It seems that no matter how good a pro se litigant is, you just will not be allowed justice. The Judges are bought and paid for, the attorneys are criminals, and the only one obeying the rules and procedures are the pro se litigant. Check out some of documents on scribd.com especially the latest Rule 60(b) Motion to Recuse Judge Duffey. You will see just how prejudice a Federal Court Judge can be against pro se litigants.
We recently met an ally, Mr. William Windsor. He is a wonderful man with a story on his website, of the Manifest Injustices that he has dealt with since he became involved with U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia's infamous Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. Please feel free to visit his site here: http://www.lawlessamerica.com
And speaking of justice, or the lack of... One of our favorites from Elkins v US
These, then, are the consideration of reason and experience which point to the rejection of a doctrine that would freely admit in a federal criminal trial evidence seized by state agents in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. But there is another consideration - the imperative of judicial integrity. It was of this that Mr. Justice Homes and Mr. Justice Brandeis so eloquently spoke in Olmstead v United States, 277 U.S. 438 at 469, 471, more than 30 years ago. "For thos who [364 U.S. 206, 233] agree with me," said Mr. Justice Holmes, "no distinction can be taken between the Government as prosecutor and the Government as judge." 277 U.S., at 470 (Dissenting opinion) "In a government of laws," said Mr. Justice Brandeis, "existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by it's example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; IT INVITES ANARCHY. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means - to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal - would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face." 277 U.S. at 485. (Dissenting opinion.)
These, then, are the considerations of reason and experience which point to the rejection of a doctrine that would freely admit in a federal criminal trial evidence seized by state agents in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. But there is another consideration - the imperative of judicial integrity. This basic principle was accepted by the Court in M. There it was held that "a conviction resting on evidence secured through such a flagrant disregard of the procedure which Congress has commanded cannot be allowed to stand without making the courts themselves accomplices in willful disobedience of Even less should the federal courts be accomplices in the willful disobedience of a Constitution they are sworn to uphold.
