Showing posts with label legal system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal system. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

19. There are so many organizations out there - isn't there an organization that will help me fight wrongdoing by a judge or lawyers?

You can sometimes find on the internet, a number of American organisations, or websites suggesting such an organisation or group, supposedly dealing with lawyers and judges, and the topic of reforming the legal system, or civil liberties and human rights and injustice and so on.

Yet these organisations and websites - especially some of the most famous ones - will mostly all ignore you and say nothing to you individually, when you are a specific victim of judicial or legal corruption. This is true of the whole range of well-funded advocacy groups, non-profit study groups, and various civil rights, civil liberties, and human rights organisations. They may put you on their e-mailing list after you write to them, but that is often the most you get in response.

Such groups tell you or say they try to 'work within the system', which is code language for telling you that they almost never get involved in complaining about crooked lawyers and judges. These organisations are not out to rock the boat of America's judicial nightmare, even though they may be engaged in other political-type legal cases.

If such organisations have any money, resources, or lawyers on their staff, they will very likely totally ignore you.

But if the organisation has no money, has nothing much more than a website, and no lawyers or legal help, you may find a sympathetic ear to receive your e-mails, but perhaps little else. You may typically then be put on a mailing list getting various items of 'news' about legal reform efforts, but nothing is done for you personally.

Like many other victims, you may find that the same civil rights or civil liberties organisation, to whom you were donating money all these years, now dumps you on the street like a load of rubbish when you ask them to help, in an actual case of judicial or legal corruption.

It is all a tragedy, indeed.

This may be quite a surprise to you, as you sift through the websites, many of which claim that they are advocates for civil liberties, human rights, more honest judges, a more open judicial process and so on.

Some of them have very nice websites, put up at great expense. You can read about their paid staff members with their executive director, and all the important people on their board of directors - which is almost a sure sign that the organisation will not help you.

If you dig into those websites, though, you will usually not find any great heroic stories, of how the group helped some poor victim of legal corruption, who had been railroaded by a dishonest judge or lawyer.

If you call them up, you will find that such brave fighting is not their 'mission'. If such groups have money, that usually means that these groups are part of the general game of politics that serves either the Democratic or Republican parties, or both. Or sometimes the group is actually a group working for the very lawyers and judges who are running the current system as it stands right now.

Some of the most famous US 'civil liberties' organisations, are actually a giant fraud against the American people, in place to serve oligarch agendas, to present a false image of 'organisations fighting for civil liberties', to discredit and undermine victims who are not helped by this supposedly 'great organisation', and even to help Deep State intelligence agencies on various kinds of deception and fraud projects.

One of the biggest tools used by billionaires and governments to deceive and control citizens, is the deceptive and evil 'non-profit organisation', using the cover of 'civil society' to conduct an ongoing war against truth and against common people.

As you first see on websites of organisations you contact, and then via e-mails you get, the organisation will often be asking you to donate to them ... which feels quite unpleasant, when you yourself are a legal system victim who likely needs money, after being robbed by lawyers and judges, or in order to seek the better legal help that you were not able to obtain.

The groups on the web are sometimes passionately involved in a few partisan legal cases, where Republican politicians are going after Democrats, or vice-versa. Sometimes they are involved with one of those public emotional issues - like school prayer or family values or so on - in the framework of one political party or another. Occasionally, they do help some private individual, who is lucky enough to have his or her problem fit exactly into their political agenda, but that is more rare than you would guess before you become a legal system victim.

And such cases are almost never about the usual bribery, fraud, corruption, and brutality, of America's day-to-day lawyers and judges. There is no well-funded organisation out there with a legal staff or lawyer volunteers, helping the simple average American who is being robbed, violated and railroaded by crooked lawyers and judges.

Any well-funded organisations, and their lawyers, tend to chase after cases that are already in the media, or obviously suited to the political game of the two main parties.

Such well-funded organisations, of course tend to get their money from big corporations and rich political donors, precisely because they serve the interests of those corporations and those rich people. 

One of the many ways that political life in America is managed, is by the smoke and mirrors of so-called non-profit think tanks and political advocacy groups. For example, big corporations pay for 'environmental study' groups that help the big corporations to damage the environment and get away with it, as the 'independent study' group, with PhDs on staff, can feeds false 'expert' information to the media, in a big game of deceiving the members of the public.

The 'legal and justice' organisations you find on the internet, are sometimes no different. First of all, they are organisations trying to keep their own money flowing, and the biggest source of money is from rich people and big corporations.

Some organisations do actually perform some good work for human rights or civil rights, but they are very timid or limited in what they do. So many hundreds of thousands of people need help, they say 'No' to most people anyway.

And such organisations are afraid of exposing crooked lawyers and judges. They have the same problem you do: The judges and lawyers will destroy them if they speak out too much. If they criticise judges and lawyers, they face lawsuits and false criminal charges, just like you do.

The judges can see to it that the organisation's lawyers lose the right to practice law, and that the organisation gets destroyed with a few big lawsuits. And they will lose their corporate or rich donor funding if they have any, and all those paid employees at the organisation will be out of work, or worse. If the organisation exposes corrupt judges, any rich donors to the organisation can be targeted as well with legal harassment.

Internet search engines and social media are themselves motivated to particpate in USA judge bribery. If the internet portal allows or highlights much talk about legal corruption, they might no longer easily win or have dismissed 99% of the lawsuits filed against them, as is happening if these internet portals are co-operative.

When you are a victim of a crooked judge or lawyer, that often means your civil rights have been violated, either by what originally happened, or the subsequent cover up. However, that is exactly the kind of violation of your civil rights and civil liberties, that the various organisations are afraid to touch, even if they claim to be national 'civil rights and civil liberties' organisations.

  'Our resources are limited, we can't take every case, it's not the kind of case we handle', they will tell you. Plus,
'We have to work within the system', and so on. Eventually you get used to the pattern of routine responses, or just being outright ignored.

Most victims sadly find that, for their own case, there is no one out there, with money or resources or lawyers, who is willing to help fight legal or judicial corruption in America.

Click here to go back to the FAQ table of contents.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3, or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.

20. I've got great evidence, and an important story, of judicial or legal corruption. How do I get the news media to cover my case?

This role of the American news media, and how they are silent on legal and judicial corruption, is another big shocker, maybe the biggest, for the victims of injustice. This is especially apparent when you approach the various people and websites that have been promoted as doing 'brave investigative reporting'.

When you are a new victim of legal injustice in America, you tend to start out thinking that the horrors that happened to you, can wind up on the front pages of the newspaper, or in the headlines on at least the local TV news broadcasts. You think you have a great and important and news story - and you may be right. You think that the public will be interested in what happened to you - and you may be right. You think your story is very unique - but you are probably wrong about that.

As a victim of injustice by lawyers or judges, you may think your story is unique, because you haven't heard about similar stories on the news, or read about similar stories in the newspapers. But that is only because the big media in America - the newspapers and television news shows, and the major internet news sites that you read - almost never publish such stories.

The reality is that the so-called 'reporters' at media outlets, are actually bombarded every day with endless horror stories of things happening to innocent people, especially in the legal system. Typically, reporters don't pursue such stories, because they know they won't be allowed to publish such stories in the newspapers, or talk about them on television.

Whilst millions of Americans have already been victims of the legal system, millions more have not yet had the bad luck to bump into it. And because news media refuse to report stories of legal and judicial corruption, the millions who haven't been in court, have an imaginary fairy-tale view of American justice, the image created by television and Hollywood movies, and the propaganda about USA courts learned in school in childhood.

So when you become a victim of injustice, you are tempted to call the newspapers and TV stations, and you imagine you might be on nationwide television. And, in fact, if they had the courage to do a story on you, it might be an interesting one for nationwide TV.

But they don't want to tell your story. You just take a number, behind the many thousands of other people, who wish the media was talking about their story, too.

The American media does not want to talk about particular cases of legal corruption, and does not want to talk about attempts by citizens to reform the legal system. Their coverage of such cases is almost always limited to cases where some government official or politician is taking some action or saying something, or where there is a rich-person, oligarch agenda to alter society, by highlighting the particular case or class of victim. As a general rule, the media avoids news and stories about judicial and legal corruption, which are supplied by citizens themselves.

The media is afraid of confronting legal corruption, for the same reason lawyers and everyone else are afraid. If a newspaper starts publishing material on the corruption of lawyers and judges, that newspaper would quickly become a target of revenge by the legal system. Possibly a direct target, but more often an indirect target.

