Anti-Case Fixing Statute or Judicial RICO

Introduction:

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

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.

Definitions:

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:

1) A debtor (ower of debt) conceals assets to avoid having to forfeit them.

2) An individual intentionally files false or incomplete forms. Including false information on a bankruptcy form may also constitute perjury.

3) An individuals files multiple times using either false information or real information in several jurisdictions.

4) An individual bribes a court-appointed trustee.

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.

Punishment:

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

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.

Clauses

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.

Please follow and like us:

29 comments

  1. Greg Penglis ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    This is a comment for Michael Volpe, and everyone who contributed to the bill, or the bill is about. Michael, you need to gather all the folks that you can, together in one place, and hold a press conference. Facebook it live, and send it to every family rights Facebook group, as well as state legislators in your state directly involved in writing family law and overseeing family court. The other option is for everyone to tell their story in a Facebook broadcast, send it to Michael, who combines it into a compilation for broadcast, and gets it to Daily Caller, or whomever, to get this public, and then send that article with videos to state legislators. Moving forward. We aren’t done yet.

  2. Mark Hexum says:

    I pieced together the tight ties of the corrupt attorneys and judges in my case. I took it public to raise awareness of the how the system really works and hopefully help parents that have been denied access to their children through the horrific family court system. There is no accountability for corrupt judges, they are currently above the law. Here is a link to my court ordeal as of 2016, it’s only gotten worse since then…now four Federal Judges are covering for a corrupt IL district judge, Judge Katherine Gorman because her father is a recently retired Federal Judge John Gorman. This case is under review by the US DOJ…but they don’t have the most stellar reputation today either so I don’t have high hopes. https://www.scribd.com/document/304907605/Hexum-IL-Family-Court-Horror-Story-Feb-28-2016

  3. Idelle Clarke says:

    Great that you are doing this. Thanks. So important to address how abuse of child/children comes to light with regard to paths of investigation, Dependency vs Family Law, young children can’t self represent and worst thing in Family Law now is the appointment of GALs. MUST prevent children placed wi an abusive parent they have reported when allegations have been investigated and substantiated. HUGE ISSUE I do not know if any others have experienced. As my daughter approached age 18, Family Law Court /GAL made referral to PROBATE Court with Order effective at 12:01 on her 18th birthday. This perpetuated sole control of parent my daughter alleged abused her, which was investigated and substantiated by LA County DCFS, but LA Superior Court disregarded Petition for Protection filed by DCFS, and consolidated Dependency and Family Law Cases ….. at 31 my daughter has been alienated from me, visitation ceased, and her Conservator has failed to provide independent living experience to retain total control (and reliance) despite our daughter’s acting employment. How can she have a national AND international popular brand commercial which has aired now for over 5 years and remain conserved? When a child who is able to testify in support of self made allegations of abuse by a parent, that matter should be addressed in CRIMINAL COURT NOT Family Law!

  4. Andrea Olivier says:

    People don’t like to read, and for some reason we’ve been electing people at the 3rd grade reading level who can’t write sentences and don’t even use SpellCheck. For that reason, I’m going to keep my suggestion very simple: NO ATTORNEYS ARE ALLOWED IN FAMILY COURT, PERIOD. Children should not be held for ransom of any kind. Even public defenders tend to be “in the pockets” of the judges, I’ve noticed, so NO G.A.L.’s! If the case gets remanded to criminal court, that’s different, but NEVER IN FAMILY COURT SHOULD THERE BE ATTORNEYS, not for the parents and not for the child.

    Because collusion happens and it’s nearly impossible to catch! Also, transcripts get faked, so parents should be able to walk out with an instant printout of what was said. They should have Siri or Alexa do it and then litigants should be able to review court records.

    1. Anastasia Slaton says:

      I agree NO LAWYERS. This would be to much for America to digest so I’m wanting to focus on caping them. All unresolved issues go before the courts without lawyers. The judge can help resolve the issues at the hearing, isnt this what they are paid to do?

    2. Greg Penglis ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

      Andrea, this is a really intriguing idea. I’ve emailed Michael who wrote the bill and he is going to think about it. I suggested if the lawyers are out we have a system similar to plea bargains, and call the divorce settlements without attorneys and trials – “Split Bargains.” Maybe you have another name. Anyway, if you could go through the bill please, and tell me where you would put in a section taking lawyers out of family court hearings, and come up with some language that expresses what you want, and let’s try and add it to the bill. You are now a citizen legislator. Welcome!

      1. Andrea Olivier says:

        Three more things I just thought of:

        One, a NO MORE OMNISCIENCE OF JUDGES rule! “The judge presiding over a family court hearing shall be called an Arbitrator and can be tried in criminal court for accepting NonEvidence or signing any agreement that contains Manifest Fraud.”

