Repairing the Scales of Justice

The Summary:
The American Judicial System is broken. Too few Judges have made and
are making very poor decisions that have negatively affected the socio- economic quality for the approximately 325,000,000 American Citizens and foreigners residing, investing and working in the United States of America. As you will come to understand, it is the judicial system that is the final arbiter in determining the laws of our land. Sadly however, there is currently little recourse or resolution, as warned by Thomas Jefferson, to poor judicial decisions, as the foxes remain in final determination over the chicken coop. Literally, just two (2) Judges can and are deciding the rule of law for our entire nation.

These Judges are in collusion with others in positions of economic and political power to protect their positions of power. It is corruption, collusion and cronyism of the highest order and it is so well documented by so many sources, that it would require a library to put it all in writing.

For many of you, unless you have had an experience within our courts,
it will be somewhat difficult to believe just how bad our system of
justice is. It is so corrupt and manipulated that many will refuse to
believe it while others are contributing to it and both these groups
will distract and discourage other from changing it.

Improving the System of Justice could be easily done if the political
will was there, so therefore we must force the heavy hand of those in
power. First however we must create a viable system that is
significantly superior to the one we have. The new system allows a
computer program and website to organize “multiple” representatives
elected by each of the 51 States, allowing them to work together first
in privacy, to coordinate and then determine publically the concurring
and dissenting opinions in every case. Literally, thousands of
selected participants could determine our rule of law, instead of the
very few that are in such positions of power today. The trial would
be just like any other trial with a select number of Judge(s) acting
as mediator(s) rather than as both mediator(s) and judge(s). I think
it is obvious that the higher up the ladder an appeal goes the more
judges, that should be involved in the trial. However with this new
system the actual number of judges mediating the trial does not have
to be 9 as is the current Supreme Court. Even though there is a vast
amount of influence in a trial by Judges, the vast number of
individuals who will be making the final determination will have the
power to correct malfeasants and mistakes of the mediating Judges and
the Judges will need to be much more careful of how they control their
courtroom.

Additionally, the Improved System of Justice would promote voluntary
participation and would promote those that side with and/or write the
majority opinions. Those that work the hardest and provide the
greatest input advance to the highest levels in the judicial system
rather than by political and economic cronyism, as it is today.
Individual and groups would work in concert to achieve the best
opinions, something desperately lacking in our corrupt system. The
system would also promote the privatization of the judiciary away from
the monopoly of government counts. This would allow for competing
systems that could work both independently and in concert to
significantly improve our ailing system.

Think about it, without justice you cannot have a civil society. You
will be in constant chaos, war and dire economic conditions. The rule
of law today is actually the law by those who rule and therefore in
the twentieth century the U.S. was either in a war, recession or
depression 1 out of every 2 years and those conditions are continuing
into the 21st century. Do you want to change this? The technological
age of computers and electronics is really a continuation of the
communications revolution started in the 19th Century. The cat is out
of the bag and it will never go back in again. It is time to put the
ruling elites and all oligarchies around the world out of business and
the one and only way to do it is to take away their judicial power and
controls.

The Problem:
The reason that there have been so many legal cases taken before the
Supreme Court over the last 50 years, in this author’s opinion, is
that there are too many laws passed by Local, State and Federal
legislatures that infringe upon our constitutionally protected
individual rights. The Citizens have had to and will continue to fight
back through litigation trying to regain those rights taken away by
the various legislature bodies. One must then ask the question of just
how many individual rights can there be that could influence
litigation by so many parties. You would have thought that most of the
constitutional issues would have long been resolved. Can there be that
many questions of constitutionality that the Supreme Court has more
cases than it can actually, or wants to, hear? No, but the Citizens
will continue to fight back as long as there are injustices and
usurpations of our Constitution. Our system is broken and the
Judiciary continues to allow government bodies to usurp individual
rights protected under the Constitution and Bill of Rights and
continues to thwart ligation targeted against the ruling elites within
the oligarchies. This is just not a problem within the United States,
it is a problem throughout the world. Why do you think there are so
many injustices occurring on our planet. Most of the judicial systems
around the world are broken and favor those in power over the
Citizens. The problem is that the judicial systems have not really
changed much since the time of Monarchs and end up promoting cronyism,
and as we all no, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The fewer
individuals to manipulate the easier it is to corrupt the decisions
and boy have our laws been corrupted and rights usurped.

