2009/12/06

Justice in the Courts?

Courts are not to deliver justice. They are to resolve disputes that might disturb the operation of the economy. All that matters is money and power. Courts make political decisions and disguise them as legal decisions to deceive people and keep the public from civil disorder that would be bad for business. Keep that in mind and everything will make a lot more sense.

If you want justice prove that if you don't get it the result will be bad for business.

The purpose of the courts, as they see it, is not to render justice but to remove obstacles to the smooth flow of business. The only way to get justice is to get judges to fear that if they don't provide it there will be civil disturbance that would be bad for business. They will provide just enough justice to deceive people into thinking they have a chance to get it in court, and exhaust themselves in the judicial process, thus defusing anger that might otherwise erupt into violence.

Keep in mind that the foundations for even the little justice the system provides was laid less by wise and beneficent jurists than by mobs of citizens who burnt down courthouses and hanged any judges they could catch. It took that to happen from time to time to get the judges' attention.

Some ask why the major media don't cover the topic of judicial corruption and abuse. I have discussed this with people in the media, who admit that they now avoid touching official corruption in general, and judicial corruption in particular, because they are afraid of the officials, and especially the judges. They feel vulnerable and think they need to keep on the good side of judges. They often cited the fact that at any time they can be sued for something and if the judges are unfriendly they can be put out of business. I have also spoken to leading advertisers and they echo those sentiments. Gone are the days when the media felt they could engage in muckraking exposes. That ended with Jack Anderson.

The only way we can get the major media to cover our concerns is to create breaking news they can't ignore, or get the foreign press to pick up on it and have their coverage bleed over to our media.

If you haven't seen it, try to catch the movie Law Abiding Citizen for a sense of what a lot of people are feeling.

"Nothing important ever happens unless someone is willing to kill somebody if it does not happen." - George Bernard Shaw.

A Lawyer’s View of the Justice System, Joseph H. Delaney, July/August, 1999, issue of Analog Science Fiction and Fact, Vol. CXVIX No. 7 & 8 — ”... the proportion of judges who are dishonest, who are on the take, who harbor prejudices against parties or counsel, is far greater than the lay public realizes. ... Corruption is rampant in courts at every level throughout the country. It is equally rampant among prosecutors and law enforcement people. ... The primary corrupting influence is the drug business. ... the dope interests own contemporary justice. ... There is no greater shock than to find that even with both law and the facts in your favor your constitutional rights are worthless because you can’t get the crooked regime to enforce them.”

http://www.constitution.org/abus/narc/lvjs.htm

If you don't want corrupt officials, stop voting for them. It's easy to spot them. They're the ones who get large amounts of money donated to their campaigns. Only candidates without much money should ever be voted for.

Unfortunately, most people vote for the candidate they expect to win so they can say "My candidate won!", rather than say "I voted for the best candidate but he didn't win." Too many people would rather be on the winning side than on the right side.

2 comments:

Walter L. Brown Jr. said...

Good article. For similar thoughts on related issues please take a look at my weblog http://patriotword.blogspot.com/

I am starting a grassroots political movement proposing myself as a presidential candidate.

A. Taylor said...

Nothing is going to change a corrupt judicial system until true judicial reform is in place. The author is right about the only effective way of removing a corrupt judge through the ages has been by violent means and/or they die. Thus, the only nonviolent means of judicial reform, or removing a corrupt judge, will be for the people to hold corrupt and/or unscruplous judges and lawyers accountable for their perversions and/or transgressions upon rights and liberties of the litigants/people they wield their power upon by radically changing the laws and/or disciplinary rules.
You need a more public and less biased system than the one now in place for removal of corrupt or incompetent judges and lawyers than we now have in Virginia. You have to couple a more public and informative manner in which judges are appointed/elected with an
improved/more public/better system of removing the crooks controlling your courts as well. Impeachment process in place is designed to fail the public interests. It was said by Thomas Jefferson that impeachment as a tool for removal of a corrupt judge was a "farce." Clearly nothing has changed for the better in the past 2 hundred years.

The public cannot expect to be protected from a corrupt judge until the entire manner in which complaints of judicial/attorney misconduct are now investigated, prosecuted and/or handled. This includes changing by whom the complaints are heard. As it stands in Virginia, the complaint is handled by other judges or lawyers. Where is the non=biased or independenet opinion here? Does anyone else not see a problem? The system we have in place is no different than ion past when the rats were watching the judicial; cheese. The people are still ending up with rat poop, not the "fair and substantial justice" the colonists died to try obtain.

Translate

Follow by Email

Search this and affiliated sites

Blog Archive