Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

*Unpublished Decisions Unconstitutional

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    J.A.I.L. News Journal October 19, 2000 ____________________________________________________ Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio M-Th, 6-7 pm P.T.
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 19, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      October 19, 2000
      ____________________________________________________
      Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio M-Th, 6-7 pm P.T.
      ____________________________________________________
      Make your plans now to attend So. CA. JAIL's Nov. 11th (Veteran's Day) fundraiser. RSVP $20 (or $25 at the door) to Doug Johnson, (818) 895-1239, 8340 Columbus Ave., North Hills, CA. 91343. Event held 11 am., American Legion Hall, 7338 Canby Ave., Reseda, CA. Includes food and a J.A.I.L. T-shirt.
       
      Unpublished Decisions Unconstitutional
       
      Justice in The Dark
      by Brigid McMenamin,
      10-30-00

      THREE YEARS AGO A FEDERAL jury acquitted Vicki Lopez-Lukis, a former commissioner in Lee County, Fla., of bribery for letting her lover, a Goldman Sachs lobbyist, reimburse her for their personal phone calls. But, bizarrely, the jury convicted her of one count of using the mails to deprive her constituents of "honest services" in connection with the same alleged bribery. This didn't make any sense, so she appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. But in a one-word decision--"affirmed"--the appeals court rejected her argument.

      Blind justice? For Lopez-Lukis, more like justice in the dark. She has no idea what the appellate judges were thinking when they brushed aside the obvious inconsistency in the verdict. Forget further appeals. The Supreme Court rarely accepts cases for review--only 124 of 8,445 sent to it in the 1999-2000 season--and almost never accepts one if there is no published opinion to look at. Lopez-Lukis is serving a 27-month term in Coleman federal prison near Orlando.

      Last year federal appeals judges disposed of 79% of the 26,819 cases they decided by issuing so-called unpublished decisions, up from 37% in 1977. Over 7% of the unpublished decisions consisted of a single word. Whether curt or long-winded, an unpublished decision isn't precedent. That means the judges can be sloppy. They are not accountable for illogic or inconsistency in the rulings.

      "This is judges disobeying the law," says William Richman, a University of Toledo law professor who has studied the problem.

      At last, one federal appeals court has declared war on the practice. In August, in a case involving a late-filed tax refund claim, a three-judge panel in St. Louis, Mo. branded unpublished decisions unconstitutional. Despite the ruling, the taxpayer lost her refund.

      The reasoning behind this momentous decision was that judicial decisions are intended not just to resolve particular disputes but also to tell Americans what the law is. So every decision must be a precedent. Though that decision is itself a precedent only in the 8th Circuit (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and the Dakotas), litigants in other federal courts are starting to cite it. The Supreme Court will likely end up ruling on the matter.

      The shortcut system began in the late 1960s when judges were struggling to deal with an avalanche of social-justice litigation as well as a parade of pro se litigants from the jailhouse. True, the appellate backlog does get scary at times. But does this justify lazy law? "[Unpublished decisions] are not prepared with the same kind of exactness," admits Procter R. Hug Jr., chief judge of the 9th Circuit on the West Coast, though he contends that they are still sound.

      Judges insist that they issue unpublished decisions only in simple, noncontroversial cases, where the answer is clear cut. The statistics say otherwise. Appeals courts issue unpublished decisions in 24% of the cases where various judges disagree so much that one writes a dissenting opinion, and in 37% of the cases where they're reversing the trial court.

      The 9th Circuit Appeals Court recently saw proof that unpublished decisions mask plenty of inconsistency. The court had affirmed the conviction of Pablo Rivera-Sanchez, an illegal alien who sneaked back into the U.S. after being deported. His lawyer found, though, that the court had in the past issued 27 separate unpublished decisions applying three different rules to the same immigration issue.
      ....


