A cesspool of Judicial Corruption

THIRTY-NINE do prosecutors and judges get paid?

Is there something wrong with this scenario? I downloaded a promo from the Internet about a book written by Phyllis Schlafly, BA, MA, JD. She wrote a book called PROTECT AMERICA FROM JUDICIAL TYRANNY–The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It.

In her book, she refutes the two colossal myths propagated by the legal community for the last fifty years: (1) "the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is" and (2) "court rulings are the law of the land."

Her publishers describes Mrs. Schlafly book, The Supremacists, as "a dramatic, page-turning account of what the judges have done to America in areas of religion, patriotism, marriage, schools, pornography, law enforcement, history, national identity, and even our right to self-government.

"This is a book about the fundamentals of American constitutional government and how we can shake loose the arrogant, arbitrary rule of judges before it is too late." She explains in her book:
Why judges should be like baseball umpires. How the Supreme Court invented new rights without any constitutional basis. It is scary evidence judges use wildcards to create new law. Evolution doesn't just refer to the origin of species–it means that the supremacists evolve the Constitution into approving their own social policies.

The judicial supremacists are so carried away with their importance that one judge declared a federal law unconstitutional because it called on judges to give information to Congress that might cause judges to be criticized. The Supreme Court plunged into a "political thicket" that courts are not supposed to enter. One judicial supremacist proclaimed that the Supreme Court is "the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution," but the American people have never approved this concept. Congress has the constitutional right to tell the federal courts what cases to hear and not hear. You'll observe later in this book where I place the real emphasis on judicial calendars–It has less to do with justice and more to do with money.

Pat Shannon, American Free Press writer, wrote about payoffs to select government personnel–including judges:
Anyone who has ever attended an Internal Revenue Service court case likely noticed the biased attitude of the presiding judge in favor of the prosecution. Perhaps, though, only those of us who have sat in courtrooms, in every section of the country, can attest to this unwavering pattern of unfairness. Whatever happened to the judge’s impartial role of "referee"?

Federal statutes show how and why U.S. law encourages prosecutorial and judicial conflicts of interest, non-neutrality, non-impartiality and corruption of justice in the federal courts. How can the federal judiciary be independent and impartial when the law permits the federal government to secretly award judges up to $25,000 in undisclosed secret "cash awards," and to privately, secretly and "erroneously" overpay them up to $10,000, and "waive" these erroneous overpayments?¹

How can any defendant be found innocent or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when such statutory cash award provisions on their face create an irrefutable, behind-the-scenes incentive for the prosecution?... This would include U.S. District Court judges and U.S. attorneys.

The Mungovan suit, composed by Utah lawyer Dr. Dale Livingston, explains: "These awards include secret cash awards. They are not limited as to the number of awards that may be awarded to any one person or group. There is no limitation placed upon any award. Any person or group of persons can be awarded this money, including: U.S. attorneys, federal judges, president of the United States or anyone else for that matter. Cash incentives paid for convictions help us understand not only what has happened in the past, but also what we can expect to see in the future."

I don't know if the government "paid off" Judge Tallman or whether any of the prosecutors fell under this legal scam, but I do know that Tallman awarded Steven Hines and Nancy Cook rewards. That much is in the Record.

No one I've spoken with has ever heard of any of these general immunities pertaining to prosecutors, judges and government agents–passed by the courts in America. Many in our government now considered the Constitution as an obsolete, historical document useful to make people believe they have rights. Yet, Prosecutors may violate civil-rights in initiating prosecution and presenting a case: See–United States Supreme Court in Imbler v. Pachtman 434 U.S. 409 (1976).

Immunity of certain government agents extends to all activities closely associated with legation or potential litigation: See–Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Davis v. Grusemeyer, 996 F.2d 617 (1993).

As we observe in David's case, prosecutors may knowingly use false testimony and oppress evidence–See: United States Supreme court in Imbler v. Pachtman, 434 U.S. 409 (1976). Prosecutor may file charges without any investigation as they consistently did in David's case (For example, Marianna Raff said David hired her brothers to kill the trio, but FBI Agent Long never even so much as made a phone call, until under pressure, for seventeen month; he already knew it was phony)–Also see: Eighth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal In Myers v. Morris. 810 F.2d 1337 (1986).

A prosecutor may file charges outside of his jurisdiction–See: Eighth Circuits Federal Court of appeal in Myers v Morris 840 F.2d 1337 (1986), yet it is constitutionally unlawful. A prosecutor may knowingly offer perjured testimony, as Michael Sullivan did in David's case: See–Ninth Circuit General Court of Appeal in Jones v. Shankland, 800 F.2d 1310 (1987). A prosecutor and apparently also a judge (as with Tallman) can oppress exculpatory evidence: See–Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Henzel V. Gertstein, 608 F.2d 654 (1979).

