The FIXER
by Teddy Moore

PREAMBLE (Random small segments from the book)

This is a tell all book about the unimaginable; the US people have never been exposed in a movie or a book, to a corrupt judge, certainly not a corrupt judiciary. The reality is beyond any fiction or stretch of the imagination or dream, that those who dispense Justice in USA, the Judiciary, are the real culprits and the ordinary- criminals and the rest of us, are just victims of the Judiciary. This is the reality, which is more bizarre than any fiction. The supporting evidence to prove this reality comes from the Internet, which has a short history of about a decade, and without it, the real criminals would have probably gotten away with this untold story. Still the people do not get it yet .

In his book “Constitutional chaos” Judge Andrew Napolitano tries to tell us everything, about several instances of injustice committed by the government. Unfortunately, by telling us so much about each injustice, we ultimately know everything about nothing. Judge Napolitano describes a tree here and a tree there but he fails to tell us the story of the forest, and why it has grown wild .

In “Men in Black”, Author Mark Levin also tried to describe America’s wild judicial jungle, Mr. Levin tells us that judges are not God, but he fails to tell us who they are. He toys with the question of whether or not we can trust the courts but at the end he is not quite sure. He reviews a number of Supreme Court decisions and he tells us that he doesn’t like some of them, but so what?

The problem is that even those judges and authors who expose defects in the alleged “The best legal system in the world” will only describe those defects as aberrations and abnormalities. They will not tell you that under the current system, justice is the exception not the rule. They will not tell you that the judiciary is responsible for the wild injustice in USA.They will not tell you that the entire system is corrupt.
It means that if you are innocent you might go to jail and vice versa, it means that you may lose your home, your children, everything you have by a whim of the real criminals for no good reason, except that the criminals need your property and your life to make a bigger buck for themselves.

If you ask American attorneys about the judiciary, they’ll tell you that the system is “Not perfect” This admission is actually a great compliment to a system, which is fundamentally broken and corrupt. Unfortunately, this is the only criticism that licensed attorneys are allowed to make about this allegedly great system (Do Attorneys have a right of free speech? Yes, if they freely praise judicial corruption as if it is a gift from God.)

Unlike other books that criticize the American judicial process, ‘The Fixer’, will show you how the system really works, why it cannot make a right decision and why justice in the system is so rare.

‘The Fixer’ will show you that the legal system in USA is operated by two parties, one who is a fixer-attorney and the other is an extortable-attorney, appearing before a presiding Judge, who makes knowingly unjust decisions in favor of the attorney fixer , and any appeals on those atrocities are approved by the court of appeals, all the time (99.99%) This is the broken mechanism of justice . The American balance of justice is broken, the judiciary does not weigh anymore anything on the scale of justice, they just abuse their power to make a fast buck on it .

In a tribal society in Africa the chief of the tribe hears evidence and dispense justice based on the facts, that he has learned from the witnesses, and there is no appeal on his decision. This “primitive” form of justice is far better than what the corrupt US Judiciary has to offer, the tribal Judge need not the fixer and the extortable, the litigants appear pro se and the outcome can not be worse then in the alleged “Best legal system in the world”, because the alleged best system in the world, is just best in corruption and in concealing the facts of the extreme corruption. It is just a racket of extortion to make a quick buck.
The Bar or judiciary won’t endorse, ‘The Fixer’ because this book probes beneath the judicial façade, to expose the lies and endemic corruption which provide the American judicial system it’s real foundation. ‘The Fixer’ will show you why neither congress nor the constitution can control the judiciary, and why the media will not tell you about it...

THE EXTORTIONATE ATTORNEY
The extortionate (Extortable) attorney is a unique creation of the US legal system. An attorney is a crucial part of the process providing justice in the western world, because he is trained in and supposed to know the law and should be able present it properly to the judiciary.

