Thank you for your efforts to inform the public about the problems with our court system. So, the judges want to be able to continue to violate the law and not get punished for it, and they have the audacity to call that reform.

Even worse, they want to keep the public comments made about their proposed "reforms" secret. Apparently, they don’t want the public to hear the horror stories that have been submitted to them or the comments on their ludicrous "reforms." See the Miami Herald article about keeping these comments secret at http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/285048.html Please note that no comments to that article have been posted even though I have tried to post one twice.

Even though they try to keep judicial corruption and abuses of power quiet, we hear stories in the mainstream media from time to time about prosecutors abusing their power like in the Jena 6 and Duke Lacrosse cases, but rarely do we hear any mention of a judge abusing his power. Of course, the judge in Jena is doing so, but I have not heard that mentioned when the media does talk about the Jena case.

If you are one of the people who think, "well, they must have done something to get in trouble with the law," then you may want to ask yourself what might happen when you get stopped one day. Would you want a police officer to act appropriately? Would you want to be charged with something just because they have the power to do so, or would you want to make sure that members of our justice system will be disciplined if they break the law?

Also, if the State wants to take your children away, would want the State to be able to do so based on lies and misinformation and without a jury trial? If you can’t believe that it happens in America, visit this web site http://www.rescuemykids.com/ Unfortunately, there are other web sites like it detailing abuses all across our country. Just google injustice to see for yourself.

It seems obvious that judges should be required to follow the law, but they aren’t anymore, and everyone in our country is suffering because of it. For an explanation of this and how our Founders intended to protect us from judges who would break the law, see my speech titled "No Justice, No Peace" given at the National Judicial Reform Conference at Rice University in Houston, Texas on August 11, 2007.  Following are the links to it:

Higher Quality Video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5135583133302349969

Lower Quality Video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5274592268158533722

Also, other great Americans, like John Mellencamp, are taking action to raise awareness about injustice and oppression. Here is a link to MSM Misinformation, Injustice, and a Great Song by John Cougar Mellencamp

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_ada_071006_msm_misinformation_2c_.htm If you want to hear "Jena" a new song by John Mellencamp and learn what really happened in Jena, then you might want to check it out.

Remember, without justice, there can be no peace or prosperity. Send the link to this article to your contacts and help restore justice, peace, and prosperity in America.

Thanks,

Mark A. Adams, Esquire JD/MBA

by Mark Adams (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 312 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:35:44 PM

 

The Judicial Conference says Judges should Judge the Judges...but with 99% dismissals of all complaits against judges, should they continue with the practice???

 

Francis Knize was one of threee who testified on Sept 27, 07

PLEASE WATCH VIDEO:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFxxuGp0aiQ

frankknee@aol.com

FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE RULES FOR THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980; AND ALSO A NOTICE OF AN ENSUING COMPLAINT AGAINST J. ALVIN THOMPSON OF CONN. DISTRICT COURT

BY FRANCIS C. P. KNIZE; Producer, 50 Sunset Pass, Wilton, Ct 06897 203 544 9603


That to secure [The People's} rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.....JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

Has the Judicial Conference heeded this warning that it has become an Institution that is destructive to the People's rights to Soveriegnty? The integrity of the Judiciary shall be found to be at stake; not because a mechanism in place to discipline judicial officers for bad behavior, but because the Judiciary ends up covering up the misdeeds of corrupt decisions.The fact is, as shown by the record of hundreds of thousands of cases, that the Judiciary protects judges who break the law, and has created Quid Quo Pro whereby we are no longer a government where Rule Of Law stands, and anything discretionary and arbitrary beyond the law can take hold as a final decision. The Judiciary is to be blamed for creating an Oligarchy, Nepotism, Anarchy against the equal protection of the laws. ...That under false application of "Judicial Independence" the highest Judges of our beloved Nation allow and tolerate the Abuse of Power by lower court Judges by creating unfounded rules which illegally bypass the consent of the governed, that corrupt desicisions are rampant; and in the aftermath there exist an inherent conspiracy of the courts, where judges are protecting judges by Judges judging Judges. It grows worse by the day where judges use every excuse, depriving rights, so as NOT to hear cases AND COMPLAINTS, instead of protecting the people's Constitutional rights. Even top Judge Edith Jones has proclaimed that the courts "are corrupt beyond recognition." The people have now fully recognised the critical mass meltdown of justice. The People are not fooled by the Breyer Commission Report that the system of judges judging judges works well, with 99% of all complaints summarily dissmissed, sealed, irresponsibly disregarded. Judicial Conference, we largely blame you for all that. Do nothing to restore what the people want of your integrity and it will catch up with you.

