Starting at the Beginning --

Perhaps the best place to start is to start at the beginning of the precise moment we walk into a court of law?

As is true with most public buildings most courts have a double set of doors. When we walk through the first set of doors there is usually a second set of double-doors. Then we will typically find a metal detector with one of more "security guards" searching people, usually for guns and anything they may perceive as a "weapon" or some kind of a threat to court security.

Every security system in every court building is different with a different set of standards for judging security and security threats.

In some courts the security system systematically searches everyone, including attorneys, but not judges and judicial members of the court. Some courts allow judges to enter the building through an underground garage or another back door no one else is allowed to use. Other courts, usually in much older buildings, require the judges to enter through the front door but allowed to walk around the metal detectors and other security provisions.

In most courts, however, state and federal, we will find a strange pattern of discrimination. First, they will allow all judicial members, with or without identification, once they will have identified the person, to enter into building without further attention. Usually, they are allowed to bypass or walk around the metal detectors and, in some places, to walk through the metal detector gate even if the alarm goes off.

I have seen men, 8 to 10 feet from a security guard, pull out their wallet and flip out some kind of ID just for the security guard to nod his head up and down in agreement to allow them to pass without further scrutiny, clearly demonstrating we are not dealing with a real security system but some kind of racial, gender, social station, occupation or age discrimination system.

In many courts, attorneys are considered "judicial members of the court" and therefore allowed to either walk through or around the metal detector.

All strangers are subject to an illegal search for "weapons" and the severity of the search depends on the color of his skin, his manner of dress, occupation, social station, age, hair style and sex. Men are searched more carefully than women and Blacks searched more severely than Whites. Women with children are searched superficially or sometimes not at all. I have seen young women with children in a baby carriage allowed to walk through the metal detector without a challenge when the audio alarms go off. They could have been carrying several machine-guns and 50 pounds of C4 high-explosive without their being the wiser.

If a perfect stranger, usually a handsome while male, walks through the metal detector wearing a good-quality business suit and activates the audio alarm, the tendency -- with some exceptions -- is to ignore him.

-- The Repercussions of a Complaint

If anyone should object to this illegal security system, searching certain people with such blatant and meaningless discrimination and without constitutional probable cause, the security guards will get very angry, or pretend to be angry, and either try to intimidate that person into submission or call the police. If the police should arrive, usually in large numbers, they will either try further intimidation -- while ignoring the illegality of this pattern of search for weapons -- or threaten to arrest him for being a "disorderly person" -- an unlawful application of their authority. It is not unlawful or a legal argument of "disorderliness" if someone should question the authority of an act.

-- Contradictions of Police Officers

I have noticed over the years that, while the individual police officer rightfully objects to his being subject to these unlawful search routines, he doesn't seem to object if the search for weapons centers around someone else.

-- Playing Games with Certain People

I have also noticed a pattern of their playing games with certain people, particularly young Black boys, with metal eyelets on their shoes or boots. On several occasions, I have seen the security guards order the boys to take off their shoes or boots. Yet, they don't do it with attorneys, judges, judicial members of the courts, police officers, girls, women, people in business suits or older men. Again, if the boys should object on grounds of harassment, they will either call the police or threaten to call the police and, each time, in my observations, the police always cooperate with the security guards' blatant criminal violation of constitutional law. (Note: When we violate constitutional civil rights we commit a felony)

-- Their Unwitting Role in a Criminal Conspiracy

They simply don't seem to recognize their unwitting role and participation in a criminal conspiracy to violate constitutional civil rights. And, at the same time, attorneys -- who ought to know better -- systematically ignore these criminal acts as they stand in full sight of this absurd form of discrimination.

-- Attorneys Who Ought to Know Better

I have seem attorneys, with years of experience practicing law, completely ignore everything while pretending (to themselves) they see nothing wrong or rationalizing everything as lawful and justifiable. Some attorneys and judges can be enormous cowards and personal failures!

-- Members of Congress Who Ought to Know Better

Members of the United States Congress do the very same thing. Some of them rationalize they have "researched" the subject and found it lawful. I sincerely doubt it. I suspect, more likely, these people have been thinking within the framework and limitations of an ideology instead of law. Some people don't know the difference!

They will only object if it should happen to themselves; to other people it is justifiable. After all, such people could be "emotionally unstable" ["You know!"] or "carrying weapons unlawfully" ["You know!"]. Actually, under law, even if they are really searching for "unlawful weapons," they would still need "probable cause" to search anyone in particular and, if that person should be in lawful possession of a weapon, they could not confiscate it, as they presently do in public buildings.

It's alright for them to carry weapons, however (many attorneys and judges routinely carry firearms in court). But all strangers are potentially unstable, hence the justification for searching strangers.

All friends, and their friends' friends, are perfectly normal and stable. Strangers are not allowed to arm themselves. They could be dangerous ["You know!]! But they themselves are never dangerous; they are only arming themselves from potentially dangerous strangers! After all, they have a "right" to defend themselves -- true -- but fail to recognize everyone else has precisely the same right. No one has a right to supersede the rights of other people.

An Opinion --

This pattern of discrimination through unlawful security systems, metal detectors and searches for weapons started in most places approximately 30-35 years ago, about the time the anti-gun controversy had gained enough strength in the American culture to create a market niche (when a controversy, need or desire becomes strong enough it automatically creates a market niche in the American economy). It was about that time the professional frauds and charlatans came out of the "woodwork" to exploit it and, in the process, due to the nature of controversy, information and the way the human brain works, slowly caused a deterioration of certain civil rights to give an intellectual justification or rationalization for some people to violate the rights of certain groups or classes of people under certain circumstances and pretenses, particularly the pretense of security.

-- Sometimes Racism

Sometimes it is racism, prejudice or a bias rationalized as a pretense for security.

-- Sometimes the Fear of the Unknown or Stranger

Sometimes it is fear of the unknown or something we can not easily control, such as the fear of a stranger coming into the courthouse with the power to hurt us.

-- The "Criminal Personality" Discovers a "Market Niche"

As most of us probably realize, or will finally realize, once we will have grown up enough, that there are always a certain percentage of people who consistently prove unable to work out an honest solution to a problem. There could be 2,000 honest solutions to a particular problem. Yet, they will invariably reject every one of them, even if they could perceive the existence of those honest solutions, in order to select a dishonest one or, if not, to put a dishonest "spin" onto it. It is a personality flaw common with every population and culture and probably something to do with the way we assimilate into our culture. It is a very complex subject and, frankly, I don't understand most of it.

Likewise, when there is a real problem of security, such as in a public building, instead of working out an honest solution, there are always people who select dishonest solutions that trample all over everyone's rights -- except their own, of course -- and use the argument of "security" to rationalize it. Then, quite naturally, there are always a group of very naive people who readily accept it without giving any serious thought to the legal repercussions or the contradictions to law and civil rights. Some people, who ought to know better, can be remarkably stupid and thoughtless.

-- The Many Attempts to Challenge this Criminality

From what I can determine there has been at least several thousands attempts by individual people in the United States who have challenged these unlawful searches and seizures. I have done it twice, once in a U.S. District Court and once in a state district court. Each time my efforts were described as "frivolous" and every attempt to appeal has ended in failure with the appeal judges ignoring my issues and arguments without either a proper hearing or a proper legal argument. Yet, these same courts routinely deny the same rights of individuals and non-governmental organizations to search people in the same way they search people in courts and other public buildings.

-- Ignoring the Reality of the Proportion of Things

Though each year approximately 2.5 million people use guns lawfully to defend themselves at home and elsewhere and, while each year approximately 9,000-14,000 people use guns in the pursuit of their criminal activity, these professional core of anti-gun frauds and charlatans ignore the lawful use of firearms every year to focus their attention on its unlawful use, and the courts use the background percussions of these anti-gun arguments as the central core of their arguments to justify their criminal violation of civil rights. In most instances, I am certain, they don't even realize it. It seems to be a combination of ignorance, stupidity, fear and naivety.

-- Making a Career out of Controversy

These anti-gun activists, as is true with most other professional activists, start off with a non-profit organization in order to create a source of income for themselves by routinely seeking out funds from the general public, in effect making a career out of controversy and nonsense within the framework and limitations of their personality type (only certain types of people can do such things without their conscience bothering them). You must realize such people are basically petty criminal personality types -- not normal healthy people.