All of a sudden, court cases in which that media organisation was involved, would not go very well. People would show up and sue the newspaper or website for millions of dollars - in seemingly unrelated cases - and might suddenly win, maybe even destroying and wiping out the newspaper. People at the newspaper or internet site, might suddenly find themselves arrested and criminally charged, for something that seems unrelated. Lawyers would be unwilling to defend the newspaper or website, or else only defend it badly, giving a victory to the other side.

It might take a while for the revenge to take place, but eventually the newspaper or website might be totally destroyed by the legal machine, unless it learned its lesson of being submissive to lawyers and judges.

The USA legal system has certainly been terrifically savage and brutal to individual writers and journalists, who have dared to raise questions about legal and judicial misconduct, such as the author of this blog, forced to become an exile under threats of assassination by criminal gangs supported by US federal judges.

Media ground rules in America, are such that the media is incentivised and blackmailed to present the view of reality that is painted by a judge in his orders and decrees. Even if the judge is a perverted criminal lunatic liar, his 'verdict' is how the media can smear someone, unless there is some higher judge who has over-ruled the first judge. The response of a private person, to slanders by a judge or a false court verdict, is heavily discounted by the media, and often not published at all. With their orders to internet search engines to block and hide the truth, and prevent victims from responding to lies, USA  judges can seem to control everything in American life, with their words a kind of 'legal' propaganda, and the victims of that propaganda, maybe banned from replying by a bribe-taking judge.

But there is more to the story of the media, than just typical fear of lawyers and judges. Similar to how corporations and rich investors fund and 'own' both major US political parties, the same corporations and investors own and control most omajor media in America. Just as there might be almost no real political opposition betweeen 'tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum' candidates, there is often no real media opposition, either, given how all media are under the same threats from USA courthouses.

No, the US government does not 'own' the media, although USA intelligence agencies have long  participated heavily in media companies and on internet sites, especially the widely known, anonymous, internet 'encyclopaedias' which are essentially frauds run by the government.

Rather than government-owned media as are dominant in some countries, in the USA it is more the other way around, and more complex: It is big corporations and rich investors, who own most all the major media, as well as 'owning' the political parties and machinery of US government. The bottom line is still the same. No effective political opposition in America, because there are no powerful opposition parties, and no powerful opposition media.

As they say, freedom of the press belongs to the people who own the press. And the 'press', in the United States of America, is owned by the same big corporations and rich investors, who dominate all three 'branches' of government, and are thus backing the culture of judicial dominance and corruption. 

Open-source research makes clear, how the top media conglomerates in America, are actually controlled by a very small group of less than 120 people who collectively are the majority of directors of those media corporations. These people are, in many cases, also on the boards of many other big companies, the 120 media directors also on the boards of over 280 of the USA's richest corporations.

So the biggest American corporations and investors, are also controlling America's media that you see and hear and read, just 120 very rich people at the controls of a dominant chunk of all that you see and read as 'news'. These people don't have to be part of an ultra-secret conspiracy, or some secret society. As rich people who have a common interest - profit and money and control - these rich people will tend to think alike and act like. Control the media, control democracy and politics, control the profit.

These corporations and rich people like the system the way it is. Otherwise they could make it different. If they didn't like America's crooked judges and lawyers, the media owners could launch a big crusade for more democracy, power to the people, more political parties, and prosecution of dishonest judges and lawyers.

But they're not interested in any of that stuff. You look at the major media outlets, on TV or in the newspapers, and you don't hear much about legal corruption, or the need for reforming the judges and the legal system. You're confronted with info-tainment, a few sensational stories that avoid telling the real news about corruption, aside from some cases that are politically-charged, or some wrong-doers went rogue and failed to bribe or support the right top people.

Media generally avoids telling how the old USA is rotting away. Aside from celebrity and fluff pieces, what is generally allowed to appear as 'news', is mostly sourced in either the government itself, or in the wishes of wealthy people to present you with a certain 'angle' on things.

If you analyse what's in a news article, you will find in many cases that nearly all of what's in the article, has its origins in actions or statements by the government or an official. The President said this, the government spokesman said this, an unnamed official said this, the town councilman said this, someone leaked this from the government, the police did this, the courts are doing that. What comprises the 'news' is often almost all government from A to Z, and then the media adds a little bit about what dress some celebrity was wearing. Even with celebrities, the news is often government-oriented - the celebrity was in divorce court, was caught buying drugs, etc..

There isn't really much that's allowed to be 'news' in the USA unless the government, or some wealthy faction with influence in the government, starts it first. On legal and judicial corruption, the media usually don't pursue the story, unless the lawyer or judge is actually being officially prosecuted or investigated by an official government agency, or is being sued in a lawsuit by a law firm that is politically-connected enough to win media attention.

The media doesn't want to hear about how your rights were being violated, or how much crystal clear evidence you have that the lawyers or a judge committed a crime. They want to know: Is someone in the GOVERNMENT, someone OFFICIAL or connected to WEALTHY PEOPLE, doing something about your evidence? The bar, the police, the prosecutors, the judges, a well-funded organisation or politician speaking out on your behalf? If not, the media usually doesn't want to print your story.

As a victim of legal or judicial corruption, you find the media is another brick wall to face in your struggle.

It's not a question of your writing a good press release, or getting your facts well-presented, or having good evidence. You could have the greatest story in the world, with the most well-written press release, but the media will ignore you, if you are trying to expose USA judicial and legal corruption.

Even worse, in some cases, the big media companies are actually helping lawyers and judges to commit felony crimes. The big media companies are working with lawyers to help set up lawsuits - they plant fake 'news' stories, and even invent fake interviews, which later serve as false evidence in court cases, to help take away the rights of victims. Yes, these kind of frightening events are really happening. And once again, you may not know these facts until you seriously research things on the internet. The big media companies are hardly going to let you know, that they themselves are in cahoots with crooked USA lawyers and judges.

Americans might be the most expertly manipulated and deceived people in the entire world now, as their political life is managed by the biggest propaganda operation in world history. It is wise never to trust the mainstream media from the USA; always think of what might possibly be the real truth behind the surface story. For a century now, since Freud's nephew Bernays wrote his book advising on 'Propaganda', it has been known that the best way to control a nation is to control the mass media - that's why the big corporations place such importance on their control of USA mass media.

Americans still stuck believing the old two-party myth, have the same problem with interpreting news media that they have in looking at judges. Republican voters think media is 'too Democrat, too liberal, too leftist', whilst Democrats think media is "too Republican, too right-wing, too conservative". And once again, just as with the judges, both sides are in part right depending on which media you like at, but also wrong at the same time. Both parties have been supporting judicial corruption and misconduct, whilst also bickering that this or that judge is 'too liberal' or 'too conservative'.

Big media companies, like the judges, are serving the oligarchy - the big corporations and rich people who own the media as well as pay for politicians. You can pick your target, you can point out some news stories that slant toward the Republican wing of the airplane, and other media that slant toward the Democrat wing. But what you can be sure of, is that nearly all news stories, fit into the mainstream framework of the ruling big-party machine.

What the news stories aren't telling very well, are the stories of real grass-roots Americans, trying to fight back against big government and the big corporations, or the millions of Americans who are victimised or fighting back against one of the world's most crooked legal systems.

Click here to go back to the FAQ table of contents.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3, or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.

21. What about investigative reporters - won't they be interested in my story of legal or judicial corruption?

This is another myth that people inherit from Hollywood movies and television, as well as government and media scamming - the stereotypical 'investigative reporter', the brave man or woman allegedly eager to fight for the truth ... but what you will find, is that a number of the famous 'investigative journalists' are fake, in fact serving governments and the rich and the powerful, with agendas of deception and distraction.

The same goes for so-called famous 'whistle-blowers' and 'leak' sites, they are often government and intelligency agency actors, carrying out a devious agenda. One of those agendas is to catalog and document, and be able to silence and destroy, real whistle-blowers and people trying to fight against governments or the oligarchy.

The genuine kind of 'investigative reporters' basically died out a long time ago in major media terms. They were exterminated as local media sources got bought up by the big conglomerates, and as America's media became increasingly part of the big corporate machine that controls American life.

There are enough investigative journalists who have wound up dead in mysterious circumstances, that the rest of media personnel have gotten the message. For example, there was Gary Webb, who exposed evidence that the US government itself was involved in flooding USA minority ghettoes with illegal drugs. Webb allegedly 'committed suicide' in 2004, shooting himself 'twice' with 'two bullets in the head' (!), if you would like to believe that 'official story'.

