NONEXISTENT DISCIPLINE OF FEDERAL JUDGES
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. 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.
Book available at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/341329
Patent Reform https://www.smashwords.com/books/byseries/6526