Normal healthy people do not make their careers out of a fraudulent interpretation of a controversy or process nonsense to establish a public position in the justification of legislation to ban something that doesn't exist.

Their official public position, in their literature and various web-sites, is always the objective to reduce crime through a reduction of guns in the hands of private citizens, creating, suggesting or declaring a relationship between guns and crime. A careful study of their legal and technical arguments will easily reveal the use of phony legal and "scientific" studies, "Junk Science" and nonsense traveling back and forth through the grapevine circuits with their arguments changing periodically to suit the needs of a change in culture, the effectiveness of opposing arguments, personalities and court decisions.

Experience has taught me they generally know nothing about the sociology of crime, guns or ballistics, and generally never learn from their experiences or get better with each successive experience. Instead, they say the same stupid things over and over and make the same stupid mistakes with each successive experience, year-in and year-out. Nor do their efforts ever have any effect toward the reduction of crime, or nor do they accept responsibility for their mistakes or their failures to resolve the problems they say they are trying to resolve.

In fact, their only effect is to actually increase crime through an increase in the vulnerability of a person's ability to defend himself, and they tend to consistently deny it. When confronted with their failure to actually reduce crime, through a reduction of guns and strong gun-control provisions, they always argue the solution to this problem is more gun-control. But, if a little gun-control doesn't work, then how can more gun-control work?

Most of these anti-gun activists have little or no education, or nothing appropriate to the subject-matter, and all of them seem to have the same problem of low self-esteem and an inferiority complex, using their position in this controversy to elevate their self-esteem and to give them power they have never before experienced. That is their career!

They are simply making a career exploiting this market niche. That is their objective -- not to reduce crime! Exploitation of a market niche created by controversy! In the same way some frauds and charlatans make their careers exploiting the need or desire of fat people to lose weight through phony weight-reduction diets, they exploit the needs of society to understand and reduce crime.

- The Development of Gun-Control into an Ideology

Then, in the early 1980's, the gun-control controversy evolved into an ideology. Ideology usually starts off as several lines of continuity of nonsense -- such as the Saturday-Night Special, the easy availability of cheat handguns, etc. -- and, over a period of time, evolves into a system of nonsense. Ideology has the psychological purpose to provide a ready explanation for everything when we don't know the answer to something (such as the question, "Why is there crime?").

-- Hollywood

With this introduction of an anti-gun ideology in the last 30 years there has been a steady production of movies in Hollywood depicting guns in the hands of ordinary people as dangerous and counterproductive and, at the same time, depicting the "bad guys" shooting up a storm every evening on television. Indeed, they seem unable to produce anything else. They lack imagination, maturity and good judgment. Their dialog and plots are ridiculous every evening, frequently depicting women beating the hell out of men in ridiculous hand-to-hand combat.

Hollywood, through an informal agreement with our Government and the anti-gun community, has become an integral part of this problem. They simply can not produce an intelligent and intellectually healthy movie without processing nonsense traveling through the grape-vine circuits or the use of ideology. In my view, Hollywood needs a real education. They need to recognize the difference between reality and nonsense and the responsibility to use information correctly. They need to grow up into responsible and mature adults instead of a bunch of "fruitcakes."

Remember in the middle-to-late 1970's to the early 1980's when we could not watch a movie or serial every evening without an anti-gun message in it?

Remember "Hawaii Five-O" or "Adam 12?" Almost every week we could easily find anti-gun messages with an urgent need for "gun-control." In one particularly ignorant edition I can remember seeing Jack Lord, portraying himself as an "expert" on guns, crime and working as a Chief of Police, holding up a Smith & Wesson revolver, possibly the Model 28 or 29, in a way a little old lady might hold up a dirty handkerchief, with his right thumb and right index finger, while describing it as a cheap "Saturday Night Special" and, all the while, demanding stronger gun-control provisions.

It never occurred to this dummy there is no such thing. If so, then he should have identified the companies that make such guns. Think of the insurance liability premiums for anyone making such a piece of junk. How long do you think a company would stay in business?

Now these Hollywood Fruitcakes have, on the most part, gotten away from these messages for gun-control.

Now they have focused their attention on the ideology of "equality" between the sexes. Almost every evening we find movies and prime time shows depicting images of women beating the hell out of men in hand-to-hand combat; women being in charge of several men and talking down to them; calling them "male chauvinist pigs;" or transmitting an anti-male ideological agenda. It sounds suspiciously like a Lesbian anti-male agenda. Read their literature.

Even the entertaining fantasy of "James Bond - 007" has fallen victim to this ideology. His boss is now a woman who continually talks down to him and calls him a "male chauvinist pig." How did she get into that position. Ordinarily, it would take years for anyone to work his way up to the top in that kind of dangerous work. Now we have a woman who got there without the bother of her working all the way up. From the bottom she went to the top without any apparent transition. Men cannot get away with it. Why should a woman? Only in Hollywood do we see such foolishness.

Even Miss Moneypenny now calls him a "male chauvinist pig" when, for years, she was portrayed as a secretary secretly in love with James Bond while flirting with him at every opportunity and, on occasion, entertaining a sexual fantasy of making love to him.

This is foolish nonsense and, unfortunately, we don't have anything in law or social convention to fight against this kind of abuse, namely the abuse of Hollywood using its position to manipulate behavior within the framework of an ideology; such as provisions to prosecute and even to institutionalize such Fruitcakes. They have serious psychiatric issues but too damn stupid to realize it.

They use ideology as a substitute for intelligence!

One suggestion I have for you is to make a telephone call to your local congressman to complain about this transparent attempt on the part of Hollywood to manipulate our behavior. We have an inherent right to be free from people trying to manipulate us, and certainly we do not have to put up with it on television every evening. Entertainment should be entertainment, not a platform for someone's ideology!

-- Our News Media Today

Also, our news media has got to recognize the responsibility to use information correctly and, particularly, to avoid ideology as a substitute for intelligence. Every newscasts, as I have learned from personal experience, avoids certain kinds of serious controversies in order to concentrate its efforts on either frivolous issues of controversy or to fulfill an agenda. When the news media consistently ignores reality, as it does today, it has the immediate effect of concealing reality, such as the reality of routine crime in today's courts, subsequently putting themselves into a position of an "accessory after the fact." Sometimes there is a genuine collusion between the news media and the courts to avoid the exposure of crime in court between a judge and one of the parties in a controversy.

With some important exceptions, our news media consistently ignores the illegal security systems in today's courts and consistently avoids discussing the subject; partly out of fear of this kind of controversy and their legal repercussions; partly out of incompetence in the treatment of information; partly out of naivety; and partly out of their desire to maintain a focus onto their main objectives or political agendas.

In June of 1988 I was involved in a controversy with the Supreme Court of the United States that led to the resignation of the Supreme Court Chief Justice, Warren Burger. Even though I successfully forwarded the appropriate documents to certain members of the American news media, I was consistently ignored. They didn't want to hear of it. The Chief Justice was a "Liberal."

In one interesting but unhappy experience, I sent a letter to a columnist, who specializes in Supreme Court decisions, telling him I was responsible for the resignation of the Chief Justice and had 513 pages of legal documentation to prove it. May I send them to him? I asked.

He came back, in his characteristic formal style, to suggest, that if I actually believe I was responsible for his resignation, then I ought to see a psychiatrist and, in respect to those 513 pages of legal documentation, I could just as easily stuff them up -- well, you know where.

This is the kind of problem to expect from the news media. They are ignorant, under-educated and emotionally inadequate to carry out their responsibilities of thinking, talking and using information properly. They tend to use ideology and operate with an agenda.

-- The Solidification of Nonsense

There seems to be several different roots, origins or reasons local and state governments started off with the notion they had a "right" or "need" to control crime or, particularly, "gun-related crime" with licensing procedures and other regulations -- well before this controversy led to the development of several anti-gun organizations "nibbling" at constitutional law under a pretense of "protecting civil rights."

One obvious root or origin started off at the turn of the 20th century in the City of New York. It was a time when "organized crime" had successfully infiltrated into the city government, including such criminal activity as a "protection racket" supported by local government officials (for a piece of the action, naturally).

These racketeers would come into a small local business, such as a "Mom & Pop Store" with a demand for "protection money" or else their place might go up in flames.

However, there was always a certain number of small businessmen who would consistently fight back against these government-supported racketeers. One method was for them to defend themselves with a knife or a gun to kick them out of their store, depending on their ethnic background and personality type.

These racketeers could defend themselves against anyone with a knife, no doubt, but a businessman confronting them with a loaded gun was much more difficult. That was the time, to combat this kind of defense against their criminal enterprise, for the local corrupt officials to introduce legislation requiring everyone to possess a license to carry firearms before they could possess a firearm in their businesses. Naturally, these corrupt officials made it very difficult for anyone to "qualify" for a license and, truthfully, the only people who did "qualify" were the police, the government-supported racketeers and, of course, themselves.

Almost immediately, some citizens of the City of New York challenged the constitutionality of these new licensing procedures in a local court of law. They would argue there is a civil right for the citizen to keep and bear arms for his self-defense. Since the judge presiding over the case was also part of a conspiracy and probably receiving a "kick-back" in these criminal enterprises, the citizen had no level playing field. The attorney for the defendant City of New York would argue nonsensically, while the citizen would cite constitutional law, and the judge would rule in favor of the City. Then this phony argument or legal adjudication would go into law as a "case precedence."

Later, another citizen in the same City or, possibly, another city or state, would challenge either the same law or something similar. The attorney for the defendant would look up any case precedent to support his defendant's position and, of course, would immediately discover that nonsensical case precedence. With nothing else he would use it. The judge, also part of a collusion with the defendant, would accept the defense attorney's use of this precedence and his accompanying nonsensical argument. That, also, would go into print as another case precedence.

Each time, when the plaintiff-party would appeal to the appellate division the court would summarily affirm the lower court's decision typically without a hearing creating, again, yet another precedence. That would continual on for years with each subsequent case precedence further solidifying each case precedence into a highly complex system of legal nonsense.

If it should go to the supreme court of the state, a collusion would accompany the decision from the lower court to the appellate division to the supreme court. Typically, either that court would refuse to hear the case or solidify the lower court decision with its own nonsensical arguments -- each time creating another nonsensical case precedence.

If we were to read the decision recently laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States between Washington, D.C. vs. Heller, we will find that this same solidification of nonsense spread out over a period of almost 100 years had a significant contribution in several of the briefs -- or "Friends of the Court" -- most notably the brief submitted by the city of Chicago to support Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns for self-defense in the home. This entire brief consisted of a series of legal "arguments," with its citation of case precedences and use of false logic and history, and contained an origin we can trace back to nearly a 100 years ago.

We will find this same pattern in the solidification of nonsense, solidified over a period of many years, in the briefs written by several anti-gun organizations, including the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence. In this instance, it is a body of nonsense they originated and developed in their campaign to support gun-control. It is the results of their repeating their nonsense so extensively they can no longer interpret reality correctly and accurately, effectively rendering their legal arguments meritless and absurd.

In most instances, however, this nonsense actually came from the lines of continuity of nonsense traveling back and forth through the grave-vine circuits common among children playing games with each other of pretending to know more than they do that the anti-gun organizations had chosen to use for their own use, but forgot the origin and their motives for using it.

Frankly, it is very hard to fight this kind of conspiracy, with its accompanying system of solidified nonsense and collusion between the judge and opposing attorney. Every attempt to appeal to the next level will almost always lead to a collusion accompanying the appeal from the lowest court to the highest court, and nothing in the system allows anyone to effectively fight it -- except an honest judge.

Once into the Building --

Once we get into the court building, beyond the security system, we will run into an odd set of problems and issues with the security system, attorneys and judicial members of the court, depending on the reason we must be there in the building, our sex, age, color of skin, hair style and clothing, etc.

If we must go into court for a motor vehicle violation it is not uncommon to find a collusion between the judge and the police officer, or with one or both of them carrying a big silly smirk on the faces. Many judges routinely side with the police officer. I have seen instances of the judge telling the police officer in open court, in front of other judicial members, the defendant and several people in the back room, not "to worry" when the defendant told the judge the police officer was a liar and misrepresented the facts and issues in a motor vehicle citation. All the while, both of them would carry a big silly smirk on their faces.

Sometimes, I have seen police officers clearly embarrassed by a judge's open dishonesty and prejudice.

If the defendant should prove aggressive in his defense it is not unusual for a security officer to approach him from behind to order him to lower his voice; to speak "more respectfully" (when the judge obviously doesn't deserve the respect); to back away from the bench or to "calm down." However, I have never seen a security officer do the same thing with attorneys or police officers.

There are instances, however, in which I have seen security officers approach several attorneys in open court to order them to "shut up." In one instance the judge had not yet arrived in court.

Pro se litigants are always treated differently and usually much less respectfully, as if they were dirty, ignorant or common thugs, even when clearly calm and in control, clean, neat, respectful, honest and all the while handling the case very well, with judges and opposing attorneys pretending otherwise. I have had experiences of judges pretending I was "confused" over an issue when they knew very well I was right and not confused.

When the judge is openly dishonest and rude with the pro se litigant, and with an obvious collusion between him and the opposing side (they are generally easy to perceive and to recognize), with a hostile and intrusive security officer walking around making various obstructive and distractive comments to the pro se litigant, it is quite naturally very difficult for him to be calm and collective in his thoughts in his oral presentation of the facts and issues. Indeed, the tendency is to destroy the continuity of his presentation -- and they know it!

-- Lets start with something really important

There are several significantly different set of experiences going to court to file either a civil action or an application for a criminal complaint in a show and cause hearing.

It depends on the court, whether civil or criminal, state or federal, or in the various districts through-out each state.

In Western Massachusetts, where I live presently, many of the local district courts have a power prejudice against pro se litigants with the most common word I hear describing such people as "assholes" and, with that attitude, they proceed to treat every pro se litigant as such. They operate with the ridiculous attitude that, since all pro se litigants are ignorant and incompetent, they might as well treat them as ignorant and incompetent with games of obstructions and resistance, thereby fulfilling their prophesy when the pro se litigant proves unable to intelligently participate in the litigation process.

In the last few years there has been an alternative to this problem of clerks, clerical assistants and clerk/magistrates playing games of refusing to process an application for a criminal complaint. One such agency for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the Committee for Professional Responsibility of Clerks and Clerks of the Courts and the other is the Inspector General of Massachusetts.

I don't have enough experience with these agencies to know if they work properly or not. I do know, however, on the basis of my initial experiences, they haven't responded favorably. In both instances they failed to send me a letter of acknowledgment to my complaints that were quite significant and consisted of more than 30 pages each. This kind of reaction to a complaint is common but not necessarily significant. Sometimes an agency, as a matter of policy, does not send out letter acknowledging receipt of a complaint but will wait until after a preliminary investigation.

Sometimes -- and it is very common -- for such agencies to wait a month or more before sending out a letter dismissing the complaint after a game of pretending they investigated the complaint but found no merit to it. This kind of fraud and collusion is exceedingly common and a source of enormous stress and frustration.

Actually, it was the original purpose of the Inspector General's office to check this kind of abuse. As is true everywhere else in the United States, these non-judicial remedial government agencies, such as the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, when they receive a valid complaint against someone in which they have jurisdiction, perceive the complaint as an opportunity to enhance their income. They will "shake down" the respondent for compensation and then dismiss the complaint.

We can readily recognize this pattern of fraud and conspiracy when the agency sends out a letter of dismissal misrepresenting the facts and issues in the controversy or ignoring them. They always argue they investigated the complaint but found no merit to it. Notice a pattern of their not including letters or documents leading to or supporting their conclusion.

These letters of dismissal never include such documents of proof, such as affidavits, depositions, testimonies, etc, or the normal documentation that would typically accompany a legal investigation. There is never anything there but a dishonest conclusion! Appealing their decision to the next level is almost identical to any other appeal mechanism. It is a joke!

The Inspector General's office has the purpose of investigating this kind of stuff but, as to whether or not it works, I can not say yet. I don't have enough experience.

-- An Example-- in a State District Court, Civil and Criminal Division

In some local state district courts, when we attempt to file an application for a criminal complaint for a show and cause hearing, or a civil action, the clerk/magistrate, operating with his prejudice against pro se litigants, will immediately obstruct us with games of pretending he doesn't see a "cause for a criminal complaint" or a "cause for a complaint" after a few seconds of scanning his affidavit and other documents.