Real and honest 'investigative journalists' are mostly obscure now, found an minor and semi-censored internet sites, out of the mainstream search results, and often slandered as 'conspiracy theorists' and so on, on the major websites and government-infected 'free internet encyclopaedias'.

So-called 'investigative reporters' in major media today in the USA, basically only start 'investigating' more details about someone, after the government initiates the process. The prosecutors tip off the reporters that they will be going after some person, and then the media will go chasing after details. But the government or its rich oligarch partners, is nearly always the original source motivating a 'big' story.

What rarely happens, is where people come to a newspaper or media organisation with proof of some crime that the government isn't prosecuting, and then the newspaper runs a big story to 'expose' the wrongdoing. That happens very rarely now, and when it does, the target of the story is usually someone who has no political connections.

What basically never happens at all, is where the media starts running stories about crooked lawyers or judges, just because they have proof of crimes that those people have committed. You can present totally slam-dunk evidence of crimes involving a judge, and the American media won't touch the story. That's the way it is in the USA.

In modern America, 'journalists' for the big media companies are people very submissive to their bosses. They know the unspoken 'rules'. Stories that violate the rules, don't get published or broadcast. And a reporter who writes stories which don't get published or broadcast, is pretty soon out of a job.

Since the ultimate bosses are the big corporations that own the media groups, the message filters down very quickly to the staff, regarding what is supposed to be 'news' and what is supposed to be ignored. The bosses don't need to put things in writing, in order for the reporters to figure out how to kiss up to the bosses and company owners and keep their jobs. 

You can find the fingerprints all over the other corporate-media-celebrated cases of 'leakers' and 'investigations' ... if the story is all over corporate media, chances are it is run by a government intelligence agency.

The 1971 'Pentagon Papers' of Daniel Ellsberg distracted from Vietnam-era war crimes, and Ellsberg used his sudden fame to try to sell the 'official story' of the JFK assassination.

People sometimes cite the old Watergate case, and the resignation of USA President Richard Nixon in 1974, as showing that America has a 'great legal system' in which a President was shoved out of office because of the work of some 'investigative reporters'. But even that is neither accurate, nor a good example, for several reasons.

Of course this is an old story, those events now nearly a half century ago. Since then, the American legal system, and the corporate ownership of media companies, are both a lot worse than they were in the Watergate days.

But even this Watergate case, was really about how other factions in the American government wanted to get rid of Nixon, for various political motives. The two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, were themselves very well connected to other government officials, both in personal background, and in their attack against the Nixon presidency. Woodward had recently a US Navy intelligence officer, working under Admiral Maurer, who was head of the US military and its 'Joint Chiefs', during the 'Silent Coup' against Nixon. The Watergate case, like nearly all other news in America, had its origins in the powers of government itself, not the so-called 'investigative reporters'.

A similar scene took place in the 1990s, when alleged 'investigative reporter' Matt Drudge, led the media barrage to 'impeach' President Bill Clinton over trivial sexual activity in the White House. Whereas it seems to many that Clinton's impeachment was connected with his hesitation to bomb Serbia and kill thousands of civilians there ... the bombing began shortly after Clinton was 'acquitted'.

And then 2010 began the ballyhoo over Julian Assange and Wikileaks, Julian Assange with many connections to the wealthiest people in the world and their banks. Assange supported the 'official story' on 9-11, and people who sent Assange information turned up dead. Although allegedly 'facing charges' in the USA, Assange always refused to defend himself with his files from USA legal corruption victims, which he knows would block any extradition request. It is widely doubted Assange was ever really 'living in the London Ecuador embassy' all those years.

After Assange, we had another 'leaker' connected to governments and wealthy people, Edward Snowden in 2013, who first 'leaked' to the friend and biographer of USA George Bush Vice-President Dick Cheney at the Washington Post. Snowden was then promoted by a journalist linked to the world's wealthiest people. Like Assange, Snowden slams people questioning the 9-11 story, and is also hostile to talking about USA judicial and legal corruption, despite being exactly like Assange and allegedly facing a 'trial' in the USA.

And then in 2016 there was the leaked 'Panama Papers' on corruption in various governments, who also happen to be targets for undermining by the USA and its friends, the Panama Papers 'investigative journalists' themselves having close ties to governments and intelligence agencies.

It is all just one fraud after another, the frauds having the clear initial signal that they are massively promoted by the big corporation newspapers and media sites. Many people are duped into contacting the media associated with these frauds, by the fake stories of 'brave reporters' and alleged 'brave whistle-blowers' who are really frauds of intelligence agencies. And then some of the victims who contact these frauds and their hoaxing 'journalists', wind up dead.

A sad aspect of all these frauds is how they help defame and marginalise and slander real victims and dissidents, because people say, 'Well, if your story was true, wouldn't the media who talked about Assange or Snowden be helping you?'

The circus of political 'news' in the USA, is not about the common people, who are often crushed and ignored and thrown under the bus. The so-called 'news stories' are more often about one part of government, bickering with another part, playing a power game among themselves, whilst hiding the fact that the real needs of the people are ignored.

Click here to go back to the FAQ table of contents.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3, or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.

22. What about the alternative or radical or foreign news media - won't they be interested in my story of legal or judicial corruption?

The big corporations own most major news media in America, but they don't own or control all of it yet. There is a somewhat lively alternative or radical media, mostly found now on the internet, although that is being increasingly censored, with websites erased and de-platformed, and especially being downgraded or blocked altogether from search results.

Such alternative media are important - and usually a much better source for news than the mainstream media, which is so heavily filtered and bent to benefit the big corporations. But alternative media does not have the large following it deserves, although that following is passionate. Getting your story in the alternative media, may not do much for you in real life, in the same way that a story in the mainstream media tends to get a reaction from politicians and the public.

You might ask, why doesn't someone start a new kind of cable television news network, that tells the real news about corruption in the government and courts? Well, such a project takes a lot of money, and people and corporations with big money, are not interested in funding a radical news network, that would damage the power of the rich people and corporations.

Also, if such a radical news network got started and became popular, one of two things would happen. Either the big companies would buy it, and slowly force it to become more submissive to the corporations and government; or else, the legal system would start to destroy it.

In revenge for telling the stories of corruption, judges and lawyers would allow lots of lawsuits to start destroying the alternative news service. Very quickly, the company would be broke and bankrupt and unable to provide alternative news at all - which is why no one is investing in the start of such a radical television news service in the first place. Media people see they cannot get legal protection in America, if they expose the crimes of judges and lawyers. Gangster judges in bribery will be happy to put that media company on trial and say they owe millions to crooked lawyers and to people who pay bribes.

This is the way it goes down in the USA: The legal system threatens to silence and destroy those who start to criticise the system, especially the media; and so media are naturally silent and indulgent regarding judicial and legal corruption.

So even in the alternative or radical news media, it is very hard to get these media to cover your particular story of legal or judicial corruption, however interesting or significant. Inside the United States, any one who does journalism, even on the internet, has largely internalised the fear of the legal system, and the fear of exposing wrong-doing of lawyers and judges who have not already been targeted by some government agency..

The alternative and radical media doesn't like to admit it, but they, too, are afraid, even if they do not say so. And they are more vulnerable than big media, because they don't have big money for lawyers and big political connections.

The little person, the little media magazine or web-zine, or small publisher, can be much more easily destroyed by a single lawsuit. Or banned or put in jail on false charges.

Journalists and people with websites have not only been sued, but also had their freedom of speech banned, and been criminally charged or jailed in America, sometimes for things that seem 'unrelated' to their journalism. The reason you may not know about these events, of course, is once again that big media is not reporting on these stories. The big media doesn't want to rouse the anger of the American people, by making it too obvious that little people with websites are getting criminally charged and jailed.

So alternative media in America, helpful as it is in many ways, still stays away from the most taboo subject in all of American journalism: the vast corruption of America's judges and lawyers. Even all sorts of radicals and rebels, are in fear of the great American legal monster, how it will come and destroy them if they dare to speak too boldly.

The alternative media, like so many in America, now tries to play it safe, by merely often reacting to what they read in the mainstream media. Or else they tend to analyse and take apart the mainstream media, while looking for the little nuggets of truth that still come through the propaganda, if you keep hunting between the lines. The alternative media will take the little detail on the back pages of some newspaper article, and point out how it combines with something else to point to a deeper truth behind the superficial news story.

But no alternative media outlet is making a significant attack on exposing new cases of legal corruption, if such a case is not already in the news media loop. This is a topic they think it is wiser to leave for the bigger and more well-funded news organisations, which of course won't touch the topic either.

