Home

Justice is the endαof government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be, pursued, until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.  …β  If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

Federalist №51 (1788)γ

α・ Raison d’être; ultimate justification for existence; teleological purpose, goal.

β・ ⁠We have transposed the order of the two clauses in this excerpt (and added emphasis), for euphony/​limpidity, committing no disturbance/​disservice to the meaning/​intent.

γ・ ⁠№51 is the fourth-most-cited Federalist paper; the modern consensus is that it was authored by James Madison alone (not by, nor in collaboration with, Alexander Hamilton). https://​en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​Federalist_No._51.

Welcome

This nonpolitical/nonpartisan/nonideological website, Judicial Misconduct USA, http://JudicialMisconduct.US, is concerned with judicial misbehavior in America — but, importantly, only in the sense of real/objective/demonstrable misconduct, or colloquially, “fraud upon the courts by judges” (involving persuasive/convincing Case Studies, whether or not “‘officially’ approved by court or judicial branch”).

Many other websites are devoted to court proceedings perceived by participants to involve “judicial misbehavior” in some vague degree, but those are typically emotionally-based, and ill-informed with respect to sophisticated legalistic technicalities.δ While we have great sympathy for those victims at the level of human suffering, we ourselves are ill-equipped to deal with their plight. Instead, we limit ourselves here to logico/legally-based air-tight arguments and well-established events, implicating true/provable “judicial misconduct” properly so-called (according to accepted legal and moral/ethical definitions; see Introduction).

δ・ ⁠The Internet regrettably abounds with such websites, from which we abjure/reject/distance ourselves. As just one sad example of this kind of crazed nonsense, consider the case of Peter and Doreen Hendrickson, who falsely pretend to twist their self-styled “tax protest” extremism into a First Amendment issue, on the basis of which they fantastically/delusionally/hyberbolically claim (on their website, Lost Horizons): “Doreen’s case is the most overt and unmistakable case of raw judicial corruption and systemic assault on the Constitution and the rule of law that has ever been seen.” {The present writer had the misfortune to engage in a debate, directly with the principals, about (the Judicial Misconduct aspects of) the Hendrickson case (in the context of a temporary, ill-advised participation in an “alt” email group), the raw/unprocessed documentation of which is archived here (not recommended; for the morbidly curious only). It well-illustrates the necessity of providing all/complete relevant documentation (esp. officially filed court documents) of cases/controversies, in light of the principle of “trust but verify:” it may be well-and-good to “trust” a supplicant’s story at first blush, but ultimately their story must be “verified,” because avid/rabid proponents may be too unqualified/biased/self-deceived to render a valid analysis.}

Our methodology (infra) will be to act as a repository of reliable information and well-documented cases/controversies regarding judicial misconduct, especially in Federal matters (because they’re usually generalizable to other jurisdictions), though non-Federal matters are not excluded.

Our goal is to help advance the struggle for reform in the area of corruption by the judges, and restoring public integrity/trust to the judicial system/courts.

Method

In more detail, our procedure will be to treat the “anatomy” of concrete “instructively notable” cases of Judicial Misconduct in depth, by a narrative approach composed of three major elements:

  • Story — Discursive presentation, of the travel of the case, emphasizing judicial misconduct aspects, but including enough case-in-chief to fulfill the requirements of context.
  • Record — Documentary evidence, referenced throughout the Story, pertaining principally to judicial misconduct, but including enough to solidify the underlying case-in-chief.
  • Discussion — Interactive blog concerning this case (readable by all, writable only by registered members).

