Be it that case fixing at all levels of the judiciary has gone nearly unabated for decades and has cost millions of Americans their fortunes, health and in some cases their lives.
Be it the bureaucracy created by the courts to protect litigants from bad judges, lawyers, other litigants, and court actors is broken, and the system is in need of outside influence.
The misdeeds of the conspirators are greater than the current construct of the law; as such, this complex problem needs a sophisticated and multi-layered solution.
Case fixing- A pattern of legal rulings, decisions, and actions which are designed to advance a pre-determined or corrupted outcome in judicial proceedings.
A ruling from a fixed case has no basis in fact, law, or the Constitution; as such, to prove a fixed case- either the entire case or for significant parts- prosecutors must prove a pattern of legal actions which were determined for a favored party against the targeted party, which has no basis in fact, law, or the Constitution.
Pattern of Case Fixing
A pattern is defined as at least requires at least two predicate acts in furtherance of a case fixing enterprise, one of which occurred after the effective date of this statute by any individual charged under the statute.
Case fixing patterns maybe proven in one case or multiple cases.
Predicate acts: color of law violations, “Brady” violations, witness tampering, jury tampering, judicial kidnapping, violations of mandated reporting statutes, court records tampering, SLAPP suits, judicial extortion, willful misdiagnosis, litigating divorce in criminal, perjury, bribery, false imprisonment, willful violations of statute, willful violations of litigants’ constitutional rights, fraud, stalking, extortion, blackmail, theft, obstruction of justice, slavery, violations of rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, racketeering, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, mortgage fraud, fraud upon the court, illegal contact denial, willful disregard for conflict of interest when refusing to recuse.
Judicial case fixing enterprise-
Two or more people conspired to advance a case in a pre-determined or corrupted outcome.
Color of law violations- a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
“Brady” violations- Brady refers to the 1963 US Supreme Court case Brady Vs. Maryland which required the prosecution to turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense during discovery. In a Brady violation, the prosecution fails to turn over all exculpatory evidence during discovery.
Witness tampering- the act of attempting to alter or prevent the testimony of witnesses within criminal or civil proceedings.
Jury tampering- attempting to influence a jury through other means than the evidence presented in court, such as conversations about the case outside the court, offering bribes, making threats or asking acquaintances to interfere with a juror.
Judicial kidnapping- a pattern of rulings (minimum of two such rulings) designed to keep kids who have repeatedly expressed they’ve been abused and thus want nothing more to do with that parent with their abuser.
Court records tampering- when during the course of a judicial proceeding any part of the judicial record is altered by anyone so that it reflects anything but the most accurate
Perjury- the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation.
Bribery- the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.
False imprisonment- when through fixed court proceedings a targeted litigant is made to serve jail time a fair court would not force.
Willful- an act done voluntarily with either an intentional disregard of, or plain indifference
Willful violations of statute- act done voluntarily with either an intentional disregard of, or plain indifference to the governing statutes
willful violations of litigants’ constitutional rights- act done voluntarily with either an intentional
willful misdiagnosis- when a court actor is who is brought in testify or to diagnose by the court to offer their perceived expert opinion violates medical standards, codes, rules, and procedure to arrive at a pre-determined diagnosis
litigating divorce in criminal court- when a litigant in concert with prosecutors brings criminal charges which would not have been brought, except that they are then used as leverage in the divorce.
SLAPP suits- defined as Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
Judicial extortion is defined as an illegal order or other illegal judicial action used to create at least one other illegal order or other illegal judicial action.
Violations of mandated reporting statutes- mandated reporters are professions where they have regular contact with vulnerable people and are therefore legally required to ensure a report is made when abuse is observed or suspected. Court actors and judges- who are mandated reporters- who fail to report abuse told to them by a minor during the course of a fixed case are in violation.
Fraud- wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain
Stalking- repeated following and harassing of another person
Extortion- obtaining money, property, or services from an individual or institution, through coercion.
Blackmail- demanding money from a person in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information about that person
Theft- taking of another person’s property or services without that person’s permission or consent with the intent to deprive the lawful owner of it.
Violations of Rights under the Americans with Disabilities- if during the course of trial proceedings a litigant, lawyer, court actor, or judge’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act are violated and court does not immediately remedy so that litigants rights are immediately restored.
Obstruction of justice- willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process.
Slavery- the state of being under the control of someone where a person is forced to work for another
Racketeering- the extortion of money or advantage by threat or force
Money laundering- the concealment of the origins of illegally obtained money, typically by means of transfers involving foreign banks or legitimate businesses.
Illegal contact denial- when a parent who has not been found to abuse or neglect is kept away from their children without another proper reason for extended periods of time- defined as 45 days or more.
Bankruptcy fraud takes on four forms:
mortgage fraud- to materially misrepresent or omit information on a mortgage loan application in order to obtain a loan or to obtain a larger loan than could have been obtained had the lender or borrower known the truth.
Willful disregard for conflict of interest when failing to recuse- conflicts of interest as defined as a situation in which the concerns or aims of two different parties are incompatible. In such case, a judge would ignore such conflicts of interests while refusing to recuse themselves.
Each count punished under the case fixing statute is punishable for up to 20 years in prison, all convictions under this statute will be served consecutively, and forfeiture of all ill-gotten gains.
Any defendant shall be permanently barred from receiving any professional license and shall surrender any professional licenses they may hold at the time of conviction.
Defendants may also be fined up to $50,000 per count.
