Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Chief Justice Draws Guffaws With His Claim That Federal Courts Operate Honestly

John Roberts

John Roberts, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, says in a year-end report that he has "complete confidence" that federal judges behave in an ethical fashion. One prominent legal journalist calls the Roberts report a "whitewash." We would call it a sign that Roberts is living on Fantasy Island. More importantly, it's a sign that oversight is needed in courts because judges clearly cannot be trusted to police themselves.

Roberts' report comes at the end of a year marked by questions about the ethical standards that apply to federal judges, including those on the nation's highest court. Critics have argued that at least two justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan, have conflicts that should force them to step down from hearing any constitutional challenges to President Obama's health-care law. But we've seen no sign that either justice will recuse him or herself-- and in our current system, such decisions are left up to the judge.

Questions related to Obamacare only skim the surface of ethical problems with the federal judiciary. We have shown that Bush-era political prosecutions, such as those involving former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and Mississippi attorney Paul Minor, were enabled by numerous unlawful rulings from federal trial-court judges. We also have shown that federal appellate judges unlawfully upheld those rulings, apparently more interested in protecting their judicial brethren than in ensuring that the law is applied correctly and fairly.

In my own legal world, 2011 was filled with examples of federal district judges ruling contrary to law on matters that are clear and simple--and with judges from the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta mostly upholding findings that are contrary to long-standing precedent. In the first few months of 2012, I will be presenting ample evidence from my own legal battles that show our federal courts are infested with corruption.

A key issue in my experience has been discovery. Specifically, federal judges have repeatedly allowed opposing parties to get away with not turning over relevant documents in discovery--or in one case, a federal judge actually ruled on summary judgment when no discovery had been conducted in the case at all. That simply cannot be done under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but an 83-year-old Reagan appointee did it anyway. We encourage you to stay tuned in 2012 for indisputable evidence that our federal courts are a cesspool.

So how does John Roberts reach his conclusion that all is hunky-dory in our federal courts? Answer: He's trying to protect his turf, and he isn't interested in making sure courts actually serve the public and uphold the law. Andrew Kreig, a journalist, lawyer, and director of the D.C.-based Justice Integrity Project, puts it in stark terms:

The federal courts function honestly, according to the annual report on the federal judiciary that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued Dec. 31 in the middle of the New Year's holiday weekend. Noting at the outset the disgrace that bribery brought to baseball in 1919, Roberts said the federal judiciary needs no reforms because its members seek to address their duties in an ethical manner. Roberts said he had "complete confidence" in the integrity of judges, including his colleagues on the Supreme Court. As chief justice, Roberts presides over both the nine-member Supreme Court and the administrative office of the federal judiciary. His report focused heavily on the need for public confidence in the judiciary. But he recommended nothing more than what he called continued self-discipline by judges.

"Whitewash" is the most obvious description of the Roberts report by those of us documenting flagrant abuses of the public interest by judges. Our Justice Integrity Project, among many others, has documented judges who have been enriched or otherwise co-opted by benefactors and political allies, while protected by cronies and toadies.

Kreig even hints that Roberts released his report late on New Year's Eve so that it would largely slip under the radar of the mainstream media:

The Roberts report was released at 6 p.m. Saturday night on Dec. 31, thus guaranteeing minimal attention from the public aside from those reporters provided advance copies

What does it tell us that John Roberts has confidence in the system he oversees? Absolutely nothing, of course. Roberts' confidence in the system is not the issue. The issue is this: Should the American public have confidence in the federal judiciary? The answer is no.

What might make a difference? Kreig offers a suggestion:

Reform is simple: Oversight hearings by the House Judiciary Committee, with aggressive investigation by the FBI of corruption complaints against dishonest federal judges, whether high or low, Democrat or Republican. Little scrutiny exists currently except for the most obvious crimes.

The Los Angeles Times was one of the few mainstream news outlets that picked up on the Roberts report. The Times makes clear that Roberts wants no part of any serious reforms:

The chief justice gently batted aside several suggestions for change. He said the justices as a group have not and should not review a decision by one of their colleagues on whether to drop out of case. Such a policy “would create an undesirable situation in which the court could affect the outcome of a case by selecting who among its members may participate,” he wrote.

