***********
On May 15,2003, my old friend, Larry Bolin, died in custody of the Atlanta Prison Camp of what is suspected to be a blood clot in his heart. He was incarcerated in 2002 for what was to have been a four year term for participating in an alleged "mail fraud" (he was a hired employee of the guy they REALLY wanted and ultimately got).
The REAL reason for his prosecution (aka vindictive persecution) was his refusal to tell federally constructed LIES about the other guy at trial. Lots of folks in jail here for THAT!
Before his term began, Larry spent many months in ICU after major abdominal surgery and was at death's door several times. When the feds pressed his private doctors, they finally released him to the tender mercies of the US Bureau of Prisons where he was on more than one occasion denied medical care for chest pains.
Early in his term, many of us had to write the USBoP demanding that he be supplied his numerous prescribed medications. So far as we could determine, they complied but made sure he knew that if he caused any further "problems" for them (like wishing to remain ALIVE!), he'd be transferred to a camp a few thousand miles away from his home -- or the BIG HOUSE next door.
Larry was a real thorn in their sides for a number of years and fought them all the way to the jailhouse door --and beyond. In my letter, I remarked that it seemed that they were attempting to turn his four year term into a death sentence. Larry was far too ill to have been imprisoned. As tough as this little guy was, it now appears that they succeeded.
If anyone reading this has any interest in knowing Larry's story -- under the heading "There but for the Grace of God go I" -- let me know via private email and I'll send it to you. Entitled "Is Your IRS Agent a Thief," it's a fascinating read.
Larry Bolin's fight has now ended and he is finally free.
And one thing is certain: He won't be seeing those responsible for his death for the next eternity or so. They're going elsewhere!
Rest in peace, my friend. Rest in peace. You will be missed wherever freedom is cherished.
Larry wrote the following piece after he began to delve into the workings of the federal courts as they related to his case. What he found should – but probably won’t – concern every American who cares about this country and freedom. Pieces such as this one are also very likely why Larry was “punished” by “the system.” One of his favorite quotes was Voltaire’s caveat that “It is dangerous to be right when the state is wrong.” Today in “the land of the free,” it can be FATAL.
Oh yes, one more thing: Larry’s mortal remains were absent at his funeral home visitation on May 22. After jerking his wife around about releasing his body, they failed to do so in time. Though now dead, he still is, after all, a federal prisoner.
************
MTV Rules - the Judiciary
Larry Bolin (1950-2003)
Written 2000
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"
--Tacitus, Roman General
Most of us have experienced having our summer and fall afternoons interrupted by the loud continuous thumping and bumping of what is now labeled “rap music.” And whose senses (especially those who have young and impressionable youths helping themselves at the feeding table) have not been assaulted by the auditory and visual images on a certain cable channel, MTV.
The subject matter in these videos ranges from “raping and brutalizing women” to the promotion of “killing cops.” While there is no disagreement that there have been some occasions where members of law enforcement should have received punishment for their actions, ambushes are not appropriate.
Let’s pretend that you become entangled in this severely dysfunctional legal system. You may be a defendant or plaintiff. It matters not which: Your chance for genuine justice is highly unlikely. You are more apt to receive true justice in Las Vegas than you are in the present legal system. In addition, a trip to Las Vegas will cost a whole lot less if you lose.
Ah, what do “rap music” and MTV videos that promote “raping and brutalizing women” and “cop killings” have to do with the judiciary? Before proceeding, some background.
It was in the early seventies, while Richard M. (“I am not a crook”) Nixon was president, that the federal appellate courts suddenly became overwhelmed with an increased caseload. This overload was largely due to the insane War on Drugs - err - the War on the Bill of Rights. In order to relieve this problem of an overloaded court system, a three pronged plan was devised.
One part of this strategy was to temporarily employ - for one to two years - 1st and 2nd year law students. In the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, some of the judges do not even require these law students to have taken - much less pass - a bar exam before they are hired.
A longer-lasting solution was to hire a permanent staff of attorneys to screen, sift and categorize cases into important ones that would receive a hearing before a three-judge panel. The remainder – mainly social security, pro se, black lung and sentencing guideline cases – were to receive, according to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals internal operating procedures -- a bench memorandum prepared by the Staff Attorneys for judicial “review.” According to one survey, memoranda of this type were adopted by the court unchanged and without a second thought ninety-five percent of the time. In such instances, not a single piece of evidence or a brief from either side was ever seen by a judge. An opinion was issued and the rights of all Americans were adversely affected with NO real judicial accountability. This practice was described by one Judge Robert Thompson of the California Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District as a “no judge opinion.”
