|
Judicial Bias
Recently, I was cogitating upon some of the data learned over many years of study regarding our judicial system. And all of a sudden, something popped up that has been found to be a very interesting idea to some people I've shared it with. It has to do with the fact that judges are merely elevated lawyers. They all belong to the same brotherhood, so therefore it is an obvious conflict of interest for one of them to preside over another. Now some may say that since the judge is presiding over TWO or more lawyers on the same case, that it is a fair arrangement. But then when we add in the little known fact that judges get 1/3 of the judgement awarded to go to their retirement fund, a monkey wrench gets thrown into the works. 1/3 of a million dollars from one side is much more than 1/3 of a thousand dollars from the other side. Is this the REAL reason for what have come to be known as "deep pocket rulings", where the person with the most money is found to be guilty instead of the one with the least amount? Methinks 'tis so, my brethren.
We also know that judges have other vested interests in how cases will turn out besides that. Namely, that they may set a precedent, confirm or reverse prior decisions, or expose certain facts are just a few of them. But that one of the portion of civil judgements going to the judge's retirement fund is about the most important one. So, if this is indeed the case, then that definitely makes the judge an interested party to the action and unqualified to sit in judgement of it.
And then there is the content of a recently received e-mail. There is a judge by the name of Gerald P. Garson, who was being investigated for taking bribes and referring certain cases to an attorney. And after charges were brought against this judge, they were dismissed by another judge named Steven W. Fisher because he said that nothing wrong had been done! This is totally incredible! One judge gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and another judge says that it's OK to steal cookies. So, if a judge can dismiss charges for another one via the good ol' boy network, what does that then say about getting a fair trial? Now I'd very much like to ask a judge sometime "What guarantee do I have that I will get a fair trial here?". If the judge says that I am guaranteed under such and so statute or other, I would then ask "How could I be assured that that would actually do what you claim?". "Where is your proof of that?". And just keep going around and around on that point. If the judge was foolish enough to admit that I had no such guarantee, then I would say "Well, then what's the point of my being here in the first place?" "Is this just a crap shoot where the roll of the dice will determine if I win or lose?". "Who throws those dice?". "Am I here to have some wealth or life extracted from me in order to satisfy the needs of the State?". "Why don't you just cut out all of the wasted time and effort, throw me in jail for the rest of my life and take away everything that I own right now?".
If the judge were to start spewing some BS about the integrity of the court system, blah, blah, blah... I'd just hand him/her a copy of that e-mail which details the chain of events in that case mentioned above, and probably a few other choice items as well. Such as a list of judges who have engaged in judicial activism or made errors that caused grave damage to people. By the axiom of "one bad apple spoils the whole barrel", all it takes is for one judge to abuse his/her position to cast a very dark shadow upon the whole lot of them. And there are many dark shadows falling upon these judges now.
Yes, this could possibly cause a great amount of turmoil and unrest in the criminal justice system, and that's exactly what it is, criminal, so why should we care if a corrupt organization goes belly up? Isn't that a GOOD thing? Do people moan and bewail the convictions of drug dealers or others who cause great amounts of death and destruction? Not many, I must say.
A very interesting thing I read about a few months ago, is that a court cannot sustain a conviction upon someone who does not hire an attorney to represent them. And that an individual can refuse to accept a sentence imposed by a judge upon them, unless they have an attorney of course, for the attorney will just act in his/her capacity as guardian and accept it for them. Now why is that? Is it because the individual has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the court at the outset? I don't know the exact reference, but I read that a King cannot be sued in his own court without his permission, or words to that effect. And since we are supposed to be sovereigns without subjects, kings in our own right, this line of reasoning I am relating here makes perfect sense to me. Is there a law which says that one must hire an attorney? Does the hiring of an attorney diminish one's rights? Can an individual be forced to hire or take advice from an attorney? If so, from where does the authority to force something like that upon one come from? If not, then isn't it a fraud to make it appear that there is such an authority?
So what this comes down to is a proclamation of "no confidence" in the judicial system, very similar to a vote of no confidence of a person chairing a committee. There's no entry in Black's Sixth Edition for a "vote of no confidence" or anything like that, but there IS an entry for confidence game, which if one looks at a court of law today, is a perfect description of one!
It is of utmost importance to address this subject and find correct answers before it's too late.
Randy Gaumond, Sui Juris
|
