I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I am saying that I hear a lot of people call judges "corrupt" because they don't like the way the judge ruled. Wrong is not corrupt. Stupid is not criminal. That's why I ask.
In the Frega case, the primary predicates charged were mail fraud. The feds often use mail fraud because it is very simple to explain to juries. Mail fraud is simply a scheme and artifice to defraud someone of their rights and property and the use of the mail in an effort to further the objective of the conspiracy. When a judge corruptly uses his position, he must necessarily deny the intrinsic right of a person or the government's right to the honest performance of his duties (18 U.S.C. 1346).
I agree that stupid or being wrong is not necessarily criminal. But when judges intentionally refuse to even grant clearly required procedures and communicate with each other in an effort to obstruct justice, that is criminal. If these judges were simply wrong, why commit all these other crimes. Why not just give me a hearing and issue a written opinion as required by law. Even if the supereme court's decision. The reality is that the law and facts are so clear and irrefutable that they chose to simply do nothing in the hopes that I would eventually go away as so many others must have done in the past.
How about an admission by the trial court judge that he could not produce any court document that could be construed as a final judgment in the trial court on any of the issues? I've got the video tape of this. How about the judge who refused to entered a default judgment to which I was entitled to as a matter of law because he "didn't feel comfortable" and then contacted the county who was the dendant in that case to inform them what I had done. When I filed a petition for a writ of mandamus because the judge refused to perform a duty imposed upon him by law, the judge recused himself from the case.
Dispite the fact that the state supreme court is required by the Washington Constitution and Washington Statutes to conduct a heraring and issue a written decision on petitions for writs against state officers (superior court judges are state officers) refused to conduct a hearing or issue a written decision because had they done so, they would have had to rule in may favor. That would have opened the flood-gates exposing the depth and breadth of the corruption in government in the state of Washington. When I met with the CJ of the state Suprem Court on August 12, 2002, he did not deny a single one of these allegations, nor many other facts and allegations. I would think that should be more than sufficient, and that is just a small part of the evidence that I have. It's all in various court records and video tapes of court proceedings.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I am saying that I hear a lot of people call judges "corrupt" because they don't like the way the judge ruled. Wrong is not corrupt. Stupid is not criminal. That's why I ask.
I agree that wrong is not corrupt, but it certainly could be. Stupid is not criminal but some judges are so stupid, it ought to be. If you spend much time in court, you should see the humor in this comment.