What is Judicial Misconduct?
In a nutshell, judicial misconduct is exceptionally broad and includes a plethora of activity, any one of which could or would stand to bring the integrity of a given court into question. First and foremost, it is important to understand the distinction between the types of judges and their judgeship.
- District Judges: The President nominates federal district judges. For the most part, barring exceptional circumstances, the confirmation of federal judges is cursory. Unless the Senate chamber finds something particularly disturbing about a given judge's background, the nomination is usually confirmed with little inquiry. Once a federal judge is confirmed, their tenure is for a lifetime; however, the qualifier under the USA Constitution is that a district judge’s tenure requires “Good behavior.” Federal judges are referred to as Article III judges, since Article III of the United States Constitution is the authority of their judgeship. These judges have very broad judicial powers including both Law and Equity, which is legalese.
- Magistrate Judges: Unlike district judges, magistrate judges are appointed by Congress for a limited term. Generally the term ranges 4-6 years, and upon expiration, a public notice is typically posted on the district court website where the magistrate judge is serving, with the intent of garnering ‘Public feedback’ on the reappointment of the magistrate in question. Magistrate judges have no equitable powers, and their judicial powers are specifically enumerated by federal statute which requires consent by the parties for a magistrate judge to exercise jurisdiction. In reality, magistrate judges are the next rung of an attorney wearing a judicial robe endowed by Congress to possess certain judicial powers, ante. Magistrate judges are highly susceptible to political influence, especially by Congress, who appoints them. This category of judgeship can and mostly includes immigration judges.
So judicial misconduct occurs when either a district or magistrate judge acts outside of his or her jurisdiction, e.g. misfeasance or malfeasance. Also, as the entire court system rests on the integrity of judges, judicial behavior even outside of work can be a factor in considering judicial misconduct events.
How Does Widespread Judicial Misconduct Enter the Picture?
In short, widespread judicial misconduct enters the picture when judges, especially district judges who, ante, possess broad powers -- misuse the bench to advance a personal agenda, are found guilty of a misdemeanor, other civil misconduct, criminal misconduct, or even filing for bankruptcy.
What is particularly common place in today’s modern society is that district judges engage in judicial activism e.g. advancing personal agenda or ideology, as opposed to dealing specially with the facts and rule of law or in the case of Equity, exercising sound impartial judgment. When judicial activism infects a number of districts and further spreads to higher circuit courts, this is the condition described as widespread corruption or for the layman the term ‘Kangaroo Court.’
Widespread corruption Rules United States Courts, far beyond simply assuming the status of Kangaroo Courts. The United States federal courts have become the de facto home for judicial activism and extremely egregious human rights violations.
The FBI Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit Illustrates Real World Judicial Misconduct
As a backdrop, the herein referenced Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit was originally filed back in July of 2021. At no point did the FBI ever release a single piece of paper relative to the FOIA action. Even worse, at least three times this case has been in the federal court of appeals for the second circuit which is situated in New York City, NY. None of the issues ever raised in the second circuit court were ever addressed. Not one. This is judicial misconduct in the circuit court, specially the Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
In fact, this latest instance, like its predecessors, did not even involve a single affirmative paper being filed, in the appeals court, by the defendant i.e. The Department of Justice. For those unfamiliar, the Department of Justice is the parent of the FBI. While the FBI has its own director, the FBI, also, reports, via its director, up to the attorney general of the Department of Justice. Continuing, in each appeal instance, the appeal was dismissed and immediately reassigned to a Chinese clerk by the name of Yenni Liu. Documents are illustrative of this judicial misconduct and public corruption. Be sure to read the second set of documents on the next page.
How are Systemic Human Rights Abuses Shown?
First, all of these dismissals occurred sua sponte, without even a hint of opposition from the adverse party, and in turn were routed to Chinese clerk Yenni Liu. Human rights violations are shown when the court has a visible pattern of conduct the essence of which directly implicates a party's human rights. In this case, appellant has a human right to petition his grievances before a competent non-biased court of jurisdiction to address the merits of the issues presented. The federal 2nd circuit court of appeals refused to do so and refused to do so 15 times. In each case, the circumstances were the same: no opposition paper filed by any adverse party, sua sponte dismissal of the appeal, the failure to issue a published opinion, the failure to address the facts presented, and the immediate reassignment of the appeal to another case manager, in this case Chinese clerk Yenni Liu. All of this activity has been, in large part, via individuals in high positions of power of the Biden Administration. And for what it’s worth the second circuit is overseen by the Justice Sonya Sotomayor, who is a recognized United States Supreme Court far left radical liberal, who cannot or will not even control her own circuit.
