*** CASE EVIDENCE SAMPLES ***
“I am suing for 3 hours of payments. That money that they owe me is the ‘unjust gains’, in profits, that the Defendants made off of me with their corruption…” More at http://www.majestic111.com
Read a similar lawsuit here: madigan_et_al_indictment_0 (LINK)
Read Even more related lawsuits:
Also…Meet The AMERICAN STOCK ACT To End Senator Stimulus Scams
Imagine Elliot Ness having to deal with this scenario:
“…Since Plaintiff first reported the crimes, that United States Government officials were engaged in, to the FBI, AG, IG, DOJ, SEC and other law enforcement bodies, at all times the United States Government officials that reprisal attacked, defunded, black-listed and harmed Plaintiff were covert owners and financiers of the Silicon Valley companies that were Plaintiff’s largest competitors and were the most threatened by Plaintiffs patented products.
In other words, The White House, Congressional and agency bosses who were legally responsible for serving Plaintiff were using government resources to attack Plaintiff in order to illicitly put cash in their own pockets. Those Defendants, in a felonious manner, used the United States Government to commit financial crimes.
The Defendants were, either financed by, friends, with, sleeping with, dating the staff of, holding stock market assets in, promised a revolving door job or government service contracts from, partying with, personal friends with, photographed at private events with, exchanging emails with, business associates of or directed by; our business adversaries, or the Senators and politicians that those business adversaries pay campaign finances to, or supply political digital search manipulation services to. Criminal U.S. Senators coordinated and profited in these schemes. Their own family members have now supplied evidence against them. Elon Musk and his frat boys display their self-aggrandizing vanity in sociopath glory because nobody tells them “no”. They used their ownership of Facebook, Google, YouTube, Tesla, Linkedin, et al to manipulate elections and government funds to personally benefit themselves and their family members…”
Ten years ago it was a ‘hard sell’. Today, there are over a million news articles and TV news segments, Congressional and GAO investigation reports, SEC, FTC and FBI files and ICIJ Panama Papers type leaks confirming the fact that the above-described corruption is just Business-As-Usual for the U.S. Congress… BUT NOT FOR LONG!
CASE EVIDENCE, PRESS CLIPPINGS AND INVESTIGATION REPORTS
(CASE EVIDENCE: PHOTO PROOF1) MAIN PHOTO GALLERY – http://www.nationalnewsnetwork.net/rl_gallery/crime-gallery/
(CASE EVIDENCE: VIDEO POOF) MAIN VIDEO GALLERY – https://the-truth-about-the-dept-of-energy.com/anti-corruption-video-gallery/
(MY ANTI-CORRUPTION LAWSUIT ) MAIN FIRST POSTS on – http://www.the-truth-about-the-dept-of-energy.com
(CASE EVIDENCE: MUSK2) TESLA MUSK GALLERY – TESLA MUSK GALLERY OF EVIL: https://stimulus-scam.com/rl_gallery/elon-musk-tesla-gallery/
(CASE EVIDENCE: MUSK1) MUSKED – https://gotmusked.com/
(CASE EVIDENCE: DOE ) MAIN ENERGY SCAM PAPER – https://www.the-truth-about-the-dept-of-energy.com/the_energy_scam_papers.pdf
(CASE EVIDENCE: GOVT BRIBES) http://american-corruption.com/Govt_Bribes
My FBI buddies, 60 Minutes friends and I, Have Hunted Down And Exterminated Every Assassin They Sent To Exterminate Me
The proof that my corruption assertions are true includes the fact that nobody in the world has had the same attacks operated against them by: (A) the same people who work for the Defendants, (B) the same people paid by the Defendants, (C) the same people who reported to the Defendants for their command-and control, (D) the same, AND ONLY, people to use the ten web servers involved, (E), the same people who coordinated the attacks via their texts and emails, (F) and… all of these people still covertly work for the same Defendants.
There are hundreds of other evidence and proof facts but, as the FBI, Mr. Durham, The Grand Jury, the SEC and the FTC say: “…we can’t comment on an active investigation…”
I have been fighting long and hard to create, and now EXPAND and ENFORCE THE STOCK ACT so that criminally corrupt politicians are no longer Google’s, Facebook’s and Elon Musk’s bitches!
Some people say that my Congressional letter to Senator Jeff Bingaman started all this. It could be. My peers and I call it the SCOTT ACT.
My elected representatives took bribes which harmed me and every other citizen and those bribes were paid by my competitors. That is a FELONY!
The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012 ( 112–105 (text) (PDF), S. 2038, 126 Stat. 291, enacted April 4, 2012) is an Act of Congress designed to combat insider trading. It was signed into law by President Barack Obama on April 4, 2012. The law prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit, including insider trading by members of Congress and other government employees. It confirms changes to the Commodity Exchange Act, specifies reporting intervals for financial transactions.
Originially written and introduced by Washington Congressman Brian Baird, the STOCK Act gained popularity following a 60 Minutes segment on congressional insider trading in 2011, after which Republican Senator Scott Brown and Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand reintroduced bills to combat the practice. In February 2012, the STOCK Act passed in the Senate by a 96–3 vote; the only no votes were senators Jeff Bingaman, Richard Burr, and Tom Coburn. Later the House of Representatives passed it by a 417–2 vote. The bill was supported heavily by vulnerable incumbents and signed into law by President Obama. According to the current United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics, “A member, officer, or employee of the Senate shall not receive any compensation, nor shall he permit any compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest from any source, the receipt or accrual of which would occur by virtue of influence improperly exerted from his position as a member, officer, or employee.”
The STOCK Act is an original bill to prohibit members of Congress and employees of Congress from using private information derived from their official positions for personal benefit, and for other purposes. With this bill in place, members of Congress are no longer allowed to use information garnered through official business for personal reasons. The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act prohibits members and employees of Congress from using “any nonpublic information derived from the individual’s position … or gained from performance of the individual’s duties, for personal benefit”. The bill also applies to all employees in the Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government. The STOCK Act required a one-year study of the growing political intelligence industry and requires every Member of Congress to publicly file and disclose any financial transaction of stocks, bond, commodities futures, and other securities within 45 days on their websites, rather than once a year as was required previously. The Act also requires members of Congress and Executive branch officials to disclose the terms of mortgages on their homes, prohibits them from receiving special access to initial public stock offerings, and denies federal pensions to members of Congress who are convicted of felonies involving public corruption. The bill is divided into nineteen sections. Analysis in 2021 by Business Insider shows fifty four members of Congress and numerous staffers violating the STOCK Act.
The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, which serves Congress.
Requires the congressional ethics committees to issue interpretive guidance of the rules of each chamber, including rules on conflicts of interest and gifts, with respect to the prohibition against the use by Members of Congress and congressional employees (including legislative branch officers and employees), as a means for making a private profit, of any nonpublic information derived from their positions as Members or congressional employees, or gained from performance of the individual’s official responsibilities.
Declares that such Members and employees are not exempt from the insider trading prohibitions arising under the securities laws, including the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to declare that such Members and employees owe a duty arising from a relationship of trust and confidence to Congress, the U.S. government, and U.S. citizens with respect to material, nonpublic information derived from their positions as Members or congressional employees or gained from performance of the individual’s official responsibilities.
Amends the Commodity Exchange Act to apply to Members and congressional employees, or to judicial officers or employees its prohibitions against certain transactions, involving the purchase or sale of any commodity in interstate commerce, or for future delivery, or any swap.
Amends the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (EGA) to require specified individuals to file reports within 30 to 45 days after receiving notice of a purchase, sale, or exchange which exceeds $1,000 in stocks, bonds, commodities futures, and other forms of securities, subject to any waivers and exclusions. Lists such individuals as: (1) the President; (2) the Vice President; (3) executive officers or employees, including certain special government employees and members of a uniformed service; (4) appointed administrative law judges; (5) executive branch employees in positions excepted from the competitive service because of their confidential or policymaking character (except those excluded from such exception by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics [OGE]); (6) the Postmaster General, the Deputy Postmaster General, each Governor of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Postal Service, and certain U.S. Postal Service officers or employees; (7) the OGE Director and each designated agency ethics official; (8) civilian employees of the Executive Office of the President (other than a special government employee) appointed by the President; (9) Members of Congress; and (10) congressional officers and employees.
Directs the Comptroller General to report to specified congressional committees on the role of political intelligence in the financial markets.
Requires the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, by August 31, 2012, or 90 days after the enactment of this Act, to ensure that financial disclosure forms filed by Members, candidates for Congress, and congressional officers and employees, in calendar year 2012 and in subsequent years be made available to the public on the respective official Senate and House websites within 30 days after filing. Terminates such requirement upon implementation of the following public disclosure systems. Directs the Secretary, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Clerk to develop systems to enable the electronic filing of such reports as well as their on-line public availability. Amends EGA to revise the retention period for mandatory public availability of financial disclosure reports. Requires retention and public availability of the financial disclosure reports of a Member of Congress until six years after the date the individual ceases to be a Member (currently, six years after receipt of the report).
Requires the OGE to issue interpretive guidance of the relevant federal ethics statutes and regulations, including the Standards of Ethical Conduct for executive branch employees, to specify that no such individual may use non-public information derived from his or her position or gained from the performance of official responsibilities as a means for making a private profit. Requires the U.S. Judicial Conference to issue interpretive guidance of similar ethics rules, including the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, applicable to: (1) federal judges, and (2) judicial employees. Declares that executive branch employees, judicial officers, and judicial employees are not exempt from the insider trading prohibitions arising under the securities laws, including the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to declare that such individuals owe a duty arising from a relationship of trust and confidence to the federal government and U.S. citizens with respect to material, nonpublic information derived from their positions as executive branch employees, judicial officers, or judicial employees gained from performance of the individual’s official responsibilities.
Directs the President to ensure that financial disclosure forms filed in calendar year 2012 and in subsequent years by executive branch employees are publicly available on appropriate official websites of executive branch agencies within 30 days after such forms are filed. Requires the OGE Director to develop systems to enable electronic filing and public access to these financial disclosure forms.
Amends the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to prohibit individuals required to file financial disclosure reports under EGA from purchasing securities that are the subject of an initial public offering in any manner other than is available to members of the public generally.
Amends EGA to require the financial disclosure report of the following individuals to include any secured mortgage which is their personal residence or that of his or her spouse: (1) the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress; and (2) certain individuals nominated for appointments as executive branch officers or employees (except those nominated to positions as Foreign Service Officers or a grade or rank in the uniformed services with a pay grade of 0-6 or below).
Declares that the transaction reporting requirements established by this Act shall not be construed to apply to a widely held investment fund (whether a mutual fund, regulated investment company, pension or deferred compensation plan, or other investment fund): (1) if the fund is publicly traded or its assets are widely diversified, and (2) the reporting individual neither exercises control over nor has the ability to exercise control over the financial interests held by the fund.
Denies Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) retirement benefits (other than a lump-sum reimbursement of personal contributions) to the President, the Vice President, or an elected official of a state or local government, if convicted of certain felonies.
Prohibits senior executives at the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (government-sponsored enterprises [GSEs]) from receiving bonuses during any period of conservatorship on or after the enactment of this Act.
Prohibits an individual required to file a financial disclosure report under EGA from directly negotiating or having any agreement of future employment or compensation without filing a signed disclosure statement, within three business days after commencement of the negotiation or agreement, with the individual’s supervising ethics office. Requires such an individual to recuse himself or herself whenever there is or there appears to be a conflict of interest with respect to the subject matter of the statement. Requires the individual, upon such a recusal, to notify the supervising ethics office and submit the relevant disclosure statement.
Amends the federal criminal code to subject to a fine or imprisonment of up to 15 years, or both, as well as possible disqualification from holding federal office, certain covered government persons, in addition to Member of Congress and congressional employees, who with the intent to influence, on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity: (1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act; or (2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another. Extends the meaning of “covered government person” (currently restricted to Members of Congress and congressional employees) to include the President, Vice President, an employee of the U.S. Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee.
Makes conforming amendments to EGA and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Requires retention and public availability of the financial disclosure reports of Members of the House until six years after the date an individual ceases to be a Member of Congress (currently, six years after receipt of the report).
Barack Obama at Las Vegas Presidential Forum
Overall, the STOCK Act has garnered positive support from both houses of Congress. STOCK will effectively put an end to congressional insider trading. However, guarded optimism has been expressed by politicians such as Eric Weissmann. Weissmann, a candidate for Congress in Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District, recently claimed that STOCK was long overdue and that “The passage of the STOCK Act by both the House and Senate is a good first step in deterring these abusive practices, but doesn’t go far enough to protect the American people from members of Congress who chose to act with self-interest over public good.”
Other examples of positive support for STOCK include President Obama who upon signing the bill reassured that congressional members must play by the same rules as regular citizens. Obama regards the STOCK act as a way to monitor congressional activity and create transparency within the branch. He spoke to this point by adding, “It’s the notion that the powerful shouldn’t get to create one set of rules for themselves and another set of rules for everybody else. … If we expect that to apply to our biggest corporations and our most successful citizens, it certainly should apply to our elected officials.”
The STOCK Act was modified on April 15, 2013, by S.716. This amendment modifies the online disclosure portion of the STOCK Act, so that some officials, but not the President, Vice President, Congress, or anyone running for Congress, can no longer file online and their records are no longer easily accessible to the public. In Section (a)2, the amendment specifically does not alter the online access for trades by the President, the Vice President, Congress, or those running for Congress. The reasoning for this change was to prevent criminals from gaining access to the financial data and using it against affected persons. This bill was introduced by Senator Harry Reid on April 11, 2013. It was considered by the Senate and passed by unanimous consent. In the House, S.716 received only 14 seconds of discussion before being passed by unanimous consent.
The main provision that was repealed would have required about 28,000 senior government officials to post their financial information online, something that had been strongly criticized by federal government employee unions. A report by the National Academy of Public Administration, published in March 2013, said that the provision could threaten the safety of government employees abroad, as well as make it difficult to attract and retain public sector employees.
The amendment also eliminated the requirement for the creation of searchable, sortable database of information in reports, and the requirement that reports be done in electronic format, rather than on paper.
As of 2021, in the approximately nine month period up to September 2021, Senate and House members disclosed 4,000 trades worth at least $315 million of stocks and bonds.
This is BY NO MEANS over. Much work remains to do to strenthen THE STOCK ACT and add a few more ACTS to cut off the bribery of public officials using the stock market.
The Wall Street Journal published a expose about the number of federal judges who traded or held stock in companies they presided over in legal proceedings two weeks ago. This article lists 131 federal judges who traded the stock of companies during the period 2010-2018. 61 of those 131 judges traded the public stock of litigants during this case, according to the article. Imagine that! It’s amazing! He is now an adjunct professor at Florida International University College of Law where he teaches a course in Blockchain, Crypto, and Regulatory Considerations. Parties were required to disclose any public companies that were associated with them when they litigated cases.
This was so judges could determine if there was any conflict in the case. These conflicts could arise if the judge is familiar with the parties to the case or the witnesses. A written disclosure by the parties is supposed to trigger the obligation for the judge see if they or a family member own stock in any public corporation involved in the case.
A 1974 law prohibits a judge presiding over a case where their family members own shares of a public company litigant. It was passed shortly following the Watergate crisis, President Richard Nixon’s resignation and Bitcoin Week with Vitalik. This ban is absolute and cannot be waived by the jurist. The parties cannot waive it. The judge is required to disqualify or recuse themselves from any litigation. The Federal ReserveNow let’s look at the Federal Reserve, which is part the executive branch of our government and its 12 reserve bank chiefs. Robert Kaplan and Eric Rosengren, respectively, were elected presidents of the Dallas and Boston Federal Reserve Banks. This may be due to allegations that they traded stocks in the past year while directing macroeconomic policy for the country. These former presidents were clearly ill-advised.
They are privy to the Fed’s use of certain monetary tools that favor certain industries, and as a corollary, the stock price of companies in those sectors. These restrictions include a one year holding period, prohibiting individual stock purchases and selling of mutual funds. There is also a 45-day process to pre-approve buying or selling mutual funds. It’s no wonder that the crypto crowd is losing faith and looking for autonomously driven technology like Blockchain to cleanse us all. While it may seem that nothing prohibited the Federal Reserve or the judiciary from owning or trading stock prior to this new investment policy by Powell I disagree. Enter the STOCK Act of 2012. It was passed by Congress during Barack Obama’s administration in April 2012. STOCK stands to stop trading on congressional knowledge. It’s a catchy acronym, right? The acronyms of Congress are so catchy! The act’s stated purpose is to prohibit members of Congress and employees of Congress (and the executive or judicial branch) from using nonpublic information derived in their official positions for personal gain [or profit] and other purposes. It was partly enacted due to the rise of political intelligence companies, which advise hedge funds on the likelihood that governmental action will be taken.
These companies sometimes learned information from government officials and passed it on the hedge fund managers who traded stocks on the basis of that information. It is also required to report stock transactions. However, regulators and prosecutors found it difficult to determine whether the source of insider trading information was government officials.
It is a crime to do this, and it is clearly stated in the law. The act specifically addresses these government officials in a section that states that each member of Congress and employee of Congress has a duty arising out of a relationship of trust or confidence. It also states that covered government workers are not exempted from the insider trading prohibitions under the securities laws.
Now, the question is whether the Fed presidents and certain jurists were in possession of any nonpublic information. To make an argument, a judge must be in possession of nonpublic information before he or she rules in favor of one side in a lawsuit, or verbally in court. It gets more complicated for Fed presidents. Are they not required to have nonpublic information? This means that any stock trades made to avoid losses or gain profits from future Fed policies could be considered to be in violation of the law. I do not know of any criminal prosecution under Section Stock Act. The 2018 indictment against Chris Collins, a former Congressman, was the closest to the act.
The insider trading charges stemmed from Collins’ purported learning of information while he was on a board of public companies, and not his congressional duties. It will be interesting to see if criminal investigations or the Securities and Exchange Commission are made public in the coming days and months arising out of the reports by WSJ.
An outside ethics group filed ethics complaints Wednesday against seven U.S. House lawmakers — four Democrats and three Republicans — over failing to report stock trades.
One of the members of Congress — Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi of New York — failed to file required reports on approximately 300 transactions, according to the complaint from the Campaign Legal Center.
Five of the seven lawmakers sit on the powerful House Financial Services Committee.
It’s the latest example of a bipartisan trend that has emerged almost 10 years after Congress overwhelmingly passed a law to provide transparency and show lawmakers aren’t profiting from their jobs: Members of Congress are ignoring the disclosure law.
Under the STOCK Act — Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act — lawmakers must file a report when they buy or sell stock. The form, known as a periodic transaction report, or PTR, must be submitted within 45 days for every trade valued at over $1,000. The PTR is then made public. To date most allegations of STOCK Act violations involve members filing months — or in some cases more than a year — after the required window for submitting a report.
What makes the complaints filed Wednesday different is that it appears these members never filed reports at all. The Campaign Legal Center learned about the issues after reviewing financial disclosure forms for all members of Congress. It compared the 2019 forms with the 2020 forms and discovered discrepancies with these lawmakers’ holdings. But it did not find any PTRs to reflect the new transactions.
A spokesperson for Suozzi said, “The Congressman’s investments are managed through independent advisors with discretion over all transactions. Every transaction has been reported on his annual financial disclosure and all proper periodic disclosures will be filed on a going forward basis.”
Still, The Campaign Legal Center is asking the Office of Congressional Ethics, the outside, nonpartisan entity that screens cases and can make referrals to the House Ethics Committee, to look into these members’ activities.
Group says members of Congress are flouting the law
The ethics complaints filed Wednesday are against Suozzi, Democratic Rep. Cindy Axne of Iowa, Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio, Republican Rep. Lance Gooden of Texas, Democratic Delegate Michael San Nicolas of Guam, Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia and Republican Rep. Roger Williams of Texas.
“The lack of accountability we’ve seen in regard to STOCK Act compliance is basically giving elected officials the green light to buy and sell stocks based on information gained from committee meetings without any transparency for their voters,” Kedric Payne, general counsel and senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, said in a written statement.
Axne, Davidson, Gooden, San Nicolas and Williams all sit on the House Financial Services Committee.
The values and number of transactions vary in the seven complaints from the Campaign Legal Center. According to center’s legal filings:
- Axne didn’t file any PTRs in 2019 and 2020, and the center’s complaint indicates it found more than 40 assets with a total value of $43,043 to $645,000.
- The complaint against Davidson lists the sale of Workhorse Group stock wo_rth between $50,000 and $100,000 in 2020 but notes no disclosure form was filed.
- Gooden’s annual financial disclosure reflects a dozen stock purchases (American Airlines, APA Corp., Royal Caribbean Cruises, Delta, Hertz, Luckin Coffee, Marathon Oil, Occidental, Ovintiv, Plains All American Pipeline, Sotherly Hotels and United American Holdings) that were valued between $60,019 and $376,000 in 2020. But no PTRs were filed disclosing the initial investments, according to the complaint.
- San Nicolas failed to file reports for two trades, according to the complaint — one in 2019 for a call option in Yamana Gold and one in 2020 for Livent stock valued between $15,000 and $52,370.
- Scott did not disclose four stock transactions in 2020 worth between approximately $4,004 and $60,000. These were purchases for Air Products and Chemicals, Carlisle Cos., Linde PLC and RPM International, according to the complaint
- Suozzi failed to disclose about 300 transactions from 2017 to 2020, according to the Campaign Legal Center complaint, with a value of $3.2 million to $11 million. This included roughly 64 transactions in 2017 valued between $456,064 and $1,868,000; 31 transactions in 2018 valued between $528,031 and $1,445,00; 104 transactions in 2019 worth $1.1 million and $3.8 million; and 104 in 2020 worth between $1.1 million and $4 million. He disclosed the trades on annual disclosures but did not file PTRs.
- Williams did not file PTRs for three stock sales in 2019. The complaint lists sales of three assets by a spouse in 2019 — General Electric, Nvidia and the Walt Disney Co. — worth a total value of approximately $3,003 to $45,000.
NPR reached out to all seven members for a response to the complaints.
In a written statement to NPR, Gooden dismissed the complaint, saying, “There were no transactions above the reporting threshold for PTRs which is why none were filed. I would encourage anyone filing frivolous ethics complaints to consult page 41 of the 2020 Financial Disclosure Guide regarding the rule on PTRs.”
Christine Ravold, a spokeswoman for Davidson told NPR that the PTR was filed but an error on the House Clerk’s website failed to publish it so it was visible to the public. NPR contacted the Clerk’s office. Ravold shared a copy of the form that includes a digital signature from March 25, 2021 and maintained the Congressman is in “full compliance” and “places a premium on transparency and accountability.”
And in an email response, a spokesperson for Axne said that the congresswoman does not personally manage or execute trades and that she has submitted all required disclosures during her time in office. “If there are errors with those disclosures, they are unintentional and the Congresswoman will take immediate and all necessary steps to ensure her disclosures are accurate and in accordance with the law.”
The story will be updated with any additional responses.
Questions about enforcement remain
In early 2020, PTR disclosures revealed investment activity by several senators followed briefings on the pandemic — before the markets collapsed — and the emerging public health threat. The senators’ investment actions came under intense scrutiny. The Justice Department reviewed allegations of insider trading but closed the cases without any charges.
Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who was an attorney before entering public office, helped write the STOCK Act. She points to the Justice Department investigations as proof the law is working.