      J.A.I.L. is an acronym for (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
      JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org
      JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government.
      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
      JAIL's is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire!
      JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
      JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      To subscribe or be removed:  add-remove-jail@...
      To send published judicial articles: USA-jail4judges@...
      To contact the author of JAIL4Judges: jail4judges@...
      All E-Groups are encouraged to sign on at jail4judges@egroups.com
       
      "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
       
      "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
      striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><
    • jail4judges
      Dear Wilkenson: I have placed your request on JAIL s legal discussion group for response. -J4J ... From: John R. Wilkenson To: jail4judges Sent: Friday,
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 20, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Wilkenson:
         
        I have placed your request on JAIL's legal discussion group for response.   -J4J
         

        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 4:08 AM
        Subject: Re: *Unpublished Decisions Unconstitutional

        DEAR JAIL4JUDGERS,
        DO YOU HAVE THE SPECIFIC CITE FOR THE 8TH CIRCUIT DECISION?  IF SO, WOULD YOU PLEASE SEND IT TO ME.  I AM THE NONBAR PRO SE WHO WON EVERY POINT I RAISED IN THE 42 USC 1983 CASE WILKENSON V. US DEPT OF INTERIOR, ET AL, 634 FS 1265.  PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1988 I SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID THE MARKET VALUE -- UNPRECEDENTED DECISIONS ARE WORTH EXTRA -- OF MY PREVAILING CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION.  IN THE MAIN DECISION, THE TRIAL JUDGE FOUND THE DEFENDANTS TO BE "ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS."  YET IN THE POST TRIAL MOTIONS, WHEN I ATTACKED THE LAWYER MONOPOLY BY ASKING TO BE COMPENSATED FOR MY TIME AND EFFORT (AS A BAR-MEMBER LAWYER WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD I HIRED ONE [THE LAWYERS ALL SAID I WOULD LOSE]), THE JUDGE DID AN ABOUT FACE AND DECLARED THE VERY SAME "ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS" DEFENDANTS TO HAVE BEEN "SUBSTANTIALLY JUSTIFIED" AND THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY FEE SANCTIONS.  THE TRIAL JUDGE ACTUALLY WROTE, "THE SACRIFICE OF TIME AND ENERGY IN PURSUIT OF A JUDICIAL RESOLUTION OF A DISPUTE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF CITIZENSHIP IN A COUNTRY IN WHICH GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY CAN BE CHALLENGED IN COURT AND IN THIS, AS IN MANY OTHER ASPECTS OF LIFE, THAT VIRTUE IS ITS OWN REWARD."  WHAT UTTERLY ASTOUNDING BS!
            FIRSTLY, FAILURE TO PAY WINNING PRO SES COMPLETELY NEGATES THE CHILLING EFFECT ATTORNEY FEE STATUTES ARE INTENDED TO HAVE UPON ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR BY GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.  SECONDLY, WOULDN'T THE SACRIFICE OF BAR-MEMBER LAWYERS' TIME AND EFFORTS IN WINNING CIVIL RIGHTS CASES BE JUST AS CONSISTENT WITH THE "FIRST PRINCIPLES" OF CITIZENSHIP" AS MINE--IF THERE WAS EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW AND EQUAL CITIZENSHIP IN THE COURTS, THAT IS?!
            IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNPUBLISHED OPINION, NO. 89-1056 (DATED JULY 13, 1989), THE 10TH CIRCUIT PERVERSELY AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURT'S BS AS FOLLOWS:  "THIS ORDER AND JUDGMENT HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND SHALL NOT BE CITED, OR USED BY ANY COURT WITHIN THE TENTH CIRCUIT, EXCEPT FOR ESTABLISHING THE DOCTRINES OF THE LAW OF THE CASE, RES JUDICATA, OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL."  THIS SHAMANISTIC LEGALESE GARBAGE SIMPLY MEANS THE UNPUBLISHED DECISION CANNOT BE USED IN ANY WAY EXCEPT AGAINST ME IF I MAKE ANY FURTHER EFFORTS TO OBTAIN JUSTICE IN THE COURTS.  THIS IS THE KIND OF SELECTIVE INJUSTICE THE LAW HAD ALREADY GENERATED INTO MORE THAN A DECADE AGO.
             IT IS GRATIFYING TO SEE EFFECTIVE OPPOSITION BEGINNING TO MOUNT AGAINST SUCH ARROGANT AND TYRANNICAL INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY IN AMERICA'S JUDICIARIES AS I HAVE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED FIRST HAND.