        “NonEvidence is a statement that would amount to PERJURY BY JURAT in a normal proceeding, but attaches an Exhibit, for instance, a statement by Dad that Mom threatened to kill him with an attached Exhibit that appears to be proof but when you examine it, it is a journal of him having a conversation with someone saying Mom threatened to kill him but she didn’t use those exact words and she did it several times.” My ex used this on my in my custody case. I cannot guess to what extent the Court relied on his false testimony to take away my child, but there was a permanent restraining order placed on me.

        “MANIFEST FRAUD” is a contrived situation that stinks to high Heaven when you first see it; for example, one parent removes a child from the other and moves to another state, waits 6 months and files for divorce and sole custody, or he puts the child with his parents and then claims subject matter jurisdiction resides in the state where his parents live. This is done to evade alimony and child support laws where the married couple physically resided for a period of years before he committed the manifest fraud. This also happened in my case. He used his parents to effect Manifest Fraud. They aided and abetted. They are criminals. In family court the way I envision it, they would not be prosecuted for kidnapping unless they failed to yield up the child, which also happened in my case.

        MANIFEST FRAUD can also be a situation depicted clearly on paper where the Court Order forces non-custodial Mom to perform something impossible to see her child. In my case, I get 2 hours monthly supervised visitation in a clinical setting, but I am prohibited from approaching my daughter at her school or home or my ex at his place of work, etc. If I do this, I get 30 days in jail. So on top of the fact that I live 2,000 miles away and can’t afford to travel, I have to spend a month in jail before I get to see my daughter for 2 hours. This wording appears in consecutive paragraphs of the court order, #s 4 and 5. The judge should be jailed for this order and so should all the attorneys who drafted it. Give them 5 years and $750,000 fine, minimum.

      2. Andrea Olivier says:

        I think it logically goes right in the section near the beginning under the subtitle “Judicial case fixing enterprise” right after the first sentence. It should read:

        “For this reason, NO ATTORNEYS MAY BE RETAINED OR MAY APPEAR ON BEHALF OF LITIGANTS IN FAMILY COURT OR CUSTODY HEARINGS. Children may appear on their own behalf who are sufficiently mature to articulate their desires before the judge. Further, TO ELIMINATE TRANSCRIPT FALSIFICATION, an immediate recording of each court hearing will be made available to litigants within 2 hours after the hearing concludes AT NO COST TO THE LITIGANTS. Upon receipt of these transcripts, 72 hours will be permitted to review the transcript for the purpose of clarifying errors. THE JUDGE WILL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES INCARCERATE LITIGANTS IN FAMILY COURT!”

        This happened to me when I went out of state to a court hearing in March 2015. It was a ruse arranged by my ex husband’s attorney for the purpose of incarcerating me to declare my daughter abandoned so she could be seized pursuant to the UCCJEA Emergency Jurisdiction clause! I was never told what the charges were against me or that the judge was pretending it was criminal court for a minute. It was all a complete trick! Since then, I have not seen my daughter for 3 years even though I did nothing wrong. So that is why I added that last part about not incarcerating litigants in family court, even though it should be obvious.

        1. I think that this should be written as its own law.

          While removing lawyers from the process entirely may seem like a good idea, I’m not sure how it would work and should be tried first locally, on the county level, as a pilot program.

          Also, I’m not sure how legal it is to refuse to allow someone to get legal advice for a legal matter.

  5. John Jacobs says:

    They stole my daughter . From hospital! Fought for 5 tears . Put me I. Jail dwn state so I would miss court payed them 500$ to come get me . AllwAys redid the recordings after court . Made me pay and still paying my court apt lawyer! Would not tell me were she was for the first mo of her life! Would not let me if my family see her for more than a HR a week ! I did everything I was asked to do. Was never enough ! Took my rights ! And denided my family to adopted he . Gave her to the foster person ! They changed her name! Told grandparents , who had been seeing her monthly . Stop calling us if u can’t use her new name!! And so much more to say 😡😶

    1. Greg Penglis ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

      John, there has to be some kind of appeal process, and way to have judges removed, recused, impeached, and gotten rid of from the bench. There should be regular re-visits to any custody situation with different judges. Maybe judges should be assigned at random right before the case, and no one knows who the judge will be until the hearing. Keep the ideas coming.

  6. Rebecca DeNofrio says:

    This is great! The law would definitely throw a wrench in the judicial corruption machine. Accountability is a key deterrent and is clearly missing in our state and federal judicial systems.