However, in USA the judiciary, admits attorneys to practice law, and discipline attorneys, as a result American attorneys fear the judiciary, and are therefore trapped in a built –in conflict of interest between the duty to represent properly their client in court, and on the other hand the fear of summary retalitation, sanctions, disbarment and even summarily jail for just doing their faithful job for their client.
The American judiciary has extreme abusive power against attorneys, and in many cases they abuse even the abuse of power against attorney, which caused the untenable situation where an attorney who is paid well to bring his client’s case to the judiciary, is silenced by a powerful and corrupt judge who frustrate his job. (Some of these corrupt judges call themselves “justices of the court”) These corrupt judges coerce attorneys to give up their client’s case to the attorney of the party opponent, this extortion is called in US courts “Settlement”,” Stipulation” etc., no matter what they call it ‘The Fixer’ will show you that it is just an industry of injustice to make a quick buck of it.

‘The Fixer’ will expose to you an industry of judgments in exchange for bribes, organized by judges and executed by their close confidants, the attorney fixer, who can extort easily the party opponent and his attorney by threatening him with the pending judicial abuse of power, which cause the closure of cases in favor of the attorney fixer without any evidentiary hearing at all.

When an attorney can not present to a judge, without fear, his client’s case, in such system by definition you can not get justice, because the judiciary do not know the facts and sometimes the law, and some believe that the judiciary do not want to know the law and facts. So what’s going on here?
Why is it legal in America to pay an attorney fees for misrepresentation of his client? The simple answer is that it is part of the show. This is a simple act of consumer fraud that was institutionalized. Does this happen in the western world?

Well, in England attorneys are independent of the judiciary, judges cannot discipline them, they are not admitted to practice law by the judiciary, English attorneys are independent from the judiciary, they care in court for their clients only and are not concerned with themselves. They are admitted by attorneys and disciplined by attorney, and so have the respect of the judiciary and their clients.

In USA an attorney may be disbarred, bankrupt, and on the way to jail by any judge within ten minutes, when the judge acts, as complainant, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner brings his pretexts, allegations (Charges) against the attorney and execute him. This kind of action is possible only in a military regime, or in a nazi type regime.

The most popular terrorist- acts against American attorneys by US judiciary is a charge by the Judge that the attorney raises frivolous allegations or behaves in a frivolous manner . This is the prelude for any and every judge to impose, severe penalties, for each and every such alleged misconduct, which may cause the bankruptcy of the attorney. (When judges are on the prowl for more money, there is no point, to tell them about first amendment rights of free speech, or tell them about the attorney’s duty to his client.)
Another act of coercion, by the judiciary, against an attorney may be a simple declaration on record, that the judge had enough with this attorney and do not desire to see anymore this attorney in his courtroom. If this is drafted as an order of the court, the appellate division will disbar the attorney from practicing law by “Reciprocal discipline” and no appeal by the victimized attorney will be successful, to save the attorney from this terrorist act. A judge may summarily imprison an attorney for contempt of court...

© 2005 By Teddy Moore. All rights reserved
Library of Congress Control Number 2005906770
DoItProSe.com Inc. 9/05

...Is it fair to compare the criminal judiciary of the US to the Nazis? I think it is unfair for the Nazis, but who cares? To be implicated with this successful mafia of the judiciary will not add any pride to the Nazis. They operated in a short period of time (1933-1945) and were defeated, where the US Judicial Mafia is up and running for more than a century, committing atrocities on hundred of millions and even billions of people, who lost their life, liberty, property, where is the comparison with the Nazis? The U.S. criminals are still the “Honorable Judge”. The extortable and other litigants still call the criminals “your honor”, some of the criminals smile, when they hear this uttering, addressing the criminals, which means that some of the criminals still distinguish between the reality and the conception of distorted reality...

...This is the real Mafia, the Italian mafia has to come yet to learn how to operate a criminal business, make a buck of it, and not being subject to any accountability. There are no good judges and bad judges in a bad system that requires compliance with corruption. To contact the publisher: Email: DoItProSe@nyc.rr.com
Contact Enjoy reading

THE FIXER: Why is the US Judiciary is so corrupt?
Exerpts from the Book

Newsmaker Interviews
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Fox News' 'Born-again Individualist'
Interview by Bill Steigerwald

October 27, 2005
Thursday

Judge Andrew Napolitano, who appears as a legal analyst on more Fox News Channels shows than anyone can count, is a judge no more. But before he became the most steadfast defender of civil liberties on TV, Napolitano was a life-tenured Superior Court judge in New Jersey who saw the serial abuse of government power every day in his courtroom.

