- In law, there is a principle described as customs,
practices, and usages. In simple terms, it means certain habits that
those who rule us use by way of conducting themselves. BUT, these
ingrained ways are generally not written down, yet are clearly
understood as the accepted and established way of government.
- For example, in the South for a hundred years after
the American Civil War, or as southerners call it The War Between The
States, the customs, practices, and usages, were that whites
would not respect the Equal Protection of the Law guarantees as to
blacks. Lynchings were condoned, and whites would eat their picnic
lunch while watching blacks hanging from a tree. The Ku Klux Klan,
although dominated some fifty per cent by FBI agents and informants,
was more or less allowed to run wild and terrorize blacks. Some
Federal judges, such as in Mississippi, were known to chase blacks out
of their courts while hurling racial slurs against them. It was a
customs, practice, and usage, that blacks had separate fountains to
drink water from, in public facilities.
- In Chicago, we spoke to an Afro-American lawyer,
formerly a government official, who told us how the federal courts in
Chicago likewise mistreat black attorneys, even now. He decided
not to make any public statements about the same. Italian-American
lawyers told us similar things from first-hand experience. Namely,
that lawyers of color and of certain ethnic groups, are looked down
upon by the Chicago federal judges, some of whom are persons of color
themselves. That is, the judges prefer "pin-stripe" suit attorneys,
WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). No, it is not as blatant as
having black attorneys drinking from a separate fountain. BUT, their
petitions are routinely rejected, so that they cannot hope to make a
living in the Chicago federal courts.
- Some of the accepted ways of the judiciary, state
-  The buying and selling of judgeships in courts
at all levels. We discussed this in a website item "Buying a
Judgeship". Because of certain circumstances, some of this is even
coming out in the monopoly press. Such as "Ex-Judge gets 27 months in
bribery case; U.S. still probing whether he paid for seat on bench".
Chicago Tribune, 7/26/2002.
- A popular website
6/19/03)referred to a story in a major New York publication:
- "In an admission that has New York Supreme Court
[actually a lower court] in an uproar, a retired Brooklyn judge said
he paid $35,000 to a Democratic leader more than three decades ago to
get a seat on the bench, New York Newsday reports. The payment, says
Thomas R. Jones, 89, was 'IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES
OF THE DAY', though he added, 'it was not right then, it's not right
now' ".(Emphasis added.)
- The article went on to discuss how judges and
lawyers knew that certain lawyers were "bagmen", used as go-betweens
of lawyers and corrupt jurists.
- In our website series on "Coca-Cola, CIA, and the
Courts", we mentioned how a known criminal-type bought the bench for
Chicago Federal District Judge Blanche M. Manning[(312)435-7608]. An
elite federal investigative unit, contacted us.
- Government investigators: "Your story, also in the
court record, that Judge Manning's judgeship was bought, is not
- Citizen's Committee to Clean Up the Courts: "What is
wrong with our court statement and our website story?"
- Government investigators: "You state that her
judgeship was bought for one million dollars by a known power-broker,
described as a mobster. It is not a correct amount. Our inquiry has
determined that the power-broker paid two million dollars."
- Citizen's Committee: "So, is that all you found
wrong with our position on the buying of that Judgeship? That we
mentioned a lower amount?"
- Government investigators: "Yes, you have stated a
- He did not inform us what, if anything, would be
done against the Judge and her patron/judgeship buyer.
- Since the buying of judgeships is a known custom,
practice, and usage, what are the obvious conclusions? Such as, the
criminal-types, or political power-brokers, that buy the judgeship and
install someone of THEIR choice, then are in a position to profit in
some way from the judge thus put in place. Some call it, pulling on
the chain. (In the New York example, however, the retired Judge
claimed it did not effect his rulings. Really?)
