Thursday, August 24, 2006

Crisis In False Paternity Judgments

by Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks - August 24th, 2006 - Cybercast News Service

Child support enforcement programs are supported by all sides of the political spectrum, from women's advocates on the left to traditionalists on the right. While this popularity is sometimes understandable, it has also allowed glaring and inexcusable abuses to fester and grow. Of these, none is more egregious than when men are forced to pay 18 years of child support for children who are not theirs, and who in many cases they've never even met.

When I ran a paralegal business in California, one of the clients whose paperwork I prepared had a son who he paid child support for dilligently. He kept meticulous records of the payments. Unknown to him, the mother filed for welfare and claimed he was not paying her, even though he was. She gave as his address the place she had lived with him, even though she knew he had moved. The welfare department attempted service at the old location and then through the newspapers. They got a judgment against the man for repayment of child support even though he was in fact paying it. The paper trail thus proved beyond any legal doubt that the person who was at fault was the mother, who lied. Years went by before the child welfare department bothered to look for the father. When they did he was easy to find. They claimed he owed 10 years of back child support.

During this entire 10 year period, the mother was depositing and cashing the father's checks. He had all the cancelled checks proving that he had paid the child suport she claimed he was not paying. She was the person who lied since she was requesting welfare she was not due.

The judge ignored all of his evidence, claimed that he had failed to properly respond to the summons from welfare (which he never saw) and that his only recourse was against the service company, ignoring the fact the mother had lied. He was made to repay welfare for all of the child support he had already paid. It bankrupted him. His wages were garnished. He lost his job.

In the process his new wife and their 2 children were put out on the street after he was put in jail for not making payments to welfare, even though the unemployment was the fault of the court for garnishing his wages.

The mother of his first child, whose lies caused the problem, continued to receive welfare and the welfare department continued to pile up the debts as being owed by the father. She at least was no longer receiving payments from both welfare and the father. The injustice of this case is my single most egregious example of the callous arrogance exhibited by the judicial scum our nation is burdened with.

When I worked in our family court system I saw enough to say that this article is totally correct. The estimate that over 1 million men are being charged for child support where they are not the father, or where they have paid the child support and the mother has illegally obtained welfare anyway, is clearly pretty accurate. About 1 million men have been denied justice. This is just one example of the corrupt nature of our system of extortion and blackmail, called court.

There is no justice in America. The courts are corrupt.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

A Law Unto Herself

by Ann Althouse - August 23rd, 2006 - New York Times

To end her opinion in American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency — the case that enjoins President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program — Judge Anna Diggs Taylor quoted Earl Warren (referring to him as “Justice Warren,” not “Chief Justice Warren,” as if she wanted to spotlight her carelessness): “It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of ... those liberties ... which makes the defense of the nation worthwhile.”

As long as we’re appreciating irony, let’s consider the irony of emphasizing the importance of holding one branch of the federal government, the executive, to the strict limits of the rule of law while sitting in another branch of the federal government, the judiciary, and blithely ignoring your own obligations.

That this judge is being ridiculed for practicing "the rule of judges" is indeed an example of irony. It is the irony that those who support her ruling are more angry at her than those who oppose her since she ruled so ignorantly that she hurt her own cause.

What is ignored by those on the left in their criticism is that they don't seem to hide their acceptance that she arrived at the decision by what she wanted rather than by law. They are mad because she did not hide that process well. By this denuciation of her ruling they are making it obvious they recognize the normal activist judge does the exact same thing, rules by whim, but does a better job of hiding that ruling by whim. "The rule of judges" is the norm for our courts today. You have to laugh at the judges who defend that now standard reality as they are exposed for the bigots they are.

I also have to share this quote from the editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal describing the judges legal opinion, claiming she". . . . reaches the utterly ludicrous conclusion that the First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to engage in private communications with enemy agents during wartime."

If this wasn't so serious . . . it really would be funny.


Friday, August 18, 2006

Wiretap Program Unconstitutional

by Sarah Karush - August 17th, 2006 - San Fancisco Chronicle (
A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate end to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The Justice Department said it is appealing the ruling.

The socialist and democratic party campaign to gut the war against the islamofascists continues. This ruling proves once again the idiocy of a system where a single arrogant anti-American UNELECTED judge can supercede all actions taken by both the executive branch and the legislative branch to protect our nation during a time of war. We are at war. World War IV (as Norman Podhoretz at least continues to call it) is reality. Those who are opposed to this war cannot be allowed to use the courts to stop it. War is not the province of the courts.

In any sane nation this judge would be impeached and never again allowed to interfere with an ongoing war. Why are our elected officials not already starting this action?

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Lawful, Yes -- But Just?

by James J. Kilpatrick - August 16th, 2006 -
The story can be summarized in a paragraph. Four years ago, Angelos' former girlfriend informed federal agents that he was selling drugs at an address in Salt Lake City. Through an undercover agent, officers staged three separate buys of marijuana, then obtained a warrant for Angelos' arrest. They seized $18,000 in cash and five handguns.

