undefined

The United States Courts on September 23, 2022, tweeted “The Judicial Conference of the United States has provided a century of service to the judiciary and to the public by setting policy and overseeing administrative needs.”  Along with this sound good tweet it posted a self-serving article boasting about how great of a judicial agency that it is such as stating that “one of the greatest values of the Conference is that it brings judges together from across the country, with a shared goal of improving the delivery of justice.”  https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2022/09/23/judicial-conference-century-service-federal-judiciary?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=usc-news.  And then there is a quote from Roslynn R. Mauskopf, director of the Administration of the United States Courts stating “The independence of our courts is a hallmark of the federal judiciary.” and that “We are a nationwide court system, sharing common challenges and common goals.  The work of the Conference and its committees unify us in the administration of justice, and brings a real dimension of camaraderie and collegiality to the Branch as a whole.”  My my, the kumbaya is enough to bring tears to one’s eyes.

The article discussed the 2017 year-end report by Chief Justice Roberts mentioning inappropriate conduct in the workplace, with a goal of ensuring “an exemplary workplace for every judge and every court employee.” and bragging that for the past four years the Judicial Conference, the courts and circuits, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the Federal Judicial Center have made significant strides to strengthen protections and streamline processes to ensure a workplace of respect, civility, fairness, tolerance and dignity, free of discrimination and harassment.  And in further spreading manure, the article stated that for the past four years the Judicial Conference, the courts and circuits, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the Federal Judicial Center have made significant strides to strengthen protections and streamline processes to ensure a workplace of respect, civility, fairness, tolerance, and dignity, free of discrimination and harassment and that the so called “Conference” has approved or endorsed updates to a so called “Model Employment Dispute Resolution Plan for judicial employees, the codes of conduct for judges, and the Rules for Judicial Conduct.”  And then there is the worthless minion of Chief Justice John Roberts, Roberts’ hand-picked director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and secretary to the Conference, Roslynn R. Mauskopf, who said “The independence of our courts is a hallmark of the federal judiciary,” and that “We are a nationwide court system, sharing common challenges and common goals.  The work of the Conference and its committees unify us in the administration of justice, and brings a real dimension of camaraderie and collegiality to the Branch as a whole.”  And for additional propaganda effect, the article added in a typical John Roberts quote, a quote that has been wearing thin on people, “The judiciary’s power to manage its internal affairs insulates courts from inappropriate political influence and is crucial to preserving public trust in its work as a separate and co-equal branch of government.”  What a bunch of poppycock!  Only the naïve would fall for such sickening propaganda, and that is all that it is, sickening propaganda that isn’t worth the paper that it is printed on.

The Office of the United States Courts is a prime example of what is wrong with the judiciary, and Roslynn R. Mauskopf, the director who runs that worthless agency is a prime example of why we should be removing such unnecessary and dangerous miscreants from the judicial sector.  For starters, the propaganda spewed by the United States Courts in so cavalierly tweeting that “one of the greatest values of the Conference is that it brings judges together from across the country, with a shared goal of improving the delivery of justice.” is laughable. When sexual harassment of employees in the federal judiciary became a hot topic in 2021, members of both parties introduced the Judiciary Accountability Act of 2021 that was to provide some much needed protection for judicial employees subjected to sexual harassment by pervert judges and other high level court officials, and would have given judiciary workers the same rights and whistleblower protections as other federal employees.  https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/the-federal-judiciary-has-a-harassment-problem-but-theres-a-fix; https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2553/text.  And yet, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Roslynn Mauskopf, sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee indicating that the Judicial Conference opposed the bill.  Mauskopf wrote that the bill, “fails to recognize the robust safeguards that have been in place within the Judiciary to protect judicial employees, including law clerks, from wrongful conduct in the workplace, including protections against discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and abusive conduct.”  Mauskopf also wrote that “the bill interferes with the internal governance of the Third Branch…and imposes intrusive requirements on Judicial Conference procedures”.  https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2021/08/25/judiciary-informs-congress-its-opposition-bill. 

The audacity of the U.S. Courts to spew out such misinformation to the public that things are hunky dory in the federal judiciary when the U.S. Courts know that there is a serious problem in the federal judiciary with sexual predator judges and court officials is very unbecoming to say the least.  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chief-justice-calls-judicial-independence-amid-growing-political-criticism-federal-courts.

The garbage that John Roberts and Roslynn Mauskopf spew out by way of the so called United States Courts agency in bragging that “one of the greatest values of the Conference is …. improving the delivery of justice” is as laughable as could be. If Roberts and Mauskopf and the United States Courts along with the Judicial Conference of the United States want the public to believe that “improving the delivery of justice” is actually a “goal” as was purported in their recent publication, then they should have no problem in answering some very important questions.

