Is There a Difference Between Rule of Law and Justice for Bribe? Unrepresented Pro Se Litigant - "Kind of Trash not Worth the Time of a Judge."

Is it a time to work on a replacement of Judges at all initial Court's levels by Artificial Intelligence?

As a pro se litigant with an extensive record of litigation across all levels of the U.S. Courts, including Administrative, State, Federal, and even the U.S. Supreme Court, I find it difficult to understand why many high-tech experts and startup innovators focus on developing Artificial Intelligence to replace attorneys, rather than addressing the core issue like - replacing judges at the initial court levels. This would ensure that decisions are made in strict adherence to the comprehensive legislature, free from the human biases and discretionary overreach that many judges unable to avoid.

To me, the problem lies not with irresponsible attorneys but rather with judicial overreach and an abusive reliance on discretion - discretion that often disregards the legislative mandates judges sworn to uphold. This is compounded by their blatant and unhidden disrespect for the claims of unrepresented individuals who have legitimate problems but lack the knowledge to navigate complex procedural and technical requirements even though they acted in their good faith.

When judges prioritize procedural perfection of technical requirements over substantive justice - acting more like professors grading students in the Universities than neutral arbiters of fairness pursuing the result of resolving the real dispute - they undermine the very purpose of the judicial system. By dismissing cases based on technicalities rather than engaging with the core issues, such judges make justice increasingly inaccessible to ordinary people. This disregard not only erodes public trust and confidence to the judiciary but also provokes societal instability, driving individuals to resolve disputes through whatever means are available, including illegal or violent actions on the streets instead of coming to Courts. That is what the judges do when they disregarded people's right to have an unbiased and impartial judgement on their core issues raised in their complaints especially when the law is allowed to do it reasonably fast, but lack of knowledge in technical requirements to make a proper complaint prevents people to do that.

As Justice Cardozo wisely observed, "[a] system of procedure is perverted from its proper function when it multiplies impediments to justice without the warrant of clear necessity." Reed v. Allen, 286 U.S. 191, 209, 52 S.Ct. 532, 537, 76 L.Ed. 1054 (1932 (dissenting opinion). See Commonwealth v. Wharton, 495 Pa. 581, 595,435 A.2d 158, 165 (1981)

Why do medical professionals, when the judges come to the hospital, address directly the core of the judge’s health-related claims without requiring judges to possess and show expertise in pharmacokinetics or clinical diagnostics? Why does a competent plumber resolve a direct concern in a judge’s home on his or her request without scrutinizing the judge’s understanding of municipal plumbing systems? However, why are those plumbers or medical professionals, when coming to the judges, strictly required to have knowledge of procedures and legal technicalities over which most students of jurist doctor level of education cannot pass the BAR exam?

In the decision of CA Court, case - People v. Alatorre, 70 Cal. App. 5th 747, 763 n.19, 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 13 (2021), footnote 19 is written, 'As the old joke goes, everyone is presumed to know the law … except a law student taking the bar exam.' Indeed, a considerable part of the graduated jurists cannot pass the BAR exams after five years of extensive studying law... What can be expected from people who have never encountered legal procedures because dedicated their life to save people in hospital or to teach Judge's children at school? They do not have experiance in legal procedures and technical requirements to file a complaint. Often they do not have money to hire an experianced attorney to represent them in the U.S. State or Federal Courts even if they have a genuine claim or dispute with someone. The existing Judges' attitude to these people’s incompliancies to technicalities and procedures to file a complaint throws those people out of the opportunity, and factually rights, to protect their interest within the Courts.

When I, being a pro se, sometimes attempted to challenge the fact that the Judge’s decision did not reflect "what the law really is" right at the end of the hearing after rendered by a judge a decision that did not only blows the mind but also betrayed the integrity of the judiciary as a whole, I personally heard far too often the dismissive response: 'It is my understanding of the law. If you disagree with the judgment, you can always appeal it.' However, the issue wasn’t merely my disagreement - it was that the law itself clearly contradicted the decision made during the hearing. It’s convenient to say 'it’s my understanding of the law' when rendering an unlawful decision, effectively hiding the judge’s unfitness to adjudicate and cloaking a legally flawed decision in the guise of personal interpretation. Yet, such a judges would certainly disagree with a plumbers who would claim that it’s their 'understanding of the home drain system' while connecting the bath drain tube to the drinking faucet supply pipe in the kitchen.

