Responds to the
Ninth Circuit Pro Se Task Force Report
American Justice Denied ©2004
The Ninth Circuit Pro Se Task Force has asked for comments, suggestions and input regarding its proposed plan to incorporate the recommendations contained in its report concerning pro se litigants. Following are some comments, suggestions and concerns gathered from across the country from concerned groups and citizens. In addition we have included actual cases demonstrating how victims of judicial corruption end up filing appeals believing they will be treated fairly by the "cream of our judiciary." Some of the illustrations may "shock the conscience," but we are simply presenting the facts to illustrate why so many citizens are seeking redress from inferior courts.
While the Task Force views the problem as too many pro se litigants filing appeals, we view the problem as too many courts not following the United States Constitution, the laws, statutes, rules and regulations established to ensure justice. Furthermore, Federal courts are bound to feel the impact of federalization as Congress passes new laws that encroach upon state jurisdiction, and when those federal laws are violated in state courts, they cause new actions to be filed in federal court. To support our point of view, consider the mammoth undertaking required of a pro se litigant to file an appeal. The litigant, at this point, has had to endure being abandoned by his lawyer, suffered sever financial set backs, crippling emotional and physical damage, loss of self respect and being viewed by family, friends, peers and society as somehow guilty of something; because, heretofore, he has been unable to prevail. Why would anyone go through such an ordeal? The answer is simple. We recognize that we are victims of judicial corruption. The law begs for certainty, and that has been eliminated at the pro se’s expense. Until the courts stop viewing us as disgruntled litigants, and perceive us as victims, the number of cases will continue to escalate.
The appeal processes is long and arduous with the deck stacked against the appellant. We fully recognize that the courts are underpaid and understaffed, and for the public's sake that needs to be corrected; on the other hand, the Court has tried and failed to do budgeting at the further expense of pro se litigants. If the Court does not act soon, the problem is guaranteed to grow exponentially until the entire system collapses. We do not think the court fully appreciates just how soon that day may come with millions of new pro se litigants willing to tackle their own legal work. The Task Force need only surf the Internet to see how many judicial reform organizations are forming and connecting. There is a massive movement gaining strength, and determination. The Court can mend its ways and provide the justice promised under the United States Constitution or The People will polarize the entire system and then take over and make the necessary corrections at all levels.
The pro se appeals that the Court is experiencing are from the people who will not rest because they know that justice has not been served and will continue to return to court until it is. Least we forget these are Americans with the ingenuity, capability and tenacity to accomplish anything once challenged. While these people may be bringing a butter knife to a sword fight, they will do so with moral courage and dignity. Rest assured we are not “terrorists” as some have suggested.
The Task Force seems to imply that all "pro-se" cases are basically alike and automatically require special treatment. Many of those people have already received outside help, and do file very professional briefs. They should not be penalized just because they are self-represented. We then turn to another group who may indeed need some form of help, but we hope the Task Force recognizes that an internal lawyer paid by the court, or clerk has an allegiance to the judicial system itself and a built-in bias, and a student is not likely to do anything that would disturb a grade. Consider also that pro se litigants may no longer trust lawyers, generally. Thus, we make the following suggestion.
If the Task Force is sincere in wanting to correct the problem we suggest an autonomist organization that would be available to all of the people that could review the record and make suggestions in phrasing of the issues, and in the drafting of the brief. This organization could also inform the court when there are inherent underlying problems that have caused the litigant to return time and again for justice.
With the use of colored paper on which a pro se appeal is filed, the entire course of the appeal could properly change the outcome when appropriate. There is an invaluable advantage to this proposal. Of utmost importance is the preservation of the court’s time, and cost to everyone in pursuit of justice. However, let us be clear, ultimately, the public expects that each case will have the attention of an Article III federal judge; because, that is what both the judge and the litigant have agreed.
We do not agree that nothing can be done about judicial impropriety and that it is up to the judge to search his own conscience for his ability to be fair. It has been thus for twenty years, and corruption has exploded. Clearly, their consciences are not the slightest burdened; perhaps it is time for a change, and perhaps that change can only come through public involvement.
In the past 20 years the courts have awarded undeserving judges unwarranted judicial immunity. Federal judges who have life time appointments have granted inferior state judges identical immunity no matter how egregious their conduct or how often they violate the Constitution. While it reduces the federal case load by summarily dismissing on immunity grounds, we know this was never intended by The People, and it causes multiple complaints and appeals. We also wish to point out that by taking this position, The People are prevented from ever making a public record to remove or vote out a bad judge from office once he becomes entrenched. Therefore, The People are stuck with a corrupt system. Society is paying a steep price where the rule of law is not respected by the judiciary. Court corruption is so prevalent that we must find a solution. We suggest that the Task Force hold public hearings and allow people to come forward and relate to it about the corruption they experienced and how it has affected their lives. The Task Force will soon see that most of the cases are the result of a lack of due process.
No matter how the issues are addressed, the farce of judicial immunity plays a large part. For example, if someone is deciding cases without having qualified for his office, then he is not entitled to immunity, government protection and most of all, not retirement at public expense. A mere citizen who refuses to follow rules him self is not in a position to judge another.
In his essay Judicial Immunity vs. Due Process: When Should a Judge Be Subject to Suit?"
Robert Craig Waters states:
"In the American judicial system, few more serious threats to individual liberty can be imagined than a corrupt judge... Clothed with the power of the state and authorized to pass judgment on the most basic aspects of everyday life, a judge can deprive citizens of liberty and property in complete disregard of the Constitution. The injuries inflicted may be severe and enduring. Yet, the recent expansion of the judge-made exception to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1871, chief vehicle for redress of civil rights violations, has rendered state judges immune from suit even for the most bizarre, corrupt, or abusive of judicial acts." (Emphasis added)
When federal courts are called upon to provide protection against state court corruption, all of the Circuits must stop and listen and give justice where it is due. In so doing, judges at lower levels would soon understand that their mission is no longer "greed and corruption" as usual, but rather justice - and meaningful justice - for ALL because corruption is going to be in plain view of public scrutiny. As for the politics of unpopularity, rest assured that the public will be just as quick to defend a fair and honest judge as it would be to remove a dishonest one.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, self-represented litigants love their country and are proud of what was once the finest justice system in the world. They share the notion that they are entitled to the freedom they pay for at home while judges and lawyers are teaching "democracy" and "justice" overseas. They believe America still operates on the rule of law in accordance with the United States Constitution. While our sons and daughters risk their lives to bring this system to other nations, we must not allow it to slip away on our own soil in the process; we thank this Task Force for its interest and recognition and its desire to help. We do hope the Task Force will hold public hearings.