He also noted the high cost of one justice stepping aside.

If one of the nine justices were to withdraw from the healthcare case, the outcome could be a 4-4 tie vote. That would leave the law in a muddle because the healthcare’s individual mandate has been deemed unconstitutional in one regional circuit and upheld in another. A justice cannot withdraw from a case “as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy,” Roberts wrote.

In the end, Roberts sounds like a mafioso, instructing others to stay off his turf:

The chief justice also warned Congress to keep its distance. Twice, he cast doubt on whether lawmakers can impose an ethics rules on the high court, a separate branch of government. While the justices choose to abide by the current ethics rules, he said, “the limits of Congress’s power to require [them] have never been tested.”

Under the current system, John Roberts and his colleagues in the federal judiciary answer to no one. And they want to keep it that way.


jeffrey spruill said...

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson knows that because of his FBI files he could not have a confirmation hearing.

That's why Roberts was chosen in his stead:


Well check out this video of Wilkinson plotting--I mean interviewing Chief Justice John Roberts!


legalschnauzer said...


Thanks for educating me and others. Was Wilkinson considered a prime candidate for SCOTUS at the time Roberts was picked?

What is the problem with Wilkinson's FBI files?

Ishmael said...

If coure roberts is going to SAY the Federal courts are honest. What he dare not say is that, with the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011, which builds upon the Patriot Act of 2001 & the Military Commissions Acr of 2006, the Federal courts have now become irrelevant in our new Imperium. Whatever rights we had as citizens have gone the way of the passenger pigeon. Therefore, Due process of Law is a Sham, guilt or innocence us now irrelevant and the entire Federal Court system has been transformed into an Inquisition.

jeffrey spruill said...

He sure was!

They had to do with this bogus/manufactured legislation which helped his bankster friend out!


And that's what dubya was referring to---amoungst other things during his interview with Wilkinson Thursday-July14,2005:

''He thought I was well on my way to busting my knees,'' said Judge Wilkinson, 60. ''He warned me of impending doom.''


legalschnauzer said...

Thanks for info, Jeff. I remember now this interview Bush had with a nominee about exercise and such. Did not realize it was Wilkinson.

BC Mary said...


Your column knocked me over, today ... and I wrote you a lengthy Permissions please? note which got sent back to me. Tried again, same thing. etc.

Can't let you think I've been behaving like a pirate ... which I was [sorry!] -- but the issues seem so important. Your Supreme Court ... our supreme court ... and justice nowhere to be found.

I was hoping you might drop in and see what we've been doing after The Legislature Raids ... mostly, collecting names for the Full Public Inquiry petition.


It was great to read about your work.

legalschnauzer said...

BC Mary:

Thanks for writing and please feel free to use my work. I assume you are in British Columbia? Sounds like a beautiful part of the world. All the best from Alabam.

BC Mary said...


Dear legalschnauzer:

Your column blew me away today, what a joy to read your mind this way!!

I've been running a blog for 4 years, and worrying about BC Rail even longer. Did you hear about the time -- December 28, 2003 -- when police breached the sanctity of the people's legislature? Hadn't happened in the entire British Commonwealth history before. But well, "they" have such a tight grip on the media, they scarcely raised an eyebrow. Mr Big? Cocaine smuggling? Related to the Ministerial Assistants in Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Transportation? Phhhttt.

Nothing more was heard of Mr Big, but something else revealed itself during the raid: something funny was going on with our railway (Canada's 3rd largest). Turns out that it was being finagled to the point where nobody knew who was doing what to whom, but somehow the "sale" (only a 999-year-lease, said the premier) was rammed through as of July 14, 2004. It so happened that we could've reviewed the deal at the 5-year mark, with the possibility of re-possession. But no, oh no ...

Come on over, and see how we almost but not quite lost the lifeline of our beloved province ... then our magnificent BC Hydro ... then the world's biggest ferry fleet ...

We can show you some pretty fancy crooks, I think.

legalschnauzer said...

BC Mary:

Will study up on this and check out your site.

By the way, there is an Alabama-based outfit called Paragon Gaming that is trying to build a controversial casino/resort up your way.