Question number 1:  Why is John Roberts afraid to respond to the letter I sent him on October 4, 2021, where I informed him of the case fixing and cover up going on at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago that was disclosed by former judge Richard A. Posner when he came clean and disclosed that Judge Michael S. Kanne had a decision fixed from the appeal of a civil rights case against the Valparaiso Police Department from Indiana?

Question number 2:  Why is John Roberts afraid to confront the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago for its refusal to follow Rule 26 of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings in refusing to request that the Chief Justice of the United States transfer my Judicial-Misconduct Complaint proceeding to the judicial council of another circuit rather than keeping the matter in house  which was obviously done in order that it could sweep the information under the rug, even though Kanne did not deny on the record that he had the appellate decision fixed —just as Judge Posner disclosed?

Question number 3:  Since John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States is the nation’s highest ranking judicial official, and speaks for the judicial branch of the federal government, and serves as the chief administrative officer for the federal courts, and heads the Judicial Conference of the United States, and he appointed Roslynn Mauskopf as the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Roberts should state on the record if he believes that the fact that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts led by Roslynn Mauskopf refuses to inform me of the status of my petition for review of the Seventh Circuit’s dismissal of my judicial-misconduct complaint against Kanne should be considered a "delivery of justice", and if the conduct of sweeping the petition under the rug should be considered a “delivery of justice” such as what the United States Courts bragged about in its recent propaganda release.

Question number 4:  John Roberts should explain why he thinks it is okay and not an injustice for the Judicial Conference of the United States to sweep under the rug my petition for review of the Seventh Circuit’s dismissal of my judicial-misconduct complaint against Judge Michael S. Kanne for his case fixing activities as was disclosed by Judge Richard A. Posner.

Question number 5:  Roslynn Mauskopf should explain why her office, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, refuses to inform me of the status of my petition for review of the Seventh Circuit’s dismissal of my judicial-misconduct complaint against Kanne, and if the conduct of sweeping the petition under the rug should be considered a “delivery of justice” such as what the United States Courts bragged about in its recent propaganda release.

Question number 6:  John Roberts and Roslynn Mauskopf should each explain why they have not referred Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, and her minions, to law enforcement authorities for their criminal activities of concealing Judge Michael S. Kanne’s case fixing activities as such case fixing activities by Kanne and cover-up activities by Sykes and her minions who were complicit in the cover-up constitute criminal violations under 18 U.S. Code Sec. 2, 18 U.S. Code Sec. 3 and 18 U.S. Code Sec. 4.

The propaganda statements spewed in the recent publication by the United States Courts that there is “a shared goal of improving the delivery of justice” and the quote from Roslynn R. Mauskopf that “The independence of our courts is a hallmark of the federal judiciary” and that “The work of the Conference and its committees unify us in the administration of justice, and brings a real dimension of camaraderie and collegiality to the Branch as a whole” couldn’t be more farcical.  Retired Judge Richard A. Posner, the very judge who disclosed the case fixing of Judge Michael S. Kanne that John Roberts and Roslynn Mauskopf are working overtime to try to sweep under the rug in order to conceal from the public just how serious a problem there is with case fixing and cover up at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, let the cat out of the bag when he publicly stated that America has a “very bad” judicial system and that “we have a very crappy judicial system…that contaminates much of government.”  https://promarket.org/2017/03/28/richard-posner-real-corruption-ownership-congress-rich/.  And also unfortunately for Roberts, during an oral argument on December 1, 2021, Justice Sonia Sotomayor let the cat out of the bag when she succinctly asked “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible.”  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/sotomayor-suggests-supreme-court-won-t-survive-stench-overturning-roe-n1285166.

The fact that John Roberts and Roslynn Mauskopf are covering for the case fixing and cover up that is going on in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago by trying to sweep it under the rug in order to keep the information about the judicial corruption away from the public speaks volumes.  It is so sad that as a country we have to endure such a corrupt judiciary even at the highest levels, and Roberts’ and Mauskopf’s complicity in covering for the case fixing and cover up at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago underscores just how serious of a problem that we have in this country with judicial corruption.  Having corrupt judges in the federal judiciary who fix cases and having chief judges who cover up the case fixing with their brethren minion judges, along with the Chief Justice of the United States and director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts who play ball in acquiescing and accommodating the cover up of the case fixing and cover up activities such as what John Roberts and Roslynn Mauskopf are doing are hardly acts of "administration of justice".  

The jig is up and we don’t need any further propaganda being spewed by John Roberts and Roslynn Mauskopf through the propaganda machine of the United States Courts.  If Roberts and Mauskopf are afraid to answer the above questions, then they should do the public a big favor and keep their lying mouths shut.