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 habeus 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

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

Nothing Personifies the federal judge mantra "we are above the law" ,ore 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?-