            The problems especially men face in state court systems are FAR huger and more serious, and more pervasive/systemic than the specifics of any one child custody situation could possibly cause reasonable people of good will to suspect. As world class lawyer Gerry Spence has pointed out in his courageous and revolutionary books, Give Me Liberty, and With Justice For None, the law itself is in a state of utter shambles and
        the courts are completely out of control.  Under the theory of what one federal appellate judge--see the Honorable John J. Gibbons's law review article "The Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity: A Reinterpretation", 83 Columbia Law Review #8, p 1889--calls a "hodgepodge of intellectually indefensible judge-made law" fraudulently alleged to be related to the 11th Amendment, an individual can no longer sue a state in federal court to force said state into compliance with its own laws.  State judicial systems are free to violate the rights of men and fathers at will on behalf of the the dead-beat- dad/divorce legal industry--and they routinely do.
             The courts are corrupt because that’s where the lawyers make big money via their heavily regulated shamanistic monopoly on access to justice.  As long term political action to eliminate the lawyer monopoly over the courts, and restore ownship and control of the courts to the general nonbar citizenry, I propose an amendment to the US Constitution containing the following provisions:
        1.  Election of all judicial officers by the voters in their district (especially US Supreme Court, the policy court).
        2.  Elimination of judicial (and all other forms of "official") immunity.
        3.  Elimination of "unauthorized practice" of law.
        4.  Require all judges to set forth in writing complete findings of fact and conclusions of law for every judicial act they execute (prohibit unpublished opinions).
        5.  Require all such written judicial findings and conclusions to be open for examination and copying by the public.
        6.  Prohibit active bar-member lawyers from serving as judges or legislators, due to self-evident conflict of interests (ambiguous laws/regs facilitate profit-enhancing, individual-disempowering courtroom contests).
        7.  Prohibit lawyer unions (aka "bar" associations), under any name or guise, from being established, or implemented by state or federal law (there should be no difference in principle between a lawyers union/association and other similar associations of other vocations such as carpenters, plumbers, etc.).
        8.  Require all attorney fee sanctions and private attorney general doctrines, designed to facilitate rule of law and deter certain undesirable types of behavior, be interpreted in such a way as to pay non-bar pro se litigants for the market rate of their prevailing civil rights litigation.
            Freedom fighters (women are welcome) need to network, do exhaustive legal research in all states and in all federal circuits on the legal issues relevant to men and children.  Thanks to the InterNet freedom fighters can pool their information, form local "clubs" which should have regularly scheduled meetings to attract new recruits, and put out a regularly scheduled newsletter watchdogging the courts and human services departments.
            TRUTH IS, IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED THAT STATE COURT JUDGES CAN DELIBERATELY AND CONSPIRATORIALLY VIOLATE STATE AND FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTES IN THE PROCESS OF DELIBERATELY AND CONSPIRITORIALLY DEPRIVING CITIZENS OF THEIR MOST FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND IMMUNE FROM ACCOUNTABILITY AND LIABILITY.  THE JUDGES HAVE ANNOINTED THEMSELVES (AND THE AUTONOMOUS LAWYER MONOPOLY) WITH ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY UNDER THE PRETENSE THAT IT IS "IN THE BEST INTERESTS" OF THE PEOPLE FOR JUDGES TO BE CRIMINALS.  SEE SUCH CASES AS PIERSON V. RAY, 386 US 547, AND STUMP V. SPARKMAN, 435 US 349.
            THIS STUFF DESPERATELY NEEDS TO BE MADE INTO A MOVIE!  DOES ANYBODY KNOW A SYMPATHETIC HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER?
        SINCERELY,
        JOHN R. WILKENSON

        jail4judges wrote:

        J.A.I.L. News Journal
        October 19, 2000
        ____________________________________________________
        Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio M-Th, 6-7 pm P.T.
        ____________________________________________________
        Make your plans now to attend So. CA. JAIL's Nov. 11th (Veteran's Day) fundraiser. RSVP $20 (or $25 at the door) to Doug Johnson, (818) 895-1239, 8340 Columbus Ave., North Hills, CA. 91343. Event held 11 am., American Legion Hall, 7338 Canby Ave., Reseda, CA. Includes food and a J.A.I.L. T-shirt.
         