If the Judicial Conference will not act to let the People into the process for oversight of Judges, we will go to Congress in such great numbers within our rights to unboundingly protest, and we will become the ones who will create the needed change in how the Judiciary runs, ...since you will have forfeited your responsibility to do so by doing nothing significant in 27 years, by doing the opposite with rules which dismiss complaints against judges under the false premise the complaints are merits-related. If the merit is that "No Man Is Above The Law" it should always be reviewable. My Television Series "In The Interest Of Justice" will cover what happens at Congress every step of the way, and the People will be widely informed about how the Judiciary has and continues to shirk its duties.

I have some pointed Questions for the Judicial Conference....

1) Will you continue to form rules which kill the Replublic?
2) Has the Judiciary given itself extra judicial power through its rules to create an absolute Imperialism and unconstitutional EX POST FACTO Laws?
3) Do we care to pass on to future American generations, ie; your children too, a government which consistently follows the Rule Of Law or will the courts persist with its nepotism?

Now, don't decide these questions behind closed doors (appearance of impropriety),
rather, dare ask the public, the sovereign ones for which this government stands, what they are perceiving of you. The ABA polls show an average of 25% public confidence and trust in the Judiciary. Do you understand that we don't trust you anymore? We need the Conduct Statute to provide for the detection and prevention of inappropriate conduct and detection of fraud which does, or attempts to ... defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner.

DEFINATION OF "TO JUDGE" : To make a decision or reach a conclusion after examining all the factual evidence presented. To form an opinion after evaluating the facts and applying the law.

If a Judge "breaks the Law", instigates a "corrupt decision", should he be held accountable? We know what the people think about this. They have common sense which the courts lack Where is the mechanism, the rule formation in the JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980 which creates review of such bad behavior? Instead, the Judiciary has formed rules to dismiss coordinated wrongdoing through trick and deception by saying that "incorrect decisions" are not reviewable; to protect judges from fear of politics. Like anybody else, a man or woman holding any governmental office should fear breaking the law, and should behold the consequences of breaking the law. That is what the Judiciary demands upon the public at large, but then it exempts itself from that fear.

Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government:
Section 1. 'The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior. ....

We demand that the Judicial Conference take Judicial Notice of the following document:

Trial of Good Behavior of Federal Judges
Charles Pergler
Virginia Law Review, Vol. 29, No. 7 (May, 1943), pp. 876-880
doi:10.2307/1068950
This article consists of 5 page(s).

MR. KNIZE'S COMMENTARY:PUBLICATION ABOVE STATES THE QUESTION OF WHETHER GOOD BEHAVIOR OF JUDGES SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT AS WELL AS BY CONGRESS, LEAVING OPEN-ENDED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION SHOWS DISTINCT LIMITS ON PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPEACHMENT ONLY, TO APPLY ONLY THROUGH CONGRESS. THE CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT LIMIT COURT PROCEEDINGS FOR MISCONDUCT AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION AS ERRONEOUSLY PRESUMED BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE.

QUESTION POSED ON PAGE 876 VIGINIA LAW REVIEW VOL 29
ANSWERED ON PAGE 878 VIGINIA LAW REVIEW VOL 29
COMMENTARY: IMPEACHMENT IS NOT THE ONLY PROCEDURE USED TO REMOVE UNWORTHY OR INCOMPETENT CIVIL OFFICERS....NOTE THE ANALYSIS ABOVE USED THE WORDS UNWORTHY OR INCOMPETENT AS TO IMPLY GROUNDS FOR BAD BEHAVIOR!!!!  CONDUCT IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW, BAD BAHAVIOR CONSIST, IN PART, OF BREAKING THE LAW; U.S. V. HRASKY 88 N.E.1031,240 ILL., 560 (1909). THE CONTRARY TO THE ABIDANCE OF THE LAW AND CONTRARY TO DEFINITION OF GOOD BEHAVIOR DOES NOT EXCLUDE MORAL BEHAVIOR; STATE V. BELL id.

