The attorney general of the United States, Merrick Garland, likes to publicly talk about the so called “rule of law”. In his press conference addressing the warrant served at Trump’s property at Mar-a-Lago and the confiscating of boxes of documents, Garland said “Faithful adherence to the rule of law is the bedrock principle of the Justice Department and of our democracy. Upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly without fear or favor. Under my watch, that is precisely what the Justice Department is doing.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11103507/Justice-Department-asks-judge-UNSEAL-search-warrant-Trumps-raid.html. Garland needs to put his money where his mouth is. He has a terrible track record of “Faithful adherence to the rule of law”. With all due respect, "upholding the rule of law" is precisely NOT happening under his “watch” when it comes to federal judges who are breaking the laws of the United States. It's almost as though they have diplomatic immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution.
Garland must have conveniently forgotten about how he didn’t take such a posture about the “rule of law” —that he likes to talk about so much— when he was put in charge of ruling on an ethics complaint against Texas judge, Edith Jones, of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, who was accused of an ethics violation of making public derogatory comments against Blacks and Hispanics including suggesting that Blacks and Hispanics are “predisposed to crime” and “prone” to violence” at a 2013 speech at a Federalist Society sponsored event at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Several groups filed an ethical complaint against Jones for her derogatory public comments. The matter ended up before Garland who then appointed a special committee that included himself to handle the complaint.
Only two people were allowed to testify before Garland’s committee during the investigation: Jones herself and Marc Bookman, a Philadelphia death penalty lawyer who attended her speech and helped file the complaint. Maurie Levin, one of the lawyers for the complainants, said the investigation was “blanketed in secrecy and bias.” Levin has pointed out that although Bookman was cross-examined by Jones’ attorney, Jones testified in secret, without any of the complainants in the room. Garland’s panel refused to disclose a transcript of Jones’ testimony or the documents she filed in her defense. Garland and his appointed cohorts ultimately found that Jones hadn’t violated the judicial code of ethics and recommended that the DC Circuit’s judicial council, which had final say in the matter dismiss the complaint, which it did. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/time-merrick-garland-was-accused-protecting-fellow-judge-charged-ethics-violations/.
According to Maurie Levin, “The judicial panel that investigated the complaint, —presided over by Judge Garland— twisted itself into a pretzel to find that Judge Jones would face no consequences, and dismissed the complaint”. Levin said the process raises the question of whether Garland and his fellow judges were “more interested in protecting [their] brethren than rooting out bias in the administration of justice.” Garland’s involvement in protecting his “brethren” judge hardly constitutes a “Faithful adherence to the rule of law” as he likes to say.
Civil rights groups wrote, “At its core, the decision of the [judges] serves to undermine any faith the public may have in the fairness and impartiality of the judiciary, the federal judicial discipline system or a system free of race bias.” Luis Roberto Vera Jr., LULAC’s national general counsel, said in a press release, “Just as concerning as these instances of bias, the one-sidedness and secrecy surrounding the ethics complaint process and the untoward deference to the judge’s denials makes it unlikely that any claims of judicial misbehavior can be handled in a way that gives the public confidence that justice is being served.”
Andrew Cohen, a CBS commentator and lawyer, tweeted at the time: “Farce of the Day: How federal judges herded together to protect 5th Circuit Judge Edith Jones, a national disgrace.” Based on the comments by these civil rights advocates, Garland’s actions certainly doesn’t sound at all anything akin to “Upholding the rule of law…evenly without fear or favor” as Garland likes to publicly profess.
And now, as Attorney General of the United States, Garland is once again showing his preference of looking the other way as to judicial corruption —just as Attorney Maurie Levin previously stated in the aftermath of the Edith Jones matter when Ms. Levin said that Garland and his fellow judges were “more interested in protecting [their] brethren than rooting out bias in the administration of justice.” This time around Garland has chosen to protect a case fixing judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, where according to now retired Judge Richard A. Posner, Judge Michael S. Kanne was involved in having a civil rights decision fixed in a case I had against rogue police from Valparaiso Indiana —and also protecting the chief judge and the other complicit judges on the Seventh Circuit who took part in the cover up. Strikingly similar as to how Garland conducted the proceeding against the Texas judge, Chief Judge Sykes also proceeded with a blatant bias and one-sidedness and secrecy.