So it is pretty much of an empty hope, to think that some alternative journalist will be brave enough and interested enough, to start exposing your particular case of corruption by a dishonest lawyer or judge.

It is very sad how America has become the land of fear, in its journalism like in much of its daily life.

Also, if you look outside of the borders of America to try to find a journalist, your own particular case of corruption, is unlikely to be a story they want to tell. America does not have a good reputation in much of the world now. Outsiders often see America as a country that starts illegal wars, kidnaps and tortures people, and holds them without trial at places like Guantanamo.

So your own particular case of getting victimised by America's legal system, is just one more little case in a country that other people think is crooked and nasty anyway. You are just one more victim, compared to tens of thousands of dead bodies of children and civilian dead in places where USA bombs and drone planes have rained down hell and death on people.

And besides, other countries don't easily understand - given that the USA, for all of its flaws, appears to be somewhat of a democracy with 'free media' - they don't understand why your case isn't being covered by media in the USA. If there is no major media on you in your own country, it is difficult for media in another country to start digging in to facts, given the barriers of possible language differences and cultural mis-understanding, and lack of staff resident on USA territory.

With today's smaller news organisation budgets, most countries take their 'foreign news' from the international news wire services. Other countries don't have budgets to send people looking to the USA for 'fresh' news stories, they mostly go to the USA to say something about big stories that are already being covered, and add a personal touch to connect with viewers back home in their native language, on stories like the USA presidential elections, or riots sweeping across USA cities.

But what about the media that is affiliated with the government, in the countries of major USA political rivals, such as Russia or China or Cuba or Venezuela or Iran? Here again, one problem is that the case of one victim being mauled by judges and lawyers, is a very 'small' story, versus the geo-political and international issues that will fill the web pages or television segments on 'foreign news'.

But another issue is that, most countries of the world are rather sensitive about the issue of 'legal and court corruption', because they may well have some issues and vulnerability of their own in this regard. A lot of criticism can be made of many countries' courts, as biased or cruel or politically bent.

One can also sometimes reasonably assume, that the USA has worked out a quiet 'deal' with other countries, whereby if those countries don't publicly criticise the court scandals of the USA, the USA propaganda apparatus won't do too much criticism of their courts, either. This might even be true of some of the biggest rivals to the USA.

Your personal tragedy as a victim of judicial and legal corruption, is a major matter to you and your family and those who love you. But it's just one more tragedy, in a world of people being tortured and killed and starved and made homeless by the millions. Your tragedy is important enough to be major local news in the area where you live, and maybe important enough to be known across the USA. But internationally, it's hard for a complex story of corruption to be covered anywhere else, unless it is first a story in your own homeland.

Click here to go back to the FAQ table of contents.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3, or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.

23. What about the professors at the law schools - aren't they fighting judicial corruption, and trying to help the victims of legal injustice?

With very few exceptions, no. Law professors at USA law schools, writing all sorts of long articles full of legal jargon on the supposed issues of the American legal system, and even supposedly doing very 'radical' viewpoints, generally stay away from the topic of legal corruption and misconduct. Like everybody else in the USA legal system, professors at USA law schools are afraid of speaking the truth about American corruption and bribery. They are afraid of being sued and put on trial before judges taking bribes, they are afraid of being slandered by corporate media and biased internet search results, they are afraid of being murdered by Deep State criminals.

These professors have various kinds of 'scholarly' excuses - they might tell you that, as professors, they are focusing on 'technical' issues in the law, as it is found in the decisions of judges. It's nearly always 'not my professional specialty'. They will tell you that issues of simple corruption and bribery, are not 'intellectually interesting', or that they have no way of investigating such complaints, given that complaints about judges and lawyers are held fairly secret in the files of USA courthouses and Bar ethics review boards. They will pretend there is nothing 'intellectually interesting' even about lawyers stripped of their right to practice law, right in the home state of the law school where they are teaching.

But the reality is that most every USA law school and university, like most everything else in America, is basically a business trying to raise money and maintain its funding. Big money for the universities, aside from tuition fees, comes from donations from the big corporations and wealthy donors, and grant funding from the American government, which is itself a servant of those big corporations.

The law professors are afraid of revenge, too, just like lawyers and people in the media. If they speak out against corruption, they can get sued, and their university can get sued, and start losing money from the government and the big donations from business people. And the particular law instructors might lose their jobs.

Law professors, graduates of law schools and sometimes practicing lawyers for a while, essentially understand that law is a field attracting a high proportion of USA psychopathic and sociopathic personalities. Lawyers are often people who love power, people who love to destroy and deceive and ruin other people. It is a profession full of scamming and fraud, with 'money for nothing', hundreds of dollars billed per hour just for the lawyer sipping coffee, and teaching himself what are the applicable statutes and precedents according to the legal databases.

Law professors instinctively understand that many of their students are psychopaths, and law professors too are sometimes psychopaths as well, seeing themselves as the 'high priests' of the 'words of power' which make up the 'legal game'.

Students of law schools often graduate to become highly-paid lawyers directly involved in legal corruption, scamming clients and sabotaging justice. Often, crooked judges themselves teach part-time on a law school faculty. The law professors are closely connected to the culture of bribery and corruption, even though they won't admit it. Many law professors get rich on the side, earning big money by using their prestige as a 'law professor' and earning big fees, or bribes to publish 'legal articles' hiding the crimes of courts and their lawyer brothers and sisters. Law professors outright sell their names, and the names of their universities, to be used for criminal projects by crooked lawyers and judges, and also to aid in lies being spread by intelligence agencies.

Yes, law professors will sometimes be chasing after publicity on some big case that is already in the news. Lawyers and law professors love to be involved in big famous cases, and have some brief moments of fame in the media.

But law professors almost always stay away from the millions of poor little victims of the law, who are getting their lives destroyed by crooked lawyers and judges. Law professors fear getting themselves in trouble if they rock the boat and try to expose the culture of bribery and court fraud, so they stay away from it. Like practicing lawyers, they won't risk their careers to help poor victims, whom they feel they won't be able to help anyway, because everything is stacked against the victim.

Even amidst the massive 'anti-racism' media framing going on today, law professors are shying away from some of the worst racist crimes of all - the railroading of innocent minorities, getting put in jail and even put to death, by a USA legal system that is corrupt from top to bottom.

So, for a legal system victim, it's the same kind of response all over again. Seeking help from law professors, is usually another dead end, another brick wall, as you look for help to fight USA legal and  judicial corruption.

Click here to go back to the FAQ table of contents.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3, or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.

24. There's all these rich business executives getting convicted now, like Martha Stewart - Doesn't that prove that the system is really working?

This is another topic that tends to mislead the general public, both in America and around the world. Yes, it's true that even in America, rich people are sometimes arrested and go on trial. Sometimes millionaires, executives of big companies, even famous media personalities, get put on trial and go to prison. Supposedly, this proves that 'the system works', because even some very rich people get sentenced and go to jail. Doesn't this prove that the legal system is really 'fair', because even the big corporate executives and famous media millionaires can face criminal charges?

But, once again, there is something behind the scenes here, that makes all of this very misleading. If you analyse the reasons that these executives are going to jail, you often find the same thing underneath the various cases. These rich executives, millionaires though they might be or even for a time billionaires, generally get into trouble for violating, not the law itself, but the less-obvious set of 'rules' that they were supposed to obey - not harming the interests of the millionaires and billionaires who own the big USA corporations, and its government by and for the oligarchy; or they have avoided their obligation to 'share their wealth' a bit with the political mafia gangsters who help to run USA life.

It is a hidden rule of the USA, that you need to 'pay to play'. If you are allowed to make tens or hundreds of millions are billions,  you must spread some of that money for oligarch projects, such as: Political donations; donations to the 'non-profit organisations' and 'charities' associated with politicians; public initiatives and lobbying projects serving the interests of their fellow rich people in the government; paying out to the law firms connected to the politicians and judges, and giving the judges their bribery cash.

Rich people in the USA learn, sometimes the hard way, that not sharing their money with the political mafia, leaves them vulnerable to some 'investigations' and 'prosecutions'.

Big corporations are not the same as the rich executives who run them, even though those executives might be paid millions of dollars. The executives sometimes just work for even richer people, major shareholders, investors, sometimes the richest people in the USA and the world.

When executives are sentenced to prison for fraud and other crimes, it is often that their crimes were betraying the investors who put their money into either that corporation or its rivals. In other words, these executives did not provide good service to the collective of really and truly rich people who collectively own the corporations dominating economic life.