“We’ve had several examples where members of Congress bought or sold stocks that pertain to their work, and there actually were follow-up investigations to see whether or not they bought or sold those stocks based on nonpublic inside information,” Gillibrand told NPR.
She maintains that the authority the statute gave the Justice Department to prosecute members is the primary method to ensure the law is working. She said the ethics committees have oversight roles, “but the purpose of the STOCK Act was to make it very clear that these are criminal violations.”
Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, who voted for the 2012 law, is blunt about how it’s working now. “The STOCK Act is pretty much useless,” Merkley told NPR.
He said he believes the major issue is enforcement. “It’s extremely difficult to know when a person in Congress has traded stocks because of information they heard publicly versus information that they’ve heard privately.”
It’s not just lack of enforcement when it comes to information lawmakers may gain. One Republican member told NPR that at an ethics training, an incoming member inquired how to avoid filing PTRs and was advised to keep all trades under $1,000.
Before the Campaign Legal Center filed its latest complaints, the group had already lodged about a half-dozen other complaints to the ethics committees about possible violations of the STOCK Act.
In the Senate, the organization pressed the Ethics Committee in August to look into GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who reported his wife’s purchase of pharmaceutical stock for a manufacturer of an antiviral drug over a year later. This drug was later approved to treat COVID-19. Paul noted that his wife lost money on the trade and that it was an oversight the form was not filed on time.
The Campaign Legal Center also filed a complaint against Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama over improper disclosure over 100 transactions. Tuberville said he was unaware of the late reports but submitted the information.
“At least 15 members from the House and Senate have not complied with the requirement to disclose their stock trades. But we are not aware of any fines that the ethics committees have required these members to pay,” the Campaign Legal Center’s Payne said. The ethics panels can launch their own reviews. But so far no lawmaker in the House or Senate has faced any formal sanction related to the STOCK Act. And while they may get fined, those fines are not made public.
Payne worries the scrutiny following the senators’ investments after the pandemic briefing appears to have given some members pause about filing forms on time. “Right now, it seems to be a trend that members … just wait until the end of the year, file the report and completely ignore the STOCK Act. So they are circumventing this rule and doing it without any consequence.”
Instead it’s fallen to watchdog groups such as Payne’s or media outlets such as Business Insider to bring violations to light. Insider found Republican Rep. Blake Moore of Utah filed late. He said that was an oversight, and NPR confirmed he has paid a fine. The news site also has reported on others, including Democratic Rep. Tom Malinowski of New Jersey, who transferred his assets to a blind trust after he faced questions about not reporting dozens of trades. NPR learned Malinowski paid a $200 fine.
Proposal to ban lawmakers from trading stocks
Merkley said he thinks it’s time to ban all lawmakers from trading individual stocks altogether.
“It is a huge conflict of interest for someone to be trading in, say, pharmaceutical stocks at the same time as making policy for pharmaceutical companies,” he said. He has introduced a bill that would require members to divest within six months of taking office and limit investments to mutual funds.
“It is not a popular topic among my colleagues,” Merkley said dryly. He said without a change members keep themselves open to new allegations. “I can guarantee you that every year there’ll be a scandal related to stock trading.”
He has support from some of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate, including Gillibrand. But she also said there’s a need for a STOCK Act 2.0 to look at all the different ways members may benefit financially from their work. One new development she flagged is that lawmakers received small-business loans from the COVID-19 relief bills.
“There were several examples of members of Congress who were first in line to get those payouts,” Gillibrand said. “That is not what the American public would expect members of Congress to be doing.”
And she said she thinks transparency regarding investments needs to go beyond Capitol Hill. Gillibrand said she has “deep concerns about the judiciary and the Supreme Court.” She noted that justices are allowed to take privately funded trips paid for by people who have interests before the court.
Congress created the STOCK Act to ensure transparency. But if nothing changes and more lawmakers keep failing to report their investments, it will be tough for the public to know whether the people they elected are making decisions to benefit their constituents or themselves.
“FU” Corrupt Politicians. We Are Coming For You…
- ^ “A bill to modify the requirements under the STOCK Act regarding online access to certain financial disclosure statements and related forms”. 2013-04-15. Archived from the original on 2014-10-06. Retrieved 2013-04-16.
- ^ Wong, Scott (2 February 2012). “STOCK Act passes Senate by vote of 96-3”. Politico. Retrieved 5 April 2012.
- ^ “Final Vote Results for Roll Call 47”. February 9, 2012.
- ^ Blake, Aaron (4 April 2012). “The STOCK Act: Refuge of the most vulnerable congressmen in America”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 5 April 2012.
- ^ “Senate Ethics Rule 37”. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
- ^ “What is the STOCK Act?”.
- ^ Christina Wilkie. (20 January 2022). “Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm violated a stock disclosure law nine times last year”. CNBC website Retrieved 21 January 2022.
- ^ “At least 182 high-ranking congressional staffers have violated a federal conflict-of-interest law with overdue disclosure of their personal stock trades”.
- ^ “S. 2038: STOCK Act”.
- ^ “S.2038” (PDF). house.gov. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
- ^ “Eric Weissman”.
- ^ “Obama signs STOCK”. Huffington Post. April 4, 2012.
- ^ “A bill to modify the requirements under the STOCK Act regarding online access to certain financial disclosure statements and related forms”. 2013-04-15. Archived from the original on 2014-10-06. Retrieved April 16, 2013.
- ^ Lowder, D.; Cowan, R. (April 12, 2013). “Congress quietly repeals plan for Internet financial disclosures”. Reuters. Retrieved September 9, 2013.
- ^ Schroeder, Peter (2013-04-15). “Obama signs STOCK Act modification”. TheHill. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
- ^ “Action Alert: STOCK Act Reversal Signed by President”. OpenSecrets News. April 15, 2013. Retrieved November 23, 2019.
- ^ All Things Considered (September 21, 2021). “TikTokers Are Trading Stocks By Copying What Members Of Congress Do”. www.npr.org. Retrieved January 1, 2022.
“HOW ARE YOU GONNA CATCH THEM?” is a question heard almost every day. Our team has already caught the Senators, White House staff, Big Tech oligarchs and their peers because every couple of weeks THIS happens and exposes all of their money-laundering routes:
A “massive leak” by a whistleblower revealed the secret details of bank accounts linked to more than 30,000 Credit Suisse clients around the world, reports the Guardian.
They note that Credit Suisse is one of the world’s largest private banks, as well as Switzerland’s second-biggest lender, with 50,000 employees — and yet the leaked information “points to widespread failures of due diligence by Credit Suisse, despite repeated pledges over decades to weed out dubious clients and illicit funds,” including “clients involved in torture, drug trafficking, money laundering, corruption and other serious crimes.”
The accounts are worth more than $108 billion USD (that’s 100 billion Swiss Francs or £80 billion)… The Guardian is part of a consortium of media outlets given exclusive access to the data. We can reveal how Credit Suisse repeatedly either opened or maintained bank accounts for a panoramic array of high-risk clients across the world. They include a human trafficker in the Philippines, a Hong Kong stock exchange boss jailed for bribery, a billionaire who ordered the murder of his Lebanese pop star girlfriend and executives who looted Venezuela’s state oil company, as well as corrupt politicians from Egypt to Ukraine.
One Vatican-owned account in the data was used to spend €350m (£290m) in an allegedly fraudulent investment in London property that is at the centre of an ongoing criminal trial of several defendants, including a cardinal….
This month, Credit Suisse became the first major Swiss bank in the country’s history to face criminal charges — which it denies — relating to allegation it helped launder money from the cocaine trade on behalf of the Bulgarian mafia. However, the repercussions of the leak could be much broader than one bank, threatening a crisis for Switzerland, which retains one of the world’s most secretive banking laws… Over the past three decades, Credit Suisse has faced at least a dozen penalties and sanctions for offences involving tax evasion, money laundering, the deliberate violation of US sanctions and frauds carried out against its own customers that span multiple decades and jurisdictions. In total, it has racked up more than $4.2bn in fines or settlements. That includes the $2.6bn the Swiss bank agreed to pay US authorities after pleading guilty to conspiring to aid tax evasion in 2014; the $536m it was fined by the US five years before for deliberately circumventing US sanctions against countries including Iran and Sudan in 2009, and other payouts to Germany and Italy over tax evasion allegations.
Jeff Neiman, a Florida-based attorney who represents a number of Credit Suisse whistleblowers, believes the sheer number of scandals involving the bank indicates a deeper problem. “The bank likes to say it’s just rogue bankers. But how many rogue bankers do you need to have before you start having a rogue bank?” he said. Neiman alleges there has been a culture at the bank “which encourages its bankers probably from the top down to hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, bury their heads in the sand on a good day, and on many days, actively assist folks to skirt whatever the law may be in order to best protect assets under management….”
The debate over whether Switzerland’s banking industry has undergone sufficient reforms is likely to be renewed in light of the leak.
“Nearly 50 media organisations have spent months poring over the data,” reports the BBC: But the Swiss bank rejected the allegations in a statement on Sunday, saying it strongly rejected the allegations and insinuations about the bank’s alleged business practices or lack of due diligence carried out. “The matters presented are predominantly historical, in some cases dating back as far as the 1940s, and the accounts of these matters are based on partial, inaccurate, or selective information taken out of context”, it said…. “Approximately 90% of the reviewed accounts are today closed or were in the process of closure prior to receipt of the press inquiries, of which over 60% were closed before 2015,” it said, although it would not comment on specific clients mentioned….
In a statement published by German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, the anonymous source explained their motivation for leaking the records more than a year ago. “I believe that Swiss banking secrecy laws are immoral. The pretext of protecting financial privacy is merely a fig leaf covering the shameful role of Swiss banks as collaborators of tax evaders,” they wrote….
It follows other scandals for the Swiss bank, including the departure of two of its top executives after allegedly breaking Covid regulations and spying on former staff.
How I Make New Laws For America..And YOU Can Too!
My past public-interest lawsuits and Congressional efforts have set numerous historic federal court legal precedents (which are, essentially, new laws), to help citizens shut down political corruption. My peers, and I, also created new policy via federal “acts”, from THE JOBS ACT – CROWDFUNDING ALLOWANCE, to THE STOCK ACT to improve the lives of average citizens.
You can do it too, from the comfort of your living room.
Here is how:
You are taught, in school, that laws are made like this:
“The U.S. Congress makes federal laws for the nation. Congress has two legislative bodies or branches: the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. Here are eight steps in making a law:
1. Laws begin as an idea of a Senator or Representative. He/she produces a rough draft of the plan and sponsors it, which makes it a bill.
2. The bill then goes to whichever legislative branch (Senate or House) the Senator or Representative belongs for study.
3. If released by the committee, the bill is put on a calendar to be voted on, debated or amended.
4. If the bill passes by a simple majority (218 of 435), the bill moves to the Senate.
5. In the Senate, the bill is assigned to another committee and, if released, debated and voted on. Again, a simple majority (51 of 100) passes the bill.
6. A conference committee made of House and Senate members works out any differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The resulting bill returns to the House and Senate for final approval.
7. The Government Printing Office prints the revised bill in a process called enrolling. The bill then goes to the President.
8. The President has ten days to sign or veto the enrolled bill.”
… but that is a very superficial ‘fake news” kind of description that ignores the bribes, lobbyists, special operatives, Fusion GPS and Black Cube opposition research cyber attackers and other juicy bits that actually run the process.
Have you ever wondered how Congress could have FIVE YEARS of a huge number of hearings about Facebook’s, Google’s, Tesla’s and Alphabet’s crimes against society, tax evasions, money-laundering and other evils… and YET..NEVER BE ABLE TO ENACT ANY REGULATIONS ON THOSE COMPANIES!!??
It is because half of Congress owns, and gets paid by Facebook’s, Google’s, Tesla’s and Alphabet’s crimes against society… See how that works?
Parents, if you are still sickened by the horrific things that Big Tech does to your kids, Thank your Senators that own those companies and do their bidding like obedient little bitches!
Here are some tips that I use:
How a citizen can make a law? Laws begin as ideas. These ideas may come from a Representative—or from a citizen like you. Citizens who have ideas for laws can contact their Representatives to discuss their ideas. If the Representatives agree, they research the ideas and write them into bills.
Laws begin as ideas. These ideas may come from a Representative—or from a citizen like you. Citizens who have ideas for laws can contact their Representatives to discuss their ideas. If the Representatives agree, they research the ideas and write them into bills. What are the 3 main steps for a bill to become a law?
An idea to change, amend, or create a new law is presented by a concerned citizen or group to a Representative. The Representative decides to sponsor the bill and introduce it to the House of Representatives, and requests that the attorneys in the Legislative Counsel’s office draft the bill in the proper legal language.
Who can make changes to a law? How can citizens participate in the political process at the local level? How can a lobby change a law? How can laws be changed in the United States? What causes law to change? How can citizens propose new laws? How do you pass a law? How can laws be changed in India? How are laws created at the state and local …
How Federal Laws Are Made. Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government and makes laws for the nation. Congress has two legislative bodies or chambers: the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. Anyone elected to either body can propose a new law. A bill is a proposal for a new law. Open All +.
here are some tips for all of us citizens to support law enforcement along with following the laws ourselves If you are driving down the road, please look in your rear-view mirror at least every 30 seconds or so.
How to Propose a Law – Legal Beagle
Citizens can propose a bill to their local, state and federal representatives, and then get involved to help it become law. In order to pitch a law to your government representatives, you need to be informed about current law and ensure that it does not conflict with any other laws. Know Your Governments
united states – How can a citizen change an existing law …
You can also arrange meetings with other members of Congress, especially if you think your local Congressperson will be unsympathetic to your views. It is unlikely that a change that you alone want to make will ever become law. However laws do change, and if you and like-minded people make your point, then can change in the way you want.
How Do Laws Affect Society? – Reference.com
The World Justice Project states that the rule of law protects rights, limits corruption, and handles civil and criminal infractions. In theory, the laws created within a society reflect the needs and values of that society and will work for the best interests of the citizens, but laws can also strongly influence the society that created them.
How can a citizen make a law Can a citizen propose a law? Citizens can propose a bill to their local, state and federal representatives, and then get involved to help it become law. In order to pitch a law to your government representatives, you need to be informed about current law and ensure that it does not conflict with any other laws.
Can citizens pass laws? Laws begin as ideas. These ideas may come from a Representative—or from a citizen like you. Citizens who have ideas for laws can contact their Representatives to discuss their ideas. If the Representatives agree, they research the ideas and write them into bills. What are the 3 main steps for a bill to become a law?
How a citizen can make a law? Laws begin as ideas. These ideas may come from a Representative—or from a citizenlike you. Citizens who have ideas for laws can contact their Representatives to discuss their ideas. If the Representatives agree, they research the ideas and write them into bills. What are the 4 steps to making a law?
An idea to change, amend, or create a new law is presented by a concerned citizen or group to a Representative. The Representative decides to sponsor the bill and introduce it to the House of Representatives, and requests that the attorneys in the Legislative Counsel’s office draft the bill in the proper legal language.
Citizens can propose a bill to their local, state and federal representatives, and then get involved to help it become law. In order to pitch a law to your government representatives, you need to be informed about current law and ensure that it does not conflict with any other laws. Know Your Governments
What is the law and how is it changed?: What are laws? How are laws made? Criminal vs Civil law; Can citizenschange laws? Should the age of criminal responsibility be changed? How is the criminal justice system applied to young people? Deliberative debate: should we review the age of criminal responsibility?
Citizen’s arrest: What is it and is it legal? – CNN
For instance, Moore says, if a citizen stops a purse snatcher in the act and the snatcher falls down and breaks their arm, under citizen’s arrest laws, the citizenwho stopped them can’t be held …
united states – How can a citizen change an existing law …
2 its known that in order to make or change a law, a bill is needed which is introduced to congress and the senate etc…. The question: If a citizen is directly affected by a current “unfair” law and wishes to change it, who exactly can the personal bill be submitted to?
You can use the same kind of tactics outsiders use to run for President to make a big new law
- Get millions of people to help you make the new law
- This is the “Go Big” concept
- You don’t need to do all this. You can make a new law with your notebook computer writing letters and social media posts for 3 weeks straight for about $200 bucks
- Again, if you start down the GO BIG path, below, make sure you have the stamina to survive it
In the United States, the President is the most powerful and prominent public official. He or she is elected every 4 years and runs the day to day operations of the government. Any eligible citizen can run for the office, though winning the position requires a lot of time, money, and dedication you can use other people’s time, money and dedication.
It costs $450 million dollars to run for President if you are an arrogant, fake-socializing, schmoozer that pays retail for everything and contracts every service because you don’t know how things actually work. For example, millions of people pay $120.00+ per month for Comcast cable TV while knowledgeable people pay $10.00 per month for their TV and get more than Comcast provides. You can run for President, and win, if you are smart, technically savvy and do everything yourself with a small, tight, clever team that knows how to work mass media networks. You can also make a new national law for much less (like $1000.00 if you are VERY clever).
You have to have smart ideas, that can really work and you need to be able to think on your feet. Most past Presidents were dyslexic/autistic. That is why they could instantly go on-and-on about any subject. Robin Williams had this kind of ‘instant output’ mind. Gavin Newsom, Donald Trump, JFK and many other famous politicians had autistic ramble brains. The media loved that they could fill airtime with hot air that sounded good.
To get other people’s money, you will have to promise them things that Congress, The U.S. Treasury and common-sense will never actually allow you to do. You lie, shake hands with some tech billionaires and rich widows and you will have at least $30 million in no time.
Before you decide to run, you need to meet with, at least, 300+ citizens that you do not know, in little town halls, and have them ask you questions about your platform and see if they can shoot you down. 95% of potential candidates can’t make it through this phase, without having a nervous break-down, so challenge yourself with this effort before you do anything else. Save yourself the time, money and sanity on this phase above, and before, all else.
Billionaires are often assholes with too much money and heads so big that they think “They should be President”. They often run for President and lose because they are tone-deaf to the real world.
Generally, candidates spend 2/3rds of their time and money fighting defamation and character assassination attacks from their opponents and special interest groups and the other third of their money attacking those two group. A weak mind will crumble under such an onslaught.
Paying Your Dues
Make sure you are at least 35 years old and a natural born United States citizen. You must also have lived 14 years in America to run for President. (If you are not 35 yet, you can start planning early!)
There is no way around this. You have to be a tried-and-true American. And it helps if you’re an American with a squeaky clean criminal record, too.
Get the look. Alright, we can discuss the pitfalls of America’s materialism and vanity later, but the long and short of it all is that generally, the better-looking (and taller) candidate wins. So go primp yourself — you certainly have a decent excuse to do so.
You’ll need a nice suit for your more important conventions and meetings. Then, when you’re meeting with the townsfolk, men you’ll need to bust out that pair of pressed khakis and long-sleeved, white, button-down shirt. Bring your best business casual wear. You will be rolling up your sleeves and digging into your best speeches on how you can help America!
Work on that fake smile. It needs to say, “You! Yes, you. I’m doing all of this for YOU because I CARE.” Does your smile say that? When your smile says it, does your body agree?
Nail down the body language. From this point on, you’re a politician. Whether you believe what you’re saying or not, you have to deliver it in a convincing and reasonable manner. You can have the words on a piece of paper to cover what comes out of your mouth, but will your body just be one giant tell?
Get yourself into uncomfortable situations. After all, you’re gonna be getting some heat — you need to know how to handle the kitchen. The last thing you want is to be a second-rate version of James Clapper, rubbing your forehead nervously while you tell the world the NSA doesn’t follow around civilians. That’ll lose you credit that took you years to establish.
Think in congruency. You know that one politician (one here meaning “dozens”) that says something like, “I’m sincerely receptive to a dialogue with the young people,” all the while shaking his finger or his fist at the audience? Neither are things you shouldn’t do alone — they’re just obvious tells when combined. So get in the mirror and monitor not just your face, but your entire body.
Work on that resume. Prior to Donald Trump, every major party nominee since 1932 was either a current or former Vice President, Senator, Governor, or five-star general. If you’re flipping burgers, you may want to start seeking out that managerial position now.
Your other option is to attract significant favorable notice from the news media, party officials, prospective campaign strategists, and donors. How you do it is up to you. But you may want to start with this next point:
Make some friends. Lots and lots and lots and lots of friends. There is strength in numbers for sure, but you’re also looking to meet people who can flit you across the country for all your campaign needs.
Don’t be disheartened if you can’t get the attention of a lot of people right away. These things take time. Plenty of other folks have gotten their names on the ballot with only a handful of backers. Bradford Lyttle ran in 2008 and received 111 votes. Surely you know 111 people. Jonathan E. Allen ran to the tune of 482 votes. The more the merrier, definitely — but less won’t keep you from running. P.S. Do NOT make a TikTok publicly humiliating a group of freshmen for public display of affection.
Getting Around the Red Tape
Register to be an official candidate. If you spend or raise over $5,000 dollars for your cause, you are then automatically considered a candidate by the FEC (Federal Elections Commission). Go to their website and start the process rolling.
You’ll have to keep the FEC updated with financial reports on income, personal spending, and debt settlements for the entirety of your campaign. If you can, hire someone now to do this for you. You’ll be too busy wining and dining, schmoozing and boozing, and meeting and greeting to balance receipts.
Get your name on the ballot in all 50 states. This may be difficult and expensive, but hey! This is probably the only time you’ll run for president, so it’s best to go big or go home. Think of it as an investment in your candidacy, and for America.
Each state is different. You must contact each state’s Secretary of State for the forms needed to be listed. Getting signatures and support across the state is the goal. As always, there’s a website to help you get started with that, too.
Set up a presidential exploratory committee. This is (usually) a nonprofit organization to find out if your campaign will actually work. Choose a campaign manager to delegate the necessary duties. Make a website explaining what you plan to do, your perspectives, and why you’re running. Make it very convincing and be honest. Get your name into opinion polls. All in all, start spreading the word.
Assemble a team of ground workers. They’ll go knocking door-to-door, spreading the good news of your name and getting a feel for the area. Do this in as many metropolitan areas as possible to feel out the competition and the areas you may need to concentrate on for your campaign.
Hitting the Ground Running
Set up your merch stand. Now that you’re an official candidate and your committee has said, “Yes, believe it or not, we can do this,” it’s time to spread the word. And it’s also time to make even more connections at your local print design shop (if you haven’t already) and sucker your friends and family into touting around your logo for the next 2 years.
Design t-shirts, car magnets, sandwich boards, yard signs, and bumper stickers all with your name and/or catchphrase. Ask local establishments if you can put flyers in their windows (or if they can name a product after you (at least temporarily)). Send these out to your friends on the opposite coast and have them distribute them there.
Go virtual! Start a YouTube channel and get a website or blog. Get an account for your campaign on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. How else will you reach the newest generation of voters?
Have a clear perspective on all current issues. When people start seeing your name out there, they’re going to ask, “Who is this guy/woman? What does he/she stand for? Is he/she serious?” Yes, you are serious and you have the sensibilities to prove it.
If you like something or think it needs to be changed (for example: humanitarian aid to foreign countries), have it all planned out. What party are you aligned with? Do you support their generic stance on all issues? Where do you fall on the liberal/conservative scale?
Make these beliefs clear on your blog, your social networking accounts, and to your friends and family. The more people who can explain you for you, the better.
Create a campaign platform. What are your goals? Lower taxes? Reducing poverty? Creating jobs? Higher standards of education? Think about all the biggies when it comes to previous elections — what changes do you want to promise?