CONCLUSION: ABUSE OF POWER SHOULD ALWAYS BE REVIEWABLE. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE SHOULD SHIRK THEIR DUTY AND NOT PLACE OTHER MECHANISMS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST JUDGES FOR INCOMPETENCE IN APPLYING THE LAW, WHICH IS BEYOND MERIT-RELATEDNESS AND CALLS FOR CERTAIN EVALUATION FOR "UNWORTHYNESS"; THE JUDGES LOSE THE RIGHT TO BE DECIDING IN THE FIRST PLACE IF NOTHING IS DONE. CONCERNING THE RULES FOR MISCONDUCT, IT STATES:


<http://www.uscourts.gov/library/judicialmisconduct/Rules_DraftPublicComment.pdf>

Pg 10 REF

An allegation of misconduct or disability filed under Rule 6 is most assuredly a
16 "complaint," and the Rule so provides in (a)(1). But both the nature of the process and the use of
17 the term "identify" suggest that the word "complaint" covers more than a document formally
18 triggering the process. The process relies on chief circuit judges considering known information
19 and triggering the process when appropriate. "Identifying" a "complaint," therefore, is best
20 understood as concluding -- "identifying" -- that information known to a chief circuit judge
21 constitutes reasonable grounds for an inquiry into possible misconduct or disability -- a
22 "complaint" -- whether or not the information is framed as, or intended to be an accusation. This
23 definition is codified in (a)(2).
24
25 The term "prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of
26 the courts" is not subject to precise definition, and the Rule therefore provides some specific
27 examples. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges may provide standards of conduct
28 applicable to proceedings under the Act, although it is not intended that disciplinary action be
29 appropriate for every violation of the Code’s provisions. As noted in the Introduction to the
30 Code:


"Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of
32 discipline to be imposed, should be determined through a
33 reasonable application of the text and should depend on such
34 factors as the seriousness of the violation, the intent of the judge,
35 whether there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the
36 improper activity on others or on the judicial system. Many of the
37 proscriptions in the Code are necessarily cast in general terms, and
38 it is not suggested that disciplinary action is appropriate where
39 reasonable judges might be uncertain as to whether or not the
40 conduct is proscribed.


Pg 11 COMMENTARY: THERE IS AN OBVIOUS PROBLEM WITH THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION ON LINE 25: IT OVERRIDES OVERSIGHT BASED ON BEHAVIOR WHICH IS "prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of he courts" . IF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION MANDATES THAT BAD BEHAVIOR BE GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINE AND REMOVAL FROM HOLDING OFFICE, AND BREAKING THE LAW OR NOT CORRECTLY APPLYING THE LAW, FOR WHICH THERE IS NO DISCRETION TO DISOBEY AND WHERE CORRUPT DECISIONS COME TO PLAY; THESE ARE REASONS FOR DISCIPLINE.

This
22 exclusion also preserves the independence of judges in the exercise of judicial power. Any
23 allegation that calls into question the correctness of an official action of a judge -- without more
24 -- is merits-related. The phrase "decision or procedural ruling" is not limited to rulings issued in
25 deciding Article III cases or controversies. Thus, a complaint challenging the correctness of a
26 chief circuit judge’s determination to dismiss a prior misconduct complaint would be properly
27 dismissed as merits-related -- i.e., as challenging the substance of the judge’s administrative
28 determination to dismiss the complaint -- even though it does not concern the judge’s rulings in
29 Article III litigation. Similarly, an allegation that a judge had incorrectly declined to approve a
30 Criminal Justice Act voucher is merits-related under this standard.
31
32 Conversely, an allegation -- however unsupported -- that a judge conspired with a
33 prosecutor to make a particular ruling is not merits-related, even though it "relates" to a ruling in
34 a colloquial sense. Such an allegation attacks the propriety of conspiring with the prosecutor and
35 goes beyond a challenge to the correctness -- "the merits" -- of the ruling itself. Similarly, an
36 allegation that a judge ruled against the complainant because the complainant was a member of a
37 particular racial or ethnic group, or because the judge dislikes the complainant personally, is not
38 merits-related. Such an allegation attacks the propriety of arriving at rulings with an illicit or
39 improper motive.


