district court or the appeals court has to grant a "certificate of appealability" certifying that the appeal can proceed. On December 1, 2010, the 4th Circuit denied his appeal, saying that Jones was not entitled to a certificate because he had not made the proper showing on his issues. See LEXIS NO. 24659. The problem with this ruling was that THE DISTRICT COURT HAD ALREADY GRANTED MR. JONES MULTIPLE CERTIFICATES OF APPEALABILITY. In fact, had the robo-signing judges actually read the district court's opinion in the matter, in all capital letters were the words, " A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IS GRANTED ON ALL ISSUES." The 4th Circuit is known to many as the "rubber stamp squad," due to their frequent denials without ever having read the pleadings or files that accompany them.
The 4th Circuit then promptly turned around and denied the Appeal altogether for a new and different reason. In doing so, the 4th Circuit broke the law again, never even asking the United States for a response.
Similarly in U.S.A v. James Niblock, No. 08-8540, the 4th Circuit wrote, in denying any relief, "We have reviewed the record in this case." That was another complete fabrication. Official government records show that the relevant files were, at all times, at the federal records center in Philadelphia, PA, and never traveled to the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia!
Ditto with Goodman V. Stolle, Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria Case No. 1:13-cv-00540. In that case, district judge GERALD BRUCE LEE dismissed the pro se complaint because Goodman "submitted an amended complaint but has not returned the Consent Form or exhaustion affidavit." On appeal, the 4th Circuit said, "We have determined that the consent form and exhaustion affidavit are located in the record." Goodman v. Stolle, 2014 U.S App. LEXIS 628 (4th Cir. 2014).
The question is, are these people really that uneducated and stupid, or do they just think we are?
Federal Judge Myth #4 - Camera's Are Prohibited In Federal Court To Preserve Integrity
As demonstrated above, there is no integrity in federal proceedings or within federal judges. Rather, they seek to block any public view of what really goes on in federal courts. These Kings want no transparency because it would be readily apparent to average citizens with no legal training whatsoever that these mental lilliputians want nothing more than to mask their own ineptitude, their congenital temperament defects, and the injustice and illegality which permeates every federal court proceeding on a daily basis.
There can be not even the possibility of a breach of integrity of a trial once the trial is over and it is just sentencing, or pretrial, when parties are arguing about illegal searches, unconstitutional arrests, and violations of speedy trial rights. No friends, the prohibition of any camera in federal courts are there simply to protect the purported aura of federal proceedings, much like the curtain which hid the tiny dwarf in the Wizard of Oz. So too do federal judges hide from public view the reality, for if the reality was seen by the public, the public would have a far, far different opinion of the federal bench - an honest view. It is time to pull back the curtain on these charlatans with cameras in every federal courtroom and term limits of 10 years to throw the rascals out to the pasture.
What Legal Professionals Say About Federal Judges
- The following facts and opinions are not just of the authors of this site. These Views are held by the brightest mind in the legal profession-
Gerry Spence is perhaps America's most renowned and successful trial lawyer, in fact, Gerry Spence has never lost a criminal case, (unlike most federal public defenders who have never won a single case) and has not lost a civil jury case since 1969. Here is what Mr. Spence had to say about federal judges in his best-selling book, "Win Your Case."
"Those judges who have been appointed for life are the new kings in a democracy, and some are the worst of tyrants."
"We take an ordinary lawyer, slip a black robe on him and call him your honor and catch our breath as we argue before him, this man of all wisdom who could barely find his way to the courthouse before his ascension."
"To those who suffer little caring for the human species, power is attractive, compelling. Bullies want power. The ancient Chinese held that men who seek power should be denied it because they are dangerous to themselves and to others."
"The judge had never been much of account in the courtroom himself and was eager to withhold the possibility of success from anyone else. Those kind often sit in high authority, but sodden in low self-esteem, and are secretly elated when those around them fail."
"Often big words hide incompetence."
"Big words often hide small minds."
-This is what "real lawyers" think of federal judges. What do you think?-