That's the story of past 'corporate crime' prosecutions of Enron or WorldCom or Michael Milken or Bernard Madoff. The people involved broke some rules mandating 'fair play' amidst the crowd of rich people, or not fulfilling the bribery and 'share the wealth with the mafia' obligations described above.

The government will talk about how these executives cheated average Americans, but often that is just talk. What really was at issue, was how these executives cheated America's millionaires and billionaires who owned stock in the failed companies, or somehow got the wrong person angry. We might never learn the real story of what 'triggered' the sudden avalanche of criminal investigations and charges.

America's richest people have their assets in stocks and sometimes even more in bonds, more than anything else. That's why the government spends so many millions of dollars on regulation of these markets. And so many trillions are spent by central banks in 'economic stimulus' to buy bonds ... often owned by the richest people of all.

As far as lawyers and judges go, there's hardly any regulation at all. Lawyers and judges can be criminals and perverts and lunatics, and commit a new felony crime every day of the week, and the government may well do nothing about it, if the victims are everyday average Americans.

But stock fraud and manipulation, and insider trading? Playing games with stock prices, might affect the profits of multi-millionaire investors, and so this is where the government is very, very serious, to protect those rich investors. Lots of officials may swing into action immediately, if you have broken any rules of stock-market trading. That was why they started going after Martha Stewart, who was once a very prominent television personality. She was charged and convicted and jailed around the time this FAQ was originally written, now more than 15 years ago. Martha Stewart was rich, but she was involved in trading stocks that are also owned by other rich people, and that's something the government is very concerned about.

The prosecution of a few rich executives and multi-millionaires, a Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein or Bernard Madoff or whomever, or even a one-time pair of 'richest persons in the world' like the Hunt Brothers with their silver speculation, doesn't prove that the system works to protect the common people.

There is usually some story, more obvious in some cases, less obvious in others, about how the person getting charged, did something to make other rich people in the oligarchy uncomfortable. Maybe they just didn't pay enough of the right 'political donations' to skate away scott-free after the most disgusting crimes.

The government acts to protect the rich more than anyone else. The government is concerned that everything is 'fair' and equal for billionaires and big investors, and this means that even rich people need to see they can go to jail if they do things to hurt other rich people, if they break the rules of loyalty to the oligarchy. On the other hand, crimes that merely hurt common people with no connections, well those are crimes that are not so 'high priority'.

There are, and will continue to be, trials of celebrities who are rich, but yet are charged and go on trial in some big media circus, accused of some offence or other. Many of these celebrities have some money, but are minorities or have no big political connections.

If they had really good connections, if they had made a lot of political donations, they often would never have been charged in the first place, some lawyer would have 'fixed' the whole thing very quietly with the right government officials, and the person may have gotten a 'friendly warning' like the billionaire Hunt brothers were given, but ignored.

Rich people who make big political donations in America, are sometimes able to commit quite serious felony crimes and get away with them, just by continuing to bribe politicians and judges. They can rape your children, attack you, and threaten to kill you, and if they have donated enough to the 'right' top people, Justice Department officials sometimes even sell them a 'comfort letter' promising to do nothing about their crimes.

Click here to go back to the FAQ table of contents.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3, or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.

25. What about being my own lawyer in court, and filing lawsuits against legal corruption on my own?

After the long hopeless search for a lawyer, people think about acting as their own lawyer, filing lawsuits against legal, judicial and government corruption on their own.

It is certainly good to know something about the details of the law in America, so as to better understand the legal tricks that are being played by lawyers and judges.

As you start to study the law, you may get all excited about what a great case you have, and you dream of winning a great victory on your own, acting as your own lawyer. You may start reading the law, and you may find you're just as smart as many lawyers. You may find all sorts of laws, and statutes, and previous cases, that support your position. You see that the law, theoretically, allows you to win a lot of money for your pain and suffering and for the harm that was done to you.

There are also a number of resources you can use to help you. On the internet you find do-it-yourself legal guides. Near your home you may have a free law library you can use, and with time and study you can become reasonably educated with the law, as becomes true of many prisoners allowed to use the prison library.

On one level, it's not that hard. The law is full of jargon, and is annoying and inconsistent, and takes some time to get used to the jargon and learn the rules, and know all the stuff you should know. You need to get used to the ways that lawyers are constantly twisting words around to mean different things, depending on what they are arguing. But it's not beyond the average person.

After all, many actual lawyers are total idiots. America has over a million lawyers, and many of them are fairly stupid, despite three years of law school and having passed the bar exam. And despite their stupidity, they still get away with charging people $100 and more per hour.

With your passion and dedication to your own case, and some diligent self-study, you can out-learn and out-think those idiots with law degrees, on one level.

However, it is usually just a fantasy to think you can get somewhere by acting as your own lawyer. To fulfill your fantasy, you would need to find a judge somewhere who cares about the law, the truth, the evidence, the facts and about justice, more than he cares about covering up for his fellow lawyers and judges. And that's where your fantasy starts to fall apart.

There are actually cases in which a judge admitted, he always automatically denied a court appeal by a person acting as his own lawyer. He didn't even read the arguments, the claims, and the evidence. Denied! That's all. And the USA Supreme Court totally refuses to even hear arguments, in about 99% of the cases and appeals presented to it ... especially the appeals by 'pro se' (for himself or herself) litigants. Motion denied without explanation, appeal or case dismissed.

The reality of law and courts in America, is not that idealistic image you invent in your mind after reading the law books. In a real court, judges and lawyers have found and invented hundreds of ways to delay and deny you justice ... whilst the people bribing the judge for the oligarchy, get instant and quick service, taking away the rights of their victims.

And if not legally, they will do so illegally. They will just rule against you, period, and tell you that you lost. 'But . . . but . . . but . . .' you will sputter, because the law and the facts and the evidence and the truth are on your side. And then the judge will tell you to shut up, or he'll send you to jail for contempt of court, maybe grinning and smirking to his lawyer friends.

The US Constitution and the law turn out to be empty words which will not help you, when you discover that the judges ignore not just the written law of statutes, but the Constitution itself. And you will be amazed at how judges can rig a court proceeding with just a series of small rulings on court procedure.

Right to a jury - denied. Right to present some piece of evidence - denied. Right to present an important witness - denied. Right to cite some specific statute, or example, or a previous case - denied. Right to talk about the Constitution - denied, "Irrelevant!" screams the judge. The judge will directly ban you, under threat of jail, from speaking about truth or facts or evidence or law, that interferes with the judge's desire to fix and rig everything for the richer people who are politically connected, or just anyone who is paying the judge a juicy bribe.

When the judge starts yelling at you, that he is going to put you in jail, if you say one more thing he doesn't like, or if you don't answer the illogical question he asks you in the way he prefers, you will finally understand how American judges really behave. Indeed, it is nothing at all like you see on television.

You can think about appealing the illegal orders of the first judge. Although sometimes they even threaten to jail you on false charges, or contempt of court, if you file any appeals. In my own experience in the USA, friends of the judge even threatened to murder me.

But even with an appeal, you typically just go to another judge, who dismisses your appeal, maybe even without listening to what you have to say. Most judges are not interested in reading or hearing appeals by little people who have no lawyers. And the people attacking you will tell the judge, that the fact that you have no lawyer, just proves what a lousy and worthless case you are trying to present.

Another illusion you may have about acting as your own lawyer, is that you think you will get media coverage, after you file a lawsuit on your own. You imagine that your case will start to win public support, after the media informs people about what you are trying to do. And you imagine that there will be all sorts of TV and news reporters watching you in the courtroom.

But you are nearly always wrong, if you think that the media will cover your lawsuit that you file on your own. Yes, the media does cover some legal cases. But they often totally ignore any cases filed by people who do not have lawyers, regardless of how interesting, or how strong the evidence. The media pretends that you are a nut or a crackpot, just because you have no lawyer. And they know your case will not get anywhere. So for all your efforts in court, not only with the judges dismiss your case or delay it indefinitely, but you will suffer in silence, as the media won't cover your struggle either.

Sometimes you can be caught in this hopeless game for months and years, before it all crashes down into nothingness. Or before you are finally arrested by the local cops on some supposedly unrelated charge. Or before the judge and the lawyers themselves file a lawsuit against you, and their lawsuit actually works out very well for their side. One way or another, they will most likely show you the nature of their power over you.

Almost certainly, there is very little you can accomplish against legal or judicial corruption, by filing lawsuits acting as your own lawyer. The judges will rig the game to nail you, regardless of the law, the facts, the evidence, precedents, the truth, or anything else.