Indicted on four felony counts and two lesser charges, Angelos declined the prosecutor's bargain offer of 15 years and out. When he refused to plea, federal prosecutors piled on 16 additional counts. Found guilty by a jury, he was sentenced in November 2004 to 55 years and a day in a federal prison. This past January a panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit unanimously affirmed that sentence.

\snip\ .

. . . .the judge noted that the sentence imposed on the defendant . . . . was longer than he would have received for hijacking an airplane or raping a 10-year-old child. The terrorist who is convicted of detonating a bomb in a public place and killing a bystander can expect less than 20 years.

In our revolving door criminal justice system, most criminals get an easy ride. Others who will not play along get sentences that are simply insane. It is a clear indication that the concept of justice is absent. Our judges are too busy balancing their desire to appear to be following the law while maximizing their power over society, to even pay lip service to the concept of justice.

Justice demands consistency and a reasonable expectation of fair play. In this case the prosecutors offered 15 years for selling marijuana in a system where killing people gets a typical sentence of 7 years. This defendent should have realized that the arrogant judges and prosecutors would not be impressed with his opinion about anything. His complaint that this was not fair was simply ignored. The "rule of judges" under which we operate should have been explained to him. In our system there is no such thing as reason, or consistency, or fair play, or justice. He would not play along and they made sure that the next person who questioned them would understand the cost of that. He was destroyed.

There is no justice in America's courts. The courts are corrupt.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Nebraska Man Arrested For 226th Time

by Staff - August 15the, 2006 - Associated Press (
Holder's list of arrests doesn't come close to setting a record for Lincoln-Lancaster County. He's No. 40, police spokeswoman Katherine Finnell said Tuesday.

A number of people have more than 500 arrests in the city of 226,000 people. The record was held by Edward Rooks, who died in 2004, with 652 arrests.

The egregious nature of our criminal justice system is proven by these examples of revolving door justice. After multiple felonies and mutliple misdemeanors, it has to be clear that an individual is preying on innnocent citizens. There are victims to all these crimes being committed. However the contemptible bigots and tryants who serve as judges keep turning the criminals loose. They have absolutely no concern for society and the innocent. Judges are only concerned with the rights of the criminals that make them important powers in society. Their focus is only on getting the crimnials out as soon as possible so they can generate more legal fees for their co-conspirators in this farcial system, the lawyers.

Three strikes has been subverted by Judges who care nothing about society and justice and everything about their power and money. They are only interested in the "rule of judges", not the "rule of law".

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Lawsuits Make Us Less Safe

by John Stossel - August 9, 2006 -

Imagine if an evil business routinely deprived us of products that would help us live longer with less pain and more comfort. We'd be outraged, and lawyers would line up to sue. Yet something similar happens today, thanks to lawsuit abuse. Makers of all kinds of products are afraid to sell them to us because one lawsuit could ruin them.

Personal-injury lawyers claim they make America safer, but that's a myth. It's easy to see who benefits from those big damage awards we read about. Less obvious -- but just as real -- are the things we'd all like to have but never will get because of this climate of fear. Here are a few examples.

The litany of products removed from the market due to the American court system of extortion and blackmail is much longer than this list. Lawyers and the judges who enable them to practice this contemptible preying on our society are arogantly indifferent to the consequences of their acts. They get rich and powerful. Therefore they do not care who suffers.

It is becoming much more rare to hear some non-lawyer talk about our legal system being a good one. Most people have learned that our system is not only not the best, or even good. It is in fact evil. As lawyers and judges subvert democracy and ignore the legislature . . actually you can't say they ignore the legislature . . they actively subvert the legislature and the rule of law . . . respect for law continues to decline.

Currently we pay a very high price for judicial arrogance and the "rule of judges". However that price is going to get much higher before their attacks on America stop. Our courts are setting up an environment of contempt for law and government that usually ends in revolution.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Judge Orders Killer Released From Prison

by Staff - Saturday August 5th, 2006 -

A convicted killer is set to be released from prison after a judge ruled his rights had been violated because he was continuously denied parole.

The tyrants of the revolving door criminal justice system have once again demonstrated their total indifference to safety of the citizens of this nation. A killer, who brutally murdered someone, has the right to parole and thus the ability to kill again, because a judge sentenced him to life with the "possibility" of parole. Therefore the judge has decided that unless he gets parole, no matter why it is denied, his RIGHTS under the Constitution have been denied.

This only makes sense if you understand the purpose of Judges in today's American court system. That purpose is maximizing legal fees by turning criminals loose so they can commit more crimes, thus generating legal fees for lawyers. This also provides cases to try which makes judges more important. They pay lip service to a farcical pretense they are defending "rights" but they are simply running one of the most corrupt and evil scams ever invented. Criminal courts are a revolving door joke. Civil courts are a system of blackmail and extortion.

Welcome to the rule of judges.