It’s a good idea if you actually believe what you’re putting out there. It’ll be much easier to remain consistent and not get caught switching sides or dilly-dallying on an issue. If you believe something the public doesn’t want to hear, quite frankly, good luck.
Getting In It to Win It
Start the campaign. Using your campaign media staff, come up with a way to get your name out there. Some ways to do this are billboards, newspaper ads, TV ads, online ads, etc. Give speeches and set up fundraisers. Be creative.
You may want to start with the early caucus states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. These states can give you an early lead that is hard to catch up in the long run. They’ll also give you a boost in being considered for the party nomination.
Be ready to travel. If it wasn’t already clear, you’ll need to quit your job. You’ll be racking up those miles daily, so load up on Dramamine, deodorant, and sign up for a Premier Member card at your favorite chain of hotels.
Campaigning requires vast amounts of money. Come up with an easy way to accept donations and to stay in touch with your initial backers. They’re your bread and butter for a long time coming.
Hone your debating skills. Luckily, you’ve probably been public speaking for months, so the basics shouldn’t be foreign to you. But when you get in front of those bright lights and that timer, the gloves come off. Start practicing ASAP — you’ll be glad you did.
Know what you believe and are advocating. What’s more, know what everyone else believes. Not only do you have to have you down, but you have to have your opponents and the world down too. Study precedents, current events, and all your competitors so you know what to expect when you get in the inquisition arena. If you come unprepared, the whole country will be watching your darting eyes and unsteady hands. Do the research on debating techniques while you’re at it. You need to be forceful but not a stick-in-the-mud, caring but not a pushover, and charismatic to boot.
Prepare yourself for anything. You’ve spent a lot of hard-earned time and money campaigning and now you’re getting down to the nitty gritty. If you’re vying for a spot with the Republican or Democratic party, you have your work cut out for you. Failure may be inevitable. Consider creating a new party (very hard) or running as an independent.
Surround yourself with a sturdy support system before you get in too deep. They’ll be able to catch you when you fall. Running for President of the United States is an incredibly stressful endeavor and should not be taken lightly if for no other reason than your health.
Generally, Americans likes a candidate they can relate to — at least a little. Keeping your feet on the ground and a good head on your shoulders will benefit you, come failure or victory.
You can modify these tactics, accordingly, for the “just make a law” concept vs. the “Sit in the Oval Office” concept.
Does that sound like a big project?
Scott, and his team, have filed a set of the ‘world’s biggest’ citizen lawsuits to end political corruption, bribery, insider trading and hit-jobs in America! (SEE LINK TO ONE OF THE LAWSUIT DRAFTS AT THIS LINK)
‘Go BIG or Go Home‘ is what we always say…AND we are over 65% of the way there.
First, a semantics lesson: The “Feds” are the people in suits that sit in the buildings in Washington, DC and push papers from one building to the other. The “U.S. Government” is you and me, the regular citizens.
We tracked over TWO HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS of crime, BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS, in the 2008 and 2021 “STIMULUS” bills! These public officials took that money right out of your (AND MY) pockets!
We sued the Feds for corruption, got some famous politicians fired, made some new laws, blocked crooked politicians from running one kind of quid pro quo scam and won our remand.
Then we sued the Feds again, for more corruption, after federal investigators provided us with newer evidence. Part of that evidence proved that “… White House executives, U.S. Senators, and Government agency executives colluded with Silicon Valley oligarchs, operating, together, as an “Enterprise”, to coordinate insider stock market ‘Stimulus Scams’ that involved funding blockades, blacklists, contracted tabloid media assassinations and RICO Racketeering law violations, Anti-trust law violations, IP law violations, lobbying law violations and various civil and criminal acts that harmed domestic citizens and Democracy. This case matter is well known to Courts, media, federal law enforcement and in nearly a million news articles… A simple cross-comparison of the ICIJ, FINCEN, Interpol, SEC, GAO forensic accounting and XKEYSCORE, et al, databases proves the illicit financial interactions between Defendants. Such a check can be technically accomplished within 60 minutes, or less, according to federal IT experts….” ” …Almost every single investor of Elon Musk is also the primary financier and beneficiary of the politicians, and their Congressional shenanigans, that used taxpayer money and resources to give Musk’s companies all that free money. For example, Dianne Feinstein’s family run the HR service (Herb Newman), the construction company, the railroads, the building leases (CBRE), the China funds (Mart Bailey, Steve Westly, Steve Spinner, et al) and swap staff members for Tesla and Solyndra. Feinstein and Pelosi blocked funding for all Tesla competitors for the same State and Federal cash and tax waivers and for the NUMMI factory. The California politicians, personally, made billions off insider trading, pump-and-dumps and payola. Felonies? You Bet!…”
They assigned a Judge who was best friends with the criminal Defendants. We said “NOPE”! (SEE THE COURT FILING AT THIS LINK)
See TV news broadcasts and documentaries about the case and the Defendants online and here (LINK).
Scott is an active proponent of the Expansion, FBI enforcement and Application of the federal STOCK ACT, which most of the opposition are in violation of. Want to help? Contact every public official you can and demand that they support “The expansion of, FBI enforcement of and direct criminal application of THE FEDERAL STOCK ACT. ” Demand that they close the loop-holes and ramp up the arrests! Post these demands on every social media outlet you can find!
Two years ago, everyone said it was “IMPOSSIBLE” to stop politicians and Big Tech from exchanging bribes via the stock market, Today in 2022, we have a majority movement, In Congress, to ban stock market bribes:
Our politicians DO NOT get to keep getting these DARK MONEY BRIBES from corrupt Google, Tesla, SpaceX, Facebook and YouTube in order to avoid safety regulations, avoid RICO prosecution, avoid Anti-trust prosecution and run anti-competitive scams with their Senate offices and insider White House crony operatives! It is a FELONY! When they hired attackers to run media assassinations on us, we bankrupted them and put INTERPOL, THE IRS and THE FTC on their asses!
Read THIS FEDERAL REPORT to see how Fed Insiders from California completely and totally mismanaged the national COVID response in a criminally negligent manner per the federal GAO!
Then we wrote a HOW TO book so that you, or any citizen, can do it too, for free, from your living room couch.
Here is one of our key points –
Washington, D.C. is a town that runs on inside information – but should our elected officials be able to use that information to pad their own pockets via dark money, insider trading, covert stock market scams?
As Steve Kroft, our friend Bob Simon’s peer at 60 Minutes, reports, members of Congress and their aides have regular access to powerful political intelligence, and many have made well-timed stock market trades in the very industries they regulate. For now, the practice is perfectly legal, but some say it’s time for the law to change.
Even if a Judge or Senator denies that they could be influenced by personal favorites or by stocks that all of their friends own, Psychology proves that assertion to be virtually impossible to be believed. Judges, or public officials would not deny that they subconsciously assert influence in a school to make sure their child has the best treatment and that kids that bully their child get the most punishment. Why should anyone think a Judge or Senator would not consciously, or subconsciously, assert influence over something that buys them mansions, trips to the Virgin Islands and sexy parties?
Judges and Senators in this case are either financed by, friends, with, sleeping with, dating the staff of, holding stock market assets in, promised a revolving door job or government service contracts from, partying with, personal friends with, photographed at private events with, exchanging emails with, business associates of or directed by; our business adversaries, or the Senators and politicians that those business adversaries pay campaign finances to, or supply political digital search manipulation services to. Criminal U.S. Senators coordinated and profited in these schemes. Their own family members, who plaintiff, and his peers know personally, have now supplied evidence against them.
In one published report where Steve Kroft was the correspondent, with Ira Rosen and Gabrielle Schonder as producers, it was shown that, for national elections, public officials, including congressmen and senators are expending much of their time and their energy raising the millions of dollars in campaign funds they’ll need just to hold onto a job that pays $174,000 a year.
Few of them are doing it for the salary and all of them will say they are doing it to serve the public. But there are other benefits: Power, prestige, and the opportunity to become a Washington insider with access to information and connections that no one else has, in an environment of privilege where rules that govern the rest of the country, don’t always apply to them.
Most former congressmen and senators manage to leave Washington – if they ever leave Washington – with more money in their pockets than they had when they arrived, and as you are about to see, the biggest challenge is often avoiding temptation. Judges lives are set according to which Senators, and other public officials are in office, Judges have even more incentive to rig political decisions because most of them own mansions they can’t pay for with the speaker fees and stock perks their office provides.
Renown anti-corruption investigative reporter: Peter Schweizer, was asked to comment:
Peter Schweizer: “This is a venture opportunity. This is an opportunity to leverage your position in public service and use that position to enrich yourself, your friends, and your family.”
Peter Schweizer is a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University. A year ago he began working on a book about soft corruption in Washington with a team of eight student researchers, who reviewed financial disclosure records. It became a jumping off point for our own story, and we have independently verified the material we’ve used.
Schweizer says he wanted to know why some congressmen and senators managed to accumulate significant wealth beyond their salaries, and proved particularly adept at buying and selling stocks.
Schweizer: “There are all sorts of forms of ‘honest’ grafts that congressmen engage in that allow them to become very, very wealthy. So it’s not illegal, but I think it’s highly unethical, I think it’s highly offensive, and wrong.”
Steve Kroft: “What do you mean honest graft?”
Schweizer: “For example insider trading on the stock market. If you are a member of Congress, those laws are deemed not to apply.”
Kroft: “So congressman get a pass on insider trading?”
Schweizer: “They do. The fact is, if you sit on a healthcare committee and you know that Medicare, for example, is– is considering not reimbursing for a certain drug that’s market moving information. And if you can trade stock on– off of that information and do so legally, that’s a great profit making opportunity. And that sort of behavior goes on.”
Kroft: “Why does Congress get a pass on this?”
Schweizer: “It’s really the way the rules have been defined. And the people who make the rules are the political class in Washington. And they’ve conveniently written them in such a way that they don’t apply to themselves.”
The buying and selling of stock by corporate insiders who have access to non-public information that could affect the stock price can be a criminal offense, just ask hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam who recently got 11 years in prison for doing it. But, congressional lawmakers have no corporate responsibilities and have long been considered exempt from insider trading laws, even though they have daily access to non-public information and plenty of opportunities to trade on it.
Schweizer: “We know that during the health care debate people were trading health care stocks. We know that during the financial crisis of 2008 they were getting out of the market before the rest of America really knew what was going on.”
In mid September 2008 with the Dow Jones Industrial average still above ten thousand, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke were holding closed door briefings with congressional leaders, and privately warning them that a global financial meltdown could occur within a few days. One of those attending was Alabama Representative Spencer Bachus, then the ranking Republican member on the House Financial Services Committee and now its chairman.
Schweizer: “These meetings were so sensitive– that they would actually confiscate cell phones and Blackberries going into those meetings. What we know is that those meetings were held one day and literally the next day Congressman Bachus would engage in buying stock options based on apocalyptic briefings he had the day before from the Fed chairman and treasury secretary. I mean, talk about a stock tip.”
While Congressman Bachus was publicly trying to keep the economy from cratering, he was privately betting that it would, buying option funds that would go up in value if the market went down. He would make a variety of trades and profited at a time when most Americans were losing their shirts.
Congressman Bachus declined to talk to us, so we went to his office and ran into his Press Secretary Tim Johnson.
Kroft: “Look we’re not alleging that Congressman Bachus has violated any laws. All…the only thing we’re interested in talking to him is about his trades. “
Tim Johnson: “Ok…Ok that’s a fair enough request.”
What we got was a statement from Congressman Bachus’ office that he never trades on non-public information, or financial services stock. However, his financial disclosure forms seem to indicate otherwise. Bachus made money trading General Electric stock during the crisis, and a third of GE’s business is in financial services.
During the healthcare debate of 2009, members of Congress were trading health care stocks, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, who led the opposition against the so-called public option, government funded insurance that would compete with private companies. Just days before the provision was finally killed off, Boehner bought health insurance stocks, all of which went up. Now speaker of the House, Congressman Boehner also declined to be interviewed, so we tracked him down at his weekly press conference.
Kroft: “You made a number of trades going back to the health care debate. You bought some insurance stock. Did you make those trades based on non-public information? “
John Boehner: “I have not made any decisions on day-to-day trading activities in my account. And haven’t for years. I don’t– I do not do it, haven’t done it and wouldn’t do it.”
Later Boehner’s spokesman told us that the health care trades were made by the speaker’s financial adviser, who he only consults with about once a year.
Peter Schweizer: “We need to find out whether they’re part of a blind trust or not.”
It turns out you CAN pay bribes, though, through Mutual Funds AND Blind Trusts.
Peter Schweizer thinks the timing is suspicious, and believes congressional leaders should have their stock funds in blind trusts.
Schweizer: “Whether it’s uh– $15,000 or $150,000, the principle in my mind is that it’s simply wrong and it shouldn’t take place.”
But there is a long history of self-dealing in Washington. And it doesn’t always involve stock trades.
Congressmen and senators also seem to have a special knack for land and real estate deals. When Illinois Congressman Dennis Hastert became speaker of the House in 1999, he was worth a few hundred thousand dollars. He left the job eight years later a multi-millionaire.
Jan Strasma: “The road that Hastert wants to build will go through these farm fields right here.”
In 2005, Speaker Hastert got a $207 million federal earmark to build the Prairie Parkway through these cornfields near his home. What Jan Strasma and his neighbors didn’t know was that Hastert had also bought some land adjacent to where the highway is supposed to go.
Strasma: “…And five months after this earmark went through he sold that land and made a bundle of money.”
Kroft: “How much?”
Strasma: “Two million dollars.”
Kroft: “What do you think of it?”
Strasma: “It stinks.”
We stopped by the former speaker’s farm, to ask him about the land deal, but he was off in Washington where he now works as a lobbyist. His office told us that property values in the area began to appreciate even before the earmark and that the Hastert land was several miles from the nearest exit.
But the same good fortune befell former New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg, who helped steer nearly $70 million dollars in government funds towards redeveloping this defunct Air Force base, which he and his brother both had a commercial interest in. Gregg has said that he violated no congressional rules.
It’s but one more example of good things happening to powerful members of Congress. Another is the access to initial public stock offerings, the opportunity to buy a new stock at insider prices just as it goes on the market. They can be incredibly lucrative and hard to get.
Schweizer: “If you were a senator, Steve, and I gave you $10,000 cash, one or both of us is probably gonna go to jail. But if I’m a corporate executive and you’re a senator, and I give you IPO shares in stock and over the course of one day that stock nets you $100,000, that’s completely legal.”
Plaintiff had a social relationship with the staff of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She and her husband have participated in at least eight IPOs. One of those came in 2008, from Visa, just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies, began making its way through the House. Undisturbed by a potential conflict of interest the Pelosis purchased 5,000 shares of Visa at the initial price of $44 dollars. Two days later it was trading at $64. The credit card legislation never made it to the floor of the House.
Congresswoman Pelosi also declined our request for an interview, but agreed to call on us if we attended a news conference.
Kroft: “Madam Leader, I wanted to ask you why you and your husband back in March of 2008 accepted and participated in a very large IPO deal from Visa at a time there was major legislation affecting the credit card companies making its way through the– through the House.”
Nancy Pelosi: “But–”
Kroft: “And did you consider that to be a conflict of interest?”
Pelosi: “The– y—uh–, errr– I– I don’t know what your point is of your question. Is there some point that you want to make with that?”
Kroft: “Well, err…uhm…I– I– I guess what I’m asking is do you think it’s all right for a speaker to accept a very preferential, favorable stock deal?”
Pelosi: “Well, we didn’t”, she lied
Kroft: “You participated in the IPO. And at the time you were speaker of the House. You don’t think it was a conflict of interest or had the appearance–”
Pelosi: “No, it was not–”
Kroft: “–of a conflict of interest?”
Pelosi: “–it doesn’t– it only has appearance if you decide that you’re going to have– elaborate on a false premise. But it– it– it’s not true and that’s that.”
Kroft: “I don’t understand what part’s not true.”
Pelosi: “Yes sir. That– that I would act upon an investment.”
Congresswoman Pelosi pointed out that the tough credit card legislation eventually passed, but it was two years later and was initiated in the Senate.
Many believe that, even though they are older than the hills, Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein never retire because they are they key conduits to the West Coast controlled Big Tech stock market payola bribes. The “Enterprise” won’t allow them to retire because it would break the whole Big Tech stock market bribery cycle. While it is unlikely that they are “drinking baby blood from Chinese labor camp work prison babies to stay alive so long”, as activists have claimed, these two are not allowed to retire by the “Enterprise” that profits from the Big Tech stock market bribes.
Pelosi: “I will hold my record in terms of fighting the credit card companies as speaker of the House or as a member of Congress up against anyone.”
Corporate executives, members of the executive branch and all federal judges are subject to strict conflict of interest rules. But not the people who write the laws.
Pelosi and Feinstein put laws in the operation of America, and Democracy, that specifically exclude THEM from the law…only them! Everyone knows that it is bad to rape sheep on the front steps of City Hall. Imagine how you would feel if you found out that fine print had been quietly added to The Constitution that said “No citizen may rape sheep in public….Except Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein!”. That is essentially what happened with the law around public officials and stock market payola! When Google, Elon Musk and Facebook are paying Senators off via the stock market, justice has fallen off a cliff!
Schweizer: “If you are a member of Congress and you sit on the defense committee, you are free to trade defense stock as much as you want to if you’re on the Senate banking committee you can trade bank stock as much as you want and that regularly goes on– in– in all these committees.”
Brian Baird: “There should only be one thing in your mind when you’re drafting legislation, ‘Is this good for the United States of America?’ That’s it. If you’re starting to say to yourself ‘how’s this going to affect my investments,’ you’ve got– you’ve got a mixed agenda and a mixed purpose for being there.”
Brian Baird is a former congressman from Washington state who served six terms in the house before retiring last year. He spent half of those 12 years trying to get his colleagues to prohibit insider trading in Congress and establish some rules governing conflicts of interest.
Baird: “One line in a bill in Congress can be worth millions and millions of dollars. There was one night, we had a late, late night caucus and you could kind of tell how a vote was going to go the next day. I literally walked home and I thought, ‘Man, if you– if you went online and made– some significant trades, you could make a lot of money on this.’ You– you could just see it. You could see the potential here.”
So in 2004, Baird and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter introduced the Stock Act which would make it illegal for members of Congress to trade stocks on non-public information and require them to report their stock trades every 90 days instead of once a year.
Kroft: “How far did you get with this?”
Baird: “We didn’t get anywhere. Just flat died. Went nowhere.”
Kroft: “How many cosponsors did you get?”
Baird: “I think we got six.”
Kroft: “Six doesn’t sound like a very big amount.”
Baird: “It’s not, Steve. You– you could have– ‘National Cherry Pie Week’ and get 100 cosponsors.”
When Baird finally managed to get a congressional hearing on the Stock Act, almost no one showed up. It’s reintroduced every session, but is buried so deep in the Capitol we had trouble finding congressmen who had even heard of it.
Kroft: “Have you ever heard of the Stock Act?”
Steve Palazzo: “The what?”
Kroft: “The Stock Act. Do you know anything about it?”
Kroft: “Congressman. Congressman. Congressman.”
Congressman Quayle: “I haven’t heard about that one yet.”
Kroft: “Have you ever heard of something called the Stock Act?”
Congressman Watt: “No.”
Male voice: “I’ve heard about, but not. I can’t say it’s an issue I’ve spent a lot of time on.”
Male voice: “I would have no problem with that.”
Male voice: “But then again I am a big fan of, you know, instant disclosure on almost everything.”
Kroft: “They’re looking for co-sponsors.”
Male voice: “And yet, I’ve never heard of it.”
Baird: “When you have a bill like this that makes so much sense and you can’t get the co-sponsorships, you can’t get the leadership to move it, it gets tremendously frustrating. Set aside that it’s the right thing to do, it’s good politics. People want their Congress to function well. It still baffles me.”
But what baffles Baird even more is that the situation has gotten worse. In the past few years a whole new totally unregulated, $100 million dollar industry has grown up in Washington called political intelligence. It employs former congressmen and former staffers to scour the halls of the Capitol gathering valuable non-public information then selling it to hedge funds and traders on Wall Street who can trade on it.
Baird: “Now if you’re a political intel guy. And you get that information. Long before it’s public. Long before somebody wakes up the next morning and reads or watches the television or whatever, you’ve got it. And you can make real– real-time trades before anybody else.”
Baird says “its taken what would be a criminal enterprise anyplace else in the country and turned it into a profitable business model.”
Baird: “The town is all about people saying– what do you know that I don’t know. This is the currency of Washington, D.C. And it’s that kind of informational currency that translates into real currency. Maybe it’s over drinks maybe somebody picks up a phone. And says you know just to let you know it’s in the bill. Trades happen. Can’t trace ’em. If you can trace ’em, it’s not illegal. It’s a pretty great system. You feel like an idiot to not take advantage of it.” Public figures trading and manipulating the stock market are an “Enterprise” operating a Racketeering scam at the expense of citizens like Plaintiff.
The fact remains: Judges and public officials get paid political bribes, in the modern world, not with manila envelopes under a table at a bar but with COVERT DARK MONEY STOCK MARKET ASSETS!
Recently the Supreme Court’s Roberts said “Judges Must be Ethical” after Over 100 U.S. Judges Were Caught Violating Ethics Rules ( https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-courts-roberts-says-judges-must-be-ethical-after-over-100-caught-violating-rule_4188383.html )
The chief justice of the Supreme Court in his year-end report called on federal judges to work hard to adhere to ethics rules after over 100 were caught violating a rule that requires judges recuse in any matter in which they have a personal financial interest. Chief Justice John Roberts cited (pdf) a Wall Street Journal investigation that uncovered violations by 131 federal judges across 685 cases between 2010 and 2018.
The George W. Bush nominee portrayed the number of violations as small, noting that they represented less than three-hundredths of one percent of the 2.5 million civil cases filed in the district courts in years studied. “Let me be crystal clear: the Judiciary takes this matter seriously. We expect judges to adhere to the highest standards, and those judges violated an ethics rule. But I do want to put these lapses in context,” he said. The wording drew a response by James Grimaldi, one of the Journal investigators, who said his team investigated tens of thousands of cases, not 2.5 million.
“The Journal’s initial tally was an undercount; it was impossible because of the peculiarities of the judiciary’s financial-disclosure process and incomplete information available on case litigants,” Grimaldi wrote on Twitter, adding that Roberts’ comment “is technically accurate, the suggestion that we could review millions of cases is misleading.” The Journal said Friday that subsequent reporting raised the rally to at least 950 violations.
Roberts also pointed out that most of the judges involved only had one or two identified violations, painting those instances as likely “unintentional oversights” while singling out judges who had more violations or said they didn’t know of the ethics rule. Each judge is schooled on ethical duties, Roberts noted. “This context is not excuse. We are duty-bound to strive for 100% compliance because public trust is essential, not incidental, to our function. Individually, judges must be scrupulously attentive to both the letter and spirit of our rules, as most are. Collectively, our ethics training programs need to be more rigorous. That means more classtime, webinars, and consultations. But it also requires greater attention to promoting a culture of compliance, even when busy dockets keep judicial calendars full,” he added.
Roberts proposed utilizing technology to check whether stocks held by judges and litigants would raise questions, floating the possibility of obtaining fresh funding from Congress for the purpose.
He also said that top federal legal experts are already working on addressing the problems, including enhancing the ethics training and refresher courses.
Roberts pens a year-end report annually. Last year, he praised how federal courts performed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As an example: Many U.S. Judges Can Be Taken Out Of Office By Exposing Their Sex Crimes!
