Judicial Corruption is Everywhere!

I have come to realize the extent of the judicial corruption permeating this country’s court system.  It is not only in Georgia, Georgia is just worse than most other states.  It is all over the whole country.  It was bad enough prior to foreclosure hell,  but has escalated during foreclosure hell began.

While neighborhoods are full of empty, and boarded up houses, the news media has come to largely ignore the fact that foreclosures have not really subsided and by no means have foreclosures gone away, it has become an acceptable fact of life.  Nevertheless, corruption with the court systems has continued to grow.  One of the major things that fed that corruption, after extreme all out greed, was the foreclosures.  It became a feeding frenzy.  There have been so many investigations about the housing bubble burst, and the fall of the economy, that the internet is chocked with the investigations.  Not one of those investigations spoke of one of the most incredible truths…The way the courts handled the foreclosures.

A few websites talked about the problem with the courts, but not one state or federal investigation told one of the major problems.   Some of the stories are mind boggling!   Bank of America was said to have foreclosed on a borrower who had paid their loan off, because the payoff had been $1.00 short.  The court allowed it to happen.  People whose homes had been paid off for years, foreclosed upon, when they owed no one a dime on the home.   The courts still allowed it to happen.  Not all of the paid off homes, but even one, was too many.

The next thing that fed the judicial corruption,  was the fact that the attorneys who had been representing the banks and who had moved on to other types of clients, were not told they could not continue they way they had in the foreclosure cases.  All of the lies, the falsification of real property documents, forgeries, creation of non-existing real property records and loan documents.  All of the nasty, low down things that those attorneys had been allowed to get away with in foreclosure hell, has spilled over to contaminate every kind of lawsuit in the courts.  No one had told those attorneys that they could only break the law for free when it came to foreclosures.   No one told those attorneys that they are expected to go back to pretending to follow the law, or making things look like they were on the up and up.

The courts, having allowed the attorneys to break the law without fear, and the judges that rubber stamped the lawsuits, granting every suit in favor of the banks, have caused justice to be hidden in every kind of lawsuit in the courts.  It was too easy.  Hell, lets face it, Supreme Court of Georgia began creating and making law.  The Georgia General Assembly did not make the laws, the Supreme Court did it for them, and the laws the Surpreme Court created, were in favor of the banks.

Apparently, the Supreme Court was so against a borrower ending up with a free house (or an affordable loan, which is what most of the borrowers sought), the appellate courts made rulings that have become precential case law, when the court was following no laws at all.  No, we could not have a borrower, who had bent over backwards attempting to make their payments to banks who were refusing the payments, causing loan defaults, end up in the end with a loan that they could actually pay for.  None of those loans were ever meant to be paid for 30 years, and ending with the satisfaction of the debt.  The loans were meant to default within the first 5 years.  Rather than follow either real esatate law, or contract law, which either one would have halted the illegal acts of the banks and their attorneys, the Courts twisted the laws.  When the laws could be twisted no further, the Courts made new laws.

In the meantime, the case law from these twisted and the court created laws became precential.  The more cases, that were based on these illegally created laws, went into the court’s records, the more case law was twisted and convulated, to the point, where the laws are unrecognizable.    Now, every wrongful foreclosure case that has to go into the courts, has to fight against the case law that came from years and years of bad and illegal rulings that have become precedential.

It is like the dominos effect, and there is no turning back from it.  To be right there, fighting with people and attorneys throughout foreclosure hell, enlightened me.  I watched as the corrupt courts, went on to become so corrupt, that they literally changed what laws stated, and created laws to make it easier for foreclosures to take place.  Not once did even one judge, try to stop what was happening.  The only honest judge in Georgia was when Amy Totenberg became a Judge at The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  She went against all of the bad rulings.  She fought like gangbusters against the case law the opposing attorneys were using against the borrowers.  I am not sure, but it looks like that she too has fallen into the same old grind.  After all, if you can’t beat them, join them.

The contamination of every kind of lawsuit within the courts, has made justice impossible for everyone, except those who have enough money to buy the attorneys and the courts.  It is a sad day in this country.

After all almost One Hundred years ago, in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S. Ct. 564, 72 L. Ed. 944 (1928), decided June 4, 1928.  A case in which Mr. Justice Brandeis, Mr. Justice Holmes, Mr. Justice Butler, and Mr. Justice Stone dissented.

*455 Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases are here by certiorari from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 19 F.(2d) 842, 53 A. L. R. 1472, and 19 F.(2d) 850. The petition in No. 493 Was filed August 30, 1927; in Nos. 532 and 533, September **565 9, 1927. They were granted with the distinct limitation that the hearing should be confined to the single question whether the use of evidence of private telephone conversations between the defendants and others, intercepted by means of wire tapping, amounted to a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. 276 U. S. 609, 48 S. Ct. 207, 72 L. Ed. —.
The petitioners were convicted in the District Court for the Western District of Washington of a conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA) by unlawfully possessing, transporting and importing intoxicating liquors and maintaining nuisances, and by selling intoxicating liquors. Seventy-two others, in addition to the petitioners, were indicted. Some were not apprehended, some were acquitted, and others pleaded guilty.
Olmstead was the leading conspirator and the general manager of the business.
The information which led to the discovery of the conspiracy and its nature and extent was largely obtained by intercepting messages on the telephones of the conspirators by four federal prohibition officers.
The Fourth Amendment provides:
‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’
And the Fifth:
‘No person * * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’

The well-known historical purpose of the Fourth Amendment, directed against general warrants and writs of assistance, was to prevent the use of governmental force to search a man’s house, his person, his papers, and his effects, and to prevent their seizure against his will. This phase of the misuse of governmental power of compulsion is the emphasis of the opinion of the court in the Boyd Case. This appears, too, in the Weeks Case, in the Silverthorne Case, and in the Amos Case.