-  The handling of court records. No
accountability. There is a practice moreso in the federal courts in
the U.S., of the judges NOT SIGNING THE COURT RULINGS by them,
particularly so in civil cases. So, were you, as we have for decades,
to have examined decisions by U.S. District Judges and then their
supervisors, the reviewing courts, U.S. Courts of Appeal, it is quite
evident the Judges DO NOT SIGN THEIR NAME.
- What is the rationale, off-the-record, and
behind-the-scenes? Namely, that many of the federal court decisions
are NOT made by the Judges who are simply a front. The decisions are
made by law clerks, also "minute clerks" as they are referred to. In
plain lingo, we have long since known that to corrupt the judiciary,
you have to lean on their secretaries, their minute clerks, their law
clerks, sometimes just the court bailiffs or deputy marshals, or
their ghost-writing law professors. Further, in some instances,
the decisions are written by former law school students or
present or former law professors, particularly so where the judges are
former law professors.
- We have given as examples of corrupt practices, that
three Chicago Federal Appeals Judges, and one judge on the U.S.
Supreme Court, are all formerly from Rockefeller's University of
Chicago Law School. (7th Circuit Judges Richard A. Posner (312)
435-5806); Frank H. Easterbrook (312) 435-5808, were law professors,
and 7th Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood (312) 435-5521, was Dean of the
Law School. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, was a professor
there.)They commit perjury, in violation of the federal criminal code,
in that they have failed to disclose that they, on the bench,
represent the Billion Dollar stock and bond portfolio of Rockefeller's
University of Chicago. This disclosure, which they have not made, is
an annual mandatory judicial financial disclosure, failure to reveal
the same by their signed form, being perjury, under federal
- What is the problem with the judges, as is their
custom, practice, and usage, not to sign their name to their rulings?
The ghost-written decisions in important cases, not every case,
contain judicial perjuries. That is, the established undisputed facts
in the court record show it is DAY. To make a corrupt and arbitrary
ruling, the judges' rulings say it is NIGHT, and apply NIGHT case
- The litigant "loser" and/or their attorney is
puzzled. Rarely, if ever, do lawyers confront the corrupt judges with
their judicial perjury. Funny thing, since the decisions are often
ghost-written, the judges, supposely in all candor, could say, but
never do, "I did not write that. I know nothing about that decision.
You can't hold me responsible and accountible. Why? Because I also did
NOT sign it." It is a corrupt and rotten way of carrying out the
unwritten customs, practices, and usages, of the Bench and the
-  The U.S. Constitution, Seventh Amendment
- "In Suits at common law, where the value in
controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury
shall be preserved, AND NO FACT TRIED BY A JURY SHALL BE OTHERWISE
RE-EXAMINED in any Court of the United States, than according to the
rules of the common law." (Emphasis added.)
- The state and federal courts in this nation
have been set up similar to a church hierarchy, with a lower court
(the local church), a reviewing and appellate court (the regional or
local Archbishop of the Church), and the higher court (The
Vatican, the Pontiff, the Pope).
- By the 7th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the
reviewing and appellate court and the highest courts, are forbidden to
re-examine, that is, to change, re-determine, the facts submitted to a
jury and made into a jury trial court verdict.
- The 7th Amendment in important cases, not every
case, is again and again violated by feudal lords, sitting as
Archbishops on the bench and throne of power as
appellate, reviewing, and highest court judges. They commit
judicial perjuries, picking so-called new "facts" out of the air, and
thus justifying a corrupt and arbitrary ruling in dealing with a jury
trial verdict of the lower court. To survive, members of the Bar dare
not complain about these judicial perjuries which constitute a fraud
upon their own Court by the reviewing, appellate, or high court
judges, actually made, as earlier stated, by ghost-writers, and
allowed, permitted, condoned, and acquiesced in by the
-  The U.S. Constitution sets up a system of
government into three departments, Legislature, Judiciary, Executive.
It is a violation of these provisions, for example, for the
Legislature to sit as a Court. In enumerating the powers of Congress,
Article I, Section 9, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall
- Bill of Attainder is to have the Legislature and/or
the Executive branch, designate, without a judicial
determination, that a person is an "enemy of the State", a
"terrorist", or a "criminal". During periods of public ferment, such
as the Civil Rights and Anti-Viet Nam War era, the FBI and the
American CIA, secretly designated U.S. citizens as "enemies of the
State" and similar labels in the records of those agencies. And,
circulating those secret rulings, following up on that, secret
government operatives, fingered political activists to have their
phones sabotaged, their private residences and offices broken into and
records of membership stolen, and other injuries done to them as
law-abiding citizens, such as fire-bombing their cars, causing wheels
to somehow fall off their car while in motion, and inserting
provocateurs into peace parades. These secret records justified
the FBI/CIA in assassinating Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to prevent
"the rise of a Black Messiah" and to punish him fatally for having
one-year prior to his political murder having made a speech in New
York. Dr. King said he intended to go to Viet Nam to urge black GIs
not to murder yellow-skin people in someone else's civil war. In
other website stories, we mentioned how William Rehnquist headed a
secret Justice Department unit doing such things. Later, when he
became a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, he ruled that there should
not be a court remedy for these wrongs, and in so doing, did not
disqualify himself in respect to his own prior actions as to the
- In prior website items, we told how Hillary Rodham
Clinton, while First Lady (which is NOT an official government
position), nevertheless mis-used government power to put persons such
as us, on her "enemies list" to harass and terrorize us. Courts, as we
mentioned, refused to consider our plight and to x-out these Bills of
Attainder issued against us and others, without judicial
- Furthermore, the Federal Courts have become, more
and more, super-Legislatures, passing "case laws", binding on
everyone, the same as if done by Congress.
- There have been no actual remedies for violation of
the Separation of Powers, the three department system of the
government. We have in the past mentioned about Chicago-area
Congressman Henry Hyde who had two hats. First hat, he was, of course,
a Congressman. Secondly, he was also head of the CIA's "black budget",
supervising funds for dirty tricks including political assassinations.
So he sat in the Legislative and Executive branches at the same
- Since Judges are not intended to be representatives
of the people, and are primarily chosen by the Ultra Rich, the U.S. is
becoming more and more a nation ruled by Judges. We have in our
website stories about the year 2000 Presidential election, told how
the "Gang of Five", like a Military Junta, on the U.S. Supreme Court,
installed George W. Bush as the occupant and resident of the White
House, in so doing, the high court gang re-examined and re-determined
the facts, even plucking supposed "facts" out of the sky.
- Thus, more and more we are being ruled by the Judges
without our consent as the governed.
- More coming....Stay tuned.
- Since 1958, Mr. Skolnick has been a court reformer
and since 1963, Chairman/Founder, Citizen's Committee to Clean Up the
Courts. Since 1991, a regular panelist and since 1995,
Moderator/Producer of "Broadsides", a public access Cable TV program,
cablecast WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS of Chicago to upwards of 400,000
viewers, each Monday evening, 9 p.m., Channel 21 Cable TV. Portions of
some of the shows, via videostreaming, can be seen anywhere, anytime,
through our website.
- Office, 8 a.m. to Midnight, most 7 days, (773)
375-5741 BUT, please, DO NOT BOMBARD THIS LISTED PHONE WITH "JUST
ROUTINE" CALLS, such as asking us our address which is part of every
one of our website stories.
- For a recorded phone message, updating our work, NOT
an expensive call (773) 731-1100.
- For a heavy packet of our printed stories, send
$5.00 [U.S. funds only], plus a stamped, self-addressed BUSINESS size
envelope [ #10 envelope, 4-1/8 x 9- 1/2 ] WITH THREE U.S. FIRST
CLASS STAMPS on it, to Citizen's Committee to Clean Up the Courts,
Sherman H. Skolnick, Chairman, 9800 So. Oglesby Ave., Chicago IL
[NOTE "s" after name].