CONSPIRACY IS PROVEN BY THE TOTAL DISREGARD OF REVIEW STANDARDS SET IN PLACE BY PRECEDENT LAW. IT MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT BREAKING THE LAW IS ALSO A FORM OF MISCONDUCT AND DISABILITY, AND SHOWS INCOMPETENCE AND UNWORTHYNESS. IF JUDGES ARE JUDGING JUDGES AND CONCLUDE THAT BREAKING THE LAW IS NOT BEYOND A MERITS RELATED DISMISSAL, THEN IT IS THE RIGHTFUL TIME FOR A COMMITTEE MADE UP OF CITIZENS TO RESTORE COMMON SENSE IN THE LAW BECAUSE JUDGES HAVE FORFEITED THEIR POWER THROUGH QUID PRO QUO SELF-PROTECTIONISM.

EXAMPLE. IN MY CASE, KNIZE, J, THOMPSON ADMINISTRATIVELY DENIED MY CLEAR RIGHT, (MORE SO AS A PRO SE PARTY,) TO TIMELY AMEND MY PLEADINGS THROUGH RULE 15. THIS CONSTITUTES SUCH A BLATANT DISREGARD FOR THE LAW IT IS PATHETIC. ON THE FACE OF SUCH A JUDGMENT, J. THOMPSON'S REFUSAL IS A TRICK AND A DECEPTION AND AN ABUSE WHICH DEPRIVES CONST RIGHTS, LIKE THE FIRST AM; RIGHT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES BROUGHT BEFORE OUR GOVERNMENT.

TO SAY SUCH A JUDGEMENT IS NOT REVIEWABLE IS, ON ITS FACE, IN AND OF ITSELF FRAUD

UPON THE COURT.

NOW BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE ADDS TO THE CONSPIRACY BY DENYING THIS SOON ENTERED COMPLAINT AS MERITS RELATED, PLEASE NOTE THAT THE RESPONSE BY YOU WILL GO BEFORE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IN MY SERIES "IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE" AND THAT THE INQUIRY WILL GO BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AT THE HOUSE AS PROOF OF A BROKEN JUDICIARY ONLY TOO WILLING TO BREAK LAWS TO PROTECT ITSELF, AND THAT THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY DEMAND THAT CITIZENS COMMITTEES BE FORMED TO JUDGE THE JUDGES, AND NOT JUDGES JUDGE THE JUDGES. WE PLAN TO BRING THIS UP AT THE: Subcommittee on the constitution civil rights and civil liberties.


IMPROPER MOTIVE STANDARD MUST INCLUDE CROSSECTIONING WITH STANDARDS PREVIOUSLY SET BEFORE THE COURT AND IS NOT MERIT-RELATED. A CORRUPT DECISION IS BEYOND MERITS RELATEDNESS AND MUST BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW; NEED FOR ACCOUNTABILITY SUPERCEDES ORDINARY APPLICATION OF LAWFUL MERIT-BASED DECISIONS. IF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE WISHES TO TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT A CORRUPT DECISION IS PROTECTED UNDER MERITS-RELATEDNESS AND THEREFORE NOT REVIEWABLE AS A COMPLAINT AGAINST A JUDGE, THEN PLAINLY STATE IT AS SUCH, SO THAT I MAY PRESENT THIS EVIDENCE TO REP. JOHN CONYERS' COMMITTEES. TO OMIT THAT STATEMENT AFTER MY REQUEST FOR THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE TO DO SO IF THAT IS WHAT IT BELIEVES, CONSTITUTES AVOIDANCE AND ADMSISSION THAT THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE LACKS THE COMMON SENSE OF APPLYING JUSTICE.EQUALLY TO ITSELF. IN DOING SO THE JUDICIARY CONTINUES TO MAKE VICTIMS OUT OF DECENT, HONEST, AND LOYAL AMERICANS WHO ONLY WISH TO ADDRESS THEIR PROBLEMS TO THE COURT SYSTEM.