A huge number of Judges have been charged with sex crimes because “Judges think they are untouchable, but they are not!!”
– NY Judge Bernstein Under Fire as All DNC Judges Re-Examine Their Pasts.
– US judge steps down after accusations of sexual misconduct
A prominent U.S. appeals court judge announced his retirement Monday days after women alleged he subjected them to inappropriate sexual conduct or comments.
Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a statement that a battle over the accusations would not be good for the judiciary. He said he’ll step down, effective immediately.
The Washington Post reported last week that at least 15 women made allegations against Kozinski that go back decades. The allegations include inappropriate touching and lewd comments.
Kozinski said while speaking in a “candid way” with male and female law clerks, “I may not have been mindful enough of the special challenges and pressures that women face in the workplace,” the statement said. “It grieves me to learn that I caused any of my clerks to feel uncomfortable; this was never my intent. For this I sincerely apologize.”
Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, told the Post that the judge talked about having just had sex and pinched her side and leg at a restaurant the night before they appeared together on a panel at her school in July.
Christine Miller, a retired U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge, said Kozinski grabbed her breasts during a car ride in 1986 after a legal community function in the Baltimore area. She said it came after she declined his offer to go to a motel and have sex.
A lawyer who was not identified said Kozinski approached her when she was alone at a legal event in Los Angeles in 2008 and kissed her on the lips and gave her a bear hug with no warning.
The newspaper said the woman’s husband confirmed the incident and said the couple didn’t think they could do anything because of the judge’s position.
The Post reported last week that six former clerks or more junior staff members accused Kozinski of inappropriate behavior, including showing them pornography. Kozinski, 67, was chief judge of the 9th Circuit, the largest federal appeals court circuit in the country, from 2007 to 2014. He is known for his irreverent opinions, and his clerks often win prestigious clerkships at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The 9th Circuit has opened a misconduct inquiry that was transferred Friday to the Judicial Council of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
Kozinski’s retirement leaves five seats open on the 9th Circuit, with two more judges already having announced their intention to retire next year. That gives President Donald Trump potentially seven seats to fill on the largest and most liberal appeals court in the country.
Even if all those judgeships are filled, however, Democratic appointees still will maintain a healthy majority on the court with 17 of the 29 seats.
Robed in secrecy: How judges accused of misconduct and bribes dodge public scrutiny
Thousands of complaints are filed against judges every year, but very few result in discipline. Ethics experts say the time for states to transform the judiciary is now. Judges in political cases are very often bribed by U.S. Senators who are involved in the case. Bribery includes stock ownership.
Some states investigating judges in judicial conduct complaints do not ever identify them publicly or the judges are later admonished privately.
Erik Ortiz reports that when litigants angered Michael F. McGuire, the county judge in New York state’s Catskills region, he might hit them with “judicial contempt” and order them handcuffed, or in extreme cases, jailed for 30 days.
McGuire, elected in Sullivan County in 2011, did it on several occasions over the years without warning: to a man who asked the judge to recuse himself because the man said McGuire knew his son; to a mother who had an outburst when she felt ridiculed by the judge; and to a grandmother who contested turning over her grandson to his allegedly abusive father.
That wasn’t his only concerning behavior, according to an ethics complaint in 2018 filed by a state watchdog agency, which accused McGuire of berating court staff; making “undignified” comments, such as suggesting people in his court would date a “drug dealer” or a “slut”; presiding over cases in which his impartiality could be called into question; and representing family members and friends in personal cases. The watchdog, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, said he “lacked candor” during its investigation.
For his pattern of “serious” judicial lapses, a state appeals court agreed last year that McGuire — who earned a salary of $210,161 a year — be removed from the bench, the harshest sanction a judge can face. The public, however, had only learned about the ethics charges months before, in March 2020, more than a year and a half after McGuire was first served with the ethics complaint and when the appeals court said he had been notified of the commission’s unanimous recommendation to have him punished.
McGuire ended up resigning in May 2020, but with another job already lined up — as Sullivan County’s head attorney, a position that he currently holds.
McGuire did not respond to requests for comment. In his resignation letter last year, he wrote that “I am quite proud of our achievements” while on the bench and “deeply regret the issues that brought me before this Court.”
Joseph LaPiana, who came before McGuire in a family court case last year and is unable to see his 1-year-old daughter as a result, said that “judges work for the public — we should know if they are being investigated for any misconduct.”
But if McGuire’s misconduct violations had happened in a neighboring state like New Jersey, Pennsylvania or Vermont, the public would have been alerted earlier — at the outset of the filing of ethics charges.
That difference in when the public is allowed to know about allegations against judges can differ broadly among states, with some allowing judges to go months or years before even credible complaints are in the open. With more than 100 million cases filed in local and state courts every year, and judges exerting near-absolute power in deciding who wins custody of children to who can get married to whether a person goes to jail, the public’s ability to scrutinize judicial conduct is crucial for transparency’s sake, and deserves as much attention as recent calls for policing and prosecutorial overhauls, judicial ethics experts argue.
Judicial misconduct “undermines confidence in our justice system,” said Susan Saab Fortney, the director of the Program for the Advancement of Legal Ethics at Texas A&M University School of Law.
Misconduct findings are a rare outcome in the judicial complaint process. Legal ethics experts say the minuscule share of judges punished every year isn’t necessarily indicative that all is well in the judiciary, but suggests a lack of accountability.
Each state has a form of a judicial conduct commission to which the public can file misconduct allegations against judges. Generally, it’s up to that body, which can be made up of fellow judges, lawyers and laypeople, to determine if a complaint violates a state’s code of judicial conduct — guidelines for judges to act with independence, integrity and impartiality. A judge’s conduct inside of a courtroom as well as outside, including on social media, can be subject to discipline.
A review by NBC News of various states’ judicial conduct commission data from 2016 to 2020 indicates thousands of complaints are filed across the United States annually, but about 1 percent of them result in judges being publicly disciplined or stepping down after an investigation is opened.
While these commissions maintain that most complaints are frivolous — for instance, a litigant is merely disgruntled over how a judge ruled — for a state to typically record zero public sanctions against judges sounds incredulous, said Robert Tembeckjian, the administrator and counsel of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
“It’s highly unlikely that any state would have a judiciary that is so above reproach that year after year no one gets disciplined,” Tembeckjian said. “Even in places like New York, where we have very sophisticated judicial education programs, there are numerous cases every year.”
New York’s commission, which oversees about 3,500 state and local judges, has received upward of 2,000 complaints annually in the past five years, and each year, the state has sanctioned a judge or had a resignation for misconduct in one to two dozen cases. Other large states, such as California and Texas, sanction multiple judges every year.
The level of transparency surrounding misconduct cases varies by state. Some that have reported no or few judges publicly sanctioned in recent years, such as Iowa, Mississippi, South Dakota and Wyoming, don’t make cases public until the court or panel that decides discipline gets involved. And in three states — Delaware, Hawaii and North Carolina — misconduct cases are only made public in the final stage of an investigation when a judge is to be punished.
In about two-thirds of states, however, the public can learn much sooner, such as when a judicial conduct commission first charges a judge with misconduct or when the judge responds to the allegations.
States where information is kept under wraps argue that confidentiality is necessary for as long as possible to protect judges should they ultimately be cleared of wrongdoing. But it turns out that in some cases, depending on the type of transgression, judges can be privately admonished by other judges or sent warning letters, meant to jolt the offending judge into correcting their behavior.
NBC News found many states opt to reprimand judges privately more often than publicly. For instance, Pennsylvania filed formal charges against judges 17 times from 2016 to 2020, but issued private letters of warning or reprimand 172 times in that period.
A sweeping Reuters analysis in 2020 on judicial misconduct that examined thousands of discipline cases over a dozen years determined 9 out of 10 sanctioned judges were allowed to return to the bench.
“We have to recognize that oftentimes we have judges judging judges, and they’re ultimately in control and judging their own,” Charles Gardner Geyh, an Indiana University law professor who studies judicial conduct, said.
Tembeckjian believes that states, including New York, should be as transparent as possible once there’s sufficient evidence to back up allegations against a judge, similar to how grand jury investigations are made public when an indictment is unsealed.
Tembeckjian said he’d like to see his judicial conduct commission have the authority to suspend a judge during an investigation, like other states’ commissions can do, and continue investigating a case even after a judge resigns. Such changes, however, would require the approval of the New York Legislature.
Ultimately, ensuring that judges are being rightfully held accountable is essential since guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court allows them to be largely immune from lawsuits for acts done in their official capacity, Tembeckjian said.
“If there’s no sense that you can get a fair shake by going into a court of law and have confidence that the judge is going to be neutral and fair and apply the law honestly and responsibly, it’s ultimately going to lead to anarchy,” he added. “Then, why not just settle our disputes in the streets rather than a court of law?”
Efforts are underway to enact meaningful judicial reforms at various levels. On Dec. 1, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed bipartisan legislation aimed at requiring federal judges to report their financial holdings in response to a Wall Street Journal investigation that found 131 federal judges had broken the law and violated judicial ethics by hearing cases in which they had a financial interest. A similar bipartisan Senate bill is pending.
On the state side, the Supreme Court of Louisiana last month expanded its rules against errant judges when it tacked financial burdens onto the disciplinary process. Not only can judges be made to pay for the cost of investigations if discipline is recommended, but they can be ordered to repay the cost of installing a replacement judge. And if a judge decides to retire or resign before a formal disciplinary process concludes, they can still be required to pay investigatory costs.
The state’s chief justice, John Weimer, said in a statement that the updated rules ensure that even retiring judges are “held accountable” and Louisiana taxpayers aren’t on the hook for costs, which in recent investigations have been about $2,000 to $3,000.
About a dozen other states, including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and South Dakota, have similar cost recovery rules or impose fines on judges, according to the Center for Judicial Ethics at the National Center for State Courts, a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve the judiciary.
Marni Bryson, a judge in Palm Beach County, Florida, faces a public reprimand, an unpaid suspension for 10 days and a fine of $37,500 after the state judicial conduct commission said she was excessively absent from her duties over a four-year period, records show.
“I knew what I did was wrong … I have a whole year to reflect and contemplate my actions.”
said a suspended ohio judge
In New Hampshire, former Circuit Court Judge Julie Introcaso was ordered to pay her investigation’s cost, almost $75,000. Introcaso pleaded guilty last month to two counts of tampering with public records and submitting false statements in connection to a child custody case in which she was friends with a lawyer.
Janine Geske, a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice in the 1990s, said she’d like to see her state implement similar penalties, which might “encourage judges to take responsibility early on” if their behavioral violations are tethered to their finances.
Another option, Geyh said, is to make the payout of a judge’s pension contractually contingent on good behavior.
Ethics experts say citizen judicial watchdog programs known as court watchers could be effective, but it’s also incumbent upon other courtroom staff and officials who witness a judge’s poor conduct, particularly lawyers, to speak up. They may be reticent to file complaints, however, because they’re afraid of retaliation if a judge learns they were behind the allegations, Fortney, the legal ethics expert at Texas A&M, said.
“A large percentage of states require that the complaining party be identified,” she added. “This clearly chills reporting.”
But there have been cases where lawyers and court staff aren’t afraid to stand up to a jurist.
Ohio’s highest court last month suspended a 19-year municipal court judge, Mark Repp, for one year without pay after prosecutors in Seneca County relayed how he had ordered a 20-year-old woman who was sitting quietly in the back of his courtroom to watch her boyfriend’s hearing get drug tested. When she refused, he sentenced her to 10 days in jail.
An investigation found that the woman was forced to take pregnancy tests and undergo full-body scans for contraband, although none was detected. And while Repp assumed the woman was under the influence of narcotics, there was no evidence indicating she was, and she had never been charged with drug-related offenses.
In a recent interview, Repp told NBC News that he has been concerned by the growing rate of overdose deaths in his community, and, in dealing with thousands of cases before him each year, he must “come up with some kind of decision that follows the law and also is appropriate under the circumstances.”
“I knew what I did was wrong,” Repp said. “I’ll try to make amends on that, and I have a whole year to reflect and contemplate my actions.”
But it wasn’t the only time Repp, who is up for re-election in 2025, has faced criticism.
“Imagine someone sitting in court for the first time, and now they think it’s what the judicial system is like,” said John Kahler II, a lawyer who once accused the judge of being biased against a client and unsuccessfully tried to get him disqualified from the case.
One woman who appeared before Repp in August did file a complaint to say he labeled her a “known meth user” in open court, which she wrote made her feel “very embarrassed by Repp’s conduct and false accusations.” Repp said the complaint process in Ohio is a “good one” because the public does learn about judges accused of misconduct early on.
But Ana Petro, who was in Repp’s court for a traffic violation this year, doesn’t believe his suspension can remedy how he made her and others feel: worthless. A reckoning throughout the judiciary is needed, she said.
“I understand it’s not a judge’s job to be nice, but when he’s abusing his power to be a judge, that’s when I have a problem,” Petro said. “And I don’t trust any judge at all because of him.”
In another of thousands of points of proof that Judges are often just as bad as the criminals before them:
A Long Island judge who police say repeatedly broke into his neighbor’s home to steal her underwear has confessed to snatching panties on multiple occasions, even though he has pleaded not guilty.
Still, Suffolk County District Judge Robert Cicale has been removed from the bench and is facing up to 15 years in prison.
Cicale was arrested on burglary charges and appeared in court Friday morning.
The judge is a married father of three young children, and he is accused of sneaking into a home across the street and stealing the underwear of a 23-year-old woman who lives there with her parents. He reportedly knew the girl from when she worked as an intern at the Islip Town Attorney’s Office, when he used to work there.
In his confession, he said he stole the underwear upon feeling “urges.” He admitted that on several occasions, he entered the home, opened her hamper and took underwear.
Cicarle was taken into custody after an incident that happened around 9 a.m. Thursday, when the young woman was alone. Prosecutors said she was sleeping but woke up when she heard the door open. She called out, “Hello?” and that’s when she saw Cicale at the doorway.
Authorities say he turned around and ran away, and the victim closed and locked the door and called her mother, who called 911. Responding officers say they saw Cicale walking up to a different house and pretending to knock on the door.
They approached him because he matched the description of the person the victim described. They reportedly found several pairs of soiled women’s underwear on him, which the victim identified as her own.
Cicale has written letter of apology to victim and also provided a written confession.
Cicale is accused of stealing his female neighbor’s underwear.
“This is highly disturbing,” Suffolk County District Attorney Tim Sini said. “This is an individual who swore to uphold the law. He violated it in a very serious way. The message here from both the Suffolk County Police Department and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office is that no one is above the law, and we’ll prosecute this case to the fullest extent of the law.”
A Nassau County district judge presided over Cicale’s case to prevent a conflict of interest. Cicale is expected to receive mental health treatment.
“His reputation throughout the court is stellar,” defense attorney William Wexler said. “Every judge, every lawyer respects him, and we just have to see how the process plays out.”
Wexler went on to say that the judge’s wife is standing by her husband through this process.
Cicale was ordered held on $50,000. Cicale was “temporarily relieved of his judicial duties” and the matter was referred to the state’s Court of Appeals to determine whether to suspend the jurist, court system spokesman Lucian Chalfen said.
A judge also issued a restraining order that prevents Cicale from contacting the victim and, as a condition of his bail, Cicale will also be required to wear a GPS monitor, Sini said.
Neighbors were shocked when they learned of the judge’s arrest.
“From what I heard, it’s a little perverted maybe,” neighbor William Bloom said. “And that never makes sense to me.”
Cicale is a graduate of St. John’s Law School, a former legal aide attorney and a former Islip Town Attorney elected to the District Criminal Court in 2016.
“He’s a family man, he’s always outside playing basketball with his kids,” neighbor Jay Moceri said. “He’s always jogging. He’s always friendly to everybody in the neighborhood.”
(The Associated Press contributed to this report.)
What’s a judge’s moral standard? Allegations of racism, sexism spotlight judicial misconduct
Probate Judge Randy Jinks has mostly denied the allegations by employees. The case spotlights how Alabama handles ethics complaints against judges.
Probate Judge Randy Jinks faces more than 100 allegations in a scathing complaint. Erik Ortiz goes on the explain:
Since he was sworn into office in January 2019, Probate Judge Randy Jinks of Alabama has had a central role in the most significant moments of people’s lives in Talladega County, about 50 miles east of Birmingham. Jinks, the county’s chief election official, has overseen adoptions and guardianships, mental health commitments and the issuing of marriage licenses.
Behind the scenes, employees accuse Jinks, 65, of cultivating a toxic and hostile workplace that undermined the integrity of his office.
More than 100 allegations were outlined in a scathing 78-page complaint issued in March by the Judicial Inquiry Commission, the state body that reviews complaints against judges, detailing racist and sexist conversations that employees claim Jinks initiated, including talking about pornography and a video of a woman doing a striptease. Some allege that he made disparaging remarks about George Floyd, the Black Lives Matter movement, Black people who came into the office and the office’s sole Black employee.
Some employees also allege that Jinks, who is white, used profane language and threw tantrums, once going on a tirade after his sandwich went missing from a refrigerator, and that he tried to use the power of his position to get or grant favors.
The complaint, which is based on interviews with current and former employees of the Talladega County Probate Office, accuses Jinks of exhibiting a pattern of behavior “that has created a difficult, unprofessional, and inappropriate atmosphere,” which has “injured respect for the judiciary.”
Jinks is accused of violating the state Canons of Judicial Ethics, the guidelines that say judges must uphold the honor of the judiciary, maintain decorum and avoid impropriety. He has denied the majority of the accusations, saying some of the incidents have been taken out of context, and he is fighting the allegations in the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.
Jinks was suspended in March and will remain suspended until the court decides whether the claims warrant punishment, including a longer suspension or removal from office. No trial date has been set.
“I am a decent person,” Jinks said in an interview on local television station WOTM in March. “I am very respectful around women. I do not use racial slurs. I do not go on tirades in office. I do get mad if somebody steals my food.” In a 44-page answer to the complaint filed in April, Jinks denies “any inappropriate demeanor regarding African Americans” and said the complaint “contains flagrant, false, vague and subjective accusations.”
The case, which continues, has put a spotlight on how often complaints against judges in the state are reviewed and whether the mechanism to punish judges for misconduct or ethics violations is sufficient.
“In the past, there have been individuals on the Judicial Inquiry Commission that have had a less strict view of judges’ adhering to the rules, and they simply were not really open to removing judges,” said Sue Bell Cobb, who retired as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2011 and has advocated for reforms. “Judges should be held to a higher standard. End of story.”
Jinks won his probate judge race in November 2018, defeating his Democratic opponent by more than 5,000 votes and becoming the first Republican elected to the office in Talladega County.
Probate judges are elected to six-year terms in Alabama, and nearly every county, including Talladega, doesn’t require them to have law degrees or to be lawyers, unlike probate judges in most other states. Jinks is a former program director for the Alabama State Parks, and he had worked on the campaign of Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, who left office in 2011.
“I felt the time was right,” Jinks told The Daily Home newspaper of Talladega in 2018 about why he ran for the judgeship. “The man upstairs wanted me to do this.”
According to the Judicial Inquiry Commission’s complaint, which identifies employees only by their initials, Jinks’ “grossly inappropriate demeanor” didn’t begin immediately; instead, it ramped up about six months into his judgeship.
The employees say he would mouth a racial slur “on occasions” to his deputy chief clerk when he was referring to a Black person. One time, after a Black couple had been in the office to fill out a marriage certificate, he said, “What did their Black asses want?” an employee recalled, according to the complaint.
He is also accused of having spoken disparagingly about the Black Lives Matter movement and the protests that erupted across the country after Floyd was killed in police custody in Minneapolis a year ago.
Employees say he commented that “I don’t see anything wrong with the police killing him” and that “he pretty much got what he deserved.”
Jinks would also play uncensored videos of racial justice protests that included racial slurs and profane language loud enough that they could be “heard by others outside his office, including any customers at the front counter,” according to the complaint.
Employees say that last June, when news reports surfaced that Bubba Wallace, the only Black driver in NASCAR’s top series, had found a noose in his garage stall at Talladega Superspeedway, Jinks commented that Wallace was “just playing the Black card.”
The only Black employee among the nine or so people who worked under Jinks at the probate office says in the complaint that Jinks would aim racist and unprofessional comments at him.
“He was a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” the man, Darrius Pearson, who joined the office as a clerk in 2018 under the previous probate judge, told NBC News. Pearson said that he had even voted for Jinks but that after months of humiliating and withering comments, he quit in November and wanted to come forward publicly.
Pearson said that in May 2019, Jinks saw his new car and said that he, as a judge, couldn’t afford one. “What are you doing? Selling drugs?” Jinks said, according to Pearson.
Last September, Pearson returned to work after a trip to the post office about the same time that students from Talladega College, a private historically Black college, were marching in support of Black Lives Matter. He said Jinks asked him repeatedly whether he had joined the demonstration.
“I don’t want nothing to have to happen to your job, you out there marching — marching ‘Black Lives Matter’ during county time,” Jinks said before he walked off laughing, according to Pearson and the complaint.
The complaint says employees felt uncomfortable and embarrassed by Jinks’ “inappropriate demeanor” toward Pearson and other Black people.
Jinks, who is married with a daughter, is also accused of using demeaning language about women and talking openly about sex. Pearson said that in July, around the time of a Republican runoff election in Alabama’s U.S. Senate race, Jinks showed him a video of a woman doing a striptease while they were in an election room.
Pearson said he told Jinks he didn’t want to look at the video.
Another time, Jinks told a female employee: “I like porn. Don’t you?” according to the complaint. He is also accused of having commented about an employee’s breasts and stared at her body, as well as having made other female employees uncomfortable. Employees said he also routinely commented about the physical appearance of female lawyers and spoke derisively about women with tattoos or about their body size.
“Don’t ever marry a woman. She’ll get fat,” he said after he saw a photo of a female employee in her wedding dress, according to the complaint. Jinks’ comments about the employee’s weight were “so prevalent as to give her the impression that her weight matters more to him than her work performance,” the complaint said.
Pearson, who had been the only male employee in the office, said Jinks gave him a birthday card in September featuring a cartoon cow and donkey and the message “Thought you’d like to see some teats and ass on your birthday!” The card, which was shared with NBC News, is signed, “Have a Great B’day. Randy.”
Other employees refused to sign it, according to Pearson and the complaint. Jinks didn’t deny having given the card but said in his response to the commission that “office humor has been overblown.”
The complaint also says Jinks’ county-owned cellphone was used to look at a website that sold sex products and to view provocative photos of women. It says he lent the phone to a felon whom he met when she was waitressing.
In addition, the complaint details allegations accusing Jinks of having abused the prestige of his judicial office by asking a prosecutor in a neighboring county to help the felon and release her early from her sentence on a narcotics-related charge.
The district attorney denied the request, saying it was inappropriate, according to the complaint, which said that Jinks tried to solicit the help of attorneys who appeared before his court to get the felon an early release and that he eventually succeeded.
Amanda Hardy, Jinks’ attorney, said that the complaints were “concocted by a few disgruntled” employees and that the commission’s complaint “fails to mention all exculpatory evidence and testimony.” She said allegations that Jinks is racist were “fabricated to generate antagonism with the public, the Court of Judiciary, and the media.”
In his response to the allegations, Jinks mostly denied what employees told the Judicial Inquiry Commission, according to the complaint.
He specifically denied the disparaging remarks about staring at women’s bodies in the office and in court, as well as talking about body weight, among other accusations. He also said he couldn’t remember certain actions he is accused of, such as telling an employee that he likes porn, according to the complaint.
