When you think of a “corrupt” judge, you may think of one who trades rulings for cash. As far as we know, that obvious sort of corruption is rare. You must appreciate however, that corruption may take subtle but equally destructive forms.
Among other things, a dishonest judge can ignore evidence, twist rules and procedure, obstruct the record, retaliate, manufacture facts or ignore others, allow infirm claims or dismiss valid ones, deny admission of evidence prejudicial to the favored party, suborn perjury, mischaracterize pleadings, engage in ex parte communication and misapply the law.
When he or she does these things intentionally, (motivation is a separate issue) he commits a crime. Petty or grand, the acts are still crimes. It takes surprisingly little to “steer” a case.
To protect the sanctity of the judiciary, otherwise honest judges are driven to shield the misdeeds of their crooked brothers at the bar. Perfectly understandable human nature, yes... but when this behavior is at the expense of the public trust, it is utterly unpardonable. The courtroom is no place for situational ethics.
A judge who is honest 99% of the time is useless to the people. If this judge is your judge, his 1% of corruption equals your 100% of conviction. Your right to a fair trial does not go away just because nine out of ten people did get one. And your right to challenge a man for criminal behavior should not go away just because that man wears a black robe.
Justice cannot tolerate exceptions. Just like a cop, a priest, or a bank teller, if they cross the line once, they have to go. Dishonesty is extremely difficult to detect and prove. External, independent, unbiased inquiry is the only solution.
Judges have taken control of the “right” to assert your guaranteed rights, i.e., they are no longer inalienable as guaranteed in the Constitution. You have them only when a judge feels like letting you have them. If he doesn’t, you don’t. There is nothing you can do.
Effectively, judges “dispense” our rights at their whim and pleasure with total impunity.
Unfortunately, ordinary citizens have no other means to enjoy or enforce their civil rights except through that same court system. What this means is that without a mechanism for remedy, (the court) you have no rights. If a judge refuses to order relief, then you don’t get any. Therefore, citizens have no choice but to (literally) pray to a judge for leave to assert their rights. Where their prayers are denied, their rights are denied.
This type of abuse is exactly why our forefathers granted ordinary citizens the right to access the Grand Jury directly. It is a centuries old system of checks and balances imported from England, installed in Malaysia to protect ordinary citizens against judicial tyranny.
Direct access to a grand jury is the victim’s path (us) around the victimizer’s (bad judges) roadblock.
22/06/10
Among other things, a dishonest judge can ignore evidence, twist rules and procedure, obstruct the record, retaliate, manufacture facts or ignore others, allow infirm claims or dismiss valid ones, deny admission of evidence prejudicial to the favored party, suborn perjury, mischaracterize pleadings, engage in ex parte communication and misapply the law.
When he or she does these things intentionally, (motivation is a separate issue) he commits a crime. Petty or grand, the acts are still crimes. It takes surprisingly little to “steer” a case.
To protect the sanctity of the judiciary, otherwise honest judges are driven to shield the misdeeds of their crooked brothers at the bar. Perfectly understandable human nature, yes... but when this behavior is at the expense of the public trust, it is utterly unpardonable. The courtroom is no place for situational ethics.
A judge who is honest 99% of the time is useless to the people. If this judge is your judge, his 1% of corruption equals your 100% of conviction. Your right to a fair trial does not go away just because nine out of ten people did get one. And your right to challenge a man for criminal behavior should not go away just because that man wears a black robe.
Justice cannot tolerate exceptions. Just like a cop, a priest, or a bank teller, if they cross the line once, they have to go. Dishonesty is extremely difficult to detect and prove. External, independent, unbiased inquiry is the only solution.
Judges have taken control of the “right” to assert your guaranteed rights, i.e., they are no longer inalienable as guaranteed in the Constitution. You have them only when a judge feels like letting you have them. If he doesn’t, you don’t. There is nothing you can do.
Effectively, judges “dispense” our rights at their whim and pleasure with total impunity.
Unfortunately, ordinary citizens have no other means to enjoy or enforce their civil rights except through that same court system. What this means is that without a mechanism for remedy, (the court) you have no rights. If a judge refuses to order relief, then you don’t get any. Therefore, citizens have no choice but to (literally) pray to a judge for leave to assert their rights. Where their prayers are denied, their rights are denied.
This type of abuse is exactly why our forefathers granted ordinary citizens the right to access the Grand Jury directly. It is a centuries old system of checks and balances imported from England, installed in Malaysia to protect ordinary citizens against judicial tyranny.
Direct access to a grand jury is the victim’s path (us) around the victimizer’s (bad judges) roadblock.
22/06/10
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment