Sua Spontism v. Due Process: Illegal Judging – or Lawless Law?

For a non-lawyer (or a “normal person,” as my lawyer used to call me when explaining the difference between common sense and lawyers’ reasoning), lawyers’ acquiescence to illegality which permeates judicial decision-making is impossible to comprehend. We are presumably guaranteed “due process of the law” that is visualized for us by blindfolded, impartial Lady Justice – so how come judges freely act as parties to the case, adding their own bogus argument to the tray of the party they want to win, or removing the winning argument from the tray of the party they want to lose?

You are lawyers, so tell me – how is this “due process?”  How come that after judge decides a case based on argument never submitted by parties, or by pretending that a party’s argument does not exist, no legal action can be taken against this swindler-judge? How come that criteria for “judicial misconduct” includes irrelevancies like judge’s drinking or use of drugs, but not judicial juggling that makes argument either appear out of nowhere, or disappear into thin air?

How come that when a judge is sued for fraud, the DAs defending him argue – without so much as a wince – that in Pierson v. Ray judges gave themselves the right to act from the bench “maliciously and corruptly”? How is it that corruption and malice in anyone is an offense to be punished, but in a judge, a virtue to be defended?

How can we talk of the “precedent” when cases that were decided have no resemblance to the cases that were filed?

My lawyer told me that this “procedure” has a Latin name – “sua spontism.” Yet, does a Latin name turn a swindle into something else?

Sua-sponte-based process is but a Kafkaesque farce, a not-too funny joke. A full third of US government – the federal judiciary – is officially and proudly “corrupt and malicious” – and yet, nary a whisper is heard. How come the media ignores what is clearly a Pulitzer-class story of judicial proudly-declared corruption? How come lawyers stay silent?

Let me give you specifics so you know that I indeed know what I am talking about. In trying to publish a book on terrorism, I bumped into an obstacle – the Library of Congress which supplies upcoming books with cataloging keywords, thus making them visible to the “marketplace of ideas” that are nation’s bookstores and libraries that use Library’s subject keywords for acquisitions, refuses to provide them to authors who publish their own books – in a clear-cut violation of author’s free speech, and property rights. Only third-party publishers are allowed through this door into the “marketplace of ideas.” For those with no connections – or who are unwilling to give away two thirds of the book-sale profits to the corporate publisher, this way is blocked. Seeing this as clear-cut abridgement of my First amendment speech rights that turn third-party publishers into censors, and of crony capitalism violating my Fifth amendment-guaranteed property rights, my lawyer filed Overview Books v. US.

Since government’s lawyer did not even attempt to defend the legality of the restriction, arguing instead that, the Library clearly stating that I was not eligible, I could not argue otherwise, I knew I won – except that I didn’t. When the decision arrived, it was based on judge Lettow’s own legal and factual argument for restrictions’ legality. Prior to acting as a judge, Lettow acted as the government’s lawyer – providing the argument that we couldn’t rebut as it came right in the decision. While we filed Overview Books v. US, Lettow ruled in Overview Books v. US & Lettow. My case was left undecided.

Appealing this absurdity did not help. Still, in googling the case to see if it was accepted by the Supreme Court, I bumped into a mention of it in the Library’s own study of its program – a study which debunked every single argument concocted by Lettow. Based on the new facts the study provided, and on Lettow’s admission that he had no First amendment jurisdiction, we re-filed the case in a different court. After silence lasting two years and two months, the decision came. We lost because, per judge Vitaliano, my lawyer failed to provide the argument he provided. Instead of adjudicating my case, Vitaliano ruled in Not Overview Books v. US & Vitaliano. The appeal failed.

The rest is history. I sued judges for fraud, to be told that in Pierson v. Ray (the same case that gave the police its now-notorious “qualified immunity”) judges gave themselves the right to act from the bench “maliciously and corruptly.” Based on that, I sued to remove images of Lady Justice as deceptive, but my lawsuit was dismissed upon filing as “frivolous.” I started a website, Coalition Against Judicial Fraud, so as not to succumb to insanity of it all.

Yet questions remain. What’s the worth of “due process of the law” if judicial decision-making process violates it day in and day out with total impunity? “Sua spontism” which judges use to decide cases the way they want to, not the way they have to, is counter to any notion of “due process of the law” which demands that judges not be parties to the case argued before them, and that they recuse themselves when they are. Under the “sua sponte” arrangement, a judge is a party to the case, yet does not recuse himself – easily swindling us out of justice.

What’s the worth of the “precedent” if judges decide bogus cases, not the ones that plaintiffs file?

Why is it that we as the society – lawyers, academics, the press – see all this going on, clearly manifested in Supreme Court’s notorious four-to-five decisions – and yet don’t say a word?

In sum, the question of questions is – why are we mum in the face of judicial fraud?

The opinions expressed in this article are the beliefs of the author only and do not reflect the opinion of Attorney at Law Magazine or its editorial staff. 

Comments 1

  1. Carl Nelson says:

    I’m astonished this does not get more play, likewise.

Leave a Reply

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

Find a Lawyer Near You

Get Advice

Find a Lawyer   /   Ask a Question   /   Articles   /   About    Contact  

© Copyright 2022 | Attorney at Law Magazine | Privacy Policy