He also denied having made remarks about Floyd.
“The Respondent believes … that there exists no excuse for the killing of George Floyd, that watching the video is sickening, unconscionable, inhumane and horrifying,” Jinks said in written answers to the complaint. In regard to Pearson’s version of events about Black Lives Matter protests, Jinks “adamantly denies any communication, implied or expressed, that Mr. Pearson should not participate in any way with the Black Lives Matter march or the like.”
Jinks also told the commission that if he did make certain comments, they were in a personal and private capacity, and that employees were eavesdropping or should have asked him to shut his door.
He said that comments people say they heard may have been taken out of context or were misunderstood jokes and that if he had been told that something was “racially or sexually insensitive and offensive,” he would have “responded in a serious manner.” Jinks didn’t deny the interaction involving the striptease video that Pearson said he was shown, but he told the commission that it was played for three seconds or less.
In his written response, he said that “sharing the video amounted to a lapse in judgment, the significance of which has been exaggerated.”
Jinks denied having asked for favors to help a felon, saying in his answer to the complaint that his helping her “was purely a ministry, in which no appearance of impropriety and/or expectation of judicial favor can reasonably be inferred.”
Pearson said the complaints were a collaborative effort by employees who feared retaliation for speaking out but were fed up with Jinks.
“He is very arrogant, pompous, and he thought he couldn’t be touched,” Pearson said.
The complaint doesn’t specify any grievances or allegations made by litigants, attorneys or members of the public, and it doesn’t say any of Jinks’ rulings were affected by his alleged misconduct.
Still, Jenny Carroll, a professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, said that it matters how judges behave outside the courtroom and in front of office staff and that comments that appear to be inappropriate can call into question how they came to rulings.
“What if people coming before you are women and Black? If they don’t get the outcome they wanted, they’ll be wondering was it because their claim wasn’t strong enough or perhaps the judge carries explicit biases,” Carroll said. “The bottom line is it’s going to raise doubts in people’s minds.”
The nine-member state Judicial Inquiry Commission, which is made up of judges, lawyers and private citizens, gets scores of complaints about judges every fiscal year, many of which fail to rise to the level of formal charges to be filed with the Court of the Judiciary, which is also a mix of legal professionals and laypeople.
The commission said it reviewed 174 complaints against judges in fiscal year 2018 and dismissed 132 of them without investigation, citing reasons such as that there was no reasonable basis to charge, that no ethical violation was determined or that a case wasn’t within its jurisdiction. Of 18 investigations that were completed, all of the related complaints were dismissed, the commission said.
Ultimately, the commission filed no charges against judges in the Court of the Judiciary during fiscal year 2018. Cases are often settled with judges before trials are held, and judges may decide to retire or resign to avoid public scrutiny, Carroll said.
In rarer cases, judges are removed from the bench. That happened to Roy Moore, the former state chief justice, who was ousted twice for defying federal court orders. Moore’s appeals were rejected.
The commission didn’t immediately respond to requests for further information. Chairman Billy Bedsole, a lawyer, also didn’t immediately reply to requests for comment.
Cobb, the former state chief justice, said changes are needed in the complaint process so people are comfortable coming forward. Currently, she said, the commission’s process is too lenient toward judges, who are notified and kept apprised of investigations and also get copies of subpoenas given to witnesses.
Cobb said that gives judges the opportunity to use their influence and potentially put pressure on people to dissuade them from filing complaints for fear of retaliation.
She said reforms should include doing away with notifying judges about who filed complaints and directing more state funding toward the Judicial Inquiry Commission so investigations don’t have to languish and all complaints can be fully reviewed, not just the most egregious cases.
Carroll said that even after a judge who clearly violated ethical standards is removed, other issues deserve scrutiny, such as identifying cases in which people were the victims of unfair and impartial rulings and offering remediation.
“Getting problem judges off the bench is only a piece of the problem,” she said.
Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Steven Austin Aided & Abetted Real Property Theft
….Says Whistle Blower Architect
Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Steven Austin Aided & Abetted Real Property Theft with the help of Assessor Gus Kramer & Other Public Officials
A local vetted source has provided a complaint filed with District Attorney Diane Becton on June 14, 2018, demanding a criminal investigation of several public officials including Gus Kramer and Martinez Superior Court Judge Steven K. Austin. This complaint alleges that Judge Austin colluded with County officials by rigging a trial in an effort to steal real property from an Orinda resident.
The verified complaint to the District Attorney describes how County and City of Orinda officials failed to enforce code violations on the property of an architect who committed horrific environmental crimes and zoning violations. This architect, with the help of City of Orinda and Contra Costa County officials, was able to double the square footage of his house and also change public records on the assessor’s record to reflect the unpermitted additions. In early 2013, the County Assessor’s office was notified by the whistleblower about the tampering of public records, but Gus Kramer refused to investigate.
According to several forensic engineers and experts, this Orinda architect resorted to extreme tactics with reckless disregard for the environment in order to access the whistleblower’s panoramic views and cheat on his property taxes. The architect’s zoning violations also included exceeding setback and height limits, grading massive amount of dirt, destroying a ridge line, uprooting several landmark oak trees, and illegally building decking, structures, pouring concrete and piers next and on top of utility East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) drainage pipes. Further, this architect built nuisances on two neighboring properties and tampered with public records.
The subject experts who reviewed the case documents are in agreement that environmental and zoning violations have placed the surrounding houses and safety of residents in danger of flooding and created a fire hazard in the Sleepy Hollow, Orinda neighborhood.
New evidence indicates that recent press articles circulated by the Mercury News may be heavily influenced by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Such press alleges that Gus Kramer engaged in sexual misconduct, leading to his private censoring. However, in view of the complaint to the District Attorney, it is questionable as to whether the new sexual misconduct allegations are indeed the true crux of Kramer’s wrongdoings, or whether these accusations are intended to detract from the very serious criminal acts that are described in the June 14, 2018 complaint to the DA Becton about the Orinda property theft.
This article states: ”On June 18, County Administrator David Twa wrote to one of the accusers — associate appraiser Margaret Eychner — saying an independent investigator determined it was ‘more likely than not’ that on several occasions in 2014 and 2015, Kramer ‘made comments that were not appropriate in a workplace environment and that made you feel uncomfortable.’ ”
It is highly suspicious that within three days after the whistleblower’s complaint having been filed, David Twa resurrects alleged sexual misconduct by Kramer dating back to 2015. It is reasonable to infer that the county officials are giving Gus Kramer a get out of jail free card instead of allowing DA Becton to do her job by conducting criminal investigation of Gus Kramer, Judge Austin and others. Strangely enough, the whistleblower’s complaint names David Twa being involved in aiding and abetting the theft of her property as well.
The complaint to DA Becton states that the whistleblower tried to facilitate the architect to remove the encroaching nuisance that interfered with her privacy. The architect continuously promised to do so, but deliberately misled her for two (2) years. He then swiftly ambushed her by filing a lawsuit claiming several baseless legal assertions including outright ownership and punitive damages for accusing him of building without permit.
Before filing the lawsuit, the Orinda architect threatened “either you agree to a lot line adjustment or I will drag you through the court for years to come and make you lose everything you have.”
Public records show the whistle blower in 2012 involved county deputy director, Jason Crapo, county engineer Thoam Huggett, and former Orinda planning director, Emmanuel Ursu. However, in a meeting both Ursu and Thoam Huggett, threatened that the county would retaliate and reverse everything by coming after the whistle blower instead, if she didn’t stop complaining about the architect’s violations.
Communications between the whistleblower and the County public officials and the Assessor’s office show a blatant refusal of public officials to investigate the architect’s violations. The Orinda city officials, however, opened a code enforcement investigation against the architect for encroaching onto another neighbor’s property. Incidentally, this other neighbor was an attorney with political aspirations.
The whistleblower’s complaint to the District Attorney accuses the officials of selectively applying the rules and failing to prosecute white collar crime, as in this case clearly the violations didn’t apply to the Orinda architect. Also, when it came to opening a code enforcement the rules only applied to an elite group of people, attorneys and others who are politically well-connected.
Obstructed by the tax collector, Gus Kramer, and the Building Department’s refusal to investigate, the whistleblower sought help from the local police for unlawful trespass and property damage. The police also refused to do their job, but assured her that she had every legal right to defend her property by removing the encroaching nuisance from her land. The police offered to protect the whistle blower and arrest the architect, if he interfered with the removal.
Documented communications prove the whistle blower went so far as to call self-proclaimed tree-hugger career-politician Steve Glazer when he was the mayor of City of Orinda. Steve Glazer ignored serious California environmental code violations, reckless destruction of protected Oak trees, perjury and falsifying a permit committed by the architect’s surveyor, Rick Humann and county deputy director Jason Crapo.
The architect was emboldened knowing one of his many attorneys, H. Clyde Long, had inside connections with the Martinez judiciary, i.e. Judge Steven K. Austin. Attorney Long also serves as the chair of city of Lafayette’s code enforcement appeal board and advertises on his website that he can help those with “city/county code enforcement.” The complaint alleges that the architect had inside political influence with the municipal officials, the Assessor’s Office and the Building Department to be able to unlawfully change the public records twice by increasing the square footage of his house, without any evidence of any permits to increase his house’s size.
Indisputable evidence is provided of open judicial extortion committed by Judge Austin in voluminous trial transcripts involving a lawsuit filed by the architect in violation of zoning laws who is also cheating on his taxes, demanding an outright ownership of the whistleblower’s land and the court preventing her free speech regarding his violations. Judge Austin’s abuse of power and judicial misconducts and collusion to steal the whistleblower’s property is captured throughout the trial transcripts:
“THE COURT: So what they are saying is, as I understand from that side, the evidence that’s been developed would be that it’s not relevant how big the house is even if it’s more than what it’s supposed to be on the records of the city because it has nothing to do with the property line dispute, and that it would be more prejudicial than probative to go into that because you’d make them look bad because they built a house bigger than it’s supposed to be, right?”
“THE COURT: It sounds like you’re just trying to say that it looks like they must have cheated on their property taxes so they must be bad people” (RT.Vol.4P.168L-5-9).” ”It’s a difficult case, in many respects and exactly how this property will be used, going forward, it’s not going to matter that much as long as they don’t move back, but if they do move back, it’s going to make a big difference I think in terms of how the property will be used because of just the history. Okay (RT.Vol.062414P.3301L.9-P.3302L8).”
Dewey Wheeler (represented state farm insurance) openly made fun of Judge Austin’s Kangaroo trial and jury instructions at the expense of CoCoCounty tax payers when he appropriately called the judicial council a dark hole.
However, the law is clear in stating that: The California Judicial Canon of Ethics prohibit a judge from ignoring indisputable evidence of the commission of fraud, he has an outright duty to report such fraud to law enforcement. Not to mention that the rules of ethics prohibit a litigant from using the court system with “unclean hands”. On the record Judge Austin is allowing the architect and his three attorneys to play fast and loose with his court and helped them to correct deficiencies in their lawsuit by coaching them. The architect acted as though he owned Judge Austin’s court.
Review of the trial transcripts by several legal experts show in no uncertain terms, this whistleblower’s case is a posterchild example of thuggery run amok in a deeply-embedded incestuous web of municipal officials, the judiciary, attorneys and politicians. The whistle blower was retaliated against and thrusted into a rigged court because she exposed the systemic corruption in the offices of the county of Contra Costa and the tax collector, Gus Kramer.
Judge Austin on the record stated he found attorney misconduct entertaining when presented with evidence of witness intimidation, declaration tampering and obstruction of justice committed by three attorneys, Clyde Long, Brandon Dooley and Dewey Wheeler who represented State Farm Insurance. David Miller of Moraga was selected by Judge Austin as the discovery referee and paid by state Farm insurance. He too consistently ignored attorney misconduct and was actively engaged in legally abusing the whistle blower.
The lawsuit substantiates the architect’s initial threats of his intent to use his political and judicial connections to steal her property and ruin her financially by dragging her through years of litigation. The court record shows that right from the inception the case was rigged. Judge Steven K. Austin admitted that he personally hand-picked the case because he found it to be interesting. Bolstering the existence of backroom dealing, Judge Austin just also happens to be a resident of Orinda and buddies with the architect’s attorney Clyde Long. Additionally, the architect’s homeowner’s insurance is State Farm, Judge Austin’s former employer.
The complaint alleges that Judge Steven K. Austin engaged in extortion by threatening that “if you do not give up your land for $10K I will make you fall flat on your face and make you pay him, instead. A lot of money.” The complaint also states Judge Austin and public officials concocted a plan to extort the whistle blower in agreeing to a lot line adjustment, through abusive litigation and wasting taxpayer’s money on allowing a white collar criminal to come to court with unclean hands. When she refused to relinquish her property rights, the officials with the help of Judge Austin retaliated. They schemed a plan to manipulate the trial to come up with a fake money judgement that the whistle blower could not pay. The judgment against the whistle blower ended up to become approximately about $300,000, including additional fees.
The whistleblower demanded that local politicians and government agencies circumvent the retaliatory judgment, and involved the former DA Mark Petersen and other politicians such as Mark DeSaulnier, Catharine Baker, John Garamandi, Dianne Feinstein, Kamala Harris, and the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, specifically Candace Andersen. None of the officials apparently did anything to stop the commission of the crimes by Contra Costa County officials.
Reviewing the emails with public officials show the whistleblower engaged legal counsel who agreed to confront the City of Orinda officials regarding these officials’ failure to perform their jobs and ignoring perjury committed by Rick Humann, the architect’s surveyor. In the meantime, the whistleblower involved the County chair of planning commissioner, Duane Steele, who referred her to the Deputy Director of County Building Department Aruna Baht. Aruna Baht, upon reviewing the fraud documents, immediately assigned inspector Joe Losado to inspect the architect’s house and tag it. Joe Losado admitted to the attorney that the architect did not have any permits on file.
Inexplicably, however, Joe Losado refused to inspect the architect’s house and engaged in threatening the attorney to back off or the county attorney, Sharon Anderson, would revoke his license and file a restraining order against his client.
In 2017, Mark Petersen had assigned the case to Steve Moawad, former DA, for public corruption. However, DA Moawad was prohibited to investigate Gus Kramer, Judge Austin and others at the behest of board of supervisors.
DA Moawad stated in writing that he was going to continue investigating Orinda officials for failure to open a code enforcement against the architect. Conspicuously, Steve Moawad left the DA’s Office to become California Bar Chief Trial Counsel without concluding the case. Several series of emails prove the public officials were complicit in committing crimes against the whistle blower. (Click Here)
The court files demonstrate that the Board of Supervisors and Judge Steven Austin have committed egregious violations in order to silence the whistleblower and prevent the whistleblower from being able to seek appropriate remedy and redress. Judge Austin conducted an expensive jury trial in 2013 in which the jurors were provided with manipulated instructions that biased the jury improperly. In addition, according to several jurors and the transcripts, Judge Austin gave them a jury instruction that was not part of the record. Sample kangaroo trial transcripts
Further, the County appears to have enlisted State Farm Insurance to hire a private investigator to follow and harass the whistleblower’s daughter in another state for over two years. The whistleblower accuses Contra Costa County Supervisor Candace Andersen for failing to mitigate and offer appropriate redress. Incidentally, her husband Philip Andersen works exclusively for State Farm Insurance as defense counsel.
As stated in a law review article by Orlando J. Villalba. “Slapping Criminal Speech; how Evolution of the Illegality Exception has Impacted California’s Anti-Slapp Statute”, this type of lawsuit is deliberately brought to financially decimate its opponent. The true desire of the trespasser is to cause delay and distraction. And to punish his/her opponent for standing up for him/herself. (Click here for Villalba’s article)
CA Penal Section SCC. 518. State and Federal Statutes show the definition of the criminal offense of extortion as follows:
Extortion is the obtaining of property or other consideration from another, with his or her consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.
Years of articles published by the Mercury News show that a culture of “pay to play” is deeply embedded in Contra Costa County municipalities and its court system. At the very core of this crisis is Tax Collector and Assessor Gus Kramer and the Board of Supervisors. As illustrated by Tom Lochner’s article in May of 2008 “Building disputes near an end”, falsifying and forging documents in the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department is apparently standard operating procedure. (Click here for the article)
In 2011, the District Attorney’s Office axed a probe investigating Assessor Gus Kramer for a financial scheme involving evading transfer taxes in shady land deals. It was just outright nixed—as if it never existed.
All of this was obviously known to the Board of Supervisors. Thomas Peele, Pulitzer award winning Journalist, exposed Gus Kramer in his article titled “His Deal Deeds and Doubts.” (Click here for the article)
Federal prosecutors have the authority and jurisdiction to hold judges accountable for their unlawful conduct by charging them with a federal crime.
Section 242 of Title 18 of the U.S. code ― the so-called “color of law” statute ― is the same federal civil rights legislation that Justice Department prosecutors use against Law enforcement officers who use excessive force and make false arrests. The law applies to prosecutors and judges too. However, the feds do not use it against judges.
Judges are responsible to apply the law and are held to the same standards as everyone else, and when judges flagrantly violate the law, there should be consequences for them as well. Unfortunately, when judges are caught committing a crime, they are allowed to collect tax payer funded retirement packages and obtain work as mediators collecting $500 hourly rates with corporate entities like ADR Services Inc.
Our News Group is a collaborative media organization with a focus on exposing public and judicial corruption, when main stream media fails. Please email us (email@example.com) if you have additional information about this case or your rights have been violated by Judge Austin or parties involved or any other judge in the Contra Costa Superior Court in California.
In another example one can see that “When The Judge Works For Your Political Adversary And Is Ordered To ‘Take You Out’ By The White House”, the rules of Court are abused, ie:
KYLE CHENEY says that Roger Sone’s lawyers say, in particular, that Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s decision to assert that jurors in the case “served with integrity” strikes at the heart of Stone’s motion for a new trial, which they indicated is largely based on whether at least one juror was inappropriately biased against him.
“Whether the subject juror (and perhaps others) served with ‘integrity’ is one of the paramount questions presented in the pending Motion,” Stone’s lawyers argued. “The Court’s ardent conclusion of ‘integrity’ indicates an inability to reserve judgment on an issue which has yet been heard.”
Jackson made her remark during an impassioned rebuke of the arguments Stone’s legal team offered during his trial. She said that Stone and his lawyers minimized the significance of his effort to frustrate congressional investigators as they sought to understand Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, a grave national security challenge.
“Sure, the defense is free to say: So what? Who cares?” Jackson said. “But, I’ll say this: Congress cared. The United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia that prosecuted the case and is still prosecuting the case cared. The jurors who served with integrity under difficult circumstances cared. The American people cared. And I care.”
Stone was convicted last year on multiple counts of covering up to congressional investigators, as well as a count of witness intimidation for pressuring an associate to refuse to cooperate with Congress. Lawmakers sought Stone’s testimony regarding his attempts to act as an intermediary between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, but he repeatedly refused to tell House members about his multiple efforts to contact Wikileaks head Julian Assange, denying he had communications with certain associates that were later discovered to be voluminous.
It will also likely reach the receptive ears of the president, who has repeatedly amplified criticism of Jackson and repeated false claims about the nature of the charges against Stone.
Trump’s allies are agitating for the president to issue a pardon or commute Stone’s sentence, and though Trump is widely expected to do so eventually, the timing is uncertain. Jackson also used her sentencing comments to underscore that Stone’s overarching effort in impeding Congress was to protect Trump from scrutiny.
Jackson delivered her sentence Thursday but delayed it until after she considers Stone’s motion for a new trial. Though the motion was filed under seal, Stone’s team indicated that it will focus on a juror.
“Stone’s Motion for New Trial is directly related to the integrity of a juror. It is alleged that a juror misled the Court regarding her ability to be unbiased and fair and the juror attempted to cover up evidence that would directly contradict her false claims of impartiality,” his lawyers argued.
“The premature statement blessing the “integrity of the jury” undermines the appearance of impartiality and presents a strong bias for recusal,” they added.
According to the February 5th order issued by Judge Jackson, Roger Stone cited a problem with a juror, however his motion was denied.
The details of the juror are unknown because the order released Wednesday was redacted, however, Roger Stone’s defense team in November tried to strike down several potential jurors who were overt Trump-hating leftists.
Several potential jurors in Stone’s case ended up being Trump-hating, Obama-era officials who admittedly voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 so Stone’s lawyer’s tried to strike them as potential jurors.
One of the potential jurors actually had a husband who worked in the DOJ and played a role in the Russian collusion hoax that ultimately took down Roger Stone — and Judge Jackson allowed her to remain as a potential juror!
Being that Amy Berman Jackson denied Stone’s motion for a new trial last week, it occurred before the DOJ backed down from the excessive sentencing handed down by Mueller’s thugs.
The order is about a potential issue with a juror and it’s dated Feb. 5, so this all occurred before the resignations and withdrawals and Trump’s intervention.
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 12, 2020
Amy Berman Jackson is a corrupt liberal Obama judge who imposed a very strict gag order on Roger Stone even though he did nothing wrong.
Stone was caught up in Mueller’s abusive Russia witch hunt simply because he helped Trump win the White House in 2016.
Federal Prosecutors on Monday recommended Trump confidante Roger Stone serve 7-9 years in prison for process crimes during the Mueller witch hunt.
In a rare move, the Department of Justice backed down from its abusive sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone.
All four prosecutors who signed Roger Stone’s sentencing memo seeking an excessive prison term of 7 to 9 years resigned like cowards on Tuesday after AG Bill Barr stepped in and smacked them down.
Mueller’s prosecutors and this corrupt judge made for a very toxic and abusive case against Roger Stone.
President Trump torched Demon Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Tuesday night.
Is this the Judge that put Paul Manafort in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, something that not even mobster Al Capone had to endure? How did she treat Crooked Hillary Clinton? Just asking! https://t.co/Fe7XkepJNN
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 12, 2020
We reported months ago and again in May 2018, that Obama appointed liberal activist Judge, Amy Berman Jackson, was assigned to the most important court case in US history, the Manafort case in the Trump-Russia hoax investigation.
Sadly, Judge Jackson has a horrible far left record on the bench. In 2013 Judge Jackson rejected arguments from the Catholic Church that Obamacare’s requirements that employers provide cost free coverage of contraceptive services in spite of being contrary to their religious beliefs. This was overturned by the Supreme Court.
In 2017 Judge Jackson dismissed the wrongful death suit against Hillary Clinton filed by two of the families who lost loved ones in Benghazi. The families argued that Clinton had done little to help their sons and then lied to cover it up.
It is unknown how she was assigned to the Manafort case or by whom. What is clear is that with her atrocious and slanted record to date, the Deep State and the Mueller team certainly wanted Judge Jackson overseeing the Manafort case.
On January 3, 2018, we reported that Paul Manafort filed a suit against the “Deep State” DOJ (Jeff Sessions), Assistant AG Rod Rosenstein and Corrupt Investigator Robert Mueller that should have shut down Mueller’s corrupt investigation!
In another example the report: “Immigrant Who Became Hotshot Chicago DNC Judge Sentenced To Jail For $1.4m Mortgage Fraud” shows that Judges veer to crime quite often, when influenced: Lukas Mikelionis reports that Jessica Arong O’Brien, 51, broke down into tears after the judge sent her to prison after the federal jury convicted her in February of two counts alleging that she took part in a scheme in which several lenders were scammed. (Facebook)
The first Filipina judge in Cook County, Chicago, who came to the U.S. with almost nothing and no education, was sentenced on Thursday to a year in prison after being found guilty to participating in a $1.4 million mortgage fraud scheme a decade ago.