        Unpublished Decisions Unconstitutional
         
        Justice in The Dark
        by Brigid McMenamin,
        www.Forbes.com10-30-00
        THREE YEARS AGO A FEDERAL jury acquitted Vicki Lopez-Lukis, a former commissioner in Lee County, Fla., of bribery for letting her lover, a Goldman Sachs lobbyist, reimburse her for their personal phone calls. But, bizarrely, the jury convicted her of one count of using the mails to deprive her constituents of "honest services" in connection with the same alleged bribery. This didn't make any sense, so she appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. But in a one-word decision--"affirmed"--the appeals court rejected her argument.
        Blind justice? For Lopez-Lukis, more like justice in the dark. She has no idea what the appellate judges were thinking when they brushed aside the obvious inconsistency in the verdict. Forget further appeals. The Supreme Court rarely accepts cases for review--only 124 of 8,445 sent to it in the 1999-2000 season--and almost never accepts one if there is no published opinion to look at. Lopez-Lukis is serving a 27-month term in Coleman federal prison near Orlando.
        Last year federal appeals judges disposed of 79% of the 26,819 cases they decided by issuing so-called unpublished decisions, up from 37% in 1977. Over 7% of the unpublished decisions consisted of a single word. Whether curt or long-winded, an unpublished decision isn't precedent. That means the judges can be sloppy. They are not accountable for illogic or inconsistency in the rulings.
        "This is judges disobeying the law," says William Richman, a University of Toledo law professor who has studied the problem.
        At last, one federal appeals court has declared war on the practice. In August, in a case involving a late-filed tax refund claim, a three-judge panel in St. Louis, Mo. branded unpublished decisions unconstitutional. Despite the ruling, the taxpayer lost her refund.
        The reasoning behind this momentous decision was that judicial decisions are intended not just to resolve particular disputes but also to tell Americans what the law is. So every decision must be a precedent. Though that decision is itself a precedent only in the 8th Circuit (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and the Dakotas), litigants in other federal courts are starting to cite it. The Supreme Court will likely end up ruling on the matter.
        The shortcut system began in the late 1960s when judges were struggling to deal with an avalanche of social-justice litigation as well as a parade of pro se litigants from the jailhouse. True, the appellate backlog does get scary at times. But does this justify lazy law? "[Unpublished decisions] are not prepared with the same kind of exactness," admits Procter R. Hug Jr., chief judge of the 9th Circuit on the West Coast, though he contends that they are still sound.
        Judges insist that they issue unpublished decisions only in simple, noncontroversial cases, where the answer is clear cut. The statistics say otherwise. Appeals courts issue unpublished decisions in 24% of the cases where various judges disagree so much that one writes a dissenting opinion, and in 37% of the cases where they're reversing the trial court.
        The 9th Circuit Appeals Court recently saw proof that unpublished decisions mask plenty of inconsistency. The court had affirmed the conviction of Pablo Rivera-Sanchez, an illegal alien who sneaked back into the U.S. after being deported. His lawyer found, though, that the court had in the past issued 27 separate unpublished decisions applying three different rules to the same immigration issue.
        ....


        J.A.I.L. is an acronym for (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
        JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org
        JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government.
        JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
        JAIL's is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire!
        JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
        JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
        To subscribe or be removed:  add-remove-jail@...
        To send published judicial articles: USA-jail4judges@...
        To contact the author of JAIL4Judges: jail4judges@...
        All E-Groups are encouraged to sign on at jail4judges@egroups.com "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
        striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.