To manage the high volume of cert petitions received by the Supreme
Court each year (of the more than 7,000 petitions the Court receives,
it will usually request briefing and hear oral argument in 100 or
fewer), the Court employs an internal case management tool known as
the “cert pool.” According to an article “Politics and Prisoners” at
the Federal Appeal level, there are so many cases that the Defendants
cannot possibly be getting a fair trial, since the Judges cannot
physically even read their case loads. Judges reportedly rely on
staffers to brief them on the case. “The Judicial System in the
United States is not only bankrupt of human resources, but is
deceiving the American People, and it can be PROVEN statistically.”
the author stated.

Even though the court only hears cases where there is a constitutional
issue raised, the court does not hear all the cases and isn’t
necessarily required to hear a case, even when appealed. In the recent
2008 case, We The People Vs. the United States, We The People sued the
IRS to provide the law that required most individuals to file and pay
a federal income tax, after a formal Redress of Grievance was filed
and the IRS refused to supply the specific law requested. The actual
Constitutional issue in the case became “What is a redress of
grievance as provided under Article 1, and is government bound to
answer the Citizens questions within that Petition.” The Supreme
Court refused to hear the case after a Federal Appeals Court, said
that the government “did not” have to answer questions within a formal
Redress of Grievance. Apparently the Federal Government does not have
to provide the specific law that requires most people to file and pay
a Federal Personal Income Tax. The question, than why is the “right”
to Petition the Government, the 1st Amendment, much less even a part
of the Constitution, if the government does not have to answer the
questions posed. I believe King George also refused to answer various
questions from the colonists and you see where that got him. Sadly,
the Citizens of our nation nether have the sensibility nor courage as
few even know that such an important case has occurred and avoided by
our corrupted Supreme Court.

Our system of Justice has been relegated through political influence
into spending the bulk of it time attempted to justify various
usurpations within the hundreds of thousands of laws enacted, while
maintaining some semblance of a rule of law. A tough job, as the
delineation between the common good and individual rights has never
been adequately determined nor defined by the legislature or the
courts. Go figure!!! It has been left to the arbitrary whims of
political and judicial manipulation almost always favoring government
and those with the substantive power and influence within the
political process.

With the final arbiters being the only nine Supreme Court Justices,
the power given to theses individuals who as we are taught, are
supposed to interpret and define the law, is almost Godly. They, by
interpreting the law and defining terms within any legislation are in
fact either giving their approval for a law or they are finding it
unconstitutional. Those within our judicial system, (the Judges)
determine the law period, and that is what they are supposed to do.
However, four (4) Justices under the right circumstances such as
vacation or illness of a couple of Judges, have determined the law,
that we all as a nation of 325 million people, must abide by. In the
case KELO Vs. CITY OF NEW LONDON, the Court in its infinite wisdom,
with just five individuals – Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and
Breyer, agreed that Government through eminent domain authority could
seize private property to sell to private developers to increase the
tax revenues to the community. Thankfully, many States have passed
legislation prohibiting this activity. History has shown us that
property rights are the backbone of a civil society. How the Court
could condone governments taking of private property because the
houses are low income, modest or ugly and because there is a potential
buyer who will pay higher property taxes, provide a more
esthetically looking or economically prosperous for certain
individuals within the community is so contrary to not only fairness
but all aspects of private property rights. I don’t know about you but
that much power in the hands of that few people is an oligarchy or a
plutocracy, not a democracy. They’re decisions affect an entire
nation’s cultural and socio-economic system and it can create a huge
cost of time and money to rectify such poor decisions, as it did in
the Kelo case.

Two things must occur, first until such time as the determination is
made as to when and why specifically it is acceptable to take away the
rights of an individual for the benefits of the majority, we will
continue to misappropriate our time and resources fighting over the
many mitigating differences between the rulers within government and
we the People since our democracy in reality it primarily controlled
by the few. The questions as to when and why specifically individuals
should acquiesce our individual rights for the public good, must be
determined, as it will eliminate vast amounts of litigation. All
Citizens will them know, what rights they have and more specifically
why they have them, which they then can be applied to all issues of
constitutionality that we confront throughout our life.

Secondly with the current system, the promotion of such determinations
as desired above, is not occurring, as the final arbiter is no greater
than the nine Justices themselves and there is no current review or
oversight mechanism in place that would enhance the process except for
going through an exhaustive retrying of enough cases to establish a
precedence once disputes occurs and then taking it back to the Supreme
Court and hoping first that the Court even excepts the case, and
secondly that it adequately corrects it’s original errors with an
acceptable opinion. It is the concurring or dissenting Opinions of The
Court that often lack substance or provide perplexing or contradictory
statements that may take years or decades to correct. A system must
be implemented to correct this problem that is acceptable both to the
people and to those whom wish to be Judges.

The Solution:
The computer and equally importantly the Internet have provided us
with great advancements, but none as great as this author wishes to
now present. Our Judicial System, although we do not like to
acknowledge, is archaic and corrupted by money and power, despite it
being considered to be by some the best in the world. With a huge
number of dissatisfied participants, even some of past and present
Justices themselves, this statement does not bode well for the rest of
the world’s systems of justice. In reality, I would suppose that there
are participants in each country who believes that their system of
justice is the best but that all counties judicial systems could be
substantially improved if the means were known, available and
implemented.

A perfect system would be that system that promotes both clarity and a
majority determination by as many individuals as possible whom are
known to have a high level of expertise in law, for the prevailing
opinion. It is in this author’s opinion, that it is necessary to
increase the number of decision makers as it pertains to the
Constitutionality of the laws of a society of over 350 million
people. Having just nine (9) Supreme Court Justices is way to few for
such a powerful responsibility and if a system could be implemented
that promoted the participation by as many qualified individuals as
possible, in the Judicial process, it should invariably improve our
system of Justice.

The proposed system is a system that this author believes would
accomplish that primary goal.

The nine current members of the Supreme Court would stay in place.
However their roles would no longer be of a final arbiter status. The
Improved System of Justice: A “Review Court” comprised of a percentage
of standing U.S. Judges, Magistrates or those acting in any Judicial
Capacity, however appointed or elected from all jurisdictions within
the United States and its territorial processions – (Approx. 29,000).
These individual are paid by taxpayers and have a duty and
responsibility to provide justice while upholding the intent and color
of law within the Constitution of the United States of America

A computer system would randomly select, as an example, 2.5% (approx
725 Judges) of all individuals actively participation as Judges
throughout the United States. For each case they would receive notice
via secured encrypted email that they have been chosen to The Supreme
Court Review Board (SCRB) of case xxx Vs yyy. A link to the secured
server of the full video of the trial would accompany the email where
they would then have thirty (30) days in which to review and cast a
vote for the concurring or opinion that they support. None of the
SCRB Judges would know how the other SCRB members are voting or who
they are not would they yet know how the various Supreme Court Judges
have voted.

Now here’s a really cool part. Those Judges whom participate the most
as SCRB Judges in both voting and/or rewriting of the majority opinion
would be given Position Points that would promote them to higher
levels Judgeships within our judicial system. The Supreme Court Judges
would no longer be political appointments or require Senate
confirmation that would leave more time for the Admin and Legislative
branches to do their primary jobs. Judges personal lives, there
religion, ethnicity etc. would be kept out of the decision making
process. Certain Individuals whom participated the most and excelled
at supporting and rewriting the majority opinions would rise to the
top of our judicial system. Those that wrote unpopular opinion and
were not in the majority opinion would lose points and be reduced to
lower positions within the system. Rotating in and out of various
Judgeships could be done on an 18 month or some other agreed to time
period to allow for moving and resettling of their families, etc. It
would be a true system of merit rather than our politically motivated
system, it would be much more democratic and it would allow the
participants to do their job without any unwanted outside influence,
since no one would even know who the SCRB Members are until the
determinations are made. The final arbiter would be the SCRB made of
many competent people working together to obtain the highest level of
justice.

Once the SCRB results were finalized, only then would the participants
and conclusions be publicized. All those participating including the
Supreme Court members would than be given the SCRB results.

The Computer System and Program:
It would allow for several operations that would assist the SCRB in
their responsibilities. The issue of time constraints of the
participants will always affect any system and the software program
would of course have to handle issues of replacing those that can not
participate, who drop out during the process and all the other
operational type issues that would arise do to the various aspects of
individual schedules.

The software could also provide the participants with those opinions
that are being chosen by the greatest number of participants but with
the exact number withheld until the results are published. As an
example, the opinions, both the concurring and dissenting opinions of
the Supreme Court would, at the beginning, be posted for everyone on
the SCRB to read and evaluate. Any SCRB Member could than add, delete
or totally rewrite an opinion. Now you would have two or even five
opinions, let say on the affirming side that members could now
evaluate. As participants entered their votes which can be changed at
any time, those receiving the greatest number of votes would rise to
the top of the list, although the actual number is unknown nor which
side, the affirmed or apposing had the higher number of votes. This
would allow the participants to concentrate on the opinion they
currently believes is the best opinion nor restrict them from
believing that the 4th opinion on the list has the greatest potential
and therefore attempt to get others to assist in improving that
opinion. The results of the majority opinion would only be published
for the highest vote winner for the concurring and dissenting opinions
and not even the Supreme Courts opinion would be published unless it
obtained the highest votes within the two categories.

Typical “Blogging” areas within the system would also allow the
participants to engage in private discussions, all the while under
anonymity, to further the perfection of the various opinions being
evaluated and written. Individuals could co-sponsor opinions which
would gain them position points if they garnered the majority opinion
but could have lose Position Points if their opinion was unpopular
with the majority. Numerous Blogs of like-minded individuals could be
working independently with some members sharing info between the
individual Blogs. Of course there would be Blogs for both the
affirming and consenting opinions but as with all Blogs, the number of
topics within those categories are unlimited. All the information in
the blogs I believe should remain private and confidential so that the
participants can vent ideas without any potential retribution.

Case management for constitutional issues could also be controlled by
a SCRB type system, with the opinions as to why or why not the case
will or will not be heard determined by a larger number of people then
is currently making such determinations.
Once cases a chosen to be heard, even non participating layman
interested in a the specific case could begin to attempt the influence
the Judicial community through open forums that would help to
concentrate the knowledge surrounding a specific issue. For example in
a medical case, Doctors whom have expertise in a particular area may
want to provide information to a forum when members of both the
Supreme Court in the beginning of the case and then after the case,
the SCRB members where they can obtain information from experts in
specific fields. Some cases are highly technical and although our
system attempts to obtain the highest level of testimony, it is
unlikely that it is successful in all cases.

Perhaps an enhanced system of justice would solve many adversarial
confrontations and social problems eliminating much of the costs of
government and promoting the voluntary participation within society by
a greater number of people. To me this should be the goal of any
progressive society.

Conclusion:
The benefits to such as system may be much greater than just providing
a better level of justice, although this alone could be a world
changing development.

It is the author’s opinion that this system could be placed into force
and effect by current means of legislative enactment at the Federal
level and would not require a Constitutional Amendment or any other
requirements.

This computer and software system will enhance the democratic process
within the judicial branch and it will assuredly be utilized by other
institutions and groups within our society to increase both creativity
and efficiency within their organization.

Our system of justice may be one of the best in the world, but it is
also the most expensive in the world if you include all the
legislation and litigation. The political costs alone could be cut by
as much as 95% as the need to create further legislation would not be
required since existing court cases would remedy any new issued that
arise.

We speak of the Rule of Law as if it is a the fixed entity. It should
perhaps be more fixed but it is not. Those in power at any specific
time attempt to manipulate the laws for various reasons, so it is more
the Law By The Current Rulers. As better decisions are made, I’m
assuming that liberty and individual rights for the most part will
slowly prevail over socialism and the case load within the entire
system should lessen. The few new issues such as we are facing now
should we or should we not drill for oil offshore in Florida or in
Alaska, might be the only issue on the agenda leaving a much greater
time allocation to properly determine the best decision. We would
surely increase the democratic process within the educated class while
keeping the beneficial components of the Democratic Republic
intact.

Most people prefer to believe that their political leaders are just
and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a
citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is
fraught with corruption, the citizen has to choose what he or she will
do about it. To take action against a corrupt government entails risks
of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to
surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do
not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is
not designed to fool the critical thinker, but only to give moral
cowards an excuse not to think at all.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.