This is not to deny that, people do sometimes win when filing a lawsuit or appeal on their own. It is rare but it happens. As with everything else amongst the millions of cases chugging through the USA legal system, there are always exceptions. This is part of the game in the way the system is set up - they can always cite a counter-example, of someone who 'won' where most have lost.

And in legal cases in general, judges just hate people who show up in their courts without lawyers. Judges think it means you don't respect the court, because you aren't taking your case seriously enough to pay money to one of the judge's friends.

If you're not yet regarded as an outlaw in the American legal system, and can still get a lawyer for a normal legal case, it is often yet a good idea to pay even some idiot lawyer to stand there before the judge, as it generally goes easier on you when you have a lawyer, than if you don't. It is like protection money to gangsters; the alternative is dangerous.

Click here to go back to the FAQ table of contents.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3, or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.

26. What things should I keep in mind in dealing with lawyers?

As long as you are living in the USA, and find it necessary to deal with the legal system, it is important to keep some things in mind to protect yourself.

A few lawyers try to be ethical and helpful, within the limits of their fears, even though they still won't fight corruption and bribery by other lawyers and judges. But with so many millions of victims of legal corruption in the USA, it's better to be mentally prepared for the worst when dealing with lawyers.

Assume that 50% or more of the USA lawyers whom you meet, are psychopaths who have accepted a job inside the world's biggest criminal mafia.

In the case you cannot afford a lawyer and are assigned a 'public defender' after being arrested, assume as well, that there is a 50% or more chance the lawyer will have the goal of railroading you into conviction and jail on a 'plea bargain', rather than try to defend your innocence.

When you meet a USA lawyer, for the first time, think of him as someone who is trying to take your money and outright defraud you, whilst doing as little as possible for you. Assume he has no desire to rock the political boat in your community, no desire to fight the politically-connected mafia that may be attacking you.

Always remember: USA lawyers are used to taking money from people when they are desperate and vulnerable - that is exactly the time for lawyers to pounce, and squeeze money out of a person in trouble.

Don't ever expect an American lawyer to accomplish much of anything, other than helping avoid the judge's anger and ability to take revenge at you if you didn't have a lawyer there with you. The judge wants you to have a lawyer to 'stage manage' you, to help him direct the fraudulent 'theatre' which is the USA courtroom.

Remember that nearly all lawyers, regardless of what they say, are submissive to the judges, to the government, to rich people, and to representatives of big, politically-connected corporations.

 Regardless of what you pay a lawyer, your so-called lawyer will often easily betray you, and cut a dirty deal on the side with the other lawyers for the government or the big company, and will usually follow the judge's secret instructions and demands.

If it is any consolation, know that the gang of lawyers for the other side, are usually also defrauding the rich people and corporations whom they are helping to victory, inflating their legal fees and stretching out the case so that it costs the rich people and companies tens or hundreds of thousands more than expected. Sometimes the whole case was fabricated and incited by the lawyers themselves, to squeeze and defraud more funds from a wealthy client whom they know has a lot of funds to spend.

Remember that all promises, words, and even written contracts by lawyers, are worthless. American lawyers are the biggest liars in the world, above all to their own clients. Lawyers will sign written contracts, take your money, cash your cheque, and then instantly tell you they will not honour the contract, and not return your money, and then may even threaten to sue you if you don't keep your mouth shut about how they defrauded you. Yes, things like that actually happen.

Your problem is that, even if a lawyer commits clear fraud against you and violates his written contract, you still cannot find another lawyer to sue the first lawyer, and if you go to court, the judge will usually cover up for the fraud and theft by the lawyer, and rule against you. The same goes for the lawyer complaint office at the Bar and Bar ethics boards, which are run by the judges and senior gangster lawyers, as noted in other questions above. That's how it all works.

If you give a lawyer some money, kiss it goodbye, totally. Even if he does nothing, he will often keep all the money. The lawyer will tell lies and claim he did 'many hours of research' for you, and the judges and the Bar will back up his lies.

Lawyers are basically only loyal to clients, who are able to keep paying them large amounts of more money in the future. This is the only kind of relationship where the lawyer is forced to have some respect for you, and where you have some hope of trusting him. If you give a lawyer a large amount of money in one big lump, and he doesn't expect another big lump from you because he knows you are now broke, he basically kisses you goodbye in his mind, and already starts looking for his next 'big ticket', which may be a bribe from the other side, in the very same case for which you just paid him.

So try not to pay your lawyer in a big lump - pay him in stages, in small amounts, once or twice a month, so that he is worried you will fire him, and become a cash cow for some other lawyer instead.

Beware of a lawyer charging you for 'research and review', or even charging you for a first initial meeting - this is often a sign the lawyer has no intention of fighting for you, but wants to steal some of your funds anyway. There are hugely sleazy lawyers out there who sometimes do almost no legal work in court although claiming to be involved in 'litigation' - they make their funds from 'meetings', and from alleged 'research and review'. There are even goofy recent law graduates telling you they won't represent you in court, but they will write you a 'legal research paper' on the 'issues in your case' in exchange for funds.

'Research and review' is a common lawyer scam. Money for nothing. The lawyer simply produces a 'memorandum' of cut-and-paste material out of the legal database, with a few extra words added. You could do the same thing for yourself.

The question of paying for the 'initial meeting' is dodgy. If it is a small amount, you sometimes perhaps learn something from the meeting. But if you have a substantial legal case with some thousands to spend, the lawyer should do the initial meeting for free ... or at least respond to you by e-mail as to what he thinks about representing you.

If you only have a few thousand to spare, you need to save that for an actual lawyer somewhat fighting for you. Don't waste it on a series of ten meetings with lawyers who won't ever help you, and give you the fake line that they need to do some 'research and review'.

Don't tell a lawyer how much money you have - he will scheme to ask for all of it. Keep your money a secret, and preferably some of it in a bank account in another country - although that is getting more difficult to do for US citizens. With a lawyer in America, just allow that you will 'try to find' the money he wants from you. Take a while to think about it, whether there are some signs or giveaways in your discussion with the lawyer, as to whether he is a con artist or fraud.

Never give a lawyer your last money that you have. It won't help you or save you. Lawyers tend to despise people who only have a little bit of money. Better to use that last little bit of money for personal needs, or possible escape out of the state or country. I was able to escape the USA with some assets, as the lawyers threatening to murder me were too stupid to consider I had bank accounts in Europe about which I never told them.

If you do have some significant amount of money, more than a few thousand dollars that you can easily carry, then you may wish keep some assets in a form so that American lawyers and lawsuits can't so readily find it. Gold and silver are one form of asset holding like this, also foreign bank accounts. Rich people do this, and you should do this, too, even if it's just some ten thousand dollars or more. It's much harder for the lawyers to grab your money in a foreign country, as foreign countries know the American legal system is a joke, a farce and a fraud, and American court judgments are not automatically recognised in many other nations.

A lot of Americans have been saved much grief, because they kept their money in foreign banks or in precious metals buried somewhere. America is not a safe place for your money, because of the crazy legal system. But at the same time, there are cases where judges and lawyers force you to say, under penalty of perjury, whether you have assets in precious metals or in foreign accounts. If you do have foreign accounts, you need to disclose them on your USA tax returns, and judges and lawyers might seize your copies of these. Sometimes judges who think people have foreign money, jail the people until they transfer the money to the judge's gangster lawyer friends. That is how it goes in the USA.

Your main purpose in hiring a lawyer, is first of all so the judge won't be angry with you and take revenge on you because you refused to hire a lawyer. But always be prepared that the lawyer will tend to betray you to the other side or the government, if you are in any kind of conflict with the government or someone who is richer than you. Your goal is first to keep the costs down, not giving too much money to the lawyers; and secondly, while your lawyer slowly sells you out to the other side, you try to make it so your lawyer doesn't sell you out too badly.

In the case of your being without funds and having a 'public defender' lawyer, the first thing to understand is this public defender is usually very 'overworked', with far too many cases, and often he or she is only paid a fixed amount per case. So his incentive is to do as little work as possible for each person who has been arrested.

Secondly, to keep his job as a public defender, the lawyer must usually 'play the game' with the judges and prosecutors, which means sending as many of his clients to jail as possible. The majority of people jailed actually never get a trial, but only a plea-bargain extortion via the 'public defender'.