The solution eventually found for judges who had qualms about approving one of these many judicial opinions written and issued by a bureaucrat or college kid was described in a 1999 article in the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process. In it, Judge Richard Arnold, a judge on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, said it is tempting for those judges who want to rule differently from prior cases, but who can’t come up with a justification, to resolve the dilemma “…by deciding the case in an ‘unpublished opinion’ and sweeping the difficulties under the rug.” (Tony Mauro, Judge Ignites Storm Over Unpublished Opinions, Fulton County Daily Report - Tuesday, September 5, 2000, Volume 111, No. 173, pages 7, 8.) Difficulties such as having your right to keep and bear arms abrogated or your property seized and confiscated by the IRS. Perhaps the denial of your spouse’s claim to your social security payments after you are dead and gone.
“Fully 78 percent of the case dispositions by federal appeals courts last year were by unpublished opinions, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts - an amazing number given that the practice only began in 1964 as a cost-cutting and working-saving measure.” (Id., page 8.)
“Critics say that unpublished opinions are often the product of barely reviewed assessments by law clerks or circuit staff attorneys. Law clerks say that dissenting judges will sometimes agree to withdraw their dissents if the majority marks the opinion “unpublished.” (Id., p. 8.)
So what does all this have to do with MTV and the judiciary? Hang with me here. The relationship will soon become obvious.
The third solution to the problem of overcrowded court dockets is the legal system’s use of a practice common in medicine. Both use college students to perform different functions within their respective domains. Medicine calls their college students “interns.” It is a term used to describe a medical student getting his or her first shot at cutting on something more exciting than a pickled frog. In teaching hospitals, medical students even operate on patients - under the full supervision of an experienced, licensed doctor.
In some perverse desire to be different, the legal system calls ITS college students “externs.” That is not, however, the only area of difference.
“These students, known as ‘externs,’ either work part-time for their judges while carrying a reduced load of law school classes, or are given academic leave from law school for one term to work full-time. In either case, the student is unpaid but receives academic credit from his or her law school, and thus continues normal progress toward a law degree. Because no public resources are involved, the use of externs has generally been left to the initiative of individual judges and law schools. The law schools themselves have played an active role in the growth of extern programs.” (Oakley and Thompson, Law Clerks in Judges’ Eyes: Tradition and Innovation in the Use of Legal Staff by American Judges, 67 California Law Review 1286, 1293 (1979. This “Thompson” is the same Associate Justice Robert Thompson, who coined the phrase “no judge opinion”).
How comforting to know that if your home has been seized by the tax man, that some “wet behind the ears” child will be deciding where your next living quarters will be or who will have custody of your child. Some college kid devoid of most life experiences and who has not faced monthly bills or the extreme tax burden most Americans face. The major decision for most of these “externs” is which “Rap” CD am I going to purchase or where the next beer party will be. While we delude ourselves that these “college kids” are merely looking up citations or shelving the judge’s law books, the reality is that they are changing lives. These “children”, who have not yet completed their studies in law school or in some cases have not taken -- much less passed -- a bar exam are playing God. How does this differ from practicing law without a license?
A quote from a publication from one of these institutions of higher learning should bring the matter into focus: “What are these able, intelligent, mostly young people doing? Surely not merely running citations in Shepherd’s and shelving the judge’s law books. They are, in many situations, ‘para judges.’ In some instances, it is to be feared , they are indeed invisible judges, for there are appellate judges whose literary style appears to change annually.” (Emphasis added). (Rubin, Views From the Lower Court, 23 UCLA L. Rev. 448, 456 (1976).)
Imagine, if you will, waiting for a decision from the court as it is being prepared by some dumbed - down twenty-year old hidden by the doors of the judge’s sanctum sanctorum. And imagine that he is listening through his headphones to the rhythmic “thump, thump thump” of the latest Rap “artist” while writing that decision – which the judge may never see! Imagine further that the decision he or she is writing is a binding opinion affirming a lower court ruling allowing the seizure of your property! No accountability, and apparently little or no supervision. All done to cut costs and lighten work loads in the court system - with the added bonus that these colleges students, these children - may receive academic credit.
The next time you are dragged into a court, take comfort in those images. Perhaps you can formulate a few questions about that at your next lawyer consultation.
Bar members know of these practices - and do nothing to correct them.
Until the rest of us complain, why should they?