Sometime he may not take the time to scan them but simply argue the court "lacks jurisdiction" to handle the complaint even when he clearly doesn't know the identity of the accuser, the accused or the nature of the controversy. All he knows is that the person in front of him is a pro se litigant.

Sometimes these clerk/magistrates can be enormous liars with some very serious psychiatric issues. Indeed, we may find some of these judicial members of the courts as seriously mentally ill with a variety of symptoms, everything from an inferiority complex and low self-esteem to a psychosis.

Sometimes they project an air of superiority over their inferiority complex and sometimes laugh and make fun of people with less experience and knowledge in order to conceal or mask their own incompetence or sense of inferiority.

-- In the U.S. District Courts

In the United States District Courts the experience of filing the original complaint in a civil action is vastly different than doing the same thing in a state district court, though they shouldn't be at all.

Though I have never seen or heard of anyone with a problem of filing a civil action in the United States District Courts (We can not file criminal complaints in a federal district court), the difficulties of getting a level playing field is the same. Only the procedures are different.

These federal courts routinely, as a matter of a standard operating policy, allow pro se litigants to file all of the submissions, applications, complaints or petitions they want without resistance or games in the clerk's office.

The usual pattern is for the clerk's office to process the paperwork and to allow the delivery of the summons and complaint to the defendant(s). Then, if one or more of the defendant(s) is a government agency, whether state or federal, it is a routine practice and procedure for either the state or federal attorney general's office to file a motion to dismiss the complaint even when there is no legal justification for it. Or, sometimes, the defense counselor for the government agency will unlawfully use a motion for summary judgment as a tool to dismiss the case without discovery or a proper hearing of the facts and issues (in order to "get rid of it quickly"). Summary judgment, deriving from old English law, has the purpose of identifying and removing the "clutter" from a case and to simplify or to clarify the facts and issues in a complex case. It is an interlocutory judgment procedure but frequently used as an unlawful final judgment procedure by the criminal elements making up the attorney general's offices through-out the United States. When the judge or magistrate colludes with the defense it is extremely difficult to fight it and usually any appeal to the appellate division will go nowhere. They tend to be part of the collusion.

Typically, in their briefs or submissions, they will argue nonsensically using non-existing case precedences or actual case precedences with fraudulent interpretations, frequently an interpretation opposite to the actual adjudication in the case precedences, a fraudulent interpretation meant to support a fraudulent and unlawful motion, process, application or procedure.

Nor is it unusual for the presiding judge to routinely ignore the attorney general's criminal conduct if you were to research each case precedence to point out the fraud. In that event it means there is a conspiracy between the judge and attorney general's office. Do not expect a level playing field even if everyone talks to you respectfully and appears to be honest. It is not honesty when the opposing side argues nonsensically and submits inappropriate motions, arguments, case precedences or legal interpretations while the judge systematically ignores all of it. Behind your back it means they are communicating with each other and playing games of working out a legal strategy to defeat you when they know very well you have a case with value and argue with merit.

They may even play games of pretending you argue without merit while they argue nonsensically. Nor is it uncommon for the defense attorney or presiding judge to pretend he does not understand your legal arguments; to suggest "confusion" on your part; to talk down to you, to talk over you or to talk through you; to systematically interrupt your oral argument in order to break the continuity of your presentation; for a security officer to interrupt you while in the middle of your oral argument; for the judge to make "funny" sounds with his mouth suggesting you as pathetic in your behavior; or for the judge to carry a silly smirk or smile on his face also suggesting you as pathetic in your behavior.

Sometimes the judge will maintain a blank stare through-out the proceedings and sometimes he may change his facial expression from word-to-word as attorneys and pro se litigants speak.

Sometimes, I have noticed on several occasions, the judge will display an interested friendly facial expression when facing an attorney and then, when facing a pro se litigant,
switch over to a big silly, disapproving smirk or smile.

Also, on several occasions, I have observed and experienced judges patiently listening to an attorney speak during an oral presentation of his case and then, when it became time for the pro se litigant to speak, the judge would lose all patience and speak over the litigant, preventing him from being heard and understood.