Typically, there comes a point the public defender says something such as, 'Look, I know you're innocent. But the judge is really out to get people like you. Here's the best deal I have. You plead guilty, you get 3 to 5 years in prison, tops. You go to trial, you maybe get sentenced to 25 years. What do ya wanna do?' And then you agree to 'plead guilty', and you get sentenced to 7 to 10  years. 'But that wasn't the deal!' you shout. 'That wasn't the deal I heard about. Court is adjourned!'

Obviously, in general, you want to avoid going near courtrooms and lawyers in America. Often, nearly everybody loses, except the lawyers.

If you do need a lawyer, smart or clever lawyers are not that important. What is more important for 'legal victory' is lawyers with connections to the judges who can pay the bribes that are needed, or on the other hand, the rare brave lawyer willing to fight, within the limits of the system and not losing his or her law licence. But it's getting harder and harder for USA lawyers to carry on any kind of a fight at all, given how rigged USA courtrooms have become.

Don't let your lawyer know how smart you are, about him or about the crooked system. Lawyers and judges hate people who talk directly about bribery, or about games lawyers play. You will be safer with the lawyers, if you appear to be someone stupid whom they can manipulate. Lawyers and judges have big egos, and like to think they are experts at manipulating and deceiving and dominating other people. Pretending to play along with lawyers, while guarding your money and your personal safety, may even save your life in America. Hopefully you will not be in the same situation as me, needing to escape to another country, just to stay alive in the face of USA judges and lawyers threatening to murder me.

Click here to go back to the FAQ table of contents.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3, or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.

27. What is the history of how judges and lawyers got so much power in America?

Understanding how judges and lawyers got so much power, may be a help to victims, in understanding their own struggles within the USA legal system.

Americans often used to say they 'love' their 'great Constitution', but were usually not entirely clear on what part of that document they loved - certainly not the parts that accepted human slavery as a legal reality.

What people probably love, most likely, is not so much the original Constitution that took effect in 1789, but more likely the Bill of Rights of 1791, the first ten 'amendments' or changes to that Constitution, that enshrined as law the basic freedoms that people think they have: Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and so on. These first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, indeed contain some wonderful words, which sound as if they may help serve to protect people. Regrettably, USA judges no longer take the Bill of Rights very seriously, and will just twist and turn these words to mean whatever they want.

The original USA Constitution was regarded as defective even by some of the people involved in writing it - the Bill of Rights was the first 'bug fix', almost immediately after it was enacted, and just one sign of the problems that people would have with the Constitution over the nearly quarter-millennium since then.

Although US citizens might be very reverent in talking about the 'Constitution', if you read the original document, it is not very inspiring. It is not very nice about the full human rights of either black slaves, or native Americans, and these issues are still being fought today. But beyond that, the American Constitution basically is a diagram of government organisation, theoretically 'checks and balances' in bureaucratic machinery, that the writers claimed would help preserve freedom.

But this machinery had problems, right from the beginning, and has continued to show more problems with age. The people who wrote the US Constitution were actually afraid of democracy; they worried about the 'mob', the rabble, the general public, whom they thought might be manipulated into electing a tyrant - or perhaps vote for some kind of re-distribution of wealth, taking things away from the generally rich kind of people who were writing the Constitution as USA 'founders'.

Knowing that popular revolutions against government are likely to start in cities, the early US founders quickly developed a plan to set up the capital city in a then-remote region, far away from the USA's biggest and most important city of the time, Philadelphia, and even farther from the also-important New York or Boston.

The key problem in installing a vision of bureaucratic machinery of government, is that, whoever controls the machinery, controls the government itself. The people who wrote the Constitution were afraid of too much democracy, so they included some elements of monarchy and aristocracy in it. They made the President a strong figure, a little like a king or chief of aristocrats, independent of the Congress. And even stronger, they put judges and a Supreme Court in a very high position near the top of the machinery, as if they were a bunch of priests serving the aristocrats and merchants. A lot of the people who helped write the Constitution were rich lawyers, so they thought it was only natural to put lawyers, judges and the legal system near the top of the whole machine.

The danger that some people saw from the beginning, including Thomas Jefferson himself, was that eventually America would become a tyranny of the lawyers and judges, denying democracy to the people. And of course, that is what has happened today in the USA.

The USA 1789 Constitution did, rather weakly, make Congress in theory supreme over the USA Supreme Court Justices, allowing for their impeachment and removal by Congress for lack of 'good behaviour', with impeachment by House and trial by Senate. But in a country making such a cult of 'the law' whose leading figures were often lawyers, this proved to be a very weak, under-used provision, given that the Congress needed to be fairly united and not divided about removing such judges.

One of the delegates to the original Constitutional convention, Robert Yates, denounced the document and wouldn't sign it. You can find his writings from 1788, in the Anti-Federalist papers (quoted in various places on the web). Yates predicted that the American Constitution and its granting of ultimate power to un-elected judges, "created a dangerously unaccountable branch that would usurp power and ultimately grant itself more power" than the people's elected representatives in the legislatures. Yates turned out to be absolutely right, but it would be a while before the disaster became fully visible. In the final years of his life, Thomas Jefferson as well came to have the same view.

The great advantage of the USA in its early period, is that it was more like modern Europe. Between 1789 and 1863, the United States was only partly a single nation, because individual states were almost independent countries, each with their own culture and laws. People were loyal to their own states, more than to the USA as a whole. The power and influence and identity of the states, prevented the USA from becoming too much of a centralised power. The federal government was restrained, because the individual states had a great deal of power and identity, and the ability to secede was always there as a background possibility, even if the Constitution had made the mistake of not giving states that right explicitly, as exists in the treaties of the European Union which enabled Brexit to occur..

The USA civil war of 1861-1865 is now thought of a war to free the slaves, but what was really driving the war, was a big economic push to make America a centralised and expanding empire based in Washington DC. Abraham Lincoln himself made clear his priority was the united USA, and he would himself work to preserve slavery if that would help his imperial goal. When the tide of war turned at Gettysburg in 1863, and the states effectively lost their ability to oppose Washington, it was really the end of the original USA. A new national empire was born.

During the 1860s civil war itself, some basic Constitutional freedoms were suspended, whilst hundreds of thousands died. With states now unable to resist, old USA freedoms began to be more uncertain, and USA courts had greater authority to assert increasing control over the people.

In the late 1800s, in the new America, the traditional rights of the American jury started to die away. Judges began to limit the use and power of citizen juries in court cases. Judges began to give juries more 'instructions' which sounded like orders, so the citizens no longer felt they were as free to decide as they thought was right. Americans started to forget their old rights as citizens.

Under the rule of the judges as 'high priests' of USA life, Americans forgot that they had a right to let an innocent or good or righteous person go free at trial, regardless of what the judge said, or the way the law was written, they forgot the classic right of 'jury nullifcation' of the law.

Judges, ever seeking to increase their power which they could exercise on behalf of the oligarchy, worked to keep people ignorant of their right to give their independent verdict if they thought a law was unjustly written, or if they thought the judge was behaving badly.

The late 1800s also saw the rise of the 'robber barons', the really wealthy people, who wound up wielding enormous power in America. Some of the descendants of those original robber barons, are still among the wealthiest and most powerful people in America today. And the American courts became more and more active, in protecting the growing national financial interests of the newly powerful corporations.

Basic American democracy remained vibrant for a long time, despite the rising power of the wealthy people and corporations, and a certain high point was reached in the national election of 1912, where there were actually four major political parties involved, including one quite radical party that got a lot of votes. It was the high water of America being a multi-party democracy, before the two parties settled into their final comfortable control of American politics.

Around that time, there were more changes to the Constitution and the laws, which really sealed the dominance of centralised power in the new USA empire. In the 1910s, a national income tax was established, along with central government banking, giving Washington the greatest taxing-and-borrowing machine the world has ever known.

And World War I came along to jump-start America's armaments industry, what President Eisenhower would later call the "military-industrial complex", now able to be funded by the Washington money machine. Civil rights were again curbed amidst the war fever during and after World War I, followed by the radical extremism of changing the Constitution to ban all alcohol drinking in the USA during 1920-34.

As Washington became ever more powerful, the courts became more important for managing and imposing that authority. The old Constitution, where supposedly the federal government had 'limited powers' and the individual states had all remaining power, was really and truly dead, although few people admitted it. The old Constitution had died in the Civil War, along with extinguishing the rights of the individual states to rebel against Washington.