And finally we learn something that even most attorneys don't know–they certainly aren't taught this is law-school: prosecutors are immune from lawsuit for conspiring with judges to determine the outcome of judicial proceedings: See–Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d. What they are doing in the courtroom is all commercial, and is in conformity to 27 CFR 72.11 where it confirms that all Crimes are commercial.

What the judge and prosecutor are doing in the courtroom is making a commercial presentment. This is a highly complex concept to comprehend.

Regardless of the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 1983, there are only two procedures available if the judge and prosecutor decide to steal your assets or throw you in prison:

(1) Impeach the Judge–very expensive and unlikely to happen; and (2) Appeal to a higher court. What happens if the upper court refuses to take the case? You can spend a fortune to overturn the decision based on a potpourri of judge-made laws. Judges profess the right to interpret the law and the meaning behind the words. Justice in America is not cheap.

On the Internet I came across an article by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. that I found enlightening:

Americans perhaps like all people, have a remarkable capacity for tuning out un-pleasantries that do not directly affect them. It's an astonishing fact that the United States has become the world's most jail-loving country, with well over 1 in 100 adults living as slaves in a prison. . . . Building and managing prisons, and locking people up, have become major facets of government power in our time; and it is long past time for those who love liberty to start to care. Before we get to the reasons why, look at the facts as reported by the New York Times. The U.S. leads the world in prisoner production. There are 2.3 million people behind bars. China, with four times as many people, has 1.6 million in prison. In terms of population, the US has 751 people in prison for every 100,000, while the closest competitor in this regard is Russia with 627. The median global rate is 125.
What's amazing is that most of this imprisoning trend is recent dating really from the 1980s, and most of the change is due to drug laws.
He discloses alarming data:
From 1925 to 1975, the rate of imprisonment was stable at 110, but then it suddenly shot up in the 1980s. There were 30,000 people in jail for drugs in 1980 while today there are half a million. Other factors include the criminalization of nearly everything these days, even passing bad checks or the pettiest of thefts.

And the judges are under all sorts of minimum sentencing requirements.

Now, before we move to causes and answers, please consider what jail means. The people inside are slaves of the state. They are captured, held and regarded by their captors as nothing other than biological beings that take up space. The delivery of all services to them is contingent on the whims of their masters, who have no stake in the outcome at all.

Now, you might say that this is necessary for some people, but be aware that it is the ultimate assault on human dignity.

They are paying the price for their actions, but no one is in a position to benefit from the price paid. They aren't working off debts, compensating victims or struggling to overcome anything. They are just doing time, costing taxpayers almost $25,000 a year per person, and they become socialized into this mentality that is utterly contrary to every notion of civilization.

Then there is the relentless threat and reality of violence, the unspeakable noise, the pervasiveness of every moral perversity. In short, prisons are Hell. It can be no wonder that they rehabilitate no one.

It is expensive (states alone spend $44 billion on prisons every year), inefficient, brutal and irrational. It is also manipulated by political passions rather than a genuine concern for justice. The drug war itself costs taxpayers $19 billion, even as the costs of running the justice system are skyrocketing (up 418% percent in 25 years).

People say that crime is down, so this must be working. Well, that depends on what you mean by crime. They are crimes because the state says they are crimes, but they do not fit within the usual definition we find in the history of political philosophy, which centers on the violation of person or property.

A more telling point comes to us from political analysts, who observe the politicization of judicial appointments in the United States. Judges run on their "tough on crime" records, or are appointed for them, and so have every incentive to lock people up more than justice truly demands.

One factor that hasn't been mentioned so far in the discussion is the lobbying power of the prison industry itself. The old rule is that if you subsidize something, you get more of it. And so it is with prisons and the prison-industrial complex. I've yet to find any viable figures on how large this industry is, but consider that it includes construction firms, managers of private prisons, wardens, food service providers, counselors, security services, and a hundred other kinds of companies.

What kind of political influence do they have? Speculation here, but it must be substantial. As for public concern, remember that every law on the books, every regulation and every line in the government codebook is ultimately enforced by prison.
But won't crime go up if we abandon our prison system? Let Robert Ingersoll answer: " The world has been filled with prisons and dungeons, with chains and whips, with crosses and gibbets, with thumb-screws and racks, with hangmen and headsmen–yet these frightful means and instrumentalities and crimes have accomplished little.... It is safe to say that governments have committed far more crimes than they have prevented."

In David's Case, did the government agents commit a crime, or did they carry out their duties lawfully?