Jessica Arong O’Brien, 51, broke down into tears after the judge sent her to prison following her February conviction of two counts alleging that she took part in a scheme in which several lenders were scammed, the Chicago Tribune reported.
She was convicted of lying to lenders to obtain more than $1.4 million in mortgages on two investment properties that she sold while she owned a real estate company.
O’Brien reportedly made money by selling the two homes in 2007 after paying kickbacks to a straw purchaser. Personally, she made a profit of at least $325,000 from the sales, prosecutors said.
The lenders, meanwhile, lost money as the straw purchaser defaulted on payments and properties were foreclosed.
Jessica Arong O’Brien is often seen in photos with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (Per Facebook)
Prior to the sentencing, O’Brien said she was “an embarrassment” and said the scheme was a mistake. “Of course, I have remorse as to my stupidity,” O’Brien said.
Her lawyer Steve Greenberg argued for probation, pointing to her true American dream story, where a Filipina immigrant, who came to the U.S. without anything, educated herself and became a judge.
According to the Tribune, after O’Brien came to the U.S., she earned degrees in culinary arts and restaurant management. She later went to John Marshall Law School, graduating in 1998.
With a law degree, she went on to become the first Asian elected president of the Women’s Bar Association of Illinois and served on the board of governors for the Illinois State Bar Association. She also co-founded a group in 2008 that gives scholarships to law students from diverse backgrounds.
“It is an inspirational story. She has fallen as far as she can fall. She has lost everything. … There is absolutely no reason to send this poor lady to jail.”
— Lawyer Steve Greenberg
“It is an inspirational story,” Greenberg said. “She has fallen as far as she can fall. She has lost everything. … There is absolutely no reason to send this poor lady to jail.”
But U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin denied the request for probation, arguing that her fraud scheme wasn’t just a mistake but a rather elaborate fraudulent scheme.
“This wasn’t stupid,” Durkin said, according to the newspaper. “This was a crime… You really didn’t need to do this.”
“This wasn’t stupid. This was a crime. … You really didn’t need to do this.”
— U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin
Prosecutors, meanwhile, used O’Brien’s story to push for a harsher sentence, saying that she committed fraud despite not having the financial needs to do it.
After sentencing, O’Brien blamed family issues that prompted her to get into real estate business and reiterated that she acted foolishly.
“Of all those things that everyone has told you about me, one thing was missing — stupid,” O’Brien, according to the Tribune. “I mean, seriously. This whole process is crazy. I can’t put my hands on it.”
“I hope some day when I am six feet under, they will learn from what happened here,” she added, hoping other lawyers will learn that they will be held to a higher standard.
In another example, a website targeting corrupt judges, says: “…This is a movie about a disturbed person, which happens to be exactly what occurred to me in real life. I grew up with a psychopath (con-artist, liar, fraud and master manipulator) who learned at an early age how to get what she wants by guilt trips or charming the weak. It’s just an act, a guilt trip, a con job by a immoral beast. You see in public she pretends to be caring, kind and a good person. But those who see through her act and con job know what she really is. A monster that hides behind “I Care A Lot”. I grew up with this beast that has no business walking around in the free world. Yet it’s obvious I’m not alone these beasts are common. Worse they cheat and lie their way into roles of authority and power. People today don’t care about the facts, evidence or truth they follow a fake image which is how these monsters survive. Down at the bottom of this page is an audio file which is an example of how this con-artist looks for weakness by saying how much she cares and when that does not work seconds later switches to who she really is “Don’t make me pull the trigger because I really do love you”. But it’s all an act by a cold blooded psychopath. An insect who has no empathy or heart.
Welcome to my world and how a child from birth destroyed her father, hated her brother because he was competition and used the court system, mail fraud, identity theft to embezzle $200,000.00 from her own mother’s bank accounts. Then force her mother into a conservatorship via a fraudulent petition based on perjury. How her husband who with his background as corporate coach, fired health provider CEO and CPA background helped find corrupt lawyers and judges to ignore evidence, elder abuse, fraud, perjury and full documentation of (2) missing bank accounts. All ignored by a Judge Candace J Beason
America, LYING DOES PAY and very well. It’s no longer about a GOOD lawyer that knows law but about finding a connected lawyer who can bribe the judge. (This one happened to be the X President of the Pasadena Bar) and frequented the Judges dinners (conflict of interest?). In fact this same lawyer was found to feed cases to one of the most corrupt judges of Los Angeles County Superior Court Probate departmentJudge Aviva K. Bobb Who was exposed by a series of Probate abuse articles by the Los Angeles Times back in early 2000. Which the court “PRETENDED” to clean up but in fact just dug in deeper and allowed worse corruption. Judge Bobb and Pasadena Lawyer Philip Barbaro Jr. Would form a conspiracy to try and shut me up via a fraudulent Police report claiming I was terrorizing them by posting my opinion on the internet. I spent 3 days in jail then released stating I was only detained. Fact is police told me my version of what took place exposing a corrupt judge and lawyers appeared to be the truth because they could not find any other reason. But like all other authorities FBI, DOJ, APS, LAPD, Los Angeles Bar, California Bar no one did anything when provided with evidence. No one wants to think a judge could be a criminal or a lawyer who “pretends” to fight against elder abuse is a fraud. Like “I Care A Lot” the concept is LIE, put on a fake image, smile and pretend you’re not who they say you are.
My version of events is “Factual, backed up by documents and court records” I’ve even got original emails from my sister back as far as 1995, cards, letter and audio recordings. Witness statements as well and missing bank account numbers which she claims never existed but in her petition wastes no time claiming “if the court found $200K in missing bank accounts” she blames her brother “Me” who was responsible. However never supplies one ounce of evidence or documentation. In fact the entire petition is based on hearsay, lies and perjured info by her and her Glendale lawyer Christopher E. Overgaard of La Crescenta CA who perjure his own petition in the case even going so far as to claim his lawyer partner Michael Jay was a PI and searched for me but could not find me. This is typical how probate courts operate.
Even the lawyer the court forces upon the person conserved works for the court but is paid by the conservator. Meet Pacific Palisades PVP Violet M. Boskovich who helped the conservator cover up her fraud, perjury and lies. Never represented her client and worked hard to keep her silent and away from appearing in court. Point is “It’s all about the money” Follow the money because the participants all are paid by the person made (in charge of the money). The actual owner has zero say, freedom, rights or control of anything. They’re made out to be mentally incompetent (but in reality are over medicated). The game is “Isolate, Medicate and Liquidate” while they smile all the way to the bank.
The Superior Court system in Los Angeles has become a joke for a city that has so much,yet so little,California is ranked F, at present and the Superior Court system here is next to third world as far as fraud, corruption and justice for profit. This system is denying its residents/Taxpayers their due process on so many levels, Banks, Escrow companies and title companies own the courts and they are attempting to own the land. Lawyers wont take a stand against these courts and their judges that’s how bad it has become.Please do the right thing and investigate and replace those who don’t want to play fair.
Apr 4th, 2019
Someone from San Gabriel, CA writes:
My husband was an employee at Los Angeles Department of Warer and Power. He has a Ph.D. and has done exceptional job as a chemist for the department by training other employees. But because of the ongoing discriminatory and retaliatory actions against him for filing an internal grievance about the corrupt and discriminatory promotion process, he never got promoted even though he is only one of the few working there with a Ph.D. degree. He was physically assaulted by an assistant supervisor who got promoted ahead of him despite not having as much job experience and degree credential. Not only was he denied proper justice, he was further retaliated against with excessive amount of work, excessive monitoring with his supervisors’ attempts to force him to commit errors with his work. When he was finally forced to make a mistake which could have been easily avoided had he not been piled so much work, he was denied the chance to correct the mistake (every employee is allowed to correct mistakes as part of the work protocol) and his mistake was grossly exaggerated to one that cannot be scientifically and evidentially supported. He is terminated because he was demoted to do the task of peeling labels and discarding sample waste which resulted in an additional workplace injury. When he reported this additional injury, he was immediately terminated with that supposed “mistake” that he so wanted to avoid and correct from a year ago. The Skelly Meeting and the city appeals both before a supposed arbitrator (Joseph Duffy) and some city commissioners went absolutely nowhere as they refused to consider any scientific evidence. They only consider what LADWP management colluded to say (a bunch of shameless and corrupt PERJURERS), as if a lie repeated many times by enough people, it would become the truth. LADWP went to strike our lawsuit down recently at the Superior Court. I have been following through this case for several years and the corruption and collusion within the whole judicial system is astounding. They have the appearance and facade of “due process” without the real substance. Everything they did was only formality. Whatever LADW managers and supervisors colluded to say (that is, to say only, WITHOUT EVIDENCE) becomes “evidence”, but whatever real object scientific and forensic evidence we present with my husband being also an eyewitness is brushed aside. I guess if I bring over all of my friends and relatives from all over the globe and say LADWP supervisors murdered someone, it would become the truth just because there are enough people repeating the same accusation, then by all means I can lock all of these managers and supervisors up for murders. With the same logic, the judicial system in Los Angeles is such that they consider enough perjurers repeating the same false accusations or claims to be “good evidence” and so they used such “evidence” (whatever they collide together to defame and perjure) to wrongfully terminate my husband and continue to deny him justice. These “judges” and “commissioners” who hold law degrees or have studied law should be utterly ashamed of themselves for such blatant distortion of justice. We should call the judicial system in Los Angeles CORRUPTION SYSTEM.
Aug 29th, 2016
Someone from South El Monte, CA writes:
I Lost my inheritance and my mom and our homes thanks to the court system I was never heard didn’t have an attorney wrote letters filed forms because of how much they have to benefit from the elderly there the ones who win win it all them the attorney and fiduciary’s judges when I’m reporting elder abuse and it’s ignored but my mom is being taken for money when both conservators are passing out money and not to caregivers
Mar 11th, 2017
Patrick M. from Los Angeles, CA writes:
The Los Angeles Superior Court is in my opinion a band of judicial gangsters, that are blatantly denying due process, ignoring valid evidence, violating the Constitution and extorting money from the people of Los Angeles all while being paid off by whichever party has the right price. as a pro se litigant I went up against a lawyer who claim to not be representing any of the defendants yet drafted every Motion in the case and they were all granted and my case was dismissed, even though the court had no jurisdiction as the defendant had no lawyer they had defaulted. A total joke…if you want justice stay away from these people. …you have better luck dealing directly with the Mob.Dec 6th, 2016
Jose H. from Alhambra, CA writes:
I totally agreed since i been emotionally financially and even mentally affected since i got so physical stressed knowing how this court will take my ex wife’s side since she all the time was a step forward in our case and always hiring a lawyer that I couldn’t afford for myself but i had all the time to pay for her attorney since I didn’t have on attorney the judges never pay attention to me and side by side with her lawyer always loosing case by case i little by little lost it all this court left me empty pocket and even my part of the divorce was then giving wrongfully to my ex wife she stole she kicked me out of my own house took my part of the half and half assets and properties and all thanks to the her lawyer that was in a deal with the judge at each case my ex even failed to report to court over payments she fail to follow the court orders she trespass and stole from a property she gave false testimony and i reported all this to the court and to the judge and they ignored me cause they were no getting profits from me as with my ex because the lawyer soplits with the judge they move in a way that I couldn’t believe i have another big story how the judge even moved a clerk from his desk then sent me to talk to a person who all she did was discouraged me from appealing the decision and only hand me the papers without helping me when the usual clerk helps people filling up the papers for people without attorney but this lady the judge sent one throw the papers to me in a very rude way please i need my case to be review as per i ended up on the streets thanks
Victims go into the millions with police, government and the courts in a huge cover up protecting a manipulated Justice system that is nothing about justice. The legal system in California is designed to destroy family, estates, children’s lives and freedom via dishonest judges and lawyers controlled by a gang called the ABA American Bar Association.
Be sure to scroll down the page for info how to report and file complaints.
Mar 13th, 2017
Someone from Los Angeles, CA writes:
Appellate court denies challenge to LA judges’ ‘double-dipping’ practice Los Angeles County provides Superior Court judges more than $46,400 each in annual benefits, including supplemental health and retirement benefits, while judges in other counties receive substantially fewer supplemental benefits or none at all. The legal fight began in April 2006, when Sturgeon filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court asking that the county be stopped from paying benefits to judges because they were also receiving them from the state through legislation passed in 1997. Mr. Trump is right, the system is rigged.
- Los Angeles Judges
- Alternative Resolution Center
- Judge Anthony B. Drewry
- Judge Armen Tamzarian
- Judge Aviva K. Bobb
- 2005 Complaint filed against Judge Bobb in the Marshall Stern Case
- Aviva K Bobb ERASED PROOF
- FrumehLabow.com ERASED PROOF
- JohnTRogersJr.com ERASED PROOF
- Ricky Ritch et al v. Aviva Bobb et al Central District of California, cacd-2:2006-cv-04795 MINUTES
- Ricky Ritch v. Aviva Bobb (2:06-cv-04795-CAS-JWJ)
- Ruling Over Someone’ Has Paid Off Handsomely Guardians for Profit
- Judge Barbara R. Johnson
- Judge Brenda J Penny
- Judge Candace J Beason
- Judge David J. Cowan
- Judge David Yaffe
- Judge Elizabeth A. Lippitt
- Judge James Bascue
- Judge John W. Ouderkirk
- Judge Joseph DeVanon
- Judge Kevin C. Brazile
- Judge Luna Ana Maria
- Judge Mary Thornton House
- Judge Michael I. Levanas
- Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff
- Judge Patrick T. Madden
- Judge Randolph M. Hammock
- Judge Reva G. Goetz
- Judge Scott M. Gordon
- Judge Stanley Blumenfeld
- Judge Tamara E. Hall
- Judge Thomas Long
- Judge William P. Barry
- Judge Zaven Sinanian
- Los Angeles Superior Court LAUSD Fraud
- Superior Court Probate Division
- Mariposa County Judges
- Martinez Judges
- Pomona Judges
- Redding Judges
- Riverside Judges
- Sacramento Judges
- San Diego Judges
- San Francisco Judges
- San Jose Judges
- Santa Barbara Judges
State of California Commission on Judicial Performance
Complaints Against California Judges
Lawless America Corruption Reports for Judges
Judges as Criminals
Judges above the Law
Center for Judicial Excellence
Exposing Corrupt California Judges, Courts and more. judges Socrates Manoukian, His wife Patricia Bamratte-Manoukian and Erica Yew, Commission on Judicial Performance.Nepotism, Corruption and Fraud in California’s Courts.
Apr 4, 201543 California judges were reprimanded for misconduct last year By Maura Dolan Staff Writer April 4, 2015 7:37 PM PT Reporting from SAN FRANCISCO — Two judges had sex with women in their chambers,…
Santa Clara County California is a hotbed of Corruption that focuses on one judge Socrates Peter Manoukian where several documented cases have been sabotaged by the judge. There is even an official Judge Socrates Manoukian web site which documents the corruption and crimes.
Thomas J. Maloney was a judge in Cook County, Illinois from 1977 to 1991. Maloney and numerous fellow Cook County judges were the focus of an investigation named Operation Greylord. The o peration was a joint investigation by the FBI, IRS, USPS and the Illinois State Police to track down corrupt judges.
The Corrupt Visiting Judge Judge Richard Markus is openly violating the constitutional rights of citizen Elsebeth Baumgartner for simply exercising her right to free speech in a non-threatening, peaceful manner. The lengths this just has gone to is sickening and appalling and is another black
To add insult to the indignity of being preyed upon by corrupt judges, Californians have to endure the Commission of Judicial Performance [CJP], which is the watchdog agency where the wolves monitor the wolves who are feasting inside the hen house.
The country’s approximately 1,700 federal judges hear 400,000 cases annually. The nearly 30,000 state, county and municipal court judges handle a far bigger docket: more than 100 million new …
Oct 18, 2015Corrupt justice: what happens when judges’ bias taints a case? … California’s score, 77, the highest of any state, was seven points below the federal government’s grade of 84.
Effective September 10, 2021. Hon. Leland Davis, III, Presiding Judge Department 1, Courtroom 2H 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063 (650) 261-5101
In another example MICHAEL BERENS and JOHN SHIFFMAN report that Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws or oaths remained on the bench
In the past dozen years, state and local judges have repeatedly escaped public accountability for misdeeds that have victimized thousands. Nine of 10 kept their jobs, a Reuters investigation found – including an Alabama judge who unlawfully jailed hundreds of poor people, many of them Black, over traffic fines.
Judge Les Hayes once sentenced a single mother to 496 days behind bars for failing to pay traffic tickets. The sentence was so stiff it exceeded the jail time Alabama allows for negligent homicide.
Marquita Johnson, who was locked up in April 2012, says the impact of her time in jail endures today. Johnson’s three children were cast into foster care while she was incarcerated. One daughter was molested, state records show. Another was physically abused.
“Judge Hayes took away my life and didn’t care how my children suffered,” said Johnson, now 36. “My girls will never be the same.”
Fellow inmates found her sentence hard to believe. “They had a nickname for me: The Woman with All the Days,” Johnson said. “That’s what they called me: The Woman with All the Days. There were people who had committed real crimes who got out before me.”
In 2016, the state agency that oversees judges charged Hayes with violating Alabama’s code of judicial conduct. According to the Judicial Inquiry Commission, Hayes broke state and federal laws by jailing Johnson and hundreds of other Montgomery residents too poor to pay fines. Among those jailed: a plumber struggling to make rent, a mother who skipped meals to cover the medical bills of her disabled son, and a hotel housekeeper working her way through college.
Hayes, a judge since 2000, admitted in court documents to violating 10 different parts of the state’s judicial conduct code. One of the counts was a breach of a judge’s most essential duty: failing to “respect and comply with the law.”
Despite the severity of the ruling, Hayes wasn’t barred from serving as a judge. Instead, the judicial commission and Hayes reached a deal. The former Eagle Scout would serve an 11-month unpaid suspension. Then he could return to the bench.
Until he was disciplined, Hayes said in an interview with Reuters, “I never thought I was doing something wrong.”
This week, Hayes is set to retire after 20 years as a judge. In a statement to Reuters, Hayes said he was “very remorseful” for his misdeeds.
Community activists say his departure is long overdue. Yet the decision to leave, they say, should never have been his to make, given his record of misconduct.
“He should have been fired years ago,” said Willie Knight, pastor of North Montgomery Baptist Church. “He broke the law and wanted to get away with it. His sudden retirement is years too late.”
Hayes is among thousands of state and local judges across America who were allowed to keep positions of extraordinary power and prestige after violating judicial ethics rules or breaking laws they pledged to uphold, a Reuters investigation found.
- The Teflon Robe: Read the series
- Reuters database: Judges who were publicly disciplined – and what they did
- Methodology and Q&A: How we examined misconduct
- How to use the searchable database to explore the disciplinary files of judges across America
Judges have made racist statements, lied to state officials and forced defendants to languish in jail without a lawyer – and then returned to the bench, sometimes with little more than a rebuke from the state agencies overseeing their conduct.
In the first comprehensive accounting of judicial misconduct nationally, Reuters identified and reviewed 1,509 cases from the last dozen years – 2008 through 2019 – in which judges resigned, retired or were publicly disciplined following accusations of misconduct. In addition, reporters identified another 3,613 cases from 2008 through 2018 in which states disciplined wayward judges but kept hidden from the public key details of their offenses – including the identities of the judges themselves.
All told, 9 of every 10 judges were allowed to return to the bench after they were sanctioned for misconduct, Reuters determined. They included a California judge who had sex in his courthouse chambers, once with his former law intern and separately with an attorney; a New York judge who berated domestic violence victims; and a Maryland judge who, after his arrest for driving drunk, was allowed to return to the bench provided he took a Breathalyzer test before each appearance.
The news agency’s findings reveal an “excessively” forgiving judicial disciplinary system, said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University who writes about judicial ethics. Although punishment short of removal from the bench is appropriate for most misconduct cases, Gillers said, the public “would be appalled at some of the lenient treatment judges get” for substantial transgressions.
Among the cases from the past year alone:
PUBLIC WARNING (2019)
Burst into a jury deliberation room, exclaiming that God told him the defendant was innocent.
The Herald-Zeitung/Handout via REUTERS
In Utah, a judge texted a video of a man’s scrotum to court clerks. He was reprimanded but remains on the bench.
In Indiana, three judges attending a conference last spring got drunk and sparked a 3 a.m. brawl outside a White Castle fast-food restaurant that ended with two of the judges shot. Although the state supreme court found the three judges had “discredited the entire Indiana judiciary,” each returned to the bench after a suspension.
In Texas, a judge burst in on jurors deliberating the case of a woman charged with sex trafficking and declared that God told him the defendant was innocent. The offending judge received a warning and returned to the bench. The defendant was convicted after a new judge took over the case.
“There are certain things where there should be a level of zero tolerance,” the jury foreman, Mark House, told Reuters. The judge should have been fined, House said, and kicked off the bench. “There is no justice, because he is still doing his job.”
Judicial misconduct specialists say such behavior has the potential to erode trust in America’s courts and, absent tough consequences, could give judges license to behave with impunity.
“When you see cases like that, the public starts to wonder about the integrity and honesty of the system,” said Steve Scheckman, a lawyer who directed Louisiana’s oversight agency and served as deputy director of New York’s. “It looks like a good ol’ boys club.”
That’s how local lawyers viewed the case of a longtime Alabama judge who concurrently served on the state’s judicial oversight commission. The judge, Cullman District Court’s Kim Chaney, remained on the bench for three years after being accused of violating the same nepotism rules he was tasked with enforcing on the oversight commission. In at least 200 cases, court records show, Judge Chaney chose his own son to serve as a court-appointed defense lawyer for the indigent, enabling the younger Chaney to earn at least $105,000 in fees over two years.
In February, months after Reuters repeatedly asked Chaney and the state judicial commission about those cases, he retired from the bench as part of a deal with state authorities to end the investigation.
Tommy Drake, the lawyer who first filed a complaint against Chaney in 2016, said he doubts the judge would have been forced from the bench if Reuters hadn’t examined the case.
“You know the only reason they did anything about Chaney is because you guys started asking questions,” Drake said. “Otherwise, he’d still be there.”
Bedrock of American justice
State and local judges draw little scrutiny even though their courtrooms are the bedrock of the American criminal justice system, touching the lives of millions of people every year.
The country’s approximately 1,700 federal judges hear 400,000 cases annually. The nearly 30,000 state, county and municipal court judges handle a far bigger docket: more than 100 million new cases each year, from traffic to divorce to murder. Their titles range from justice of the peace to state supreme court justice. Their powers are vast and varied – from determining whether a defendant should be jailed to deciding who deserves custody of a child.
Each U.S. state has an oversight agency that investigates misconduct complaints against judges. The authority of the oversight agencies is distinct from the power held by appellate courts, which can reverse a judge’s legal ruling and order a new trial. Judicial commissions cannot change verdicts. Rather, they can investigate complaints about the behavior of judges and pursue discipline ranging from reprimand to removal.
Few experts dispute that the great majority of judges behave responsibly, respecting the law and those who appear before them. And some contend that, when judges do falter, oversight agencies are effective in identifying and addressing the behavior. “With a few notable exceptions, the commissions generally get it right,” said Keith Swisher, a University of Arizona law professor who specializes in judicial ethics.
