The Great Cameras-in-the-courtroom Debate

Yesterday’s USA Today had two articles on the subject of whether or not cameras or other recording devices being allowed in America’s courtrooms is a good idea. One article, titled “Our view on cameras in the courtroom: The first Monday in October brings another TV blackout” presented USA Today’s point of view, while the other, titled “Opposing view: 'Over my dead body’” consisted of several U.S. Supreme Court justices’ opinions to the contrary.

Most of those who posted comments were opposed to the idea of cameras in the courtroom. In my opinion it is necessary to create and accurate record of what actually went on. America’s judiciaries — the legal profession culture being autonomous and unaccountable to the citizenry — are completely out of control and procedural rulings which arrogantly ignore or outright disobey controlling law are so epidemic as to nearly constitute a standard operating procedure resulting in virtually systemic injustice.

I know first hand of a case where a state magistrate and district court judge conspired together to falsify a register of actions and a record on appeal so as to coverup a false arrest specifically designed to coerce a waiver of a litigant’s right to due process and equal protection under the law. The victim of this deliberate judicial lawlessness complained to every conceivable government entity, including judicial discipline committees, appellate courts, etc., yet nothing was done. Oh, the judge quietly “retired”, probably for reasons having nothing to with my example case, but the magistrate still has her job, when she should be in prison for the deliberate violation of a litigants civil rights.

The state court administrator’s office denied a request for access to the computer audit trail which would prove who logged into the court’s computer system and falsified the register of actions by changing the sequence of events so that different law applied. They said the litigant would have to get an order granting the access to the computer audit trail from the very judge who had committed a federal felony violation of civil rights!

I know first hand the correct sequence of events to a moral certainty because I delivered the relevant pleading to the court clerk on behalf of the litigant, who had to be out of town on an emergency. O course, nobody in the entire legal profession culture who knows about these judicial crimes is interested in doing anything but covering up. That includes the local “journal of record,” one of whose reporters was given a copy of almost every pleading in the case, and was fully aware of the controversy and the false arrest.

So, based on my personal first hand observations, I definitely favor cameras in America’s courtrooms as an interim tool of regaining citizen control over judicial anarchy, and I posted the following two comments on the stories at USA Today:

"With all due respect to the other posters, most people are totally ignorant of what goes on in America’s courts. Anybody with even a passing knowledge of U.S. Supreme Court history already knows that the court is a highly political organization, beginning with the fact the justices are appointed for life. If the constitution is going to be changed via 'interpretation' as a 'living, breathing' document, instead of as a specific-performance social contract between the citizenry and their rulers, it should be interpreted by the people through their election of judges, starting with the policy court, the U.S. Supreme Court."

"Compare the truth of Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wallace) 606 (Feb 7, 1870) with the revisionist-history lies of a Ulysses-S-Grant-packed court in Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee, Parker v. Davis), 79 U.S. (12 Wallace) 457 (1870) and Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884). See also how various majorities on the court granted judges absolute immunity from legal liability, even for the deliberately malicious misuse of their official powers. Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wallace) 335 (April 8, 1872), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), and Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). A huge majority of the American public would be justifiably outraged if they were to read these cases (which they can at , and Numerous books have been written by judges and other legal professionals decrying the fact that America’s judiciaries are totally out of control."

"An amendment to the U.S. Constitution will be necessary to rectify the situation, because, even if the people elected legislators who were willing to correct the situation, the judicial branch would use 'separation of powers' arguments to keep meaningful reform from being implemented. Meanwhile, cameras and tape recorders in all courtrooms in all jurisdictions would facilitate the creation of an honest record of what actually went on in the courtroom, as often contrasted to what the judge/s said went on in the courtroom. Under present conditions, judges are able to falsify court records and get away with it. Power does not diminish itself. The American people are going to have to do it. Cameras are merely one corrective tool."

"As referred to in my previous post, here’s a short list of 'must read' books (there are many more) for freedom lovers written by world-class legal minds about the current out-of-control state of the America’s judiciaries:
Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice (ISBN 0-691-02755-2), by Jerome Frank
With Justice for None: Destroying an American Myth (ISBN 0-8129-1696-4), by Gerry Spence
Give Me Liberty: Freeing Ourselves in the Twenty-First Century (ISBN 0-312-19267-3), by Gerry Spence
The Best Defense (ISBN 0-394-71380-X), by Alan M. Dershowitz
Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment (ISBN 0-86597-143-9), by Raoul Berger
Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America (ISBN: 0895260506), by Mark R. Levin
Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks its Own Laws (ISBN: 0785260838), by Andrew J. Napolitano
Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right (ISBN 0553526944), by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld, Jim Dwyer
Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice (ISBN 0-06-039197-9), by Margaret Hagen
Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges (ISBN: 0844741620), by Robert H. Bork
The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (ISBN 0-02-903761-1), by Robert Bork
Judicial Tyranny: the new kings of America (ISBN: 0975345567), by Mark Sutherland, William J. Federer, Dave Meyer
How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary (ISBN: 0975526413), by Edwin Vieira, Jr.,
Pieces of Eight, The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (ISBN 0-8159-6226-6), by Edwin Vieira, Jr." (contact the author for an updated 2 Vol edition)

In response to my two posts, one fellow wrote:

“Most Americans are ignorant of what goes on in our courts for very good reason. We haven't been accused of crimes that require our presence before the 'bench'.”

“With the exception of two controversial decisions of Supreme Court Justices, and hundreds of truly dumb decisions of lower court judges, being law abiding citizens, we could care less. The American justice system has and is working, and working very well. Being ignorant of what goes on in our courts is a mute point. The system works so well, oversight by the people is pointless!”

“So what IF, as you write, the Supreme Court is a highly political organization. You imply because they may be, they are somehow suspect and require oversight. NUTS.”

“So what, IF Justices, and judges (in some States), are appointed for life. The founders, and ratifying State legislatures, thought it was a great idea, but you find fault with their judgement.”

“You have an axe to grind concerning your three points, your raise doubts, and conclude cameras and tapes thus are needed safeguards against problems that don't exist.”

“The systems works, there is no need to fix it, no need to meddle with it, no need to foment doubts about it.”

I rest my case! I’ve never read something quite as arrogantly stupid in its intelligent-sounding ignorance. In fact, it is so bad, I though it might be meant as clever satire, which occasionally happens on some internet talk strings. If it looks like I have "an axe to grind," it is probably because I was raised by evangelical Christian missionaries who believed in the rule of law and the principle of "thou shalt not bear false witness." That judges should lie was inconceivable to me, in my gross naivete. And it is still totally unacceptable. I don't, however, consider the mere fact, in and of itself, that I have first hand knowledge of two judicial officers who belong in prison a "personal" axe to grind, because I realize full well that those two individuals are by no means representative of all judges. I also know of some who work hard to do a good job. The problem is, the good ones virtually never "out" the bad ones for fear of causing career and financial problems for themselves by making the legal profession culture's entire autonomous hierarchy of judges look as intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt as it actually is.

No, the problem I have referred to here is definitely not personal. To the contrary, it is demonstrably systemic and has been addressed as such at some length by numerous world-class professionals of excellent standing in the legal profession culture, some of whom authored the books listed above.

Apparently our tyrant-minded poster mentioned above, Big Brother "NUTS", has never read Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which clearly spells out the way by which the American people can make changes to their social contract, including, most specifically, spelling out that it is to be treated and interpreted by America's judiciaries to be a legally binding specific-performance contract between the people and their rulers, not some amorphous "make up the rules as you go along for the financial benefit of the self-anointed ruling elite" romantically (and ever so deceptively) referred to by agenda-driven judges as a "living, breathing document."

If most Americans agree with Big Brother "NUTS", you can forget the American Dream of individual freedom, as contemplated by the Founders. “The fat lady,” as they say, “has already sung.” Even if it were true that freedom is dead, I consciously choose to not believe it. I consciously choose to “speak those things which be not as though they were (Ro 4:17).”