    1. Case fixing-A PATTERN OF LEGAL RULINGS DESISIONS AND ACTIONS WHICH ARE DESIGNED A PREDETER MINED OR CORRUPTED OUT COME OF JUDICAL PROCEEDINGS. PATTERN OF FIXING JUDICAL CASE FIXING ENTERPRIZING DEFINITIONS. CORRUPTION HAS NO BOUNDRIES. MY CASE IS AS CORRUPT AS ONE COULD BE. MY NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR AND HIS WIFE HAVE BEEN DOING UNSPEAKABLE ATTACTS TO ME THAT A PERSON SHOULD NEVER HAVE TO LIVE WITH. I HAVE BEEN IN AND OUT OF COURT WITH THEM WALKING AWAY EVERY TIME. THEY DO HAVE A RECORD NOW, HOWEVER. HE HAS SHOT ME IN THE FACE,HIS WIFE ONLY WITTNESS. HE COME RUNNING UP FROM BEHIND ME AND PUSHED ME UNTIL I LOST MY BALANCE, ENDING UP WITH PTSD, A BROKEN ANKLE, RUINED MY LEGS AND FEET, MY VERTIBRA FROM MY NECK TO MY SPINE, SPLINTERED AT MY SPINE. I CAN BARELY WALK,AND HE DID THAT IN 2012.THERE WERE MANY WITTNESSES TO THIS, BUT NEVER COME FORWARD. THE DEPUTY THAT COME TO MY HOME NEVER SAW MY BECAUSE I WAS ON MY WAY IN A AMBULANCETO THE HOSPITAL.I WAS LATER THAT DAY SENT TO A HEART SPECIALIST . THE DEPUTY WAS GIVEN THE MURUDERES ATTACT BY THE VERY ONE THAT ATTACT ME. ONE WITTNESS WROTE A NOTE SAY I TRIPED ON ACORN. THERE WERE SIX OTHER WITTNESSNES THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD. I HAVE ALL THERE NAMES. I HAVE ALL HOSPITAL RECORDS AND DOCTORS AND SPECIALISTS. THERE IS SO MUCH MORE AND I AM HOUSE BOUND, TO STAY AWAY FROM THE FILTHY NAME CALLING AND SUDDEN ATTACTS.ALL OF THIS IS CASE FIXING AND I CAN PROVE IT.

  7. Rebecca DeNofrio says:

    This is great! The law would definitely throw a wrench into the judicial corruption machine. Accountability is a key deterrent and we clearly do not have much of it in the court systems.

  8. Julie Goffstein says:

    Jon Sieve Cincinnati Ohio Hamilton county Court of Domestic Relations
    Joel Moskowitz
    Patrick Dewine
    Patrick Fisher
    Sylvia Sieve Hendon

    1. Greg Penglis ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

      Julie, who are these folks you’ve listed, and how do they apply to the law here please?

  9. Holly Dyche says:

    #13yrs #Glasgow #KY #NoDueProcess even w the judges order for visits to start for reconciliation process

  10. Greg Penglis ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    This is going to be a very interesting bill. We just have to fill in some details. 1. You need an introduction. Give this bill a specific purpose. Eg: Family Law Courts are Courts of Equity, and this makes them responsive to… The Judges are unaccountable because… The Court Officers cause huge problems by… The system is stacked against… The boards and panels where individuals go for appeal or judicial accountability don’t work because… The richest client gets… Lawyers who are friends of the judge… It’s all one big club because… and so we need this law because… And it will do…

    That should get you started on the Introduction. I would turn your next section into a definition section. List and describe all the terms, and how they apply to the law, and the law you are writing.

    You have defined what case fixing includes, but you really need to talk about how it is determined. Also include the individual charges: bribery, favoritism, incompetence, negligence, bias, extortion, and define them individually, and as part of a case fixing conspiracy. How many make a case fixing case, how does each additional count affect the fine or jail time, and how are the judges decisions treated after a charge is proven, or enough charges to constitute a case fixing case.

    You should also either go with a case fixing criteria, or a RICO criteria. Unless you want to do this in stages where first there are the individual charges, any one of which might render a case moot and have to be restarted with another judge, and then define how many constitute case fixing, or what patterns do, and then how this can be prosecuted using the RICO laws, and then what are the specific penalties. That should do it.

    Thank you so much for submitting the bill.

    1. Michael oxley says:

      My case is every bit corrupt. It’s about an AG running for office and using me to get points. No evidence no proof. I was asked to lie as a police officer and when I refused I was ran over by a train. Been fighting in court for 3 years now.