Others disagree. They note that the clout of these commissions is limited, and their authority differs from state to state. To remove a judge, all but a handful of states require approval of a panel that includes other judges. And most states seldom exercise the full extent of those disciplinary powers.
As a result, the system tends to err on the side of protecting the rights and reputations of judges while overlooking the impact courtroom wrongdoing has on those most affected by it: people like Marquita Johnson.
Reuters scoured thousands of state investigative files, disciplinary proceedings and court records from the past dozen years to quantify the personal toll of judicial misconduct. The examination found at least 5,206 people who were directly affected by a judge’s misconduct. The victims cited in disciplinary documents ranged from people who were illegally jailed to those subjected to racist, sexist and other abusive comments from judges in ways that tainted the cases.
The number is a conservative estimate. The tally doesn’t include two previously reported incidents that affected thousands of defendants and prompted sweeping reviews of judicial conduct.
“If we have a system that holds a wrongdoer accountable but we fail to address the victims, then we are really losing sight of what a justice system should be all about.”
In Pennsylvania, the state examined the convictions of more than 3,500 teenagers sentenced by two judges. The judges were convicted of taking kickbacks as part of a scheme to fill a private juvenile detention center. In 2009, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court appointed senior judge Arthur Grim to lead a victim review, and the state later expunged criminal records for 2,251 juveniles. Grim told Reuters that every state should adopt a way to compensate victims of judicial misconduct.
“If we have a system that holds a wrongdoer accountable but we fail to address the victims, then we are really losing sight of what a justice system should be all about,” Grim said.
In another review underway in Ohio, state public defender Tim Young is scrutinizing 2,707 cases handled by a judge who retired in 2018 after being hospitalized for alcoholism. Mike Benza, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University whose students are helping identify victims, compared the work to current investigations into police abuse of power. “You see one case and then you look to see if it’s systemic,” he said.
The review, which has been limited during the coronavirus pandemic, may take a year. But Young said the time-consuming task is essential because “a fundamental injustice may have been levied against hundreds or thousands of people.”
‘Special rules for judges’
Most states afford judges accused of misconduct a gentle kind of justice. Perhaps no state better illustrates the shortcomings of America’s system for overseeing judges than Alabama.
As in most states, Alabama’s nine-member Judicial Inquiry Commission is a mix of lawyers, judges and laypeople. All are appointed. Their deliberations are secret and they operate under some of the most judge-friendly rules in the nation.
Alabama’s rules make even filing a complaint against a judge difficult. The complaint must be notarized, which means that in theory, anyone who makes misstatements about the judge can be prosecuted for perjury. Complaints about wrongdoing must be made in writing; those that arrive by phone, email or without a notary stamp are not investigated, although senders are notified why their complaints have been summarily rejected. Anonymous written complaints are shredded.
These rules can leave lawyers and litigants fearing retaliation, commission director Jenny Garrett noted in response to written questions.
“It’s a ridiculous system that protects judges and makes it easy for them to intimidate anyone with a legitimate complaint,” said Sue Bell Cobb, chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court from 2007 to 2011. In 2009, she unsuccessfully championed changes to the process and commissioned an American Bar Association report that offered a scathing review of Alabama’s rules.
In most other states, commission staff members can start investigating a judge upon receiving a phone call or email, even anonymous ones, or after learning of questionable conduct from a news report or court filing. In Alabama, staff will not begin an investigation without approval from the commission itself, which convenes about every seven weeks.
By rule, the commission also must keep a judge who is under scrutiny fully informed throughout an investigation. If a subpoena is issued, the judge receives a simultaneous copy, raising fears about witness intimidation. If a witness gives investigators a statement, the judge receives a transcript. In the U.S. justice system, such deference to individuals under investigation is extremely rare.
“It’s a ridiculous system that protects judges and makes it easy for them to intimidate anyone with a legitimate complaint.”
“Why the need for special rules for judges?” said Michael Levy, a Washington lawyer who has represented clients in high-profile criminal, corporate, congressional and securities investigations. “If judges think it’s fair and appropriate to investigate others for crimes or misconduct without providing those subjects or targets with copies of witness statements and subpoenas, why don’t judges think it’s fair to investigate judges in the same way?”
Alabama judges also are given an opportunity to resolve investigations confidentially. Reuters interviews and a review of Alabama commission records show the commission has met with judges informally at least 19 times since 2011 to offer corrective “guidance.” The identities of those judges remain confidential, as does the conduct that prompted the meetings. “Not every violation warrants discipline,” commission director Garrett said.
Since 2008, the commission has brought 21 public cases against judges, including Hayes, charging two this year. 496 = Number of days Judge Hayes sentenced Marquita Johnson to jail for unpaid traffic tickets.
Two of the best-known cases brought by the commission involved Roy Moore, who was twice forced out as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for defying federal court orders.
Another Alabama justice fared better in challenging a misconduct complaint, however. Tom Parker, first elected to the state’s high court in 2004, pushed back when the commission investigated him in 2015 for comments he made on the radio criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing gay marriage.
Parker sued the commission in federal court, arguing the agency was infringing on his First Amendment rights. He won. Although the commission had dropped its investigation before the ruling, it was ordered to cover Parker’s legal fees: $100,000, or about a fifth of the agency’s total annual budget.
In 2018, the people of Alabama elected Parker chief justice.
These days, Parker told Reuters, Alabama judges and the agency that oversees them enjoy “a much better relationship” that’s less politically tinged. “How can I say it? It’s much more respectful between the commission and the judges now.”
Montgomery, Alabama has a deep history of racial conflict, as reflected in the clashing concepts emblazoned on the city’s great seal: “Cradle of the Confederacy” and “Birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement.”
Jefferson Davis was inaugurated here as Confederate president after the South seceded from the Union in 1861, and his birthday is a state holiday. As was common throughout the South, the city was the site of the lynchings of Black men, crimes now commemorated at a national memorial based here. Police arrested civil rights icon Rosa Parks here in 1955 for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus to a white passenger.
Today, about 60% of Montgomery’s 198,000 residents are Black, U.S. census records show. Even so, Black motorists account for about 90% of those charged with unpaid traffic tickets, a Reuters examination of court records found. Much of Judge Hayes’ work in municipal court involved traffic cases and the collection of fines. Hayes, who is white, told Reuters that “the majority of people who come before the court are Black.”
City officials have said that neither race nor economics have played a role in police efforts to enforce outstanding warrants, no matter how minor the offense.
In April 2012, Marquita Johnson was among them. Appearing before Hayes on a Wednesday morning, the 28-year-old single mother pleaded for a break.
Johnson had struggled for eight years to pay dozens of tickets that began with a citation for failing to show proof of insurance. She had insurance, she said. But when she was pulled over, she couldn’t find the card to prove it.
Even a single ticket was a knockout blow on her minimum-wage waitress salary. In addition to fines, the court assessed a $155 fee to every ticket. Court records show that police often issued her multiple tickets for other infractions during every stop – a practice some residents call “stacking.”
Under state law, failing to pay even one ticket can result in the suspension of a driver’s license. Johnson’s decision to keep driving nonetheless – taking her children to school or to doctor visits, getting groceries, going to work – led to more tickets and deeper debt.
“I told Judge Hayes that I had lost my job and needed more time to pay,” she recounted.
By Hayes’ calculation, Johnson owed more than $12,000 in fines. He sentenced Johnson to 496 days in jail. Hayes arrived at that sentence by counting each day in jail as $25 toward the outstanding debt. A different judge later determined that Johnson actually owed half the amount calculated by Hayes, and that Hayes had incorrectly penalized her over fines she had already paid. To shave time off her sentence, Johnson washed police cars and performed other menial labor while jailed.
Hayes told Reuters that he generally found pleas of poverty hard to believe. “With my years of experience, I can tell when someone is being truthful with me,” Hayes said. He called it “gut instinct” — though he added, in a statement this week, that he also consulted “each defendant’s criminal and traffic history as well as their history of warrants and failures to appear in court.”
Of course, the law demands more of a judge than a gut call. In a 1983 landmark decision, Bearden v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state judges are obligated to hold a hearing to determine whether a defendant has “willfully” chosen not to pay a fine.
According to the state’s judicial oversight commission, “Judge Hayes did not make any inquiry into Ms. Johnson’s ability to pay, whether her non-payment was willful.”
From jail, “I prayed to return to my daughters,” Johnson said. “I was sure that someone would realize that Hayes had made a mistake.”
She said her worst day in jail was her youngest daughter’s 3rd birthday. From a jail telephone, she tried to sing “Happy Birthday” but slumped to the floor in grief.
“She was choking up and crying,” said Johnson’s mother, Blanche, who was on the call. “She was devastated to be away from her children so long.”
When Johnson was freed after 10 months in jail, she learned that strangers had abused her two older children. One is now a teenager; the other is in middle school. “My kids will pay a lifetime for what the court system did to me,” Johnson said. “My daughters get frantic when I leave the house. I know they’ve had nightmares that I’m going to disappear again.”
Six months after Johnson’s release, Hayes jailed another single Black mother. Angela McCullough, then 40, had been pulled over driving home from Faulkner University, a local community college where she carried a 3.87 grade point average. As a mother of four children, including a disabled adult son, she had returned to college to pursue her dream of becoming a mental health counselor.
Police ticketed her for failing to turn on her headlights. After a background check, the officer arrested McCullough on a warrant for outstanding traffic tickets. She was later brought before Hayes.
“I can’t go to jail,” McCullough recalled pleading with the judge. “I’m a mother. I have a disabled son who needs me.”
Hayes sentenced McCullough to 100 days in jail to pay off a court debt of $1,350, court records show. Her adult son, diagnosed with schizophrenia, was held in an institution until her release.
McCullough said she cleaned jail cells in return for time off her sentence. One day, she recalled, she had to clean a blood-soaked cell where a female inmate had slit her wrists.
She was freed after 20 days, using the money she saved for tuition to pay off her tickets, she said.
Jail was the darkest chapter of her life, McCullough said, a place where “the devil was trying to take my mind.” Today, she has abandoned her pursuit of a degree. “I don’t think I’ll ever be able to afford to go back.”
SUSPENDED 6 MONTHS (2017)
Deliberately postponed the appointment of public defenders in probation violation cases.
A clear sign that something was amiss in Montgomery courts came in November 2013, when a federal lawsuit was filed alleging that city judges were unlawfully jailing the poor. A similar suit was filed in 2014, and two more civil rights cases were filed in 2015. Johnson and McCullough were plaintiffs.
The lawsuits detailed practices similar to those that helped fuel protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after a white police officer killed a Black teenager in 2014. In a scathing report on the origins of the unrest, the U.S. Department of Justice exposed how Ferguson had systematically used traffic enforcement to raise revenue through excessive fines, a practice that fell disproportionately hard on Black residents.
“Montgomery is just like Ferguson,” said Karen Jones, a community activist and founder of a local educational nonprofit. Jones has led recent protests in Montgomery in the wake of the killing of George Floyd, the Black man whose death under the knee of a cop in Minneapolis set off worldwide calls for racial justice.
In Montgomery, “everybody knew that the police targeted Black residents. And I sat in Hayes’ court and watched him squeeze poor people for more money, then toss them in jail where they had to work off debts with free labor to the city.”
It was years before the flurry of civil rights lawsuits against Hayes and his fellow judges had much impact on the commission. The oversight agency opened its Hayes case in summer 2015, nearly two years after plaintiffs’ lawyers in the civil rights cases filed a complaint with the body. Hayes spent another year and a half on the bench before accepting the suspension.
Under its own rules, the commission could have filed a complaint and told its staff to investigate Hayes at any time. Commission director Garrett said she is prohibited by law from explaining why the commission didn’t investigate sooner. The investigation went slowly, Garrett said, because it involved reviewing thousands of pages of court records. The commission also was busy with other cases from 2015 to early 2017, Garrett said, issuing charges against five judges, including Moore.
“Slap in the face”
A few months after Judge Hayes’ suspension ended, his term as a municipal judge was set to expire. So, the Montgomery City Council took up the question of the judge’s future on March 6, 2018. On the agenda of its meeting: whether to reappoint Hayes to another four-year term.
Hayes wasn’t in the audience that night, but powerful supporters were. The city’s chief judge, Milton Westry, told the council that Hayes and his colleagues have changed how they handled cases involving indigent defendants, “since we learned a better way of doing things.” In the wake of the suits, Westry said, Hayes and his peers complied with reforms that required judges to make audio recordings of court hearings and notify lawyers when clients are jailed for failing to pay fines.
As part of a settlement in the civil case, the city judges agreed to implement changes for at least two years. Those reforms have since been abandoned, Reuters found. Both measures were deemed too expensive, Hayes and city officials confirmed.
Residents who addressed the council were incredulous that the city would consider reappointing Hayes. Jones, the community activist, reminded council members that Hayes had “pleaded guilty to violating the very laws he was sworn to uphold.”
The city council voted to rehire Hayes to a fifth consecutive term.
Marquita Johnson said she can’t understand why a judge whose unlawful rulings changed the lives of hundreds has himself emerged virtually unscathed.
“Hiring Hayes back to the bench was a slap in the face to everyone,” Johnson said. “It was a message that we don’t matter.”
On Thursday, Hayes will retire from the bench. In an earlier interview with Reuters, he declined to discuss the Johnson case. Asked whether he regrets any of the sentences he has handed out, he paused.
“I think, maybe, I could have been more sympathetic at times,” Hayes said. “Sometimes you miss a few.”
Additional reporting by Isabella Jibilian, Andrea Januta and Blake Morrison. Edited by Morrison.
In another example reported by JOHN SHIFFMAN , A watchdog accused, a pattern of rulings delayed, a repeat offender wherein Three recent cases illustrate how Alabama judges who were cited for wrongdoing were able to remain on the bench for years. Judge Chaney: Enforced, broke rules!
What happened when a trial judge who also served on the state’s judicial oversight board was accused of misbehavior.
Alex Chaney was just a year out of law school in 2015 when he started receiving lucrative appointments at taxpayer expense. A district judge began assigning him to represent people too poor to afford a lawyer.
That judge was his dad, Kim Chaney.
Judge Chaney is a powerful figure in rural Cullman County, where he was first elected to the bench in 1992. Chaney serves on a local bank board and has led several statewide justice associations.
In 2012, the governor honored Chaney by selecting him to also serve on Alabama’s nine-member Judicial Inquiry Commission, which investigates misconduct by judges. While on the commission, Chaney broke its ethics laws in his own courtroom.
In 2016, local attorney Tommy Drake filed a complaint against Chaney, alleging that the judge was appointing his son to represent indigent defendants, violating ethics rules that prohibit nepotism. Alex Chaney was paid $105,000 from 2015 to 2017 by the state for such court-appointed work, accounting records show.
Because Judge Chaney served on the judicial commission, Drake sent his complaint to a different state watchdog agency, the Alabama Ethics Commission. On October 4, 2017, the Ethics Commission found that Judge Chaney violated ethics rules and referred the case to the state attorney general.
The following day, records show, Judge Chaney resigned from the Judicial Inquiry Commission. But he remained a trial judge in Cullman. Eighteen months passed.
Last summer, a Reuters reporter began asking state officials about the status of the case. The officials declined to comment.
In November, Reuters sent Judge Chaney and his son queries. They did not respond. The judge’s lawyer, John Henig Jr, wrote to Reuters: “Judge Chaney is a person of remarkably good character and would never knowingly do anything unethical or wrong.”
Henig said that Judge Chaney appointed his son from a rotating list of lawyers to represent indigent defendants. Henig called the appointments “ministerial” in nature.
“If Judge Chaney’s son’s name was the next name on the list for appointments, Judge Chaney would call out his son’s name and thereafter immediately recuse himself from the case,” Henig wrote.
A Reuters review of court records showed otherwise: Judge Chaney participated in several cases after appointing his son and issued substantive decisions. For example, records show that the judge reduced bond for one of his son’s clients, and approved another’s motion to plead guilty. Henig did not respond to questions about these records.
This February 7 – eight months after Reuters began inquiring about Chaney – the commission charged the judge with appointing his son to more than 200 cases and making rulings in some of them. Chaney struck a deal with the commission and retired from the bench, avoiding a trial.
During a hearing to approve the deal, commission lawyer Elizabeth Bern said Chaney should have known better than to appoint his son, especially given that he did so while a member of the oversight agency. During Chaney’s tenure, the commission had disciplined two judges who abused their office to benefit a relative.
“The nepotism provision is clear and unequivocal without exception,” she said.
Chaney did not speak during the hearing.
Drake, the lawyer who filed the complaint in 2016, said that absent the Reuters inquiries, he doubts Chaney would have retired from the bench because he is so politically powerful.
Indeed, shortly after the judge stepped down in disgrace for steering work to his son, the local bar association issued a resolution praising him.
Of Chaney, the local lawyers said, “He has always maintained the highest ethical and moral standards of the office and has been an example to all, what a judge should represent.”
Judge Kelly: “Callous indifference”
How a judge left children in limbo by repeatedly failing to perform her most basic duty: ruling on cases.
Montgomery Circuit Court Judge Anita Kelly hears time-sensitive family matters such as child custody, adoption and divorce – cases in which a child remains in limbo until she rules.
Starting in 2014, court and judicial commission records show, word of years-long delays in her cases began to emerge from foster parents, lawyers, social workers and appeals court judges. Commission officials are barred by law from discussing the case, but Reuters pieced together the scope of the investigation through juvenile court records, public documents and interviews with people involved.
In May 2014, foster parents Cheri and Travis Norwood filed a complaint about Kelly with the judicial commission. They alleged the judge’s incompetence led to a traumatic, years-long delay in which a foster child who began living with the Norwoods as an infant was taken away from them at age 3 ½ and returned to live with her teenage biological mother.
“If Judge Kelly thought they should have been together, fine,” Travis Norwood said in an interview. “Why didn’t this happen sooner? Because children can’t wait. You can’t freeze a child, hold her in suspended animation until her mother is ready.”
Social workers who heard about the Norwood complaint forwarded their own concerns about Kelly’s conduct in several other cases. Nonetheless, the commission dismissed the Norwood complaint in early 2015, finding “no reasonable basis to charge the judge.”
Over the next year, more red flags emerged. State appeals court judges raised concerns about Kelly’s “continued neglect of her duty,” citing at least five cases that had untenable delays. In November 2015, a supreme court justice criticized the nearly three years it took to determine one child’s fate.
“I refuse to be another adult who has totally failed this child,” Justice Tommy Bryan wrote.
Another 20 months passed before the judicial commission took action. In August 2017, it charged Kelly with delays that “manifest a callous indifference or lack of comprehension” to children’s well-being. One child’s case, it noted, had dragged on for five years.
Kelly took her case to trial before the Court of the Judiciary, the special tribunal that weighs charges against judges. Her attorney argued that the judge worked hard and had shown no ill intent.
In 2018, the tribunal found Kelly failed to “maintain professional competence.” Kelly was suspended for 90 days. Still, she kept her job. The court said it likely would have removed Kelly from the bench if not for two factors: Voters re-elected her in 2016, and she exhibited “good character and the lack of evidence of scandal or corruption on her part.”
Her lawyer, Henry Lewis Gillis, applauded her reinstatement and said the delays never affected the quality of her decisions.
“Judge Kelly cannot change yesterday,” Gillis said. “Rather, she chooses to learn from her past experiences as she continues to handle the many, many, many cases that come before her today.”
Judge Wiggins: Give blood or go to jail
A judge who is a repeat offender – four times over – remains on the bench.
Circuit Judge Marvin Wiggins has been hit with misconduct charges by Alabama’s judicial conduct commission four times over the past decade. In 2009, he was reprimanded and suspended for 90 days for failing to recuse himself from a voter fraud investigation involving his relatives.
“The public must be able to trust that our judges will dispense justice fairly and impartially,” the Court of the Judiciary concluded. “Judge Wiggins, by his actions, disregarded that trust.”
In 2016 – in a case that made global headlines – Wiggins was censured for offering defendants the option of giving blood instead of going to jail for failing to pay fines. A local blood drive happened to be taking place at the courthouse that day.
“If you do not have any money and you don’t want to go to jail, as an option to pay it, you can give blood today,” Wiggins told dozens of defendants, according to a recording. “Consider that as a discount rather than putting you in jail, if you do not have any money.”
Forty-one defendants gave blood that day, and the commission called Wiggins’ conduct “reprehensible and inexcusable.” Wiggins acknowledged that his comments were inappropriate, but noted he did not send anyone to jail that day for failure to pay fines.
- Not all judges who have violated their oaths of office, broken the law or misbehaved on the bench have been brought before their states’ oversight commission. If you know of a judge who may have committed misconduct, please send us details at firstname.lastname@example.org. Include the name of the judge, the state, details of what the judge may have done wrong, and a way for us to contact you. Reuters investigates such tips and will contact you before publishing.
Wiggins’ lawyer, Joe Espy III, said that the judge “has always tried to cooperate” with authorities. Espy noted that Wiggins is a community leader, an ordained pastor and has been repeatedly re-elected to the bench for more than 20 years.
“He is not only a good judge but a good person,” Espy said.
Last year, Wiggins was reprimanded for directly calling the father in a custody dispute – a conversation that violated a rule prohibiting a judge from discussing a case without both sides present. A recording of the call became a key piece of evidence against Wiggins.
In preparation for trial in that case, the commission said it found a “pattern and practice” of similar one-sided calls. The commission also said it found evidence that Wiggins was meeting with divorce litigants in his chambers without lawyers present.
In November, this prompted a new commission case against Wiggins – his fourth in 10 years.
“At a very minimum,” the commission alleged, his track record indicates a “pattern of carelessness or indifferent disregard or lack of respect for the high standards imposed on the judiciary.”
But at a pretrial hearing in January, and in a subsequent order, Wiggins scored a victory before the Alabama tribunal that issues final judgment on such cases, the Court of the Judiciary. The presiding judge raised questions about whether proper procedures had been followed in the case against Wiggins.
Three weeks later, the commission dropped the case. And Wiggins returned to the bench.
These are only a few examples, supplied by major investigators and public official that prove that some Judges believe they are immune to violations of the law in order to protect their special interests. These, and many other reports, validates Plaintiff’s concerns.
Plaintiff, and his team associates, have helped develop and promote software, for use by every member of the public, by every member of Congress and by every law enforcement and regulatory agency. This software catches conflicted public officials..from Senators, to Judges, to White House staff.
These software tools are new open-source, and free, public software let any citizen get any corrupt official arrested. Any voter can use the software from the comfort of their living room. The AI replicates itself (Like A benign digital version of Covid) across the entire web.
You can download a copy of the software or build-your-own version of it from freely available code at Github, CERN and Linux repositories. Plaintiff, and his peers, have consulted with the SEC and the GAO on this technology.
After suffering millions of dollars of losses from public official’s Insider Trading schemes, Plaintiff decided to do something about that!
Illegal and corrupt Congressional, Judge and major public servant insider trading tends to be something you don’t hear about until it’s hit the big news networks and newspapers as the SEC goes for the throat of the accused. By then, unfortunately, those committing the crimes have made their gains, usually in the multi-millions of dollars, and the damage has been done to the stock, its company, investors and the American Way. Covert stock market trades are now the #1 form of bribes in California and Washington, DC.
Quite frankly, the jail time assessed doesn’t correct the damage done, and the fines rarely aid the investors, or the voters, in getting their money and their democracy back. Many of those hurt are Average Joe’s and Jill’s, like Plaintiff, who were just trying to save their retirement nest eggs.
