How Many Federal Judges Are Breaking The 1st Commandment?

Isn’t it idolatry when a group of people preach that they are above temptation, even when those people are federal judges? And by definition, when people insist that they possess such divine virtue, aren’t they charlatans, especially when they simultaneously insist that others mustn’t question their supposed purity?

Well, the other day, Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court - who is pictured above taking an oath with his hand placed on a Bible - issued a surprising public statement. Roberts was responding to some fair and honest criticism leveled by President Trump after a federal judge in the 9th Circuit who was appointed by former President Obama issued a dubious ruling on border security. Watch what President Trump said here.  

And here is the response from the Chief Justice:

We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them…The independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.

Then the President tweeted:

Now, what Chief Justice Roberts implied about judges being above partisanship is not just wrong, nor is it simply just refuted by an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence gathered by both partisan and non-partisan organizations alike - which it is (see here, here, here, here, here, here,  and/or here) - but it’s also an utterly ridiculous claim on its face. Indeed, given what the American electorate already knows all too well about the appointment of federal judges and the well-known partisan divide in the Supreme Court itself, one may now wonder if Chief Justice Roberts broke not only the First Commandment but also damaged his own credibility and knowingly bore false witness against President Trump all in a futile effort to deny the undeniable.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
-Exodus 20:16

Indeed, given his statement, there are now no doubt those who would like to ask Chief Justice Roberts to explain the recent behavior of the so-called “Clintonite Love Judge,” Kimba Wood, in light of the law which requires federal judges to proactively disqualify themselves without being prompted from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” You see, notwithstanding the statute, Judge Wood continued to preside over the federal court hearings involving President Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, even though she had also presumably appeared in her official judicial capacity to preside over the 2013 wedding ceremony of her seemingly dear friend George Soros - the billionaire Democratic mega donor who gave some $15 billion to Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential campaign against Cohen’s then-boss.

And that’s not all. History also reflects that while the Clintons were in the White House in the 1990s, Judge Wood was second on their list of candidates to be U.S. attorney general until she became embroiled in an immigration-related scandal dubbed “nanny-gate.”

Yet Judge Wood, who earned herself the nickname “The Love Judge” during the Clinton era, when, well, it might be fair to say that it appeared her own federally-protected swamplands were often opened for public drilling, nonetheless continued to preside over the Cohen hearings as her potential protégé, Stephanie Clifford, aka “Stormy Daniels,” gleefully looked on from the courtroom gallery as it seemed for once in Clifford’s adult life it was somebody else's private business being put on display. Indeed, another judge may have granted Cohen’s request to provide the potentially-privileged identities of his clients in private rather than require him to read their names aloud during an open hearing as Judge Wood did.  

This all begs the question, under the circumstances, “might” Judge Wood’s “impartiality” have “reasonably” been “questioned,” as required by the law which would call for her disqualification?

You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the Lord your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment. You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. You shall follow what is altogether just, that you may live and inherit the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
- Deuteronomy 16:18-20 

Well, the over 4,850 people who have thus far signed this online petition located here asking the Speaker of the House to bring articles of impeachment against Judge Wood certainly seemed to question her impartiality.

Further, speaking of impeachment, at one of Cohen’s first hearings, Wood stated from the bench that she had “faith” that the “integrity” of the feds who had decided to raid Cohen’s law office was “unimpeachable,” thereby casting well-founded doubt on her own ability to impartially hear any claims of prosecutorial misconduct. 

So, is it really any surprise that Cohen took a plea deal with little if any hope whatsoever for a fair trial under a judge who is intimately connected to Trump’s chief rivals and who had preemptively declared the integrity of the other side to be unquestionable as well as given that Judge Wood might be especially sensitive to Trump’s tough stance on immigration due to her own negative experiences? Also, just to head something off at the pass, there are likely those out there in the DOJ (or those who may have left the Justice Department for CNN but who nonetheless still seem to speak directly on its behalf) who would retort that Cohen could have filed a motion to disqualify Judge Wood on these grounds but he failed to do so. However, this is likely a disingenuous argument because it’s well-known in legal circles and well-documented by the liberal media that judges often retaliate against those who move to recuse them. Further, even if a particular judge is forced off a case, their colleagues may then retaliate on their behalf. As an attorney himself, Cohen was likely acutely aware of these simple facts.

Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it. And I commanded you at that time all the things which ye should do.
- Deuteronomy 1:17-18

However, despite all this and the Supreme Court’s supervisory role overseeing the federal courts and judges below, it seems that Chief Justice Roberts would rather falsely criticize President Trump, who if anything has been victimized by lower judges like Wood, than do his job of reigning in those judges. Saliently though, what kind of public accountability do federal judges face when even the President can’t speak the truth plainly about the federal judiciary when he is after all the leader of a co-equal branch of government as well as the person responsible for nominating and promoting federal judges? And what kind of chance does the average American have when they come up against a corrupt judge who’s been appointed for life?

Indeed, President Trump and his current and former associates are far from alone in having experienced such obvious and shocking corruption in federal court.

In fact, yours truly has now been wrongfully imprisoned for nearly 3 years by corrupt federal judges after I helped save the life of a young girl named Justina Pelletier who was abducted, tortured, crippled, and nearly killed by those with close personal and financial ties to those same judges. Millions probably remember Justina and her story, even if not by name. Below is a video clip of her and her family appearing on Fox with Governor Huckabee shortly after her eventual return home.

The details of how I fit in were told by frequent Fox News guest Michelle Malkin on her website here.

As to the specifics on the relevant conflicts of interest and how the last person to have a similar case in front of my same judge, the Honorable Nathaniel M. Gorton, ended up committing suicide, please see here.

Finally, to be sure, there are both political and psychological reasons why Chief Justice Roberts and lower federal judges don’t want to admit to their obvious partisan ideologies. Without getting into those reasons too much here, they are largely understandable and maybe I’ll cover them in a future article if there is demand. However, as we’ve seen with the Clintonite Love Judge and others, regardless of the often mundane and sometimes silly and even childish purposes behind statements like the recent one issued by Chief Justice Roberts, the end result of people in power belligerently denying their human nature is arrogant and usually disastrous. This is the earthly reason why the First Commandment is such an important rule which should be upheld by judges and non-judges alike.

After all:

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
-Proverbs 16:18 

The author, Marty Gottesfeld, is an Obama-era political prisoner. For more information about him or to donate to free him please visit www.FreeMartyG.com or follow him on Facebook here.