 

MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT: WHATEVER CAN BE SAID ABOUT GOOD BEHAVIOR, IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT BREAKING THE LAW OR DEPRIVING A PARTY OF HIS RIGHTS IS NOT GOOD BEHAVIOR. AMERICAN'S WANT THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE TO STATE PUBLICALLY AND OFFICIALLY WHAT IT BELIEVES ABOUT THE POINT.

PAGE 12
Because of the special need to protect judges’ independence in deciding what to say in an
16 opinion or ruling, a somewhat different standard applies to determine the merits-relatedness of a
17 non-frivolous allegation that a judge’s language in a ruling reflected an improper motive. If the
18 judge’s language was relevant to the case at hand -- for example a statement that a claim is
19 legally or factually "frivolous" -- then the judge’s choice of language is presumptively merits-
20 related and excluded, absent evidence apart from the ruling itself suggesting an improper motive.
21 If, on the other hand, the challenged language does not seem relevant on its face, then an
22 additional inquiry under Rule 11 is necessary.
23
24 With regard to Rule 3(b)(1)(A)(ii), a complaint of delay in a single case is excluded as
25 merits-related. Such an allegation may be said to challenge the correctness of an official action of
26 the judge, i.e., assigning a low priority to deciding the particular case. But, by the same token, an
27 allegation of a habitual pattern of delay in a significant number of unrelated cases, or an
28 allegation of deliberate delay in a single case arising out of an illicit motive, is not merits-related.

LN 19 NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. IF A JUDGE RULES THAT AN ACTION IS FRIVOLOUS, IT JUST MAY BE HE IS DOING SO BECAUSE HE WISHES TO COVER UP
FRAUD UPON THE COURT, LIKE IN MY CASE, AND USE THE MECHANISM TO STOP THE PROCEEDING WHICH ACCUSES THE COURT OF SUCH FROM GOING ANY FURTHER. REVIEW OF AN ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS MUST LOOKED AT UPON REVIEW AND UPON THE REQUEST FOR A JURY TO PROVIDE FAIRNESS. RULING AN ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS CAN IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES EASILY BE SEEN AS A POWER ABUSE AND CAN BE FRAUD UPON THE COURT IN ITSELF. THAT IS WHY REVIEW IS ESSENTIAL.

After the Hearing on Sept. 27th on the rules, Professer Helman held a discussion of what transpired, and brought forth was the need to create a TEMPLATE for which a reviewing Judge must check off and give findings for a number of areas that must be covered when considering a complaint. There was a consensus that if all the boxes were NOT checked, then the complaint MUST go to the next level of review.

OTHER REGULATIONS NEEDED: Also, every complaint must have an index number and a copy must be sent to the party who made the complaint. A hearing MUST be conducted within thirty days.

In a June, 2006 crime subcommittee hearing before then Chairman Howard Coble, upon his introduction of HR 5219, Sen Grassley advised the subcommittee that it is incumbent upon all of us to report judicial fraud, waste, and abuse, yet not one Congressional member has been able to or will answer the question which is the relevant forum for the exercise.. The question is as follows:- what individual(s) or govt agency(s) should be contacted to register a complaint concerning a judicial officer, should it not be addressed in the JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980? The problem is, according to Grassley, that the judiciary has failed to police itself.




FRANCIS KNZE
PRODUCER

by francis knize (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, Oct 27, 2007 at 3:31:04 PM

The article "Scary Federal Judiciary" and comments on the article were read with interest.  At the outset we should recall that what was asked for was comments on the proposed rules.  A legal analysis was clearly in order.  Aside from desired  uniformity, some factors very much favor the proposed rules.  Removal of too much or near absolute discretion and a mandate for more thorough review and investigation than has sometimes been the case are clearly steps in the right direction. 

An ominous dread that the new rules will not be followed or things will continue as before lies in the realm of conjecture, advocacy, or forecast  than commentary on rulemaking.  A comment made to the Committee questioning the phrase "directly related to the merits of a decision...", especially when judicial misconduct might be intertwined with the merits of the decision, is most appropriate. This phrase should not be used as a magic amulet closing off further inquiry when judicial misconduct may well be involved.  This clear and present danger was noted,  and hopefully the committee will drop, reword, or clarify the offending phrase either in text or in published commentary. The article was well done as were the comments referenced therein. 

 Andrew

by Andrew D. Jackson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 8:08:50 PM