‘The Fourth Amendment is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted, and in a manner which will conserve public interests, as well as the interest and rights of individual citizens.’
Justice Bradley, in the Boyd Case, and Justice Clarke, in the Gouled Case, said that the Fifth Amendment and the Fourth Amendment were to be liberally construed to effect the purpose of the framers of the Constitution in the interest of liberty. But that cannot justify enlargement of the language employed beyond the possible practical meaning of houses, persons, papers, and effects, or so to apply the words search and seizure as to forbid hearing or sight.
Congress may, of course, protect the secrecy of telephone messages by making them, when intercepted, inadmissible in evidence in federal criminal trials, by direct legislation, *466 and thus depart from the common law of evidence. But the courts may not adopt such a policy by attributing an enlarged and unusual meaning to the Fourth Amendment. The reasonable view is that one who installs in his house a telephone instrument with connecting wires intends to project his voice to those quite outside, and that the wires beyond his house, and messages while passing over them, are not within the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Here those who intercepted the projected voices were not in the house of either party to the conversation.
7 The statute of Washington, adopted in 1909, provides (Remington Compiled Statutes 1922, s 2656(18) that:
‘Every person * * * who shall intercept, read or in any manner interrupt or delay the sending of a message over any telegraph or telephone line * * * shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.’

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS (dissenting):

‘We must never forget,’ said Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407 4 L. Ed. 579, ‘that it is a Constitution we are expounding.’ Since then this court has repeatedly sustained the exercise of power by Congress, under various clauses of that instrument, over objects of which the fathers could not have dreamed. See Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U. S. 1, 9, 24 L. Ed. 708; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U. S. 135, 39 S. Ct. 502, 63 L. Ed. 897; Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. South Dakota, 250 U. S. 163, 39 S. Ct. 507, 63 L. Ed. 910, 4 A. L. R. 1623; Brooks v. United States, 267 U. S. 432, 45 S. Ct. 345, 69 L. Ed. 699, 37 A. L. R. 1407. We have likewise held that general limitations on the powers of government, like those embodied in the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, do not forbid the United States or the states from meeting modern conditions by regulations which ‘a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive.’ Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365, 387, 47 S. Ct. 114, 118 (71 L. Ed. 303); Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200, 47 S. Ct. 584, 71 L. 1000. Clauses guaranteeing to the individual protection against specific abuses of power, must have a similar capacity of adaptation to a changing world. It was with reference to such a clause that this court said in Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349, 373, 30 S. Ct. 544, 551 (54 L. Ed. 793, 19 Ann. Cas. 705):

No court which looked at the words of the amendment rather than at its underlying purpose would hold, as this court did in Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727, 733, 24 L. Ed. 877, that its protection extended to letters in the mails. **572 The provision against self-incrimination in the Fifth Amendment has been given an equally broad construction. The language is:
‘No person * * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’
Yet we have held not only that the *477 protection of the amendment extends to a witness before a grand jury, although he has not been charged with crime (Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 562, 586, 12 S. Ct. 195, 35 L. Ed. 1110), but that:
‘It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant.’ McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U. S. 34, 40, 45 S. Ct. 16, 17 (69 L. Ed. 158).
Independently of the constitutional question, I am of opinion that the judgment should be reversed. By the laws of Washington, wire tapping is a crime.13 Pierce’s *480 Code 1921, s 8976(18). To prove its case, the government was obliged to lay bare the crimes committed by its officers on its behalf. A federal court should not permit such a prosecution to continue. Compare Harkin v. Brundage (No. 117) 276 U. S. 36, 48 S. Ct. 268, 72 L. Ed. 457, decided February 20, 1928.
As Judge Rudkin said below (19 F.(2d) 842):
‘Here we are concerned with neither eavesdroppers nor thieves. Nor are we concerned with the acts of private individuals. * * * We are concerned only with the acts of federal agents, whose powers are limited and controlled by the Constitution of the United States.’

Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.

Mr. Justice HOLMES.
My brother BRANDEIS  has given this case so exhaustive an examination that I desire to add but a few words.

For those who agree with me no distinction can be taken between the government as prosecutor and the government as judge. If the existing code does not permit district attorenys to have a hand in such dirty business it does not permit the judge to allow such iniquities to succeed. See Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385, 40 S. Ct. 182, 64 L. Ed. 319, 24 A. L. R. 1426. And if all that I have said so far be accepted it makes no difference that in this case wire tapping is made a crime by the law of the state, not by the law of the United States. It is true that a state cannot make rules of evidence for courts of the United States, but the state has authority over the conduct in question, and I hardly think that the United States would appear to greater advantage when paying for an odious crime against state law than when inciting to the disregard of its own. I am aware of the often-repeated statement that in a criminal proceeding the court will not take notice of the manner in which papers offered in evidence have been obtained. But that somewhat rudimentary mode of disposing of the question has been overthrown by Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652, L. R. A. 1915B, 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177, and the cases that have followed it. I have said that we are free to choose between two principles of policy. But if we are to confine ourselves to precedent and logic the reason for excluding evidence obtained by violating the Constitution seems to me logically to lead to excluding evidence obtained by a crime of the officers of the law.





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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s