Ending Judicial Corruption

Judges Allowed to Legislate from the bench promotes judicial corru.

Judges are allowed to legislate from the bench in complicated situations. The problem with that is that they have taken that inch and turned it into a mile. They are outright making up entirely new laws that citizens of that state did not agree to.

These laws can be so outrageous that a judge doesn’t even have to state the law she made up, but you are expected to read her mind and follow that law. For example, when I had custody of my children, I let them stay over their fathers. There was no reason to withhold them from their dad nor was I told by the judge I couldn’t let them have a sleepover.

The judge then took my children away from me for my disobedience. Furthermore, the judge was perfectly ok with having the father letting the children have a sleepover.

So, I guess the law she made up means moms can’t let their kids have a sleepover, but fathers can? This judicial corruption is exactly why we have legalized child kidnapping today with the approval of the First Circuit Federal Court – case #23-1655..

If judges need to legislate in complicated situations where the legislation is not clear, they need to submit that to the legislative branch to either clarify the law, make the law official or to veto it. This is to ensure that we have recourse against corrupt judges committing both state and federal crimes and making up any laws they feel like. It will ensure laws enacted are via the will of the people, not the will of a judge. It will uphold the rule of law and keep the separation of powers separate.

Judges Should Be Heard Before Legislators, Not Other Judges

The Supreme Court referenced Lord Coke and how he stated that judges shouldn’t go before other judges. This was because accusations against judges were heard in Parliament. This would be like accusations against judges being heard in front of Legislators instead of Federal Judges.

This makes much more sense. Judges are supposed to be interpreters of the law, not the lawmakers. If a judge is having difficulty interpreting the law, who else would they go to but the lawmakers themselves?

Also, judges being heard before other judges is a conflict of interest and creates a bias. In my experience, it has encouraged judicial corruption because judges will protect other judges. to the point that they will destroy your life and everything you have in the process.

For example, when I became a whistle blower the judge slapped a restraining order even though it was established that I never even made a threat never mind hurt the person physically. Further restrictions were put on my visitation rights. When I filed a civil rights case I was no longer allowed to facetime my children. I was inundated with about 70 court dates and now have a warrant out for my arrest for texting my own child. I was forced to pay phantom legal fees which rendered me homeless for 1 full year.

Here we learned the consequences of judges protecting other judges. The link below goes more into what Lord Coke had to say about this.

Federal Court Judges Should Specialize in Constitution Law

Federal Court judges do have to specialize in constitutional law. I believe it is the complete breakdown of our justice system and why there is legalized child kidnapping. Decades ago, the Supreme Court decided that judges have absolute judicial immunity because “judges had never been denied immunity in the US” and other reasons talked about in the link below. They were wrong on all counts in which are all addressed as to why they are wrong in proceeding one below.

Civil Rights Bureau of Investigation and Education Program: Bringing consequences for judicial corruption

Creating a Civil Rights Bureau of Investigations and Education Program to ensure the constitutional rights of Americans are honored. Our “guaranteed” constitutional rights were meant to be a guarantee. They are not guaranteed. Without reinforcement, they are just words written on parchment that people no longer respect. Judicial corruption creates distrust in our once honored justice system. It creates a 2-tiered system of justice. We need reform to bring back trust so we can better understand our rights and bring back trust to our justice system.

Part 1: Historians to Assist the Supreme Court and Possibly Legislators

As I was reading Jeffrey Shamans input on judicial immunity here, something he said struck me. In 1872 in a cased called Bradley v Fisher, the Supreme Court cited a court decision a court case from 1607 called Floyd v Barker that Lord Coke presided over as part of their reason for justifying absolute judicial immunity.

Mr. Shamans stated that many historians believe under early English common law, judges were generally held liable for their wrongful acts.

Historians were correct. It wasn’t that judges were immune. It was that they were not be tried before other judges because they were tried before parliament.

Part 2: Historians to Assist the Supreme Court and Possibly Legislators

In part 1, we mentioned that historians believe under early English common law that judges were generally held liable for their wrongful acts.

This is correct and dates back to the early 1200s. In the book, Mirror of Justices, it not only proves that judges had both criminal and civil consequences, but it lists the names of the judges and what their punishments were.

The Supreme Court cites Lord Coke often in justifying judicial immunity. It’s interesting that Lord Cokes writings called “Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke” he cites the book Mirror of Justices often.

Part 3: Historians to Assist the Supreme Court and Possibly Legislators

As noted above, the Supreme Court often cites Lord Coke when justifying immunity.

That is why it was so shocking for me to learn that not only did Lord Coke NOT support judicial immunity, but he also went so far as to push for one of the highest judicial officers, Francis Bacon, to be hanged! He reminded two Earls overseeing the case that in an earlier era three judges had been hanged for taking bribes.

If historians assisted the judiciary & possibly legislators, it could have prevented disastrous and illegal decisions like absolute judicial immunity from ever being made. Judicial corruption wouldn’t be running so rampart. Legalized child kidnapping would have never happened to begin with. The link expounds on the story of Lord Coke and Francis Bacon.