Participants in case fixing enterprise defined as:
Litigant- a person involved in the lawsuit
Lawyer- person providing legal representation in lawsuit or criminal action
Judge- a public official appointed to decide cases in a court of law
Court actor- an official appointed by the judge to provide what the court deems a third party opinion on a specific aspect of a case
Court employee- an individual who works for the court in a capacity besides judge.
Outside agent- anyone else who can be proven to contribute to the case fixing conspiracy by a pattern of case fixing
Favored party- party which benefits from the case fixing
Targeted party- party which suffers from the case fixing
Statute of Limitations
The statute of limitations to bring a case under the anti-case fixing statute is ten years after the final action linked to the fixed case.
The “Turn Yourself In” clause: Any participant in a case fixing scheme who comes forward before they are under suspicion and provides a detailed account to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is given immunity from any crimes they may have committed in exchange for a 1 year and 1-day sentence and to be available for a period of five years to testify in any cases which may arise.
The agreement is official only after the appropriate US Attorney’s office has put something in writing and signed with the participant and their attorney.
Be it that case fixing is often a conspiracy with ten or more individual contributing perpetrators and society wants to encourage conspirators to come forward, a clause to encourage as much helps counteract case fixing
Clause A: Sunshine of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) statute.
Because VAWA has become perverted and incentivized women to falsely accuse their ex-partner, with whom they have a custody and/or divorce dispute, to falsely accuse them of abuse by providing access to free attorneys, shelter, a support network, and because the court often goes along with these false allegations through a pattern of acts which form case fixing, the sunshine of this law is necessary.
Clause B: Sunshine of the Fatherhood.gov statute
Because Fatherhood.gov has incentivized abusive- physically, psychologically, and/or emotionally- fathers to attempt to get back in or further intrude in the lives of their children and because these grants have been used by the likes of the so-caled “Beltway Sniper” John Allen Muhammad and Joshua Komisarjevsky, one of the murderers of the Petit family, and it incentivizes case fixing by creating perpetual litigation. (Source Making Divorce Pay, https://capitalresearch.org/article/making-divorce-pay/)
Clause C: Sunshine of Title IVD of the Social Security Act
Because Title IVD is used by both abusive men and women to further harass the targeted party with illegally burdensome child support as a way of judicial abuse. The enhancement encourages further litigation of child support and add incentives to fix cases.
Indeed, in the Rucki case, one of the main inspirations for the law, a child support orders notes the father’s use of Title IVD as a reason to give him- a multi-millionaire- even more support in the form of justifying child support: “The father receives non-public assistance IV-D in child support services from the State for the joint children.” A recent court order signed by Dakota County Magistrate Judge Maria K. Pastoor noted. (
Because Title IV incentivizes case fixing, it must be eliminated.
Clause D: Sunshine of Title IVE of the Social Security Act
Title IVE of the social security code has also been perverted and has incentivized the removal of children, placing children in foster care, and adopting children, often in cases with no evidence of abuse and neglect.
Because courts often entertain other court actors and outside agencies like Child Protective Services when bringing these cases, and these cases often turn into case fixing, justifying children which were illegally removed by outside agencies, Title IVE incentivizes case fixing and must be eliminated.
Clause E: Judges SHALL NOT appoint any outside expert for the purpose of any third-party report or intervention as part of divorce and/or custody proceedings.
Because court actors- guardian ad litem, custody evaluator, parenting coordinator, etc- are imposed on parents attempting to get divorced or settle custody and because they are often unqualified, act extra-judiciously, while complicating matters while offering no real benefit, these outside court actors have done nothing but encourage case fixing and must be eliminated.
Clause F: Custody trials shall be conducted by juries.
Because case fixing is largely due to judges accumulating too much power, their greatest power- their power to determine custody of children- must be eliminated.
Either parents agree on their own to custody terms or a jury trial will decide custody arrangements.
Clause G: All proceedings involving divorce and child custody shall be videotaped and available for anyone through the Freedom of Information Act
Because case fixing occurs in the darkness- deep in the weeds if you will- all family law proceedings must be tape recorded. Also, court records are often altered and video and audio will preserve the original correct record.
By giving the public access to all family court proceedings, it will discourage case fixing since all acts are available to the public.
Clause H: The creation of the Judicial redress sub-committee in the US House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
The redress sub-committee shall take complaints from litigants and defendants in local courts about their experience in local courts. The committee would have the power to investigate, hold hearings, issue reports and anything necessary based on the information provided.
There are bureaucracies which are supposed to protect litigants from bad judges, lawyers, and other court actors. Unfortunately, these boards like the American Bar Association have done more to protect bad lawyers from the public than the other way around.
Another avenue for aggrieved litigants to seek justice must be created. Furthermore, the federal legislature often tells aggrieved family court litigants and defendants in state crimes that theirs is a state issue, but case fixing is a national issue and so this gives the Congress an avenue to get involved.
Clause I: Civil Gideon
When during the course of a civil proceeding a litigant is no longer able to afford an attorney, an attorney shall be appointed to them, at the government’s expense.
Because much case fixing occurs against litigants who can’t afford an attorney for themselves, this clause will discourage future case fixing enterprises.
Whereas the 1963 US Supreme Court case Gideon Vs. Wainwright guaranteed every defendant’s right to counsel in a criminal proceeding, it must be recognized that being involved in a civil proceeding can always be stressful and without an attorney it leads to anxiety, depression, stress, and often the wounds to the psyche which lead to disorders caused by the court proceeding.
As such, the US must guarantee that every litigant has competent representation because a litigant traumatized by the experience who represents themselves could not possibly provide proper counsel.