EROSION OF THE U.S. JUDICIAL POWER: THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S SURRENDER TO THE EXECUTIVES

The American judiciary stands at a crossroads. While some U.S. Judges bravely stand against the government's attempts to deprive them of their independent power, maintaining the constitutional separation that U.S. founders envisioned, the Judges of The Ninth Circuit I have filed a complaint against have chosen a different path entirely. They have submissively admitted the role of mere tool in the hands of executives to legitimize their legally flawed decisions, transforming what should be independent judicial review into nothing more than a rubber stamp for government overreach.

A Reality Check on Judicial Accountability

Having engaged in extensive legal battles over the years, I harbor no illusions about what will likely happen to this complaint, which I attached below at the end of this article. I am frankly quite certain that the judges I've complained against will be covered up by their colleagues, since the system has a remarkable capacity for protecting its own failures, regardless of how clear the violations might be. This very expectation, this lack of trust and confidence that the judicial system and its checks and balances work properly, is precisely why I believe people need to know about the U.S. judicial system they actually live under, not the idealized version taught in law schools, movies, or magazines - a system where to be a federal judge is not a responsibility but rather a pleasure of happiness to do whatever you'd like under unfettered power since you are untouchable.

The Institutional Betrayal

What I witness here in my cases is not merely a case of judicial error - it is the systematic abandonment of judicial independence in favor of bureaucratic convenience. These judges have effectively outsourced their constitutional duty to the very executive agencies they were meant to check and balance. When a court refuses to allow a petitioner to even file an opening brief before dismissing their case, when they ignore decades of binding precedent without explanation, when they deny the most basic procedural rights that Congress specifically mandated, they have ceased to function as judges and have become administrative clerks for the government.

The irony is palpable: judges who demand absolute deference to their decisions show no deference whatsoever to the law they swore to uphold. They expect citizens to respect judicial authority while they themselves treat legal precedent as mere suggestions to be discarded when inconvenient. This represents a fundamental corruption of the judicial role - not corruption in the sense of money changing hands, but the far more insidious corruption of abandoning the very principles that give courts their legitimacy.

My Complaint Of Judicial Misconduct and Disability of the Ninth Circuit Judges

I have filed a formal complaint against three Ninth Circuit judges Barry G. Silverman, Kenneth K. Lee, Lawrence J. C. VanDyke, who granted a government motion for summary disposition before I was even allowed to file my opening brief - a clear violation of established circuit precedent spanning decades. The precedent is crystal clear: such motions should only be granted after reviewing the appellant's brief, not before it exists. Yet these judges brazenly ignored this rule, apparently believing that procedural protections are obstacles to be circumvented rather than rights to be protected. These Judges' ruling is a blatant slap in the face to the established precedents and to all their colleagues who developed multiple and clear precedents for this matter in the Ninth Circuit.

This is not a case where the law was unclear or where reasonable judges could disagree. The precedent was unambiguous, well-established, and directly on point. These judges simply chose to disregard it entirely, preferring to adopt the government's position wholesale rather than perform their constitutional duty of independent review. They perversed what should have been an adversarial proceeding into a one-sided bureaucratic exercise where only the government's voice, which actually was challenged, was heard without the opportunity to raise even one argunet against it by me.

The most troubling aspect is how transparently contemptuous this conduct appears. When judges make legal violations so obvious and blatant, it suggests either profound incompetence or deliberate indifference to their oath of office. Neither possibility inspires confidence in the U.S. judicial system.

The Arrogance Factor: When Judicial Ego Trumps Judicial Duty

There's another troubling dimension to this misconduct: the apparent judicial discomfort with a pro se litigant who was simply trying to understand the system. These judges seemed genuinely irritated by my attempts to learn and apply with due dilligence legal procedures, unable to accept that someone without formal legal training could research and apply legal principles when their life depended on it.

I wasn't trying to compete with their expertise or challenge their authority - I was fighting for cases that were literally life-and-death matters for me. I'm not even sure why U.S. law became so interesting and compelling to me, but I found myself absorbing legal concepts like a sponge, driven by necessity rather than ambition. Perhaps it was because the stakes were so personal, or because I had no choice but to become my own advocate.

Rather than acknowledging that desperation and survival can be powerful motivators for mastering legal procedures, these judges seemed personally offended by the idea that someone without a bar card could construct legally sound arguments. I wasn’t challenging their authority - I was asserting my right to be heard. Yet they appeared unable to reconcile the reality that a pro se litigant might draft briefs as substantive as those filed by licensed attorneys. In their minds, I wasn’t an individual dilligently and with all due respect navigating the system - I was an uninvited outsider playing lawyer - someone they felt entitled to disregard not by its knowledge or arguments but by his status of nobody in their mind. As Judge Richard Posner - one of the most cited legal scholars of the 20th century, observed when he retired from the federal bench due to similar frustrations: “The basic thing is that most judges regard these people as kind of trash not worth the time of a federal judge.” Just think about it - arrogant federal judges, who eat your tax money - when you come to them unrepresented because you spend all your money on their salary, disrespect you as much as a trash! That blunt assessment - by a retired judge who ratained his integrity and dignity - captures what I experienced firsthand.

Judges against whom I made a complaint and who were entrusted to judge, as it turned out so ignorant in their enjoyment of power and self-preservation that, in losing their dignity and integrity, they forge a future in which even their own posterity will no longer be protected by law that was destroyed by their parents.

This represents perhaps the most insidious form of judicial corruption: when personal ego and professional vanity override judicial duty. When judges allow their assumptions about who deserves to be heard to influence their adherence to legal procedure, they have fundamentally betrayed the principle that justice is blind to credentials, status, and background.

The Broader Implications

When U.S. Judges, like in my case, believe they are above the law they swore to uphold, when they distort clear legal principles to avoid doing their job, when they execute instead of judge, when they deny rights that Congress specifically granted - this is indeed a form of corruption. It's the corruption of power, the corruption of duty, the corruption of the solemn oath under Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. And when Federal Judges make it so blatantly obvious that a pro se litigant can easily understand their violations, it becomes a shame for the whole institution they represent through their ostensible adjudication.

This represents a dangerous precedent for American jurisprudence. If courts can simply ignore procedural protections when they find them inconvenient, or becouse the judges simply lazy, if they can rubber-stamp government decisions without meaningful review, if they can deny people their day in court through procedural sleight-of-hand, then what meaningful check remains on executive power? We are witnessing the transformation of Article III courts into administrative extensions of the executive branch - a development that would horrify the founders who carefully crafted the U.S. system of checks and balances.

The question is not whether these judges made a mistake - everyone makes mistakes. The question is whether they deliberately chose to ignore clear legal requirements because following them would have required actual work, actual analysis, actual judging. The evidence strongly suggests the later, and that represents a fundamental breach of the judicial trust and and as a logical consequence - judicial system decay.

The Path Forward

I am sharing this complaint publicly because there is no other option to expose judges violations and breach of their duties to the society. This is not about winning or losing a particular case - it's about preserving the rule of law itself. It's about ensuring that procedural rights mean something, that judicial oaths have substance, that courts serve justice and safeguard the people rights rather than convenience and judges' enjoyement of their status. It's about maintaining a system where law applies equally to judges and other people alike.

Who else should follow the law if federal judges don't care about it? I guess noone - that is what the judges like in my case promote and this is disturbing. And does society really need to feed such judges with their tax dollars? I guess not at all...

More to come...