    2. Here it is updated with your suggested changes:

      Introduction:
      Be it that case fixing has gone nearly unabated for decades and has cost millions of Americans their lives, 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:

      Case fixing- A pattern of legal rulings, decisions, and actions which are designed to advance a pre-determined or corrupted outcome.
      A ruling from a fixed case has no basis in fact, law, or the Constitution; as such, to prove a fixed case, prosecutors must prove a pattern legal actions which were determined in favor of the favored party against the targeted party,l but which have no basis in fact, law, or the Constitution.

      Pattern of Case Fixing:

      A pattern is defined as at least two predicate acts by any individual in the case fixing conspiracy.
      Case fixing patterns maybe proven in one case or multiple cases.
      Predicate acts: SLAPP suits, judicial extortion, willful misdiagnosis, 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, illegal contact denial, willful disregard for conflict of interest when refusing to recuse.

      Definitions:

      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 disregard of, or plain indifference to the Constitutional rights of another litigant, lawyer, court actor, or judge.
      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
      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.
      Fraud- wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain
      Stalking- repeated following and harassing of another person
      Judicial case fixing enterprise- two or more people conspired to advance a case in a pre-determined or corrupted outcome.
      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:
      1) A debtor (ower of debt) conceals assets to avoid having to forfeit them.
      2) An individual intentionally files false or incomplete forms. Including false information on a bankruptcy form may also constitute perjury.
      3) An individuals files multiple times using either false information or real information in several jurisdictions.
      4) An individual bribes a court-appointed trustee.
      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.

      Punishment:

      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.

      Participants:

      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

      Clauses:

      Clause A 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 which the local US Attorney’s Office is willing to prosecute 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.
      Clause A: Sunshine of the Violence Against Women Act statute.
      Clause B: Sunshine of the Fatherhood.gov statute
      Clause C: Sunshine of Title IVD of the Social Security Act
      Clause D: Sunshine of Title IVE of the Social Security Act
      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.
      Clause F: All child custody trials shall have juries
      Clause G: All proceedings involving divorce and child custody shall be videotaped and available for anyone through the Freedom of Information Act
      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.

      1. Greg Penglis ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

        Getting there. Next, when you have a chance, can you please fill in details for all the clauses at the bottom of the bill, and how those all relate to the case fixing and RICO aspects of the bill. Isn’t this fun???

        1. Most updated version with your additions incorporated

          Introduction:
          Be it that case fixing has gone nearly unabated for decades and has cost millions of Americans their lives, 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

          Case fixing- A pattern of legal rulings, decisions, and actions which are designed to advance a pre-determined or corrupted outcome.
          A ruling from a fixed case has no basis in fact, law, or the Constitution; as such, to prove a fixed case, prosecutors must prove a pattern legal actions which were determined in favor of the favored party against the targeted party,l but which have no basis in fact, law, or the Constitution.

          Pattern of Case Fixing

          A pattern is defined as at least two predicate acts by any individual in the case fixing conspiracy.
          Case fixing patterns maybe proven in one case or multiple cases.
          Predicate acts: SLAPP suits, judicial extortion, willful misdiagnosis, 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, illegal contact denial, willful disregard for conflict of interest when refusing to recuse.

          Definitions:

          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 disregard of, or plain indifference to the Constitutional rights of another litigant, lawyer, court actor, or judge.
          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
          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.
          Fraud- wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain
          Stalking- repeated following and harassing of another person
          Judicial case fixing enterprise- two or more people conspired to advance a case in a pre-determined or corrupted outcome.
          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:
          1) A debtor (ower of debt) conceals assets to avoid having to forfeit them.
          2) An individual intentionally files false or incomplete forms. Including false information on a bankruptcy form may also constitute perjury.
          3) An individuals files multiple times using either false information or real information in several jurisdictions.
          4) An individual bribes a court-appointed trustee.
          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.

          Punishment:

          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.

          Participants
          :
          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

          Clauses

          Clause A 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 which the local US Attorney’s Office is willing to prosecute 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.
          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 Muhummad 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 encourage 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: All child custody trials shall have 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.

    3. Tanya Hathaway says:

      Yes- Must be an undeniable and factual reason why this proposal will be taken seriously and converted into law. Liking it MV!

      On another note- If the laws of our land were being einforced- this would never be necessary …sooo I would propose that agencies of citizems regulate and oversee and with term linits instituted for reasons we all know. Corruption has no boundaries.

      But for the initial implementation, it would likely require a “step-out” clause so after the first agency in each state-etc..is put into place…not everyone leaves.

      This should be funded by taxpayers. Why? Because ir will actually save us in lenghty and unnrcessary and corrupt courtcases. Mine is now four plus years. If this law was in place…it would have been have been 1 and done! And I might actually send the ones ppthat caused this issue a birthday cake to their cell for 20 years!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *