NONEXISTENT DISCIPLINE OF FEDERAL JUDGES

Shysterbagger

inventors@coolissues.com

Federal judges are the unelected and unaccountable hacks of the capitalist system which now controls our government. They serve the interests of corporations which now hire the legislators, executives, and judges to write and rule the laws in their favor. Laws are made and judges use them to protect corporations from claims by individuals. This is most evident in patent claims made by individual inventors against government and corporations which, since the public eye is absent, write and arbitrarily use the laws with impunity. It is no longer what the laws are but what the judges say the laws are that constitute decision-making. The present pages provide links to facts, actual cases, and opinions about unconstitutional and arbitrary patent actions by federal judges.

The founding fathers retained the British commercial system with a new royalty. They replaced King George III by a non-elected, non-accountable judiciary. Today some 750 federal judges "interpret" rather than apply the law and 750,000 lawyers tell us what the judges mean. All federal judges are appointed under the provisions of Article III of the Constitution and hold office "during good behavior," a vague term which in practice means life or until they choose to step down. The only way they can be removed from the bench is by impeachment (indictment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate). In accordance with institutional requirements (for Supreme Court justices) and legislative standards (for appeals and trial court judges), impeachment theoretically may occur for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." An impeached jurist would face trial in the Senate, which could convict by a vote of two-thirds of the members present. These are high jump bars.

The impeachment of a federal judge is a fairly rare event. Between 1789 and 1985 the House has initiated such proceedings against only 10 jurists, although about an equal number of judges resigned just before formal action was taken against them. Of these 10 cases, only four resulted in a conviction, which removed them from office. Historically, misbehaving judges receive a mild reprimand from colleagues (a useless gesture for a judge) and have no fear of impeachment (a recourse considered too drastic by judges and politicians). In 1966, for example, the Supreme Court upheld an action taken by the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council against U.S. District Judge Stephen S. Chandler of Oklahoma. The council had stripped him of his duties and authority (while permitting him to retain his salary and title) for a series of antics both on and off the bench.[1] However, although outright acts of visible misbehavior on the bench are few, a huge gray area of misconduct puts offending judges somewhere in the twilight zone between acceptable and impeachable behavior. What can citizens do with the federal jurist who hears a case despite an obvious conflict of interest, who acts without jurisdiction, or in violation of individual or constitutional rights? The American system only worries about visible biased behavior in and out of the courtroom. It is appearance which counts while the law is methodically raped. No judge has ever been removed from office for violations of the Bill of Rights.

On October 1, 1980, a new statute took effect on which Congress had labored for several years. Titled the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, the law contains two distinct parts.[2] The first provides for a Judicial Council in each circuit, composed of both appeals and trial judges and presided over by the chief judge of the circuit, and specifies that the council "shall make all necessary and appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious administration of justice within its circuit." The second part of the act establishes a statutory complaint procedure against judges. Basically, it permits an aggrieved party to file a written complaint with the clerk of the appellate court. The chief judge then reviews the charge and may dismiss it if it appears frivolous or for a variety of other reasons. If the complaint seems valid, the chief judge must appoint an investigating committee consisting of himself or herself and an equal number of trial and circuit judges. After an inquiry the committee reports to the council, which has several options: (1) the judge may be exonerated; (2) if the offender is a bankruptcy judge or magistrate, he or she may be removed; and (3) Article III judges may be subject to private or public reprimand or censure, certification of disability, request for voluntary resignation, or prohibition against further case assignments. However, removal of an Article III judge is not permitted; impeachment is still the only recourse. If the council determines that the conduct "might constitute" grounds for impeachment, it will notify the Judicial Conference, which in turn may transmit the case to the U.S. House of Representatives for consideration.

Ineffectiveness of Discipline Law

When it comes to protecting the rights of patentees, The New Federal Judicial Discipline Act, is totally ineffective. Judges operate in the twilight zone between acceptable and impeachable decision making. The cases are legion but one judicial method is almost common as long as the case is not in the public eye. In such cases, when the individual patentee (the inventor) files a patent infringement case, against the government or large corporation (the infringer), the case is usually decided not under the inventor's claim but under the infringer's legal defense or some procedural rule. For example, the inventor claims A=P (the government or corporation device A infringes his patent P) and the government or corporate infringer answers that P=B (the inventor's patent P is invalid because it is prior art B). There are four possible (underlined) outcomes:

which show that the necessary and sufficient conditions for picking an outcome are proofs A?P,P?B (necessary) and A?B (sufficient). In patent law proofs range from identical (35 USC 102) to remote (35 USC 103). The identity or degree of remoteness between the inventor's patent P and the prior art B is left to the discretion of judges. A proof in law (where judicial discretions effect decisions) is not to be confused with a proof in science (where science discretions are absent and facts effect decisions). In criminal law many death penalty cases have been cancelled by DNA evidence. Moreover, non-patent cases do not have a B term and thus only have two outcomes A=P (plaintiff proves claim) and AP (defendant proves defense). Judges, who infrequently if ever try patent cases, do not account for the difference between possible outcomes of patent and non-patent cases. Therefore, in patent law, proofs P=B are plagued both by judicial discretion which invites errors and by refusals by courts to consider and determine proofs A?P and A?B. An example of such arbitrariness of judicial patent decision is shown in one case in which 18 infringers, each with a different device A, infringed different claims of the inventor's patent P. The court decided P=B without considering the obvious fact that it was impossible for a single prior art device B to be identical or remotely equal to each one of the 18 different infringing devices A1,A2, .....A18.[3] It is hard to see how the constitutional mandate to secure inventions (Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8) is effectuated by the patent laws and judicial practice.

In particular, a partial proof, say P=B, is less than necessary and is insufficient to prove the inventor's patent P is invalid. Nevertheless, courts arbitrarily rule P=B (infringer wins if he proves his defense) on "summary judgement" without hearing and deciding the inventor's claim A?P, and without deciding A?B, and thus without deciding between the four possible outcomes. Summary judgement is a term which means the judge makes a decision that no material facts remain to be decided. Whether material facts remain undecided is left to the discretion of judges. See links to Supreme Court cases cited below where courts have arbitrarily ruled P=B. It is clear that the infringer's proof P=B is less than necessary and is insufficient unless he proves that AB and the inventor cannot prove his claim AP. It is equally clear that the inventor's proof A=P is less than necessary and insufficient unless he proves that AB and the infringer cannot prove his claim PB. The court's arbitrary decision P=B is obtained solely on defense not by balancing claim against defense. By barring the inventor from his right to have his claim heard and decided, and depriving the inventor of his day in court to prove A=P, and by removing the infringer's burden of proving AB, the American misnamed justice system works to protect the government and its corporate sponsors. Undecided A?P deprives the inventor of proving infringement A=P and undecided A?B deprives the inventor of disproving P=B and prevailing in the case. It is easy to fabricate a partial conclusion P=B (infringer wins) without deciding A?P and A?B. Thus while patent claims must be heard before any defense is heard, and all material issues between claims and defenses resolved, the courts avoid hearing claims and focus on defenses, i.e., always adhering to the procedural forms (notice and hearing) which they call justice but ignoring the substance (inventor's claims vs infringer's defenses) of justice. This is like allowing David in the ring with a Goliath but tying David's hands so he cannot use his sling. Since the government and corporations do not wish to lose fairly, the hearing of an inventor's claim, along with his constitutional, legal, and civil rights, are tossed by the courts. Of course, the government and corporations are motivated by the desire not to pay million dollar royalties to the inventor. The pro-corporate judicial system, with its delays, high costs, elaborate procedural rules and discretionary institutional corruption, effectively prevents inventors with limited means from prevailing. In all cases, the appeals courts and Supreme Court will not interfere even when the procedural and jurisdictional forms, much less the substance, of judicial proceedings have been violated. Let the individual inventor burn, federal courts are designed for resolving big-money disputes between large corporate equals not between individuals and large corporate unequals. Most American citizens cannot afford the costs of American justice.

Related Links By Same Author

The following links are to subjects on Inventors, Patent Office, Patent Reform, Federal Courts, Federal Judges, Supreme Court, Court Reform, Government, Corporations, Miscellaneous, and Independent Inventor's Site. These links show how the independent inventor interacts with the government and with corporations. In particular, links under Federal Courts, Federal Judges, Supreme Court show how unelected, unaccountable federal judges operate with total impunity in the twilight zone between acceptable and impeachable decision making.

http://www.coolissues.com/patentreform/independentinventors.htm

http://www.coolissues.com/patentreform/independentinventors_1.htm

Copyright © 2003 by Shysterbagger

1 Robert Carp and Ronald Stidham, The Federal Courts, Congressional Courts, Inc., 1414 22nd Street N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20037.

2 See Eric Neisser, The New Federal Judicial Discipline Act: Some Questions Congress Didn't Answer, Judicature 65 (1981): pages 142-160.

3 See Federal Courts Crush Inventors http://www.coolissues.com/patentreform/fcourts.htm; How Federal Courts Crush Inventors and Protect Global Corporate Interests http://www.coolissues.com/patentreform/fcourts_1.htm; Federal Circuit Methodology for Deciding Patent Cases Brought by Individual Inventor http://www.coolissues.com/patentreform/fcourts_11.htm