Every time the litigant would speak the judge would speak over him; when the litigant would stop speaking the judge would also stop speaking. Then, when the litigant would start to speak again the judge would immediately start speaking over him again.

In at least two occasions I have personally experienced a judge behaving as if he were perfectly proper and honest with me in an oral presentation of my case in open court. Later, when I received his written and final adjudication, I would find a criminal misrepresentation of the facts and issues in the controversy and obvious evidence of a collusion with the opposing side.

Judges can appear to be perfectly honest in open court but secretly dishonest behind our backs. Though easily provable in most instances, such as in the instance of a misrepresentation of the facts and issues, it is extremely difficult to get the proper authorities to examine a complaint against the judge, to investigate the allegations, to get a reprimand of the judge or, more importantly, to reverse his unlawful decision.

In two instances, back in 1988, I successfully caused the dismissal of two judges but still could not get a reversal in the appellate division or the supreme court. They would not hear of it. All they did was to play games!

In different cultures we will find different patterns of crime and corruption. As an example, in many African countries the pattern is for the judge to rule against the complainant unless he were willing to pay a "fee" to the judge, typically between several hundred and several thousand dollars and usually well beyond the litigant's financial resources.

In cases of probate, adoption or divorce proceedings, an attempt to collect an annuity of some sort, an insurance settlement or a judgment, the judge will make it known to the party he requires a certain sum of money before he would sign and send out the appropriate legal documents, again usually quite significant for the average person.

In the United States it is a little different. The only fee would be the application fee at the clerk's office.

Then, if the case against the defendant is strong and lacks a meritorious defense, the common criminal practice is for either: (1) the defense will contact the judge to offer a sum of money in return for a favorable decision or: (2) the judge will contact the defense to demand a bribe in return for a favorable decision. In either case it is extremely difficult for anyone to fight this kind of corruption.

Reporting it to the appropriate non-judicial agency, whether the FBI, the United States Attorney General, the Circuit Council or the Judicial Council, the pattern consist of two basic forms:

(1) In respect to the FBI and the Attorney General, the immediate reaction is to ignore the complaint. The FBI will argue they lack the "authority" or "jurisdiction" to investigate the complaint and the Attorney General consistently argues a "conflict of interest." They always argue their responsibility would be to defend the defendant(s). They can not defend and prosecute the same party at the same time. Technically and legally speaking, these arguments lack merit. No one in the United States can lawfully ignore a crime or a report of a crime. To do so makes them into co-conspirators if they were to conceal or to make any attempt to conceal or obstruct the complaint and, at the very least, make them guilty of misprision of felony if they were to do absolutely nothing, a most common practice in law among people who should know better.

(2) Filing a complaint against a judge before a non-judicial remedial board, such as the Circuit Council, the Judicial Council or, in the instance of a state judge, the Commission on Judicial Conduct, will entail our running into a typical "Good O'Boy's Network." It has been my consistent experience, over a period of more than 40 years, that non-judicial remedial systems almost never work. They seem to take on the characteristics of a paranoiac system with a "bunker mentality." That means that, when anyone files a complaint, of any kind, whether civil or criminal, the tendency is to interpret the complaint as an "attack" or intrusion on their colleagues. Upon receiving a complaint they will forward a copy to each other, talk about it at great length, deny everything and rationalize the complainant as a liar or "unhappy with the judge's decision." Later, after a pretense of an investigation, someone will send a letter, along with a copy to every respondent, to the complainant denying everything and, probably, misrepresenting the facts and issues in the controversy. If you were to examine case histories on this subject at the local law libraries, you will find decisions by judges leading to the conclusion the courts generally do not place much merit on the decisions by the non-judicial remedial boards. I think that, if we were to examine this subject psychiatrically, though certainly not pretending to be a psychiatrist on my part, we will find these "Good O'Boys" systems to be basically a serious psychiatric disorder, perhaps related to the personality disorder we call "Inadequate personality." That means they lack the emotional and personality skills and tools to think, talk and to use information properly or, particularly, to cope with the emotional and personality responsibilities of handling this kind of problem, though they typically think of themselves as very strong, well-educated and capable of handling any problem. In truth, they tend to be people who never got it "all together" as they grew up from a child to an adult.