Yes, I acknowledge that for example, I personally might not be perfect in my speaking English. My accent or occasionally clumsy phrasing may reduce the persuasiveness or aloquence of my arguments and even irritate the judges. While this may be understandable as a human reaction, it should never influence the final judgment. I believe, judges must be able to separate their personal discomfort with how someone presents their claim from the actual, substantive merits of that claim, especially when the unrepresented individual is doing their best and acting in good faith showing a clear attempt to comply with all procedures.

Surprisingly, I have encountered the adequit approach in the United States judicial system, perhaps, only in the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, that has a very well-functioning pro bono program and clerks who always ready to help (not with legal advice but with some technical questions) to unrepresented litigants.

Another problem is that judges at initial levels force individuals to navigate endless levels of appeals and then - remands for a decision that, by law, should have been granted at the Court of the first level. By that they not only deprive people of their hard earned money but significant portions of their lives. This judge’s approach through their actions, inadvertently promote systems of bribery showing that for the regular people the bribery-based systems gives fast and certain result even if it is not necessarily hinged on what the law really is. In bribery based judicial systems the result is achieved at the first level through corruption saving time resources. As it turns out, the opportunity in both system to receive the result for regular people is ultimately the same - people are gutted funancially either through paying for lawyers for long unnecessary lapses of appeals or through direct bribes to judges; however, the bribery system delivers outcomes quickly and with better certainty in comparison to the U.S. system when after decades of fighting and draining money, you might easily be left with the unlawful decision shielding behind “judges’ own understanding of the law.”

Indeed, many of my friends from Russia observing my endless legal battle against my false arrest in 2018 and 525 days of unlawful immigration detention in the U.S. for the made up administrative violation that I have never committed ask me a philosophical question: 'Gregory, don't you think you should have paid a bribe in Russia many years ago when you were offered to do so to close your fabricated case in a couple of months, instead of fighting for 10 years against U.S. officials and judges who disrespect their law in the same way and to the same extent like the officials and judges in Russia do? My answer is always simple for now: "Now frankly, the US court system and U.S. officials who only respect the law when they talk about it publicly but in reality do not care about it at all made me less certain in what I believed before I faced the U.S officials and judicial system especially administrative courts in reality. However - time will tell. Buy popcorn and spectate the show…"

So, nowadays, given the exorbitant cost of legal representation, which most people cannot afford, I believe the U.S. Judicial Committees must work with judges to enhance their ability to deliver impartial decisions which would be meticulously and extensively justifiable by the existing law at the initial level of courts. This approach would likely reduce endless appeals and remands, emphasizing the advantages of upholding the rule of law, rather than undermining it by the existing approach in the U.S. nowadays to my own belief.

Otherwise - the judicial system in the United States becomes a system where "no money" means "no rights." In other words, this system must replace the principle 'Rule of Law' for 'Justice for Money', which, from the perspective of regular people, is no different in essence and result from 'Justice for Bribes.' Since in both systems people are gutted of their money for receiving the decision that is hinged not on law but on the ability to spend money for acheaving this decision.

Indeed U.S. judicial system’s failure to ensure fair and lawful decisions at the first level leads to prolonged suffering and frustration for those who cannot afford endless legal battles. This system maintain unnecessary administrative expenses that goes from the people taxes that by logic - doubled people's spendings. This judicial incompetence to make lawful decision at the first level undermines trust and confidence in the system itself, leaving justice accessible only to those with the financial means to pursue it by spending their money for attorneys.

If you think that those are my unprofessional thoughts then, read the following.

In 2017 Richard Allen Posner - an American legal scholar who served as a federal appellate judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from 1981 to 2017, and whom the Journalist of New York Times - Adam Liptak described as a person with "restless intellect, withering candor and superhuman output" suddenly announced his retirement.