This type of behavior is not simply judicial misconduct; but, sounding in criminal misconduct, which would require an extensive criminal investigation. Any such criminal inquiry would have and should have included federal 2nd circuit chief judge Deborah Ann Livingston, given all of which occurred under circuit chief Livingston’s watch. And the lower court judge, which most assuredly should have been a party to a public corruption criminal investigation, is district judge Leshann DeArcy Hall, of the original case before from which the stated three (3) appeals were filed.
The district court docket has shown judge Hall committing very serious violations which even a newcomer magistrate judge in the United States Courts system would have known not to commit. For example, Judge Hall issued a number of what is referred to as ‘Docket Text’ Orders instead of published opinions, which were done to skirt the judicial opinion requirement which is prima facie evidence of bad faith. Even worse, the FBI received tips that Judge Hall was a party to or concealed serious money crimes of African American minorities in her district. And said money crimes were directly related to the case Judge Hall dismissed which was subsequently appealed -- three times. Lastly, judge Hall, who is a President Obama, appointed judge has a well demonstrated record of judicial activism favoring the African American WOKE movement. In a nutshell, this WOKE movement posits that it should not face legal ramifications for certain activity given the history of the USA and is transgressions against African Americans e.g. slavery. The most obvious and glaring question is what is the relationship between this ideology, no matter how true, with the facts and issues before the court? There is no relationship. And this is precisely how and why judicial misconduct coupled with criminal misconduct enters the picture.
What Agency is Responsible for Addressing the Legal Consequences of Judicial Misconduct?
At the end of the day, the United States of America owns this judicial misconduct and public corruption as the GOP not only knows about it; but, their guy, Republican and Chair Jim Jordan, of the House Committee on the Judiciary has failed to take any action, whatsoever, against either of these judges. In fact, Chair Jordan has not done much of anything aside from cheering on President Trump and pushing President Trump’s agenda. Moreover, there is reason to believe that a faction of the GOP via President Trump’s influence orchestrated the entire criminal cover up, which has been ongoing for more than three (3) years. Why? There is evidence to support the position that the FOIA documents, which the government refuses to release (unredacted), is likely very damaging to one or more republican party leaders including President Trump himself. The United States has become the home of problematic political party politics and corruption. That is the new standard.
This is how the United States federal courts operate and, contrary to popular opinion, this type of corruption and seedy federal court behavior did not commence four (4) years ago; conversely, this type of behavior has been ongoing for many decades now. At the same time, this is, perhaps, one of the most illustrative examples. Against this backdrop, the United Nations Human Rights Council was engaged more than fifteen (15) times with respect to this pattern and practice of extreme human rights abuses to appellant’s human rights.
How does such qualify as human rights abuses? Well first, the United States government created the financial destitute poverty situation where it is directly culpable for identity theft and the government’s forced extreme poverty situation spanning more than two (2) years in New York City, NY alone. During that entire time, the federal government via its employees and/or hired actors have been engaging in illegal physical tracking, stalking, and harassment pursuant their disappear criminal cover up schemes which has involved extortion and/or blackmail – both of which are extremely serious federal crimes involving substantial prison sentences.
All of this behavior is well known by the GOP and the United Nations Human Rights Council. And worse even, the United States Congress is well aware of the criminal tactics used, if it, in fact, did not direct the same itself, i.e. 702 FISA PRISM criminal abuses used to spy on individuals. Couple the foregoing with the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) being in bed with the federal government to advance a criminal cover up, and you have a situation whereas the United States government is totally illegitimate, on its face, which would seem to require direct intervention by the United Nations Human Rights Council, given the United States Congress is unable or unwilling to address public corruption and criminal activity by the officers/judges/employees of their own courts. This type of abuse of power and public corruption, on its face, demonstrates the type of integrity void of public officials rendering them permanently unfit to serve in any public office in any capacity, in any federal, state, or local capacity.