Archive for the Judges Category

The Ninth Circuit:  Two-Tiered “Just-Us” Review (February 13, 2017)

Posted in Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Justice, Law, Perjury, Perjury/Dishonesty, Truth on February 13, 2017 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “There are two standards of review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  If the plaintiff is a favored or famous individual or the matter is a cause célèbre, the Niners read the briefs and write a coherent decision.  If the plaintiff is not among the elite and is some ordinary stiff, the Niners do not read the briefs and instead distort both the law and the facts to make the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s lawyer look like fools.” 

J          “That is, perforce, perjury, but that is never a concern or an impediment.  They swore to uphold the law.  They are not upholding the law.  When they issue a decision, they are not required to attach an affidavit stating that the decision is an honest description of the law and the facts.  They already swore to provide an honest description of the law and the facts.”

K          “Perjury is the American Way.”

. . .

K          “If a case or issue is hip, cool, trendy, sexy and/or well-publicized, the Niners give it the time of day.  The recent case involving the trendy issue du jour provided an opportunity for an ideological pronouncement.  The Niners are more predictable than the sunrise.” 

. . .

K          “Cockroaches work diligently in the dark and scurry away when the lights are turned on.  Judges work diligently when the television lights are turned on and scurry away when the lights are turned off.”

J          “Perhaps the Niners should candidly and honestly state that they will not read a brief filed by a little person unless accompanied by a filing fee four (4) times the filing fee charged to large players and institutions.”

K          “Ten (10) times the filing fee may not be enough.  How much is enough.”

. . .

K          “Too bad we cannot depose God to determine the Truth.  Based on decades of study and careful observation, I calculate that aggregating the acts of perjury perpetrated by each judge and applying the low end of the Sentencing Guidelines would consign most judges to prison for life.”

J          “Now there is one for you.  There are more felons or technically unindicted felons on the bench at large than among the public.  I missed that discussion in my high school civics class.”

. . .

J          “Some ideas are too Truthful to entertain for even a few seconds.”

K          “When you think on it, perjury is the back bone of the American Judicial System.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary “On Standards & Quality (July 20, 2015)”, “The Court Of Truth And Justice (CTJ) (August 29, 2016)”, “Assigning Blame:  The Lawyers: 50 Percent; The Non-Lawyer Public: 50 Percent; The Judges: 100 Percent (December 3, 2012)” and “Perjury, the American Way (February 20, 2006).”

Bumper stickers of the week:

“There is always some kid who may be seeing me for the first or last time, I owe him my best.”  Joe DiMaggio

Courts have failed.  Courts exist to make life easy and lucrative for judges and to make money for obliging and cooperative lawyers.

First Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 17, 2016)

Posted in Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Courts, Credit Unions, Judges, Noble Prize in Jurisprudence on October 17, 2016 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “A prize dedicated to acknowledging and celebrating the work of someone who really knows something about jurisprudence and the impact of courts, judges, lawyers and police on the lives and livelihood of ordinary citizens.  Someone who lives the conviction that men and women should establish and respect some norms and standards that are promulgated clearly to all and enforced equally in favor of and against all.”

J          “Novel.  Appropriate.  Necessary.  And unprecedented.”

K          “The recipient of the first annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence is . . . all of the unnamed and uncelebrated lawyers and support staff who protect and advance civil rights and civil liberties in a legal system that is usually indifferent if not hostile to such fundamental concerns.”

. . .

J          “Politics does come full circle.  Libertarian Republicans and Democratic civil libertarians can find some common ground.  The high ground.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary announcing the Noble Prize in Jurisprudence at “Award Deadlines (Livelines?) (July 25, 2016)” and “Here Comes Da Judge; Dere Goes Da Justice (August 31, 2015)” and the earlier e-commentary cited in that e-commentary.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

You can’t have my rights; I’m still using them

October 20 – International Credit Union Day

The Court Of Truth And Justice (CTJ) (August 29, 2016)

Posted in Courts, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Justice, Monopoly, Rackets, Rule of Law on August 29, 2016 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “Courts have failed.  Courts exist to make life easy and lucrative for judges and to make money for obliging and cooperative lawyers.”

J          “Just another racket.”

K          “The lawyer’s unwitting role is to lead the public to believe that we live under a system of laws with neutral judges who listen to all arguments and discern the law and facts objectively.”

J          “A lawyer goes on the bench so that he or she can go home early with full and guaranteed pay.”

. . .

K          “We need to create courts that find some truth and do some justice.  Hundreds of years ago in England, the courts of ‘law’ dispensed very little truth or justice and applied a ruthless version of the law.  The market responded and a new court system and court house was established across the street – the court of ‘equity’.  If you fell behind on your house payment, the ‘law’ court would toss you out in the street.  However, go across the street and the ‘equity’ court would give you credit for what you invested in the house and even prevent the law court from tossing you out in the street.”