Due to the information on ABAJOURNAL, Judge Richard Posner decided to retire because of conflicts with his colleagues over the treatment of unrepresented (pro se) litigants, who represent themselves. In his interview with the New York Times, Judge described his concerns about the treatment of unrepresented litigants like:

“The basic thing is that most judges regard these people as kind of trash not worth the time of a federal judge”

Markedly, the Journal of Legal Studies identified Judge Richard Allen Posner as the most-cited legal scholar of the 20th century and he is widely considered to be one of the most influential legal scholars in the United States.

Usually the Federal Circuits, especially the Ninth Circuit, require to treat unrepresented (pro se) litigant liberally, see: "Because plaintiff is pro se, the Court liberally construes the pleadings and affords plaintiff the benefit of any doubt." See Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985). See also:

"This court recognizes that it has a duty to ensure that pro se litigants do not lose their right to a hearing on the merits of their claim due to ignorance of technical procedural requirements. Borzeka v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 444, 447 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1984) (defective service of complaint by pro se litigant does not warrant dismissal); Garaux v. Pulley, 739 F.2d 437, 439 (9th Cir. 1984). Thus, for example, pro se pleadings are liberally construed, particularly where civil rights claims are involved. Christensen v. C.I.R., 786 F.2d 1382, 1384-85 (9th Cir. 1986); Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). Defendants suggest no reason to treat pro se appellate briefs any less liberally than pro se pleadings." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988)

What about State Courts? See California State Court's explainations about their attitude to pro se litigants:

"While attorneys and judges commonly speak (and often write) in legal shorthand, when a [pro se] litigant is involved, special care should be used to make sure that verbal instructions given in court and written notices are clear and understandable by a layperson. This is the essence of equal and fair treatment, and it is not only important to serve the ends of justice, but to maintain public confidence in the judicial system" in Gamet v. Blanchard, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1276, 1284, 111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 439, 445 (2001) However, at the same time see:

"We further note that [pro se] litigants are not entitled to special exemptions from the California Rules of Court or Code of Civil Procedure. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975 [35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 669, 884 P.2d 126].) They are, however, entitled to treatment equal to that of a represented party. Trial judges must acknowledge that [pro se] litigants often do not have an attorney's level of knowledge about the legal system and are more prone to misunderstanding the court's requirements." Gamet v. Blanchard, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1276, 1284, 111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 439, 445 (2001)

As seen, the Federal Courts' approach often tolerates a pro se litigant's "ignorance of technical procedural requirements," while California State Courts noted that pro se litigants are not entitled to special exemptions from the California Rules of Court or Code of Civil Procedure. This effectively deprives Californians of justice if they cannot afford an attorney. As such, I think, maybe other professionals must also arrogantly demand from California judges for example some medical knowledge before helping them in hospitals as the judges themselves do while making so arrogant decisions like I cited above?

Judges should explicitly justify their decisions by law and focus on the merits of the claim, delivering unbiased, just, rutionalized decisions in accordance with U.S. law, rather than allowing personal perceptions or technicalities to undermine or dismiss the substance of the dispute. This is the main purpose of why the regular people keep the judges at their occupation by sharing part of their income through taxes to pay the Judges' salory.

The judiciary exists to resolve disputes fairly and equitably, preventing conflicts from escalating into violence or illegal actions. It serves as society's safeguard, ensuring that grievances are addressed through lawful means rather than destructive measures.

Judges hold the power to uphold or deny justice, and when they fail to fulfill their role, they become a barrier to fairness. Unlike attorneys, who represent clients, judges serve society as a whole. If they cannot rise above procedural rigidity and personal biases, they should be replaced—preferably by an AI system capable of impartiality, consistency, and adherence to the law. In the AI it would be easier to create a logical mechanism to distinguish the unnecessary technicalities if one of the party is a pro se litigant and address the core of the disputes instead of dismissing complaints like the judges do often against unrespresented people.

Justice should not depend on a litigant's resources or legal representation. Judges must remember their duty: to ensure that every person has a fair opportunity to be heard and to deliver impartial justice. Just as medical professionals treat judges without scrutinizing their medical knowledge, judges should treat other professionals with the same respect. If they are so arrogant that cannot do that, judges at the initial levels should be all gradually replaced by AI.

This is my sincere opinion.