This technique is illustrated by our touchstone/canonical/template case, Tuvell v. IBM. That case possesses/exhibits all the attributes suitable (though not absolutely necessary) for detailed treatment here:

  • Clear-cut, compelling, non-frivolous civil action (e.g.: federal employment discrimination case-in-chief, between an individual plaintiff and corporate defendant).
  • Competent, professional level of representation (not the kind of thing often uncharitably characterized by such language as “typical pro se nightmare” — understandably so, because law is a very technical field, inaccessible to lay-persons not having technical training and legal experience).
  • Clean litigation (no stupid/distracting procedural errors by parties).
  • Complete, robust, well-written documentation, especially official court filings (by parties and court).
  • Opportunity/setting for judicial misconduct (e.g., defendant’s motion for summary judgment).
  • Obvious, egregious judicial misconduct (e.g., false dismissal of the case, granting motion for summary judgment) — by some combination of district judge, appellate judges, Supreme Court, Judicial Council, Judicial Conference.
    • As well as, potentially, misconduct by non-judicial actors, such as FBI, PIN, DOJ, elected Legislative and Executive officials, ….

Invitation

Authors (typically, but not necessarily, direct victims themselves of judicial misconduct, i.e., litigants or wrongfully disbarred lawyers), who are willing to (re-)write their cases in our standard format, are hereby solicited to submit cases for hosting/treatment on this site.

Our Case Studies are open to public scrutiny/debate, helping ensure a high degree of quality/integrity. But publication here does not amount to endorsement. In the final analysis, it is the individual authors who are responsible for their own work.

Going Forward

This site is still rather fresh, lacking many of the sophistications needed by modern websites; enhancements remain actively in process. In the short term, a membership registration feature will be implemented, as well as a discussion/blogging feature. Beyond the near term, future enhancements will be added as experience dictates. Suggestions are solicited.

PS: Yes, the rather vanilla/staid/conservative overall design (yet, state-of-the-art: Drupal, Bootstrap, DejaVu-family webfont) is intentional, and won’t change any time soon. This gravitas is most appropriate for a law/justice-oriented website such as this. No “Dancing Hippos” for us (as it was derisively called in the early days of faux fancification of the Internet/browser experience).

Notation

  • ⌘TBD⌘ (⌘ = Unicode U+2318, “place of interest”) — Missing content which is “yet To Be Determined/Done,” or “Work-in-Progress;” thought to be only temporarily missing.
  • ¬N/A⌐ (¬ = U+00AC, “not sign;” ⌐ = U+2310, “reversed not sign”) — Missing content which is “Not Applicable/Available;” thought to be permanently missing.
  • (U+2325, “option [key];” compare ⎇ = U+2376, “alternative [key],” which however is not present in many font-sets) — Optional/alternate version of content; perhaps “better” in some sense. Such as:
    • Cached local copy, retrieved from remote location (which could move or disappear).
    • Static version of dynamic state (e.g., PDF or PNG fixed-in-time copy of time-varying webpage).
    • Standalone instance of archived file (faster retrieval time).
    • Original version of copy/facsimile (“rule of best evidence”).
    • Reformatted version of original (for readability, e.g.).
    • Color version of black-and-white (or vice versa).
    • Annotated.
    • Whatever ….
  • References/citations:
    • ʋ (U+028B) = volume(s).
    • Ŧ (U+0166) = tome(s).
    • Ƀ (U+0243) = book(s).
    • (U+2C63) = part(s).
    • İ (U+0130) = issue(s).
    • (U+212B) = article(s).
    • Ͼ (U+03FE) = chapter(s).
    • ç (U+00E7) = clause(s).
    • § (U+00A7) = section(s).
    • (U+00B6) = paragraph(s).
    • (U+2118) = page(s).
    • (U+2116) = number(s).
    • # (U+0023) = number(s).
    • (U+2113) = line(s).
    • ƒ (U+0192) = (page- or paragraph-scope)ε footnote(s).
    • ɘ (U+0258) = (document-scope) endnote(s).
      • Compare ℯ = U+212F, which however is not present in many font-sets.
    • ɨ (U+0268) = inline subnote(s), embedded in footnotes/endnotes.

ε・ On this website, we use “paragraph-scope” (as opposed to “page-scope”) footnotes, to avoid the annoyance of hyperlinks between footnote-anchor and footnote-content.