J          “Isn’t that why they call what you invest in the home – dollars and sweat – the ‘equity’ in your house.  The thing called ‘equity’ in your home was created to address that personal investment in and commitment to the home.”

K          “Exactly.  There are still equitable causes of action and equitable remedies.  Dozens of years ago, all the big legal players decided to merge the ‘law’ court and the ‘equity’ court into one court.  That created a monopoly.  And the courts quickly began to act like monopolists.  They could and do whatever they want to do which is typically to dismiss a case and go home.”

J          “With full and guaranteed pay.  Sounds like the merger of the National Football League and the American Football League into the National Football League in 1970.  Monopoly is bad.”

K          “Monopoly is very bad.  We need to return to our roots and create a new court of ‘equity’ that could be called . . . the ‘Court of Truth and Justice’ to address the genuine legal needs of the populace.”

J          “What you are talking about is what I call restoring the rule of law in America.”

. . .

K          “We need a test case.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “Assigning Blame: The Lawyers: 50 Percent; The Non-Lawyer Public: 50 Percent; The Judges: 100 Percent (December 3, 2012).”]

Bumper sticker of the week:

Why not try the rule of law for a week or two?

Arctic High School Court (May 23, 2016)

Posted in Courts, Due Process, Hypocrisy, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Justice, Perjury, Perjury/Dishonesty on May 23, 2016 by e-commentary.org

. . .

_          “Affirming cases that should be reversed.”

_          “Reversing cases that should be affirmed.”

_          “Construing the rules to promote the most unjust, protracted and expensive determination of a matter.”

_          “Denying requests for oral argument and thus violating the most fundamental tenet of due process.”

_          “Contending dishonestly and fraudulently that the lawyer has waived an argument when the lawyer clearly and unambiguously has not waived and would not under any circumstances waive an argument.”

_          “Spewing an order as ‘Entered at the direction of an individual justice’ without stating the name of the ‘Just-us’ so that one is unable to determine and track the whims, inclinations and peccadillos of the Justice.  And usually an order that allows the Justice and the Court not to do any work and to go home early.”

_          “Dismissing the most meritorious and novel argument by demeaning and dissing it as ‘absolutely without merit’ because it would require reflection and intellect to appreciate.”

_          “Disregarding the law.”

_          “Making up the law.”

_          “Disregarding the facts.”

_          “Making up the facts.”

_          “Developing the reputations of friends and destroying the reputations of non-friends.”

_          “Embarrassing an attorney at every opportunity to perpetuate the most institutionalized system of bullying in America.”

_          “Adopting the most arrogant resolution of a matter.”

_          “Taking far too long to address a matter and then getting it wrong.”

. . .

This bill of particulars is inspired in part by the example in the Declaration of Independence that enumerates the grievances that underpinned the decision to declare independence from George The Third.  Now may be the time to declare independence from a legal system that is not working.

Bumper stickers of the week:

Arctic Supreme Court > Arctic High Court > Arctic High School >>>>>>>> Arctic High School Court

Our Motto:  Petty, Personal, Political

Appalling, Disgusting, Revolting

Grade (very low standards; grade inflation):  D+

You can say with a high degree of confidence that the Arctic High School Court will more likely than not reach the wrong decision.

Hotel Arctic High School:  You can check-out any time you like, but you can never leave!  We are all swirling in the high school vortex writ large.

If the shoe fits, you’ve got to indict.

natural born Citizen; Natural Born Killers (March 7, 2016)

Posted in Constitution, Democrats, Elections, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Originalism, Presidency, Republicans, Supreme Court on March 7, 2016 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “An individual who is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ such as John McCain and Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President or Vice President of the United States.  The ‘Originalist’ interpretation of the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ in the U.S. Constitution is clear and unassailable.”

J          “To honor Scalia’s passing and continue its practice of intervening in elections, the Supreme Court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction and enter an injunction enjoining Ted Cruz from running.  For the good of the cause.  And the Constitution.”

K          “Indeed.  Certainement.  Post haste.  He professes to be an honorable man.  And also one of the original ‘Originalists’.  He would surely concur.”

. . .

J          “Many clear thinking individuals now maintain that those born in the United States and those born elsewhere who meet legal requirements meet the contemporary understanding of citizenship at birth.” 

K          “That is the perspective of the see-me, feel-me, touch-me; I’m-okay, you’re-okay; peace, love and Woodstock; tune-in, turn-on, tune-out; get-down, get-funky; if-it-feels-good, do-it school of jurisprudence.”

J          “Yup.”

K          “Kinda makes sense.”

J          “Does.”

. . .

K          “The boys debating with the one who is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ are behaving like ‘Natural Born Killers’.”

J          “So in the one who is not a ‘natural born Citizen’.”    

. . .

[See the discussion at http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11058038/ted-cruz-court and https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b.]

