The problem with federal judges!

The problem with
federal judges!
By Larry Klayman
The chief justice of the Supreme Court, the ever leftist-oriented John Roberts, many months ago strongly criticized President Trump for speaking plainly about the biases and political inclinations of federal judges. The president's criticism came in response to a ruling by the Honorable Jon Tigar, an Obama appointee on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, perhaps the most openly leftist of all district courts in the United States – and that says a lot given the makeup of most lower federal courts, particularly in the District of Columbia. Judge Tigar, who is the son of far-left activist attorney Michael Tigar, who not coincidentally intervened in the 9th Circuit case involving my client Sheriff Joe Arpaio, arguing that the sheriff's pardon should be nullified, had just issued injunctive relief thwarting the administration's asylum policy to limit rampant illegal immigration. After Trump simply pointed out that another Obama judge had ruled against him, Chief Justice Roberts issued this pubic statement:
"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. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for." [Adam Liptak, "Chief Justice Defends Judicial Independence After Trump Attacks 'Obama Judge,'" New York Times, Nov. 21, 2018.]
Roberts' ridiculous defense of the political and other biases inherent in the federal judiciary is dishonest, and it is why conservatives and many others have lost confidence in the chief justice, who might just as well be head of the Supreme Court on Pluto. Even the left and its Fake News Media know that federal court rulings in cases that involve or even touch on politics, or social issues like abortion, usually go along partisan lines. That is why the media of all political bents generally make reference to which president, Democrat or Republican, appointed a federal judge to the bench.
I have said many times, including in my autobiography, "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment!" that one can predict with great certainty how a federal judge is likely to rule based on the political party of the president who appointed him or her. There are exceptions, but not many, and when there is an exception, its usually for other reasons, such as a judge not wanting to rule in favor of a party that is controversial, such as with many of my clients. Here, a federal judge may not want to be seen siding with a party who has been smeared heavily by the media or elsewhere, lest he or she also then be smeared for ruling in that party's favor. Again, there are exceptions, but very few.
Yesterday, two rulings came down from the most politicized federal district court in the United States, short of Judge Jon Tigar's one in San Francisco, ruling against my clients Dr. Jerome Corsi and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The two rulings, dismissing their cases, were largely the result of these extra-judicial currents and forces.
The Corsi case was primarily against Special Counsel Robert Mueller for having illegally surveilled and threatened my client with indictment if he would not lie under oath and implicate President Trump in crimes as part of the Russian collusion grand jury investigation. On behalf of Dr. Corsi, I alleged constitutional violations under the Fourth and First Amendments. You can view our complaint at www.larryklayman.com. The first judge assigned to the case, as related to other cases I had brought that involved some of my clients, the Honorable Richard Leon, a Bush appointee, decided not to keep it on his docket, probably because the judge himself was likely under surveillance by the intel agencies, I had learned. The case was then was bucked over to a Clinton appointee, the Honorable Helen Segal Huvelle.
A few weeks ago, an oral argument was held before Judge Huvelle, which I wrote about, and it was clear then, as ultimately occurred Thursday with her dismissal, that she would conjure up politicized grounds to protect her fellow Washington elite comrade, Robert Mueller.
Sure enough, in a very contrived decision, Judge Huvelle dismissed the case, mostly claiming that we did not show in the complaint that Mueller had ordered the attempted suborning of perjury and illegal surveillance of Dr. Corsi. What made this ruling most dishonest was that my client need only have alleged these facts in the complaint. Absolute proof would have been obtained through later discovery in the form of document requests and oral deposition testimony.

In response to the dismissal, which is being appealed, I issued this statement, which was reported in various publications:
"Judge Huvelle's decision was largely politically influenced and sadly comes as no surprise. In today's world, the elite establishment club in Washington, D.C., are 'protected species,' who are above the law. The American people are beginning to understand, and it is a dangerous situation when the judiciary provides cover for the elite and powerful. We saw that same thing in the years leading up to July 4, 1776."
Interestingly and regrettably, another politically tinged decision came out of the federal court in the District of Columbia yesterday, this one issued by a judge I have generally a high regard for, the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, who has made many good rulings in my clients' favor, particularly during the Clinton administration. Judge Lamberth, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, effectively ruled in dismissing a defamation complaint I had filed for Sheriff Joe Arpaio, that while America's Toughest Sheriff was defamed by CNN, Rolling Stone and the Huffington Post, who falsely called him a "convicted felon," we had not pled actual malice with enough specificity to allow the case to go forward.
At the oral argument in the Arpaio case, I had told Judge Lamberth that I would amend the complaint if he wanted more specificity. But rather than asking me to amend, he dismissed the case with prejudice even though his decision admits that the sheriff was defamed.
Why did Judge Lamberth do this? In my view because the leftist media had made Arpaio so radioactive that even my favorite jurist got cold feet, preventing this case to go forward lest similar scorn come down on him as he faces the prospect of holding Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire in a FOIA case involving the destruction of her 33,000-plus emails.
I had seen this approach before with Judge Lamberth during my days at Judicial Watch, and while I do not agree with it, I have always been thankful that he did frequently stand up to the elite in the nation's capital. Given that we can easily be more specific as to the actual malice requirement for defamation against a public figure like the sheriff, I will now file a new complaint with more detail, have it assigned as related to Lamberth and hold the judge to his own words.
All of this underscores why federal judges should never have been given life tenure by our Founding Fathers, as they are not accountable to We the People. And, it also points out why state judges, who generally can be voted out of office, suffer from "less fun and games" on the bench.
If this nation is not to go the way of another revolution, we need to find a way to depoliticize and disinfect the federal judiciary. Otherwise, we will be right back to July 4, 1776.