Actually, Sykes’ conduct in protecting Kanne was even worse than the situation with the Texas judge that Garland protected —the Texas judge asserted denials of wrongdoing where Kanne didn't deny on the record that he fixed the decision in the civil rights case as disclosed by Judge Posner. Sykes’ conduct of dismissing a well-grounded judicial misconduct complaint supported by affidavit to which she chose to not even interview the judge who disclosed the case fixing conduct and chose to not even interview the subject of the complaint in her secret proceeding certainly does not give any “public confidence that justice is being served.” And just as in the case of the Texas judge that was investigated by Garland, which was characterized as the “Farce of the Day” as to “How federal judges herded together to protect 5th Circuit Judge Edith Jones, a national disgrace”, so too is the current case against Judge Michael S. Kanne with Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes starring as the head of the herd to protect its brethren case fixing judge, another “Farce of the Day” and “national disgrace” —something that Attorney General Merrick Garland obviously has no problem with. So much for Garland’s professing of “Upholding the rule of law…evenly without fear or favor.”
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
~ Desmond Tutu
Merrick Garland is very well aware of the corruption in the Seventh Circuit in this matter. He knows about it because I sent him a detailed letter on April 22, 2021, which provided him with the details, and yet he has done nothing about it, even though he knows that a highly distinguished judge, Richard A. Posner, disclosed the case fixing conduct. https://www.courierpress.com/story/opinion/2021/06/30/letter-corruption-civil-rights-case-alarming/7812191002/. I wrote in great detail in my book Motion for Justice: I Rest My Case what the rogue police did to me in Valparaiso Indiana and how the FBI and the Department of Justice protected the rogue police with the help of John Bolton who was an assistant attorney general at the time and would later become national security advisor to former president Donald Trump. https://www.amazon.com/Motion-Justice-Rest-My-Case/dp/1662473427/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1536738363&sr=8-3. I also wrote about how the federal judge, James T. Moody, protected the rogue police during the civil rights trial of which appellate decision was fixed by Judge Michael S. Kanne, according to the disclosure by Judge Richard A. Posner who was on the panel.
The case fixing at the Seventh Circuit as disclosed by Judge Posner and the protectionism of the case fixing by Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes and her cohorts at the Seventh Circuit are crimes under the laws of the United States. Garland has a substantial basis to prosecute these criminal judges under 18 U.S. Code Sec. 2, 18 U.S. Code Sec. 3 and 18 U.S. Code Sec. 4, but he instead chooses to abdicate his duty as attorney general and look the other way. It is rather evident that Garland’s proposition that “Faithful adherence to the rule of law is the bedrock principle of the Justice Department and of our democracy” is an exception to his professed standards and doesn’t apply to criminals who wear black robes while breaking the laws of the United States.
“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.”
~ Abraham Lincoln
Attorney General Garland should know, when he brings up “the rule of law”, that the people have a fundamental right to petition the government for a redress of their grievance, it says so right in the Constitution UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT! https://constitutionus.com/constitution/amendments/the-first-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution-explained/. And Attorney General Garland should also know that all federal judges are required to take an oath swearing to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties” incumbent upon themselves “under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453. And we should not forget that Attorney General Garland also took an oath to do much the same. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-merrick-garland-takes-oath-as-u-s-attorney-general. Garland said the following in his opening statement at the Senate Confirmation Hearing on February 22, 2021 “The Attorney General takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am mindful of the tremendous responsibility that comes with this role.” https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/merrick-garland-opening-statement-transcript-confirmation-hearing-for-attorney-general.
Garland now needs to honor his oath and enforce the laws of the United States that have been broken by the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago for the aforementioned crimes of case fixing and cover up in violation of 18 U.S. Code Sec. 2, 18 U.S. Code Sec. 3 and 18 U.S. Code Sec. 4. To not do so would be a refusal to defend the Constitution of the United States. Federal judges who fix cases and federal judges who involve themselves in cover up activities related to protecting a case fixing judge meet the definition of domestic enemies of the United States to which Garland has sworn to defend against, and Garland has a sworn duty to prosecute these criminal judges —and he must do so. According to the Supreme Court, any judge who does not comply with his/her oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in an act of acts of treason. S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821). This makes Sykes’ and her judicial minions treasonous judges according to the Supreme Court’s precedent. Garland is obligated to honor his sworn oath and bring these treasonous judges to justice. The law is the law and Garland cannot continue to give a pass to treasonous judges as he has been doing.
So unless Garland is willing to prosecute the case fixing judges and judges who cover up case fixing at the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, and anywhere else in the country for that matter, he shouldn’t be publicly professing that “Faithful adherence to the rule of law is the bedrock principle of the Justice Department and of our democracy. Upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly without fear or favor. Under my watch, that is precisely what the Justice Department is doing.” By failing to prosecute these criminal judges, Garland is not adhering to the "rule of law" he swore to enforce —and his silence is deafening!
“The time is always right to do what is right.” ~ Martin Luther, King, Jr.