I think it has been put on hold, last I heard. Interesting the ties between BC and AL.

BC Mary said...

Sorry for the duplication. Some of the failed sendings must've got through ... !

Wonderful to hear that you may drop in at The Legislature Raids. Two of the big railroad bidders looking at our BC Rail were US. corporations -- OmniTRAX and Burlington Northern -- and both of them pulled out against what appeared to be rigged bids -- but not before they had made their complaints clear in writing to the BC government.

legalschnauzer said...

BC Mary:

Look forward to learning more about it. I imagine all of your comments got through. Like many bloggers, I have to moderate comments because I get quite a bit of nasty, inappropriate stuff--not to mention spam. There can be a delay between the time you post a comment and when it appears.

Robby Scott Hill said...

Chief Justice Roberts is a lot like Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. At first he seems like this mild mannered, professional guy, but do a little digging & you'll discover his connections to another whitewash, the investigation of the murder of Judge Robert Vance, Senior who was once the law partner of Don Siegelman.

Before (and after) his 1977 debut on Fantasy Island, Ricardo Montalban's ugly side came out as Khan Noonien Singh, the sworn enemy of Captain James T. Kirk.

Any serious fan of Star Trek, The Original Series, knows that Walter Koenig (Mr. Chekov) never met Ricardo Montalban (Kahn Noonien Singh) during the "Space Seed" episode because he hadn't joined the cast yet, but the Movie Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan ignores the facts & has Khan treating him like an old acquaintance.

I think Chief Justice Roberts would get along well with the screenplay writers of Star Trek II. If you need to ignore a few historical facts to create a story that sells tickets at the box office, then go right ahead. You can always rationalize the discrepancy (get paid to write books & make speeches for friendly audiences) if anyone ever decides to call you on your bullshit.

e.a.f. said...

I read your column. I couldn't stop laughing. Chief Justice Roberts actually wants people to believe that or is it he actually believes it. In either case, it is time for him to retire.

Sitting here in British Columbia, it is almost as if you were writing about some of our justices.

When justices start to pervert the system it is the beginning of the end of a system. We only have to look at the Arab Spring.

No judge should be appointed for life. I would suggest its 70 or 72 and out. Not only does the current system stop others from attaining these positions but the law does not change as society changes. Judge for life, my god that is like a job for life. No one gets that.

I would imagine this came about at a time when people felt there should be some counter balance to a system of elected judges. I never did understand a system of elected judges either. It is too open to abuse.

Oversight of a judiciary is necessary. We have oversight of police forces, doctors, etc. Judges are not above the law, even if they would like to think so.

Great column.

legalschnauzer said...


Thanks for the kind words. Here's a scary thought: John Roberts is a pretty young guy. He could be chief justice for a very, very long time.

Anonymous said...

Crystal Cox and I, Roberta Kelly, have met in Spokane, Washington. Thank you LS. We, Cyrstal and I, had already connected quite a number of years ago. Our meeting here in Spokane was not planned. Upon seeing your information about her, I contacted her via email. Unbeknownst to us, we were both headed to Spokane WA/ Fortuitous. I thought a hearing was happening, on 01.03.12, she arrived at the courthouse, to support me as an investigative blogger. See the Motion by the Judge and not an Oral Argument, that was the hearing. US Marshall Brian Kelly, still insisting I speak with him about my threatening Panner, the Federal Judge in Medford, and I spoke, 01.03.12. Panner is 87 years old? Brian called my friend Clifford Walker, former Chair of the Black Affairs, to speak to me, URGENT! Now I had put in writing about [allegedly a Chief Justice], Ann L. Aiken, nudging a suggestion about me and suicide. A rumor in Oregon is her son did commit suicide, an assisted kind, which has been made against the law. It was one of the Oregon selling points, to be able to die via assisted suicide. Alleged Ninth Circuit Judge, Jay Bybee, indicted for the torture memos with John Yoo, ruled on my unlawful home foreclosure. The dots connecting the Federal Judicial are as corrupt as the allegedly justice of our system, in my not so humble opinion. Brian Kelly was chomping on gum in the most unprofessional fashion, I hung up on him after telling him should he continue the gum chewing, I would. He said: Brad Sholer a US Marshall in Medford, said I told Judge Panner I had 26 people I know that would/could kill his whole family and him. He read from something out of his file. I asked him to please fax that to Pastor Carl Martin, Plaintiff in our case together, BUT, that couldn't happen because the file had been put away. I said he should not be collecting the computer monies and indeed retiring in style on the Republic's money, when I pay as a laborer. That is, absent the forensic necessary to accuse me of such a crime. The Sholer forensic was not forthcoming, the file was put away. Thus, I couldn't submit it in the Court, to support a Protective Order I filed, what I believe to be harassment and stalking, by the alleged system of peace, justice and officers to protect US, in Oregon, and across America. The Supreme Court denied We The People our 15th Amendment Right in the US Constitution, dictating Bush as President. Then to insult further, corporations are individual rights, and this is the argument: OBAMACARE. Roger Vinson, Federal Justice, used Obama's own to get elected words, to deny the Obamacare. Our right as an individual is not supported and this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. To say the checks and balances system is broken is to damn with faint praise the idea of corruption.