America's judges got used to bending and twisting the Constitution just to make things work, as a practical matter. Sometimes this was well-intentioned, as in social welfare programmes amidst the great Depression - the federal government had the big money, and seemed to be in a position to help people. So most people didn't worry too much about old words on paper, and the old ideas that went with them. Although other parts of the 1930s court-approved legislation - such as the USA government banning private gold ownership 1934-75, the new item of 'Prohibition' - made it clear that the USA was no longer quite the 'land of freedom'

As judges assembled more power, they also began to even take power away from individual lawyers. During the 20th century, the legal profession slowly changed from an independent body in each state, and instead became a group of people who were under the thumb of the judges, and forced to play along with whatever games the judges were playing. It was all part of the slow death of the old American freedoms.

The 'radical lawyer' making a bold case for a client or class of client, survived into the 1960s, but at the end of the 20th century had become essentially extinct, lawyers across the USA losing their right to practice, law, being bankrupted and even jailed, for daring to speak against judicial misconduct.

After World War II, with the USA now the richest and most powerful nation in the world, it was just natural to the big corporations to give increased power to judges and to the USA legal system. It was a way to control things, to keep radicals and socialists and populists from getting power, as was happening in other countries. It was a sweet deal for all the powerful forces associated with rich people - the judges got bribes, the lawyers got rich, and the corporations maintained their profits.

As the USA continued to get splash its world-historic wealth, the power of USA judges and lawyers expanded. As USA society changed, those changes were often imposed by the judges, instead of through political activity in the legislatures, because legislators elected by voters, did not want to do things their voters still hesitated about.

So, from the 1950s onwards, major changes in civil rights, women's rights, and abortion rights, for example, were often led by judges and court decisions, instead of by laws voted on by legislatures. The big corporations actually favored things like civil rights, women's rights, and abortion rights, because they helped make the workplace more efficient, and got more people into the workplace on a flexible basis - and helped to lower the wages of workers, given there were more people seeking the same jobs.

The big corporations likely preferred things to be changed by courts, instead of by legislatures. There is a problem with democracy: If you give people the idea that the legislature will pass laws they want, people might start asking for all sorts of things - like better wages and national health insurance and government-assisted child care. Such things were happening in Europe and Canada, where corporations made smaller profits but people received a lot more benefits out of the taxes they paid.

In the USA, however, where judges were in charge, corporations and rich people ruled the country like no where else, and made bigger profits. Americans started to get used to the idea that they were mostly helpless to change society, and should just wait for the judges to change things.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the USA seemed en route to becoming more like Europe or Canada, with more social benefits, though lesser profits for big companies and investors. But, in the end, America took a different path, and by the late 1970s, you could see the USA turning in a different direction than other advanced nations. After the USA lost the Vietnam War, and suffered through the early 1970s energy crisis followed by high inflation, the USA began to be managed by a climate of subtle fear, that turned it into a very different country.

America wound up being the only developed nation in the world, without a national health policy, so tens of millions of people could remain afraid of losing health care if they lost their jobs, or being bankrupted by medical bills. This fear helped the worker loyalty and submissiveness, and health care company profits, at the expense of the poor health of USA citizens. Other nations still find this shocking about the USA.

But the largest part of how the USA became a different place, is in its use of the law and the legal system. While other countries became kinder and gentler, America became a place of crime, lawyers, lawsuits and fear - and a place where huge profits can be made, from bending, twisting and bribing 'the law'.

The 1970s saw the beginning of the big explosion of the USA lawsuit culture - lawyers and lawsuits filled the news and people's thoughts and lives, and the entire medical care system was transformed with all the endless malpractice lawsuits by lawyers. This led USA people to think that lawyers and courts are the only ways that things could be handled or changed.

Judges and lawyers created a big booming industry in divorce, child custody and alimony cases, so that tends of millions of working Americans would have their lives all tied up in knots in the courts. People would be drained of money, and be in courts for years and years fighting over children and money. The system was designed to drag down people's lives into endless legal battles that would prevent them from doing anything else, such as organising for a better and fairer life in the USA. Generations of children have suffered from the consequences of what their parents lived through in USA courts.

USA streets flooded with drugs - some even saying these drug-flows were secretly co-sponsored by government agencies. Crime skyrocketed, prison populations boomed, particularly after 1990, to the point that now the USA has the biggest prison gulag in the entire world. With over 2.2 million prisoners - 25 per cent of all the prisoners anywhere in the entire world - about 1 out of every 150 USA residents is in jail.

The USA has more crime, more prisons, the longest prison sentences, and more lawyers; they all go together. With something like around 1.3 million lawyers, there is one lawyer for every two prisoners ... although many in prison never had a real lawyer help them, and many of those people in prison are innocent, not the actual individual who did the crime.

The court and prison business became a giant industry - lots of work for slimy, dishones lawyers, helping send poor people to prison. The public has become afraid both of being a victim of crime, and also subconsciously afraid of getting arrested for some false or trivial reason, and sent to America's awful prisons. Fear and more fear, which is very good for inhibiting democracy, for abuse of power by a dictatorial oligarchy.

A significant symbol of the different USA path from other developed countries, is the practice of the death penalty. Much of the world no longer allows the death penalty; outside of the USA, most other developed nations consider it barbaric and cruel. It has been outlawed in the European Union for a long time.

Many people don't know that the USA actually ended the death penalty, too, for nearly 10 years, from 1967-77, when the USA put no one to death judicially. The USA was on the same track as Europe, thanks to USA judges back then who could no longer stomach what they saw as barbaric cruelty, often imposed with racist bias, and more against poor and working people than against the rich.

But the USA oligarchy began taking steps to change the kind of people who were appointed as judges, and to intimidate remaining judges into bringing the death penalty back, and so it was restored, with the USA now one of the leading cultures of executions and death in the world. Being put to death is after all, the ultimate terror of law and lawyers and judges. What better way for a judge to feel powerful than by ordering a killing, with 'murder in his heart', as some ancient religious texts have warned?

But perhaps some USA people, made so fearful in their daily lives, and so full of anger, feel a great need to take the blood of some of their prisoners, whereas other nations have let this pass into history.

The monster of American judicial and legal corruption, however, gives a special perspective to America's many executions, its thousands of prisoners waiting for death. Once you realise the deviousness and corruption of America's judges and lawyers, it is frightening to give such gangsters the power of imposing death. The abuse of this power is proven by the significant number of innocent people, who have been sentenced to die in America, and later shown to be innocent
, some of them only after being killed.

In perhaps the most disgusting USA Supreme Court decision in history, in 1993 that court satanically declared that it was perfectly all right to put to death an innocent man - with the evidence of the man's innocence right in front of the judges - so long as the man was sentenced to death following 'proper procedure'. Laws in some USA states absurdly block court appeals based on new evidence, if presented after brief time limits, such as 30 days after the original trial. In this case of Latino US Navy Veteran Leonel Herrera (1947-93), witnesses had come forward to say another man was guilty of the murder, and had even confessed it.

But the USA Supreme Court 'Justices', claimed they could not 'find' any Constitutional right not to be put to death, just because you are innocent. They denied it was 'cruel and unusual' or a 'violation of due process'. Although 84-year-old Justice Harry Blackmun led the angry dissenters, suggesting his colleagues were 'murderous', the court voted 6-3 to order that Herrera be sent to his death, and Texas governor Ann Richards seemed to relish putting this Latino to death too, despite the evidence he was innocent.

Bear in mind that these are the same USA Supreme Court Justices who seem to be able to twist and turn the Constitution to 'find' all sorts of alleged things that were not even remotely discussed by the Constitution framers - the Supreme Court has 'found' that the Constitution grounds abortion rights, gay rights, and so much else. Yet these same Justices could not 'find' a right to not be put to death when you are innocent?

As the new 21st century began, America is a bizarre nation compared to others, its legal and prison system and gangs of lawyers, the biggest of all. Its legal system dominates USA political life like almost nowhere else, even though nearly all who know this system well, find it disgusting, dishonest, and full of horror.

America's legal system is what replaces its stagnant politics, where not much happens in Congress aside from what is wanted by the big corporations.
What people worried about in the 1780s, has come true. The judges and lawyers in America are the tools of tyranny, democracy now a fading ideal in the USA, trampled upon by the judges in black robes, making tyranny 'legal' because they said so.

Only the naive and uninformed, those who haven't yet been victims, still believe in the old fairy tales about the American legal system. Only the naive and uninformed, still believe that American judges are calm, serious people like in those Hollywood movies and TV shows, when instead they are often perverts, grinning and smirking at their lawyer friends serve the oligarchy just like the judges.

Click here to go back to the FAQ table of contents.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3, or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.