"THE OVERTHROW OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC", Part 36

"THE OVERTHROW OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC",
Part 36
by Sherman H. Skolnick 7/15/03

The Judges and the Shadow Government

In law, there is a principle described as customs, practices, and usages. In simple terms, it means certain habits that those who rule us use by way of conducting themselves. BUT, these ingrained ways are generally not written down, ye t are clearly understood as the accepted and established way of government.

For example, in the South for a hundred years after the American Civil War, or as southerners call it The War Between The States, the customs, practices, and usages, were that whites would not  respect the Equal Protection of the Law guarantees as to blacks. Lynchings were condoned, and whites would eat their picnic lunch while watching blacks hanging from a tree. The Ku Klux Klan, although dominated some fifty per cent by FBI agents and informants, was more or less allowed to run wild and terrorize blacks. Some Federal judges, such as in Mississippi, were known to chase blacks out of their courts while hurling racial slurs against them. It was a customs, practice, and usage, that blacks had separate fountains to drink wa ter from, in public facilities.

In Chicago, we spoke to an  Afro-American lawyer, formerly a government official, who told us how the federal courts in Chicago likewise mistreat black attorneys, even now. He decided not to make any public statements about t he same. Italian-American lawyers told us similar things from first-hand experience. Namely, that lawyers of color and of certain ethnic groups, are looked down upon by the Chicago federal judges, some of whom are persons of color themselves. That is, t he judges prefer "pin-stripe" suit attorneys, WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). No, it is not as blatant as having black attorneys drinking from a separate fountain. BUT, their petitions are routinely rejected, so that they cannot hope to make a li ving in the Chicago federal courts.

Some of the accepted ways of the judiciary, state and federal:
[1] The buying and selling of judgeships in courts at all levels. We discussed this in a website item "Buying a Judgeship". Because of certain circumstances, some of this is even coming out in the monopoly press. Such as "Ex-Judge gets 27 months in bribery case; U.S. still probing whether he paid for seat on bench". Chicago Tribune, 7/26/2002.

A popular website (www.worldnetdaily.com, 6/19/03)referred to a story in a major New York publication:

"In an admission that has New York Supreme Court [actually a lower court] in an uproar, a retired Brooklyn judge said he paid $35,000 to a Democratic leader more than three decades ago to get a seat on the bench, New York Newsday repor ts. The payment, says Thomas R. Jones, 89, was 'IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES OF THE DAY', though he added, 'it was not right then, it's not right now' ".(Emphasis added.)

The article went on to discuss how judges and lawyers knew that certain lawyers were "bagmen", used as go-betweens of lawyers and corrupt jurists.

In our website series on "Coca-Cola, CIA, and the Courts", we mentioned how a known criminal-type bought the bench for Chicago Federal District Judge Blanche M. Manning[(312)435-7608]. An elite federal investigative unit, contacted us.

 Government investigators: "Your story, also in the court record, that Judge Manning's judgeship was bought, is not correct."

Citizen's Committee to Clean Up the Courts: "What is wrong with our court statement and our website story?"
Government investigators: "You state that her judgeship was bought for one million dollars by a known power-broker, described as a mobster. It is not a correct amount. Our inquiry has determined that the power-broker paid two million d ollars."

Citizen's Committee: "So, is that all you found wrong with our position on the buying of that Judgeship? That we mentioned a lower amount?"

Government investigators: "Yes, you have stated a wrong amount."

He did not inform us what, if anything, would be done against the Judge and her patron/judgeship buyer.

Since the buying of judgeships is a known custom, practice, and usage, what are the obvious conclusions? Such as, the criminal-types, or political power-brokers, that buy the judgeship and install someone of THEIR choice, then are in a position to profit in some way from the judge thus put in place. Some call it, pulling on the chain. (In the New York example, however, the retired Judge claimed it did not effect his rulings. Really?)

[2] The handling of court records. No accountability. There is a practice moreso in the federal courts in the U.S., of the judges NOT SIGNING THE COURT RULINGS by them, particularly so in civil cases. So, were you, as we have for decad es, to have examined decisions by U.S. District Judges and then their supervisors, the reviewing courts, U.S. Courts of Appeal, it is quite evident the Judges DO NOT SIGN THEIR NAME.

What is the rationale, off-the-record, and behind-the-scenes? Namely, that many of the federal court decisions are NOT made by the Judges who are simply a front. The decisions are made by law clerks, also "minute clerks" as they are re ferred to. In plain lingo, we have long since known that to corrupt the judiciary, you have to lean on their secretaries, their minute clerks, their law clerks, sometimes just the court bailiffs or deputy marshals, or their ghost-writing law profes sors. Further, in some instances, the decisions are written by former law school students or present or former law professors, particularly so where the judges are former law professors.
We have given as examples of corrupt practices, that three Chicago Federal Appeals Judges, and one judge on the U.S. Supreme Court, are all formerly from Rockefeller's University of Chicago Law School. (7th Circuit Judges Richard A. Po sner (312) 435-5806); Frank H. Easterbrook (312) 435-5808, were law professors, and 7th Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood (312) 435-5521, was Dean of the Law School. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, was a professor there.)They commit perjury, in vio lation of the federal criminal code, in that they have failed to disclose that they, on the bench, represent the Billion Dollar stock and bond portfolio of Rockefeller's University of Chicago. This disclosure, which they have not made, is an annual mand atory judicial financial disclosure, failure to reveal the same by their signed form, being perjury, under federal law.

What is the problem with the judges, as is their custom, practice, and usage, not to sign their name to their rulings? The ghost-written decisions in important cases, not every case, contain judicial perjuries. That is, the established undisputed facts in the court record show it is DAY. To make a corrupt and arbitrary ruling, the judges' rulings say it is NIGHT, and apply NIGHT case law.

The litigant "loser" and/or their attorney is puzzled. Rarely, if ever, do lawyers confront the corrupt judges with their judicial perjury. Funny thing, since the decisions are often ghost-written, the judges, supposely in all candor, could say, but never do, "I did not write that. I know nothing about that decision. You can't hold me responsible and accountible. Why? Because I also did NOT sign it." It is a corrupt and rotten way of carrying out the unwritten customs, practices, and usages, of the Bench and the Bar.

http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ootar36.html