Anonymous said...

New World Word Order: synergies, for only one example.

Look at the skies, chemtrails, in every state? Some are filing papers against the criminal insanity.

Derivatives or SIVs, Special Investment Vehicles. The research has uncovered the chemtrails in the skies are SIVs, or in a New Word World Order, derivatives.

Derivatives have made Congress and the new order of word criminals, the insane pest controllers? rich beyond any of the imaginations in the old world US Constitutional Republic understanding of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What pests are being controlled by which controllers?

Obama is controlled by all the controllers, the appearance is no mask and his words are no truth.

Selling whatever can be sold to the pesky Goyim ...

Provision were/are sound off-shore accounting SIVs, beyond the ordinary pests availability.

We are free to be in the world of poisons, the SIVs exclusively for the New Word World Order: money does not talk it screams bloody murder.

Take off the Green Mask, Rosa Koire, it is a scarier world than the photographss of NWWO SIVs criminally insane.

Public Employees Retirement Portfolios [PERS] of Congress, et al, SIVs [derivatives], and simply look at the globalism, wow!

GREEN the solution to earn so much money and get rid of the pests, via ammunition-weapons, chemicals sprayed as Agent Orange, since the Vietnam Era only? Whatever sells and kills and of course pays a fortune to whom we the average person do not choose to know, let alone believe are our fellow American Patriots, and leaders?

Oh, my, we are not exactly a Constitutional Republic. Benjamin Franklin, genius entrepreneur, could not have been a great legend with SIVs.

And, what do we have as our future to be thankful for in the spirit of imagination to an American entrepreneur? Synergies that enrich beyond the imagination, ONLY those that are into denying the Bill of Rights. Roberta Kelly

BC Mary said...


Just so you know ... my original 2 or 3 tries to contact you were turned back as "undeliverable" or some such message. Not the moderating function ... I have the same delay/hold-over system on my blog and it definitely wasn't that. Just so you know.

It's great to think you'll be dropping by my blog. It just so happens that Dr Robin Mathews has written a column on the shocking state of BC Supreme Court as he experienced it during the 4-years (no kidding!) of pre-trial. I hope you have time to see it.

trotsky said...

After reading some of these comments I'm wondering if I need to eat some shrooms before reading them again.

And with all the connections btw BC and Alabama, has anyone looked in the woods up there for the passengers from the jet that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon? Any group of people living in tents surrounded by armed guards?

Just trying to fit with some of the other comments.

Anonymous said...

Why shouldn't Justice Roberts sound like mafioso? Of nine Supreme Court Justices 6 are Catholic, and the remaining three are Jewish - not that this would have any bearing on their decisions. The interesting part of it is Catholics comprise about 24% of the US population while Jewish folks comprise less than 2%, yet members of their religions control the entire Supreme Court.

If it weren't for The Pope's right hand, Rush Limbaugh, the abortion issue and the gay marriage issue, Republicans wouldn't have a dog in the fight.

I have a lot of Catholic and Jewish friends who would agree!

And of course federal judges are honest! After all these years they finally exposed Federal Judge Jack Camp's skeletons and put the guy out to pasture (- after *who knows* how many people were wrongfully sentenced.)