There is PROOF that CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB BONTA has EXPANDED THE NEW COINTELPRO 2K22 OPERATION STRATEGY, further engaging in Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption; Abuse of Power, office, and resources with Judicial, Political, Law Enforcement, Governmental, Legal Entities and Officials for organizational and personal gain, while INCREASING TARGETED ENTRAPMENT ATTACKS, STING/SCAMS ON INNOCENT CITIZENS WHOM EXPOSE THIS CORRUPTION!! His carrying out this WHITE PRIVILEGE ENTITLEMENT agenda that includes Political Vendetta’s and Personal/Professional Revenge landed his Attorney General position!
The Rob Bonta, Hinds and Fair’s COINTELPRO 2K22 parties ALSO include the “COURTEL” legal system of judges wherein the TARGETED PARTY is NOT having a trial, but is being “railroaded by the court in a case that is ALREADY fixed against the YOU!” More than 130 federal judges have violated U.S. law and Judicial Ethics by improperly failing to disqualify themselves from 685 court cases around the nation involving companies in which they or their family owned stock.
In Judge Stephen Kaus, September 11, 2018, ATT Ruling:”the Court hopes and encourages both parties to take this new judicial assignment as a good time to wipe the slate clean, forgive any earlier acrimony, and proceed to resolve and adjudicate the claims raised by the Complaint in normal order and good faith. al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated.” “Both parties deserve the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law. In short, this case deserves a chance to proceed on its merits, and now is an opportune time as any to do so.”. Judge Kaus admits to the COURTEL’S acrimony and animus toward al-Hakim, and asks to wipe the slate clean and move forward in good faith as al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated with “the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law”! He did just the opposite enacting the agenda of the “COURTEL- ” the COURT CORRUPTION CARTEL, WAS DISQUALIFIED AFTER 4 CHALLENGES ADMITTED OWNING ATT STOCK!!
In May 2022 Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal and Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced the Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act to overhaul our nation’s judicial ethics laws and restore public faith in our court system. This legislation is cosponsored by Representatives Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee; André Carson (D-Ind.); Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas.); Katie Porter (D-Calif.); Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.); Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.); Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.); Veronica Escobar (D-Texas); Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.); Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.); Andy Levin (D-Mich.); Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.); Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.); Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and Tina Smith (D-Minn.). “We can no longer stand by while our judges and justices take advantage of our system to build wealth and power at the expense of our country’s most marginalized. A system without basic ethics is a corrupt system,”. “People deserve impartial judges and justices who aren’t beholden to special interests or to their personal agenda. Nobody is above the law. Not even a Supreme Court Justice. My bill with Senator Warren will reinstate the checks and balances needed to ensure a fair and balanced judicial system that fulfills its promise of equal justice under the law.” said Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal.
”Here, Mr. al-Hakim alleges a litany of serious misconduct or outright criminality – by persons other than Judge Carvill, He complains of past mistreatment by numerous judges (and at least one commissioner)”. ”[Judge Jennifer] Madden has been, is and will irrevocably tainted and will/must be a NAMED defendant, witness, and attorney with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office (DA) that is involved in these two, 30 year, ongoing legal cases and investigation by the U.S. and California State Attorney Generals involving the DA’s office and the Oakland City Attorney fraud that Nancy O’Malley, Kamala Harris, and Judge Kim Colwell is also named in that is directly involved in these same case attempting to be put before her to serve as judge and trier of fact in!” (Sic.) Statement, 3:25-4:4.” Assigned Judge Lesley Holland
Judge Lesley Holland criminality comments portray perhaps the single most important reason why the “COURTEL- Court Cartel”, California Supreme Court, California Appeal Court, Judicial Council, the Commission on Judicial Performance, and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system!
In Judge Stephen Kaus, September 11, 2018, ATT Ruling:”the Court hopes and encourages both parties to take this new judicial assignment as a good time to wipe the slate clean, forgive any earlier acrimony, and proceed to resolve and adjudicate the claims raised by the Complaint in normal order and good faith. al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated.” “Both parties deserve the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law. In short, this case deserves a chance to proceed on its merits, and now is an opportune time as any to do so.”. Judge Kaus admits to the COURTEL’S acrimony and animus toward al-Hakim, and asks to wipe the slate clean and move forward in good faith as al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated with “the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law”! He did just the opposite enacting the agenda of the “COURTEL- ” the COURT CORRUPTION CARTEL, WAS DISQUALIFIED AFTER 4 CHALLENGES ADMITTED OWNING ATT STOCK!!
In TWO letters to the Supreme Court Judiciary, more than 50 legislators filed complaints about ethics violations within the Court and the Federal Court system following a Wall Street Journal investigation report!
A Wall Street Journal investigation found more than 130 federal judges have violated U.S. law and Judicial Ethics by improperly failing to disqualify themselves from 685 court cases around the nation involving companies in which they or their family owned stock. Only 56 of the judges have directed court clerks to notify parties in 329 lawsuits that they should have recused themselves!
The legislators wrote:
We write seeking information regarding an alarming report that over 130 federal judgeshave violated federal law and the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges by“overseeing court cases involving companies in which they or their family owned [individual] stock.”
These actions raise questions about the judgment and integrity of these individuals and will justifiably reduce public confidence in the justice system. Likewise, they raise questions about whether you have done enough in your role as the presiding officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States to establish and enforce ethics rules and uphold the integrity of the federal judiciary.