‘Public Shame’ is the tool that works best to take down the corrupt!
These crimes involve an investment banker spouse and a Senator or other top official, using information, which was not available to the public, buying and selling a company’s stock in an underhanded manner. In many cases bribes have been paid with Google, Tesla or Facebook stock in a covert manner. It is particularly onerous when a Senators buys Tesla, Google, Facebook or Solyndra stock, and makes laws that only benefits Tesla, Solyndra, etc, while sabotaging their competitor constituents. Because the dealings involved are pretty much done on the sly, it’s been difficult, until now, for the governing body of the SEC to prove illegal insider trading, unless one of the cohorts tattles on the others or their actions become glaringly obvious. In some cases, a sharp mind around the action may take notice and become what’s called a whistle-blower.
Previously, writes Andrew Beattie of Investopedia: “... insider trading is often difficult for the SEC to spot. Detecting it involves a lot of conjecture and consideration of probabilities.” That was the ‘old days‘, though. Today, the new AI software can bust through these scams like a hot knife through butter!
With this new open-source, free, public spy agency-class software, detecting illegal insider trading is actually less complicated than it sounds.
To the eyes of this new super-powerful AI observer server bot and peer-to-peer databases, it is easy work. You, the citizen, just type the politician or agency employee name into a field and hit the “analyze” button. A few minutes later you receive a multi-page PDF report similar to an FBI report on the target. You can either research the subject in more detail or send copies of the report to the FBI, GAO, OSC, SEC or other enforcement group.
The software is an automated AI temporal matching system which includes 24/7 analysis of all stock trades involving politicians to its information source, politician finances, communications and policy participators. it uses some of the same software code used by the CERN mega-research center in Switzerland.
The technology Core Evaluation Points:
- Analyst estimates – these come from what an analyst estimates that a company’s quarterly or annual earnings will be. They are important because they help approximate the fair value of an entity, which basically establishes it price on the stock exchange.
- Share volume – this reflects the quantity of shares that can be traded over a certain period of time. There are buyers and there are sellers, and the transactions that take place between them contribute to total volume.
One Way The AI Detects Congressional Insider Trades
Metricized signs of illegal insider trading occur when trades occur that break out of the historical pattern of share volume traded compared to beneficiary participation’s of those connected to company and political entity. Another clue of the illegal insider trading is when a lot of trading goes on right before earnings announcements. That tends to be a sign that someone already knows what the announcement is going to indicate, and it’s an obvious violation. One module of the new software hunts these trends around-the-clock in an unmanned manner like a detective who never needs to sleep.
The software red alerts are issued when trades are linked closer to the actual earnings and politicians bills instead of what the predicted earnings were. In a corruption case, it’s clear the trades – especially made by politicians close to the company – stemmed from information that was not readily available to the general public.
In other words, at the time an insider makes a trade, the trade has a stronger relationship to earnings guidance rather than to earnings results achieved.
Part Of The Insider Trading Detection AI Uses ‘Dynamic Time Warping (DTW)’
In econometrics, which is a concept frequently used by quantitative analysts to evaluate stock market prices, dynamic time warping (DTW) is an algorithm that can be used for measuring similarity between two data sequences by calculating an optimal match between the two. This sequence “matching” method is often used in time series classification to properly “line things up.”
The method, coupled with AI machine learning ensemble methods, can provide a clear path between the trades made by insiders and public data used to make the trades.
This is a product of artificial intelligence that has been expanded by Indexer, Splunk, Palantir and other firms fast becoming experts in products that can be used to advance the art of manipulating political and social trends in business and markets by using social media, financial data and news stories. The new software process has taken that sort of approach to the next level and targeted every member of Congress, their staff, family and friends. The first emphasis is on California and Washington, DC public figures.
In a hypothetical example, a group of executives failed to trade by industry standards by leveraging material non-public information and policy manipulation. Although consensus estimates called for higher commodity prices at the end of 2015, it appears key executives traded for their personal accounts as a result of the forecast provided by a specialist system within the firm that was adept at predicting prices alongside lobbyist manipulations. Flash-boy trading is now dirtier and powered by Google-class server systems.
In the hypothetical scenario the software aggregates executive trades in 2014 and 2015 and finds a strong link between buys and sells of executive stock options, which line up with material non-public estimates of commodity prices that were provided by the specialist system.
For example, in a “Exec Sell and Exec Buys” graph, a green line represents sells, while a black line represents buys. In the corresponding period, one finds a red line represents unrevised prices provided by the specialist system, and green line represents consensus estimates.
During Q1-2014, there was $28M in purchases of executive stock options, while in Q2-2014, there was $25M in sales of executive stock options. The specialist system called for Q3-2014 commodity prices to make a precipitous decline going into the end of 2014. Remember, under this scenario, no revisions were made to the specialist systems’ price forecast. In this example, executives were afforded a significant advantage using price predictions from the specialist system.
In a final bullet chart, there was a dynamic time warping distance between trades and consensus estimates of 7.23, but this distance is only 2.19 when comparing specialist system estimates and executive trades. Please note, the closer the distance score is to zero, the more similar the trades are to the estimates they are measured against.
We have applied this process to companies well-known for influence buying like, Google, Tesla and Facebook
It’s obvious that the tech executives involved did not follow industry standards in their actions and make public the “insider” information they had access to prior to the trades they made. The lobbyists they hired promoted this rigged trend and paid off Senators with perks. These are the kind of violations the SEC and other governing bodies can look to in attempting to protect the trading public and the integrity of financial marketplaces. Artificial intelligence tools are a major factor in assisting the tracking of insider trading.
“Every facet of our everyday lives has been impacted, infiltrated and greatly influenced by artificial intelligence technologies,” says Vernon A. McKinley, a multi-jurisdictional attorney, based in Atlanta. “In fact, the U.S. government and its multiple agencies have developed specialized intelligence units to detect, track, analyze and prosecute those unscrupulous individuals seeking to profit from the use of such tools, specifically in the financial industry, and to protect the integrity and strength of the U.S. economy and its investors.” Now these tools are being turned against the corrupt!
The public can now detect trading anomalies in financial situations using this artificial intelligence software on their desktop computers. No public official will ever be able to do these kinds of corruptions, again, without getting caught.
This approach has already had an impact on how political insiders trade on Wall Street and in financial markets around the world.
This technology can end this corruption forever!
A module of the software uses data from The Center for Responsive Politics, ICIJ Panama Leaks records, Swiss Leaks records and FEC files to reveal covert routes. Famous politicians own part of Tesla Motors, Facebook, Google, Netflix, YouTube and other companies they helped get government money for. All of their competing constituents have suffered for it or been put out of business by exclusive deals that only Tesla Motors, Facebook, Google, Netflix and YouTube got. That is a crime and charges have been filed with federal law enforcement.
A large volume of forensic research proves that Silicon Valley Cartel tech firms receive benefits from politicians and politicians,at the same time, benefit from these firms.
This evidence on the exchange of benefits between politicians and firms proves an agreement between the politicians and the companies. This agreement, however, cannot be in the form of a written contract as writing direct fee-for-service contracts between a politician and a firm is considered bribery (Krozner and Stratmann 1998; 2000). In addition, either party to this agreement might renege on its promise and the other party cannot resort to the courts.
Procon.org, for example, reports: “Less than two months after ascending to the United States Senate, and before becoming President, one Senator bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying thousands of dollars of its shares, this Senator took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease. The most recent financial disclosure form this Senator . . . shows that he bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications businesswhose principal backers . . . had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees.” See more examples from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) report (2009).)
The literature and eye-witness experience proves that politically-connected Silicon Valley tech firms monthly obtain economic favors, such as securing favorable legislation, special tax exemptions, having preferential access to finance, receiving government contracts, or help in dealing with regulatory agencies. The evidence proves that Google’s support, for example, can help in winning elections. For example, firms can vary the number of people they employ, coordinate the opening and closing of plants, and increase their lending activity in election years in order to help incumbent politicians get re-elected. (SeeRoberts 1990; Snyder 1990; Langbein and Lotwis 1990; Durden, Shorgen, and Silberman 1991; Stratmann 1991, 1995, and 1998; Fisman 2001;Johnson and Mitton 2003; Ansolabehere, Snyder, and Ueda 2004; Sapienza 2004, Dinç 2005; Khwaja and Mian 2005; Bertrand, Kramarz,Schoar, and Thesmar 2006; Faccio 2006; Faccio, Masulis, and McConnell 2006; Jayachandran 2006; Leuz and Oberholzer-Gee 2006; Claessens,Feijen, Laeven 2008; Desai and Olofsgard 2008; Ramanna 2008;Goldman, Rocholl, and So 2008, 2009; Cole 2009; Cooper, Gulen, and Ovtchinnikov 2009; Correia 2009; Ramanna and Roychowdhury 2010;Benmelech and Moskowitz 2010.)
The software can see that the share ownership of politicians serves as a mechanism to quid-pro-quo their relationships with big tech firms, is as follows: The ownership of politicians plays multiple distinct (but not necessarily independent) roles; one that relies upon the amount of ownership and one that does not. First, as investors in firms, politicians tie their own interests to those of the firm. Thus, harming (benefiting) the firm means harming (benefiting) the politician and vice versa. By owning a firm’s stock, politicians commit their personal wealth to the firm and reduce a firm’s uncertainty with regard to their actions toward the firm. This will,in turn, enhance the firm’s incentive to support the politician-owner during both current and future elections in order to prolong the incumbency period for as long as possible. Firms have their lobbyists push to be able to know the amount of ownership likely to be material to politicians. This knowledge, in turn, enables them to judge whether the politician’s interest is aligned with the firm’s interest and optimize quid-pro-quo.
The Political Action Committee (PAC) contribution of firms (which is a direct measure of benefits flowing from firms to politicians) is a significant determinant of ownership allocations by members of Congress. The ownership of Congress members in firms that contribute to their election campaigns is roughly 32.8% higher than their ownership in noncontributing firms even after accounting for factors that are associated with both ownership and contribution (such as familiarity, proximity and investor recognition).
The committee assignments of politicians is a proxy for whether their relations with firms are enforced (Krozner and Stratmann 1998). Silicon Valley tech firms like Facebook, Tesla and Google obtain private benefits out of their mutual relations with politicians. When the strength of the association between ownership and contributions at the firm level increases, the provision of government contracts to those firms increases.
Members of Congress, candidates for federal office, senior congressional staff, nominees for executive branch positions, Cabinet members, the President and Vice President, and Supreme Court justices are required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to file annual reports disclosing their income, assets, liabilities, and other relevant details about their personal finances.
Personal financial disclosure forms are filed annually by May 15 and cover the preceding calendar year. The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) collected the 2004–2007 reports for Congress members from the Senate Office of Public Records and the Office of the Clerkof the House. The Center then scanned the reports as digital images, classified the politicians’ investments into categories including stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, and built a database accessible via a web query.
Using CRP’s data, you can use the software to collect the shares in S&P 500 firms held by members of Congress between 2004 and 2007, for example.You can collect the stock ownership data for every firm that joined the S&P 500 Index any time between January 2004 and April 2009;regardless of when it joined the index, and the software can obtain all the available stock ownership data for that firm between 2004 and 2007. Likewise, if a firm dropped out of the index at any time during 2004–2008, the software, nevertheless, will retain the firm in a sample for the target period. As such, the sample would include stocks in hundreds of unique firms owned by politicians between 2004 and 2007, for example.
Politicians are required to report only those stocks whose value exceeds $1,000 at the end of the calendar year or that produce more than $200 in income. They are CURRENTLY not required to report the exact value of the holding, but instead must simply check a box corresponding to the value range into which the asset falls. The CRP then undertakes additional research to determine the exact values of these stocks. When the Center makes these determinations, it reports them instead of the ranges and I use these values in my study. When only the range is available, you should use its midpoint as the holding’s value. You would, thus have data on the stock holdings of hundreds politicians for that time period.
Using the software, you can search for all Political Action Committees (PACs) associated with tech firms. It then collects data on each contribution these PACs made to candidates (both the winners and losers) running for the Senate and House elections. Tricky corrupt Silicon Valley firms establish several PACs, each in a different location, and each of these PACs can contribute to the same candidate. In such cases, the software would total, for each candidate, every contribution he or she received from PACs affiliated with the same firm. To parallel the investment data sample period, for example, the software collects every contribution made from the 2003–2004 cycle up to and including the 2007–2008 cycle. Many Silicon Valley tech firms use deeply covert Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie, BlackCube, Psyops-type service to make very hidden additional payola payments to California politicians.
For sources, for example, the software collects government contract data from Eagle Eye Publishers, Inc., one of the leading commercial providers of Federal procurement and grant business intelligence and http://www.usaspending.org. Eagle Eye collects its contract data from Federal Procurement Data System–Next Generation (FPDS-NG), the contract data collection and dissemination system administered by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). FPDS-NG provides data on procurement contracts awarded by the U.S. Government. When these contracts are awarded to company subsidiaries, Eagle Eye searches for the names of their parent companies and assigns each subsidiary to its appropriate parent. The software collects both the number and aggregate value of government contracts that were awarded to sample firms between 2004 and 2007 in this example time-frame..
The software reveals, for example, that one Representative is a ten-term member of Congress and a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee. They arranged a meeting between the Department of Treasury and One United Bank, a company with close financial ties to themselves, involving both investments and contributions.
“In September 2008, the Representative asked then-Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson to hold a meeting for their friends in banks that had suffered from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac losses.
The Treasury Department complied and held a session with approximately a dozen senior banking regulators, representatives from those banks, and their trade association. Officials of One United Bank have close ties to the Representative and attended the meeting along with the Representative’s chief of staff. Kevin Cohee, chief executive officer of One United, used the meeting as an opportunity to ask for bailout funds.
. . . Former White House officials stated they were surprised when One United Officials asked for bailout funds. . . . In December 2008, the Representative intervened again, asking Treasury to host another meeting to ensure their banks received part of the $700 billion allocated under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. . . . Within two weeks, on December 19, 2008, One United secured $12.1million in bailout funds. . . . This was not the first time the Representative used their position to advance the interests of the bank. the Representative’s spouse became a shareholder in One United in 2001, when it was known as the Boston Bank of Commerce. In 2002, Boston Bank of Commerce tried to purchase Family Savings, a friend of the Representative in Los Angeles. Instead, Family Savings turned to a bank in Illinois. The Representative tried to block the merger by contacting regulators at the FDIC. The Representative publicly stated they did not want a major bank to acquire a bank that the Representative was friends with.
When the Representative’s efforts with the FDIC proved fruitless, the Representative began a public pressure campaign with other community leaders. Ultimately,when Family Savings changed direction and allowed Boston Bank of Commerce to submit a winning bid, the Representative received credit for the merger. The combined banks were renamed One United. . . . In March 2004, the Representative acquired One United stock worth between $250,001 and $500,000, and the Representative’s spouse purchased two sets of stock, each worth between $250,001 and $500,000. In September 2004, the Representative sold their stock in One United and their husband sold a portion of his. That same year, the husband joined the bank’s board. . . . One United Chief Executive Kevin Cohee and President Teri Williams Cohee have donated a total of $8,000 to the Representative’s campaign committee. . . .On October 27, 2009, less than two months before One United received a $12 million bailout, the bank received a cease-and-desist order from the FDIC and bank regulatory officials in Massachusetts for poor lending practices and excessive executive compensation . . . the bank provided excessive perks to its executives, including paying for Mr. Cohee’s use of a $6.4 million mansion . . .” (Ref: CREW report 2009,pp. 123–125)
Thanks to Crony quid-pro-quo revelations by an earlier version of the software, you can also see that Fisker Automotive, Inc.’s $529 Million U.S. Taxpayer Loan Approval by the Department of Energy was dirty. Fisker Automotive’s Chief Operating Officer Bernhard Koehler pleaded with the Department of Energy in a panicked Saturday midnight hour email to receive a $529 million loan as the company was 2 weeks from Chapter 7 liquidation, that it was laying off most of its employees, that no private sector investors would fund the company without DOE guarantees, and that Fisker was unable to raise any further equity funding from independent private-sector investors given the company’s financial condition.These statements were made to a Loan Officer at the DOE . No private sector Loan underwriting (approval) committee would ever grant a low interest loan to a desperate buyer that had just confessed it was in a state of insolvency and was about to layoff most of its staff. Yet within a few weeks the DOE would approve a $529 Million Credit Facility to Fisker. Despite the DOE Loan Officer official’s sworn testimony at April 24th’s House Oversight Committee that the DOE used “same private sector underwriting standards when approving Fisker and other approved Taxpayer Funded Loans” – likely perjury based in documents.
In a ‘U.S. GOVERNMENT CONFIDENTIAL EMAIL’: FISKER AUTOMOTIVE: August 2009: Co-Founder Bernhard Koehler emails U.S. Dept. of Energy Loan Officer in Sat. midnight Panic admitting VC Firms all declined to invest, and company is out of cash. Weeks later the U.S.Department of Energy approves $529M U.S. Taxpayer Funded Loans to FISKER. NO PRIVATE SECTOR Lender would every authorize a Loan for even $5 Million let alone $529 Million after receiving this email stating private sector investors had examined the company and declined equity investments, that they might loan money as more secure Debt, and the Chief Operating Officer of the company further stating that the borrower is totally insolvent. (Weeks after this email the U.S. Federal Government Dept. of Energy Loan Committee Approves Fisker Automotive as a credit-worthy borrow for $529 Million in U.S. Taxpayer Funded Loans). Fisker got the cash because President Obama said to “give it to them” in order to please his campaign financiers.
The same thing happened with Tesla Motors. Elon Musk and Tesla Motors were broke when DOE gave them the money.
PrivCo CEO Sam Hamadeh stated in an official statement: “The documents obtained by PrivCo paint a picture of how an insolvent,unproven automaker received $192 million in taxpayer funding. The Department of Energy made a loan that no rational lender would have made. This loan was the equivalent of staying execution on a company that was terminally ill to begin with.” Tesla and Fisker could not have been taxpayer funded unless bribes and criminal quid-pro-quo was underway by President Obama and the U.S. Senator insider traders.
Since its ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressed concern regarding corruption or the appearance of corruption stemming from political quid pro quo arrangements and the deleterious consequences it may have on citizens’ democratic behavior. However, no standard has been set as to what constitutes “the appearance of corruption,” as the Court was and continues to be vague in its definition. As a result, campaign finance cases after Buckley have relied on public opinion polls as evidence of perceptions of corruption, and these polls indicate that the public generally perceives high levels of corruption in government. The present study investigates the actual impact that perceptions of corruption have on individuals’ levels of political participation. Adapting the standard socioeconomic status model developed most fully by Verba and Nie (1972), an extended beta-binomial regression estimated using maximum likelihood is performed, utilizing unique data from the 2009 University of Texas’ Money and Politics survey. The results of this study indicate that individuals who perceive higher levels of quid pro quo corruption participate more in politics, on average, than those who perceive lower levels of corruption.
Quid pro quo is not a difficult concept to understand. Too bad the media doesn’t endeavor to investigate and explain it. Your politicians don’t work for you, they work for their own insider trading stock market holdings for themselves!
Corruption-finding software, such as that described above, will be used by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s investigative news reporter associates, law enforcement contacts, intelligence agency contacts and regulatory agency contacts on all opposition parties associated with this case.
FROM THE HILL, WASHINGTON, DC
A case study in pay-to-play cronyism
News flash: Government subsidies and special-interest favors go hand in hand.
The latest example comes from a federal green-energy loan program. Last month, the DC District Court ruled that Cause of Action, where I am executive director, can proceed with a lawsuit against the Department of Energy. We’re suing the federal government for the blatant political favoritism in its $25 billion “Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program.”
In principle, this taxpayer-funded program was supposed to support the manufacture of energy-efficient cars. In practice, it rewarded a select few well-connected companies.
Since the program was created in 2008, numerous businesses have applied for its taxpayer-backed financial support. Yet only a small number were approved. Among the lucky few were two electric car manufacturers: Tesla and Fisker.
Both companies’ political connections run deep, especially Tesla’s. The company’s founder, Elon Musk, was a max donor for President Obama. One of its board members, Steven Westly, was appointed to a Department of Energy advisory board. And another Obama bundler, Tesla investor and adviser Steven Spinner, secured employment in the department’s Loan Program Office—the very office that gave the company a taxpayer-backed loan.
Fisker also has friends in high places. The company, which has since gone bankrupt, was backed by a San Francisco venture capital firm whose senior partners donated millions to the 2008 Obama campaign and other Democrat causes. One partner, John Doerr, parlayed his support into a seat on the President’s Council of Jobs and Competitiveness.
Such connections can allow a company to exert political pressure to enrich itself. Unsurprisingly, Department of Energy emails show that such pressure was rampant in its loan programs.
There’s no shortage of examples. The department’s leaders—including then-Secretary of Energy Steven Chu—repeatedly promised to deliver results to politicians like Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). One emails reads, “DOE has made a political commitment” to approve a company’s loan. Another says the “pressure is on real heavy” from none other than Vice President Joe Biden. And still another shows an employee asking, “what’s another billion anyhow?”
Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration gave Tesla and Fisker preferential treatment, and then some.
The Department of Energy revised its review process in order finish the companies’ applications faster. The government gave them extraordinary access to its staff and facilities—even to the point of having government employees personally walk them through the loan application and approval process. The department ignored its own lending rules in order to approve the companies’ loans. And it renegotiated the terms of some loans after the companies could not keep their original commitments or were experiencing financial difficulties. Tellingly, Fisker has since gone out of business, despite receiving over a billion dollars in loans through this federal program.
Now contrast this preferential treatment with what happened to XP Vehicles and Limnia, neither of which have the same political connections. (My organization is suing the Department of Energy on their behalf). The two companies partnered to manufacture an energy-efficient sport utility vehicle that would have competed with Tesla and Fisker’s cars. They applied for loans in 2008 and 2009 under the same loan program.
The department refused them both—and it used bogus reasons to do so.
For starters, the department made claims that were laughably false. To take one example: It rejected XPV’s application because its vehicle was powered by hydrogen. It was an electric SUV. It also raised objections that it didn’t raise with other companies whose applications were approved. For instance: The bureaucracy criticized the proposed all-electric vehicle for not using a specific type of gasoline. Yet Tesla and Fisker received the loans despite producing similar all-electric cars.
In light of these obvious problems and hypocrisy, both companies presented the Department of Energy with detailed rebuttals. Yet the government failed to respond. To this day, both XPV and Limnia are awaiting a satisfactory reply. In the meantime, XPV has gone out of business, unable to compete against its politically connected—and subsidized—rivals.
This casts the Department of Energy’s loan program in a new light. It was sold to the American public as a means of promoting energy-efficient vehicles. Instead, it was used to benefit a select few well-connected companies. It was a blatant crony handout, paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
Sadly, similar examples are widespread in Washington. That’s no surprise considering the feds spend roughly $100 billion a year in taxpayer-funded handouts to businesses. This breeds the sort of government-business collusion Americans think is rampant in Washington. In fact, over two-thirds of likely voters think the federal government helps businesses that hire the most lobbyists, shake the right hands, and pad the right pockets. They’re right.
This points to a simple conclusion: Politicians and bureaucrats shouldn’t use the public’s money to pad private companies’ bottom lines. As the Department of Energy’s green-vehicle loan program shows, the capacity for corruption is immense—and inevitable.
Author Dan Epstein is executive director of Cause of Action, a government watchdog and he later became The White House lawyer.