How can you tell if your case has been Wired?

How can you tell if your case has been Wired?

 

In a word, you cannot.    Except in rare instances is a decision of a court so outrageous that the judgment rendered is obviously the product of corruption of the judicial process.    It does occur and every lawyer can point out a group of cases in which corruption is the only explanation of the decision[1].   

Step 1

How is the trier of fact contacted so as to gain a decisional advantage?      As I’ve mentioned previously the day of the envelope filled with dollar bills is fast receding.      More subtle devises are used and diversions are numerous.   A job to a family member is most common, however, disguised kickbacks appear to be most common.    I use the word kickback in the broadest sense.   Judge Holtzer sent his wife to the offices of the attorneys who were targeted and she suggested that they purchase life insurance from her.    If you purchased the insurance you won you case, if you did not you lost your case.  Also included as a kickback is the gambit of an appointment to a high paying, low work assignment.   Another diversion is almost undetectable.    A targeted judicial official goes to Chase Bank and borrows a sum of money.   Without the judicial official’s knowledge the miscreant pays off an agreed amount of the loan.    

Of course no one should forget the Campaign contribution.   As judges are elected they need war chests to avoid not being retained as jurists!     The totally independent wife of the judge manages the Citizens for Judge *** corporation and *****.   By paying the taxes due, the generosity of litigant is accessed by the jurist.[2]

Step2

Now let us assume that the Judge has been compromised.     Lawyer think in small steps and few if any have a grand scheme when engaging in litigation.    Thus, let us make an assumption that Judge X has agreed with your opponent that for and inconsideration of x dollars a judgment will be entered at the close of the litigation in favor of the defendant.

Most litigants assume that the Judge will toss the case out and leave the honest litigant with a mouth full of feathers.    Indeed, this does happen with regularity but only by the unsophisticated corrupt judicial officials.    There are a great number of these animals in the wild and you can see their handiwork most days on the 18^th floor of the Daly Center in Chicago, Illinois.    The net effect is that you have blogs screaming corruption, court watchers, and all sorts of ramifications.    These miscreants have to rely upon sanctions, intimidation, and similar devices to effectuate their malfeasance.    They also need Jerome Larkin to ‘cover up’ for them and thus provide the possibility of another weak link in the chain.

There however a more subtle type of procedure that is also widely is practiced which is insidious.     The MO is to let the mark win up until a critical point in the litigation.    For the purposes of this example the Mark is the plaintiff.   This example works in the same manner for the mark being a defendant)   Thus, the defendant’s motions to dismiss are all denied.    Most of the Motions in Limine presented by the mark are granted and at trial most of the objections of the defendant are over-ruled.

After the plaintiff (the mark) has closed his evidence and has no more witnesses to present, the Court orders that parties to brief the motion for a finding at the close of the plaintiffs’ evidence.    The Court then has before it:

1)      The legal theory and it ramifications.    If there is a deficiency the judge can focus on it and rule adversely to the plaintiff.

2)      The evidence that the plaintiff has been presented.    If the evidence is not sufficient the judge can rule that the evidence is insufficient.

However, if the legal theory is convincing and the evidence is sufficient the corrupt judicial official (jurist, judge) can focus on the credibility of the witnesses.   As the trier of the fact having heard all the evidence, observed the demeanor of the witness etc. the judges as the trier of fact could find that the “Pope” and/or the good Lord himself was not a credible witness and virtually no Appellate Court would challenge that finding and the judgment for the defendant.    It’s just too bad that yesterday God was not a credible witness.

The ‘mark’ can take an appeal, but, it is expensive and not very promising.

Here in Illinois we have added another element.    We have Jerome Larkin, the miscreants who can access him at the drop of a hat, and his cronies.    A lawyer who recognizes the symptoms of the dishonest and corrupt judicial proceeding usually can and will be intimated by a threat of a suspension.   Attorney Amu recognized this situation, raised his voice and even though the jurists did not raise serious denials, seek to hold him in contempt etc., in jumped Jerome Larkin and instanter  (before any of judges even filed a complaint) Amu received a three year suspension[3].   

Conclusion

The corruption enemy is not a simpleton.     There is no easy fix to the problem of judicial corruption.    The foregoing notwithstanding we do have a large number of dedicated and honest jurists and we do not wish to throw the baby out with the bath water.   We need law enforcement to do an HONEST intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation and enforce the laws.    We need law enforcement to remove the Jerome Larkin’s from their positions in which they can protect the criminals who are assaulting our core American values.

 

---

[1] The IARDC decision against me is one of those corrupt decisions that defies imagination.   The panel itself claimed without a scintilla of evidence that the two sisters of Mary who were not even listed in the Petition had knowledge of the non-existent incompetency hearing.    How they had knowledge is a mystery as there was no testimony that they had knowledge; however, knowledge was not sufficient.   It had to be 14 days prior to the hearing that never took place.    Exactly how raising this point is a false statement is not explained.   Corruption, Fraud, and other felonies under the 5^th Amendment do not have to be explained.

[2] NB.   I did not discuss how a litigant gets to the judge as we all know that when there is a will there is a way.     I’ve never bribed a public official so I do not know first-hand the details of the negotiations, but, I do know that such is not very subtle.   The few times that a jurist has approached me there was no subtlety involved.   Mrs. Holzer bold as brass marched into the office and told me that I was purchasing life insurance from her.  I through her out of the office.   Judge **** called me on the telephone to tell me the bid was 5.    I did not know what he was talking about.  

[3] The Amu case in my opinion has a racial nexus and should be investigated because in my humble opinion a lawyer with a darker hue to his skin is entitled to equal protection of the law and his clients should not be punished because the lawyer offended Mr. Larkin by being an immigrant from Africa.  

 

Larkin’s protection of corruption of the judicial system is not limited to his protection of the elder cleansers.   This is the reason that as a step one the keepers of the judicial conscience should be the first targets of any intelligent HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation.   

Elder cleansing is a cancer that is eating away the core American values.    As Justice Jackson ruled at Neurenberg Germany following orders is no excuse. 

 

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com