The scope of the ethics violations by dozens of federal judges—as reported by the Wall Street Journal—is stunning. Judges must “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”Both 28 U.S.C. § 455 and Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct require that judges disqualify themselves from proceedings when the judge, their spouses, or their minor children have a “financial interest in … a party to the proceeding … , however small.”But the Journal revealed that 131 federal judges—appointed by presidents spanning from Lyndon Johnson to Donald Trump and involved in hundreds of cases across the country—failed to properly recuse themselves in violation of these provisions between 2010 and 2018.These conflicts of interest have affected hundreds of cases and the integrity of the justice system. Already, “56 of the judges have directed court clerks to notify parties in 329 lawsuits that they should have recused themselves,” potentially leading to new assignments of judges and upending rulings.Judges ruled for parties in which they had a financial interest in two-thirds of contested motions.Furthermore, current Supreme Court Justices have similarly failed to recuse themselves from cases in recent years when they have had financial interests in parties before the Court, including through ownership of individual stock.It would be surprising if even a single judge or Justice was unaware of or ignored these important ethics protections; the fact that dozens did so represents a systemic failure that requires accountability.
Signed by Authors:
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and
Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)
Signed by Senators:
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee;
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet; and
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights. The letter was also signed by
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.);
Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.);
Ron Wyden (D-Ore.);
Cory Booker (D-N.J.);
Alex Padilla (D-Calif.);
Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii);
Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.); and
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.);
Signed by Congressman:
Cori Bush (D-Mo.);
Karen Bass (D-Calif.);
David Cicilline (D-R.I.);
Steven Cohen (D-Tenn.);
Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.);
Veronica Escobar (D-Texas);
Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas);
Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.);
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas);
Ted Lieu (D-Calif.); and
Deborah Ross (D-N.C.)
The ethics code for judges “requires recusal when a judge has a financial conflict, regardless of the substance of the judge’s actual involvement in the case,” the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct wrote in a letter to a judge this month.
When judges participated in such cases, about two-thirds of their rulings on motions that were contested came down in favor of their or their family’s financial interests. The hundreds of recusal violations found by the Journal breach a bedrock principle of American jurisprudence: No one should be a judge of his or her own cause. Congress first laid out that principle in 1792 to guarantee litigants an impartial judge and reassure the public that courts could be trusted.
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said: “The Wall Street Journal’s report on instances where conflicts inadvertently were not identified before a case was resolved or transferred is troubling, and the Administrative Office is carefully reviewing the matter.”
It said the federal judiciary “takes very seriously its obligations to preclude any financial conflicts of interest” and has taken steps, such as conflict-screening software and ethics training, to prevent violations. “We have in place a number of safeguards and are looking for ways to improve,” the office said.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who heads the federal judiciary, didn’t respond to requests for comment.
The nation’s roughly 600 full-time federal trial judges, supplemented by about 460 semiretired jurists called senior judges, wield enormous power. Holding lifetime appointments, they preside over hundreds of thousands of civil and criminal cases each year in 94 court districts.
They have soup-to-nuts control over all elements of their courtrooms, from pretrial process and trial to criminal pleas, judgments and sentencing. Judges have wide latitude for fact findings and evidentiary rulings, most of which can be overturned only for abuse of discretion, a high hurdle.
Violations of the 1974 law almost never become public. Judges’ financial disclosures aren’t online, are cumbersome to request and sometimes take years to access.
The Free Law Project, a nonpartisan legal-research nonprofit that is planning to post judicial disclosure forms online found their findings amount to a pervasive disregard for the judicial conflict-of-interest laws, legal experts said.
A recusal violation in isolation could be viewed as an oversight, but the Journal’s investigation “raises a more systemic problem of judges chronically neglecting their duty to disqualify in such cases,” said Charles Geyh, a law professor at Indiana University, who specializes in judicial conduct, ethics and accountability.
The findings “are both surprising and disappointing,” said Timothy Batten Sr., chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and a member of the Committee on Codes of Conduct for the Judicial Conference of the U.S.
Yet Judge Batten himself owned shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. while he heard 11 lawsuits involving the bank, most of which ended in the bank’s favor, the Journal’s analysis shows.
“I am mortified,” Judge Batten said in a phone interview when notified about his violations, which occurred in 2010 and 2011, before he joined the Codes of Conduct committee in 2019. “I had no idea that I had an interest in any of these companies in what was a most modest retirement account” managed by a broker.
“I just blew it. I regret any question that I’ve created or appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest,” he said.
The Journal analyzed cases to determine whether judges made rulings on contested motions, such as those seeking dismissal or summary judgment. Judges ruled on contested motions in 21% of the nearly 700 cases in question.
Those rulings favored the judges’ financial interests in 94 cases, went against the judges’ interest in 27 cases and had mixed outcomes in 24 cases.
The Judicial Conference of the U.S. requires courts to use conflict-checking software to help identify cases where judges should bow out.
Judge Janis Sammartino of California traded in stocks of Bank of America Corp., CVS Health Corp., Deutsche Bank AG, Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., HSBC Holdings PLC, JPMorgan, Pfizer Inc., Public Storage, Wells Fargo & Co. and Microsoft Corp. while hearing 18 lawsuits involving one or more of those companies, the Journal found. In all, she heard 54 cases involving companies held in her family’s trusts. In her Microsoft case, had a class been approved, the case could potentially have cost Microsoft more than $45 million, according to court filings by the plaintiff.
Judge Sammartino disqualified herself in at least 10 other cases involving companies whose stocks were listed on her disclosure forms, a review of her cases shows.
Judge Sammartino’s 54 conflicts were the second-most recusal violations. Brian Martinotti in New Jersey ranked third, handling 44 cases involving companies in which he had invested.
Judge Rodney Gilstrap, chief of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, had the largest number of conflicts in the Journal’s analysis: 138 cases assigned to him involving companies in which he or his wife held an interest.
In at least 18 instances, judges disqualified themselves over conflicts, only to have the case reassigned to a judge who also had a conflict but didn’t recuse.