Pick Your Own Judge

Beneath the Black Robe: Bias, Corruption, and the Case for Choosing Judges is an interesting proposal by Richard W. Morris to reduce the level of bias and corruption in the legal system by allowing each litigant  to choose a judge and then those two judges chose a third so that the case is heard by a three judge panel. 

Suppose each party selects one judge. Those two judges select a third to preside. Three independent minds are less likely than one to be overcome by bias, incompetence, or corruption. Better still, litigants gain confidence in a system they helped shape rather than one imposed upon them.

Judges who repeatedly demonstrate poor judgment, bias, or inefficiency would simply stop being selected.

Although I think this would greatly improve justice and equity within the legal system, I suspect the cost as well as institutional resistance would block it from ever being implemented. Well maybe not ever but not for some time. 

The good news is at least corruption and bias is being viewed as a problem although I think Morris underestimates its true extent. 

Richard W. Morris, as an aside, and an interesting bio:

Richard W. Morris, a retired lawyer licensed in the United States Supreme Court, two U.S. states (Arizona and California) and the United Kingdom of England and Wales, a member of Mensa, and a former teacher and adjunct professor in economics. He holds the academic degrees of Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (B.S.) with a major in economics, Juris Doctor (J.D.), and Doctor of Philosophy in Business Administration (Ph.D.). During his half-century in aviation (airline transport pilot, flight and ground instructor licenses), he flew as pilot-in-command (captain) in some 40 countries on four continents.

Prosecutorial Corruption Masking As Discretion

When I presented extremely strong evidence of fraud upon the court by my ex-wife's attorney to the John Choi's Ramsey County Attorney's office, the reply I got was that lawyers can only commit fraud if they are under oath. Which is ridiculously false. So false the response constituted the crime of obstruction of justice. Yet, like most of the crimes committed by attorneys, such infractions rarely result in punishment. 

It is probably no surprise that the Trump Administration has openly used prosecutorial discretion to act corruptly. Surprisingly, however,  a judge has pushed back on them. 

A U.S. judge ordered the Justice Department on Friday to justify its decision to drop criminal charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, declining to rule immediately on Adani's lawyers' request ‌to dismiss the case.

Brooklyn-based U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis said federal prosecutors' May 18 announcement that they would no longer ‌pursue the case, which charged Adani with securities fraud and wire fraud stemming from an alleged bribery scheme, did not sufficiently explain their decision.

I hope such actions bring to light issues of corruption and crime within the justice system. I doubt they will but there is always hope. 

Government Corruption

According to a Brennan Center survey conducted in late April and early May, people know government corruption is a problem. 

The results are striking. More than 9 in 10 voters believe corruption is a big problem across politics and government. Large majorities view corruption as endemic and deeply embedded in government institutions, from the Supreme Court to Congress to the presidency. They are dejected about the fact that scandals continuously go without consequences and shocking revelations fail to produce reform. 

 Margins are overwhelming among Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

What will it take to make real change? Probably a centrist movement whose focus is to solve problems. Unfortunately. people seem to be gravitating to the extremes not the center. Furthermore, corruption seems to only concern people when it is the opposite end of the political spectrum from where they are. 

Fraud Upon The Court Goes Mainstream

Wow - someone mentioned fraud upon the court. In Minnesota fraud upon the court is one of three crimes with no statute of limitation, the others being first degree murder and sex trafficking of a minor, yet is hardly ever, if ever,  prosecuted. Sadly, it is extremely common, especially in family court. 

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island talks about fraud upon the court in the video below. The fraud in this case is committed by the government. I guess the DOJ figures it is just following common practice. Crime has become a tool for the government. No wonder Trump admires Putin so much. 

Open vs. Hidden Corruption

This site, as the name indicates, is mainly about injustice in family court. Usually such injustices are not due to the laws but the unjust way they are applied. There is a pervasive hidden corruption with the legal system and especially family court. According to the Lawyers Rules for Professional Conduct, lawyers are obligated to tell the truth and report other lawyers who violate any of the rules. This almost never happens. According to statutory law lawyers cannot defraud the court. In Minnesota, fraud upon the court is one of three crimes with no statute of limitations (the other two being first degree murder and sex trafficking of a minor) yet it is rarely, if ever, prosecuted. Indeed, lawyers committing fraud again the court is pretty much standard practice in family court. Attorneys view it as technique not a crime. 

The Trump administration, according to the American Bar Association (ironically), has brought corruption into the open. 

Since returning to the White House in January 2025, President Donald Trump has made it abundantly clear that his administration offers a wide range of benefits to those with pockets deep enough to pay the price of admission. More than any president in recent history, Trump caters to the wealthiest and most powerful—billionaires, CEOs of major corporations, the extremely well-heeled and well-connected—as long as they are willing to pay for the privilege. Unless key reforms are passed, this corrupt political culture will likely also have an insidious, longer-term cost: Americans losing faith in their democracy.

While previous presidents have occasionally elevated the unqualified, offered preferential treatment to political allies and personal friends, and rewarded wealthy supporters for their generosity, Trump has taken “pay to play” to an entirely new level. As documented by the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) in Trump’s Corrupt Transactions: How the 47th President Has Brazenly Traded Official Benefits for Personal and Political Gain, the Trump administration has on more than three dozen occasions allowed political donations or financial deals—several of which personally enriched the Trump family—to inform major personnel and policy choices. In doing so, the administration has trampled over legal restrictions, deeply established norms of presidential behavior, and important ethical guidelines.

I am glad the American Bar Association has spoken out again Trump's corruption. I can only hope they will address corruption within the legal system in the near future as well.  

Pete Hegseth Removes All Women And Some Blacks From Military Promotion List

Sexism and racism in action. Courtesy of Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump. Yet they are still supported my many, many women and even some blacks. So weird. 

The US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, stripped nine navy officers including women and Black service members from a promotion list last month, according to a person familiar with the matter, resulting in an all-male, overwhelmingly white slate of 22 advancing as nominees to become one-star admirals.

A navy source said that officials in the service had been "very confident" with those on the promotion list, including the officers whom Hegseth removed. He said Hegseth did not explain to the navy why he removed the officers from the list.

Feminism

 Maybe ever so slightly cringe but it does make you think. And laugh. 

My sister went through a divorce a number of years ago and complains how she lost her pension. Which, in fact, was his pension. She also complains he never paid her the full amount of alimony and child support she was due. She cannot even conceive of losing more than half of everything, then paying alimony and child support, and on top of that paying 100% of the kids expense. Kids who started off living with me half time then totally with me as soon as they could.