[See the discussion at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/antonin-scalia-looking-backward.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Fukushima Daiichi

This Land Is A) Your Land, B) My Land, Or C) Our Land? (January 11, 2016)

Posted in Collapse, Community, Courts, Hypocrisy, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Justice on January 11, 2016 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “That land is our land, it is not your land.  Time to vacate.”

J          “Agree.  This land is not your land; this land is not my land; this land is our land.  Period.  Time to indict.”

K          “Or is it the Paiute people’s land?”

. . .

J          “Seems that Ammon Bundy is a valet fleet manager from Phoenix, Arizona who condemns the federal government and yet received a $530,000 loan guaranteed by the Small Business Administration for his business.”

K          “Entitlement is the American way.  His dad Cliven Bundy refused to pay the federal government for years for under-market grazing fees on public land.”

J          “They say that the nut does not fall far from the sagebrush.”

. . .

J          “My take is that they have not taken any hostages and are secluded from the public.  Even if they were Black or Muslim, the authorities likely would wait them out.  Bad things happen when decisions are made hastily.”

. . .

K          “Look at the sentences handed out to Dwight and Steven Hammond.  I do not trust the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On any given day, the Ninth Circuit can – and does – do anything it wants to do.  The Ninth Circuit will uphold the will of Congress; the Ninth Circuit will down vote the will of Congress.  The Ninth Circuit could have held that the Sentencing Guidelines do not apply under the circumstances under the Constitution.  The Ninth Circuit wanted to put the Hammonds in jail.”

J          “There is no law.  However, the Hammonds poached animals on public land and then burned the evidence.  That is a violation of law that should occasion a reasonable sentence if we could transfer the matter to a country and a court system that respects the rule of law.” 

. . .

[See the article by Russ Choma titled “How the Leader of the Oregon Armed Protest Benefitted From a Federal Loan Program” in “Mother Jones” magazine.]

[See the e-commentary at “Pay Your Bills, Bundy! (April 28, 2014)” and “Do Your Job Or Quit Your Job (September 14, 2015)”.] 

Bumper stickers of the week:

The Calculus of Community:  “Our” land =/= “Your” land.

Namaste y’all

Here Comes Da Judge; Dere Goes Da Justice (August 31, 2015)

Posted in Courts, Federal Courts, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Law, Law School, Magazine Reference on August 31, 2015 by e-commentary.org

. . .

B-W L          “I told my client in a personal meeting face to face in the office that we were assigned a judge who would rule against us without reading any of the pleadings.  Zero percent chance of success.  An appeal was too expensive.  The client said to proceed making the arguments and angle for an angle, some angle, any angle.  You should always send a separate letter as an attachment to an e-mail and by snail mail to the client confirming your concerns that the outcome may not be favorable as discussed.  I slow rolled things playing for time with no grand plan.  Out of the blue, an entity moves and is allowed to intervene; the judge steps out of the case without comment.  New judge takes over case; new judge follows the law; client prevails.  You need to get lucky some times.”

W-E L S          “We are spending the third year trading war stories like this in the student lounge.”

B-W L          “And that part of the process is not even covered by tuition.  I told another client that we drew the right judge and could expect a favorable outcome.  Some judge gets deployed overseas to join in killing innocent folks and a new judge is assigned.  A judge who liked to use the expression ‘a no-brainer’ and met that qualification.  However, the argument required a brain.  He employed his patented ‘no brainer’ analysis.”

W-E L S          “Dead.”

B-W L          “DOA.  Upon notice of the reassignment, the first reaction was utter dread.  Game over.  A death notice from the court.  You may not realize that your state still has the death penalty in civil cases.  And not a shot was fired.  How do you explain it to a client who is utterly disgusted with the whole process.  He kept yelling that he wanted the first judge and wanted me to get the first judge back.”

. . .

B-W L          “MSU is a military expression that applies to the law.  Making Stuff Up.  The facts and the law.  No one will ask the fundamental question whether all the money, public and private, spent to indoctrinate a young law student is worth fomenting the illusion and delusion.  Is there value in the truth?”

W-E L S          “Can I get a refund on my tuition?”

. . .

B-W L          “Few if any of your law professors ever practiced law.  You are obligated to repeat and are rewarded for propagating the myth.  That is the Game.”

. . .

[B-W L: Battle-Weary Lawyer; W-E L S: Wide-Eyed Law Student]

[See the e-commentary at Playin’ The Legal Game (March 28, 2011) and Assigning Blame: The Lawyers: 50 Percent; The Non-Lawyer Public: 50 Percent; The Judges: 100 Percent (December 3, 2012).]

Bumper stickers of the week:

“Your honor, we will be filing a motion this afternoon to transfer this case to an entirely different judicial system.”  “The New Yorker” cartoon in office.

MSU:  The motto of the American judicial system

A system of men and women not a system of laws.

The first thing we do let’s banish the American-acculturated judges.