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, ne'er do wells, who prostrated themselves at the feet of the party in power and the senior U.S Senator for the state in which they wished to rule. They 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.
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 unfair biased judges, who believe they have been magically transformed into dispensers of Solomon-like wisdom after passing through the "robe-a-dope" room adjacent to the courtroom, I have encountered two federal judges who can't count to ten - literally. There are many many more federal judges who have such difficulty.
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 and thumbs to ten, and see that defendant Herrera had filed a timely appeal, within ten days, as the rules require. Cummings was given an extra chance to understand the simple math, when he was asked to alter or amend his judgement with the aid of a calendar and count-to-ten flashcards. 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 with 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 Donald 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 t heir 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 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 ahead of principles.
Federal Judge Myth #2 - Federal Judges Themselves Obey The Law
A. Federal Judges Are Not Trustworthy
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.
In the case of United States v. James Niblock, E.D. Va Case No. 02-cr-568, Mr. Niblock has been waiting 14 years for a ruling on his habeas corpus motion. The Court refuses to make a ruling, even though Mr. Niblock's latest motion for immediate release, filed in March of 2017 is not opposed by the United States. The United States does not oppose Mr. Niblock's request for release on bail until the Court can find time in its so very busy schedule to make a ruling on the 14 year old motion or the 1 year old motion. Blatant injustice. What happened to "Equal justice under the law"? It was never real; that was just lip service for the masses. Our system is no better than Russia or China - a simple truth.
Up until October of 2017, Niblock's case was assigned to federal judge GERALD BRUCE LEE. LEE is a well known author of meritless, factually baseless opinions. LEE was the most reversed district judge in the 4th Circuit. LEE stepped down in September of 2017 for alleged "health concerns", but there are swirling rumors of impropriety on his part, having engaged in a massive cover-up of civil rights. Why cant Niblock get any ruling on his case after 14 years? Easy, there has been a massive cover-up involving the criminal acts of his two former appointed public defenders (IVAN DARNELL DAVIS AND MICHAEL STEFAN NACHMANOFF), who are now magistrate judges, and his former prosecutor, who is now the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia - DANA JAMES BOENTE. The evidence already on file in the district court clerk's office is uncontested and it is staggering as to the lengths the attorneys and courts have gone to cover up federal crimes, perjury, and misconduct by the attorneys.
On April 4, 2018, the district clerk for the Eastern district of Virginia docketed a 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 respose 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. Thus, they have now admitted their crimes!
Based on those undisputed 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). Whether the circuit Court will whitewash the investigation to protect the reputation of its "brethren" or whether it will do justice and fire these two crooks remains to be seen. We will keep you updated.
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!
Nothing Personifies the federal judge mantra "we are above the law" more than the following example - one of literally hundreds of available such instances.
First, some background is necessary. A Writ of Habeas Corpus is one of the sacred, cherished rights of American citizens to swiftly determine the legality of their incarceration. It's absence was specifically cited in the Declaration of Independence as a principle reason for secession from Great Britian.
Second, Congress writes the laws and all citizens and the other two branches of government - the Judiciary and the Executive, are Constitutionally bound to obey that law. Congress passed a specific Habeas Corpus law to ensure timely and swift decisions by the courts. Title 28 U.S Code, Section 2244 reads in part ; "The court of appeals shall grant or deny the authorization to file a second or successive application not later than 30 days after the filing of the motion."
Now in the English language, shall is the language of command the action "must" be done in the time required. Ahhh, but if you thought the courts would obey any law they didn't like, you would be wrong. The courts ignore the law, in fact completely disregard the mandatory actions they were told to take in a law. Here's one way the federal courts ignore federal law.
Section 2244's 30 day "deadline is precatory not mandatory" . in re Williams, 330 F.3d 277 , 280(4th Cir. 2003).
Precatory - Whats that? That's defined as "expressing a wish" The Fourth U.S Circuit Court ofAppeals ruled that they didn't have to follow the law, that it was only a "wish", because Congress did not include any penalty if they did not follow the law. Now this logic is simply beyond childish. If an employer, parent, or police officer told you, an average citizen to do something, and later asked if you had done it, and you said no, or you just flat out disobeyed, or if you were the authority figure giving the command and it was not obeyed because no spoken penalty was attached, and then you said, "Well, you didn't say what would happen if I didn't", is anyone in the world going to say " Oh, you're right, I didn't, so you really didn't have to do it." Sadly, this is the attitude of federal courts. "We are above the law." In the cited case from the 4th Circuit, they cite another five cases where other Circuit courts have said exactly the same thing about this sacred habeas statute. Federal judges feel that the law does not apply to them.
Lastly, because federal judges are appointed for life, they effectively have no boss whatsoever, they do what they want, when they want. They are Kings for life.
Federal Judge Myth #3 - Judges Read The Documents Filed In Their Court
This contention is laughable. Here is just one example to prove federal judges rarely read anything filed. Instead, they simply have their inept law clerks read it and make a recommendation.
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, 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, 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?-