So you think you know about the courts! 
Questions and answers about how our judicial system really functions
 
Q: Does the United States Constitution grant you rights?
 
A: No.  The founding fathers believed that the Creator grants you rights, and the Constitution, mainly the Bill of Rights and other amendments, enumerates and guarantees certain rights. However, the Constitution is a sheet of parchment, and in reality, your rights are only upheld if you can find a court willing to do so.
 
Q: If any of your rights are violated, will a court take action to provide redress?
 
A: At the present time, probably not.  Unless you have a large organization behind you, extensive press coverage of your problem, or the backing of a government agency, your complaint is not worth the judge’s time.
 
Q: What can you do to compel a judge to give attention to your complaint?
 
A: Nothing.
 
Q: Can the judge be called to account for failure to do his job?
 
A: A dissatisfied litigant can file a complaint against a judge with an independent oversight committee.  However, fewer than 1 in 1000 such complaints actually result in a finding that the judge did anything wrong, and even for the most serious misconduct, a judge can expect no more than a mild reprimand.
 
Q: What will be the most likely result of a justified complaint filed against a judge?
 
A: The judge will be exonerated and then find a way of taking reprisal against whomever filed the complaint.  If the complainant is a lawyer, he will probably be suspended or disbarred, and if it is an ordinary citizen, the judge will find a way to get revenge.
 
Q: Can a judge be found liable for blatantly malicious actions against litigants or for corrupt decisions?
 
A: No.
 
Q: What Constitutional provisions or laws passed by Congress guarantee judges immunity for all of their official actions?
 
A: None.
 
Q: Why then are judges immune?
 
A: Judges have granted themselves immunity.
 
Q: Do judges have the right to make laws?
 
A: No.
 
Q: How then can judges grant themselves immunity?
 
A: Judges develop what is called “case law,” making a decision that is theoretically binding for all future decisions.  It is in case law that judges are immune for all their actions, even those that are malicious and corrupt.
 
Q: What is to prevent a judge from simply demanding a bribe for any favorable decision?
 
A: In practice, nothing.  In theory, a judge could be charged with a crime for soliciting bribes. However, prosecutors work together with judges and are unlikely to charge a friendly judge with a crime.  They also know that it is very hard to get a judge convicted because it is difficult to obtain evidence that other judges will not prohibit the jury from seeing.
 
Q: If a judge makes an adverse ruling in a lawsuit, can anything be done about it?
 
A: An appeal can be filed with an appeals’ court.  However, it is possible or probable ("not unlikely"...makes this a bit unclear) that the appeals court judges will simply uphold the bad decision without even reading the submissions from the aggrieved party.
 
Q: What can be done to force the appeals court judges to do their jobs?
 
A: Nothing.  Appeals court judges have immunity, too.
 
Q: Will the Supreme Court rectify faulty lower court decisions?
 
A: Yes, but in less than 1 in 1000 cases.  The United States Supreme Court and the supreme courts of most states are not obligated to hear appeals, and they do so only in the rarest cases, usually those that will gain them maximum publicity or permit them to create “case law.”
 
Q: Will a supreme court actually overrule an appeals court?
 
A: In those rare appeals that supreme courts agree to hear, they actually overturn appeals courts in the majority of cases.  Some United States appeals courts have been overturned in every appeal of their decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear during an entire year.  This is an indication of the poor job that appeals courts do to monitor the lower courts.
 
Q: Will the rights of a person who cannot afford a lawyer be respected by the court?
 
A: In theory, courts are supposed to give special consideration to litigants who cannot afford lawyers.  In practice, the judge will simply dismiss the lawsuit of a litigant without a lawyer to reduce the number of cases on his docket.
 
Q: Don’t litigants complain about the courts simply because they do not agree with the decisions of the judges?
 
A: No.  Most complaints against courts concern disregard of the rules of evidence, false application of the law, and lack of due process.
 
Q: Aren’t judges usually required to reach difficult decisions because the facts do not support just one side in the case?
 
A: No.  Our Bill of Rights enumerates trial by a jury of peers in criminal cases and civil disputes involving a sum of money in excess of $20 as a fundamental civil right.  When a judge decides an issue of fact at all, without the permission of both parties, he is violating a fundamental civil right.
 
Q: Aren’t judges the lawyers who are most qualified to interpret the law for all of us?
 
A: No.  As a leading lawyer has pointed out, judges are usually the least talented lawyers.  A competent trial lawyer, corporate lawyer, or senior member of a major law firm can expect to make over a million dollars per year without any special effort.  A judge earns a salary up to $200,000 to $300,000 per year.  Even mediocre practicing attorneys can earn more than judges on the higher courts.  It is suspicious when a lawyer with a degree from a respected law school seeks to become a judge.  The lawyer may not skilled enough in the courtroom to earn a reasonable living.  He may be lazy.  He may have sought to go into politics but been unsuccessful at it.  Or he may be supplementing his salary considerably through corrupt practices.  In any case, judges are not the cream of the crop within the legal profession.
 
Q: If the courts are so bad, why is litigation increasing?
 
A: Bad courts make bad decisions.  This makes it more likely that evildoers will prosper.  Bad courts are less likely to weed out frivolous lawsuits, and cheats can make millions by suing large corporations.  At the same time, criminals are less likely to be punished; government agencies find it easy to violate the fundamental rights of citizens; employees are more likely to be mistreated by employers; ordinary people are frequently impoverished through fraud. This increases the number of lawsuits, in spite of the fact that most of the lawsuits will not result in justice being done.
 
Q: Haven’t recent decisions been on the side of civil rights?
 
A: No.  Recent decisions have had the effect of closing off the courts to ordinary citizens and providing due process only to those acting in behalf large organizations, which have political agendas and the money to pursue their ends.  Many recent court decisions have provided case law that supports controversial political goals of these organizations, which would be impossible to achieve by the legislative process.  Without effective courts to fairly adjudicate day-to-day disputes with government agencies and large corporations, the ordinary citizen finds that he has no civil rights at all.
 
Q: Will the courts reform themselves?
 
A: History teaches that corrupt organizations do not reform themselves.  They only become more corrupt.
 
Q: Can Congress pass a law to improve the courts?
 
A: Short of a complete judicial reorganization, it is unlikely that any law passed by Congress would improve the courts because the courts would simply ignore the law or declare it to be unconstitutional.
 
Q: Will the newspapers or television networks help to bring attention to the problems in the courts?
 
A: Because the owners of the news media want to have courts that can be made to rule in their favor through unfair means, they are not interested seeing a restoration of fairness or impartiality. 
 
Q: If you have a just case, what are your chances of winning in court?
 
A: It depends on who is your opponent (is).  If you sue a government agency, the court will always support the agency.  If you sue a powerful organization, your chances are slight.  If you sue another citizen who lacks money and political influences, your chances to win will be substantially better.
 
Q: How important should good representation by a lawyer be?
 
A: The outcome of a lawsuit should be based (on...delete) only on the law and facts of the case.  The competence of the lawyer should be of minimal importance.
 
Q: Why is it so important to have a good lawyer?
 
A: Things are not as they should be.  In most cases, the competence of your lawyer and of the lawyer retained by your opponent is much more important than either the law or the facts of the case.
 
Q: Should the judge play a role in the outcome of a lawsuit?
 
A: No.  The outcome should depend upon the presentation of the law and facts to a jury.
 
Q: Do lawyers think that judges will influence the outcome of a lawsuit?
 
A: Most lawyers are convinced that the outcome of a lawsuit will largely depend upon which judge is assigned to the case.  Some lawyers try to influence the assignment of their more important cases.
 
Q: If the case is decided by a jury, how can a judge influence the outcome?
 
A: A judge may not allow a lawsuit to be heard by a jury.  He may issue a summary judgement, which  seems to be unconstitutional but is tolerated.  He may withhold vital evidence so that the jury does not know all of the circumstances of the case.  In some cases, judges tell the jury how it is supposed to decide the case.  Finally, if the jury reaches a verdict that the judge does not agree with, he may throw the jury verdict out.
 
Q: What law gives a judge the right to do these things?
 
A: There is no law that gives a judge these rights.
 
Q: Why does he do it if it is not legal?
 
A: He does it because nobody can stop him and because he has complete immunity for everything he does on the bench.