His 2004 book, "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws," details those abuses. With cover-blurbs from both Rush Limbaugh and Nat Hentoff, it also explains his political journey from a super-hawkish Richard Nixon supporter during his undergraduate days at Princeton University in the late 1960s to "a born-again individualist" who says the Patriot Act is "the most abominable assault on human liberty by the Congress since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798."

Napolitano, a regular on "The Big Story with John Gibson" and "The O'Reilly Factor," calls himself "a small-government Barry Goldwater Republican who believes in maximum individual liberty." When I talked to him by phone from his offices in New York on Oct. 5, he was still underwhelmed by President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

Q: Will Miers hurt or help the health of the Constitution?

A: That's a great question. I am what people refer to as an "originalist," meaning I believe the Constitution means the same thing today as the day it was written. In fact, the whole purpose of a written constitution is to prevent it from changing as attitudes and majorities change. I don't believe that Ms. Miers shares that view. If she shares the view of the big-government conservative Republicans, which basically is Congress can do whatever it wants, then the health of the Constitution will be impaired by her selection.

On the other hand, if she shares the view that the Constitution means what it says, that Congress cannot exceed the 18 specific, enumerated, delegated powers given to it in the Constitution, and that guaranteed rights are simply that ­ guarantees ­ then the health of the Constitution will be enhanced by her selection. But because she is the stealth candidate, it might be 10 years before we really know how she has affected the interpretation of the Constitution! [ Note Miers withdrew on October 26, 2005]

Q: What is the sound-bite synopsis of your book "Constitutional Chaos"?

A: You and I are having a conversation, Bill, and there's no judge, no jury, no courtroom, no stenographer. It is inconceivable that either one of us would go to jail because of what one of us says to another. Martha Stewart was having a conversation with an FBI agent. The FBI agent had a lawyer and she had a lawyer, but there was no judge, no jury, no courtroom, no stenographer. During the course of that conversation, the FBI agent lied to her and she lied to the FBI agent. Somehow he stayed an FBI agent and she went to jail.

What kind of a government prosecutes its citizens for committing a crime which its own agents have themselves committed? One of the reasons I wrote this book, is because in this era of the war on terror, when more and more Americans are having contact with their government, people need to know what their rights are; and people need to know what the government can get away with; and people need to know what the government will do when it wants to get you. Martha Stewart is an unfortunate example of that.

Q: What's the most important message of your book?

A: That rights are not guaranteed, even though the Constitution says they are. That government will labor mightily to make holes in the Constitution to avoid and evade it. And that a government that breaks its own laws in the act of prosecuting people is not your friend. It doesn't have a happy ending, this book. It's filled with horror stories!

I believe in the natural law, which is that our rights come from our humanity ­ they don't come from government ­ and our humanity comes from God. So we have the right to speak freely, to think freely, to travel and to associate -- whether or not it's written down and whether or not the government chooses to protect it, because those are natural rights that no government in a popular democracy can take away.

From that it follows that because the government has to respect those rights, the government itself can't violate them, thus it can't violate its own laws. But the government does break its own laws every day and this book is a catalogue of horror stories in which that occurs.

Q: You've described yourself as "a born-again individualist." What's that mean?

A: That means because individuals have immortal souls and the state does not, the individual is greater than the state. That means individual rights are guaranteed and can not be taken away by the legislative or executive branch, but only by a jury after an individual has been convicted of a crime. That also means to means that that government is best that governs least. That the Constitution means what it says.

But the default position is freedom. We are born in the state of freedom. Our natural yearnings and urgings are for freedom. It's natural and integral to all of us. Government is the negation of freedom. Therefore, government must be minimal, minimum, precise and certain. Not a government that thinks it can tax and regulate any aspect of our lives.

Q: Why aren't you running for president on the Libertarian Party?

A: Who would vote for me?!

Q: How did you come by these "radical" ideas?

A: After about a year and a half on the bench of trying criminal cases, I began to see that the Constitution does not mean what it says to the government. And that every single government lawyer who came before me, whether it was jaywalking or murder and everything in between, seemed to be spending all their time justifying ways around the Constitution, trying to pull the wool over my eyes, and claim that the things that the police did that were so obviously and patently illegal and unconstitutional were in fact condoned by higher courts.

I began to look at government not as the protector and preserver of the constitution, but only as advancing the careers of those in the government. Everyone who works in the government, from the president to a janitor, from the governor to a school teacher, takes the same oath: it's to preserve the Constitution and the rights guaranteed in it. It's not for victory in the courtroom. It's not for convicting the bad guys. It's for preserving the Constitution. I just did not see this in the hundreds, probably thousands of government lawyers that appeared me. It actually caused me to revisit some of the verities that I had accepted since I was a child.

Q: Such as?

A: Respect for authority. I now think all authority ­ I'm not talking about my bosses at Fox. I love them dearly. I'm talking about governmental authority ­ should be challenged, should be questioned. Because government is the negation of freedom, when it does anything, it shouldn't be presumed valid. It should be presumed invalid. It should have to justify its taking away of freedom in a constitutional context, rather than the challenger having to prove that its behavior is unconstitutional.

Extra questions

Q: Any simple or obvious things we must do to return to constitutional, limited government ­ or is it hopeless?

A: I think the present environment is hopeless, because of the sway over Republican members of Congress that the White House has. Can you imagine if a Democrat had proposed legislation that allowed the FBI to break into your house when you're at a basketball game on a Friday night and steal your checkbook and plant a bug underneath your toilet and your kitchen table and you'll never know that the FBI did it? That would allow the FBI to go to your lawyer, your banker, your doctor, your pharmacist, and demand your records without a search warrant? That would allow the FBI to go to a post office and read your mail without a search warrant without you knowing about it? If a Democrat had proposed that, the Republicans in Congress would have railed against it and opposed it to the skies. But yet the Republicans in this Congress go along with it, merely because a Republican president proposes it. I'm speaking, of course, of the Patriot Act, which is the most abominable assault on human liberty by the Congress since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

Q: Why have we been so willing as a people to give away out freedoms?

A: Historically, we have always accepted curtailments of other people's freedom during wartime. During the Civil War Abraham Lincoln, of course, suspended the writ of habeas corpus and locked up newspaper editors and a Republican member of Congress. The public accepted it, because they didn't think it was they who would be locked up. During World War I, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer in the Palmer Raids locked up over 1,600 Eastern European Jews from Baltimore to Boston. They were never charged with crimes. They never saw a judge. They never saw a jury. They never saw a courtroom. They were called anarchists.

During World War, not FDR ­ he didn't have the courage to do it himself ­ had an unknown general in California lock up 110,000 Japanese Americans ­ not Japanese, Japanese-Americans -- because of his racist views that they could not be trusted to enjoy the liberty that the rest of us had. They were, of course, as American as he was.

During the present war on terror, about 875 Arab-American males have disappeared from our streets. I mean literally disappeared. There is no docket. There is no record of what happened to them in the courtroom. The dockets have been sealed and the good members of the press have been denied access to the records of what happened to these people.

In 1988, a Republican president, Ronald Reagan, and a Democrat Congress enacted the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which condemned arresting people without trial; which condemned incarcerating people on the basis of their race, ethnicity or religion; which compensated those still living who had been incarcerated in World War I or World War II a measly $20,000 a head; and which proclaimed that this would never happen again in the American system of government.

But guess what? It has happened again. We never voluntarily give up our own freedoms, but we accept it when we have the not-in-my-backyard-attitude that it is going to happen to someone else.

Bill Steigerwald is a columnist at the Pittsburgh Tribune- Review.
©Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, All Rights Reserved.
Distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc.