Bias Against Pro Se Litigants
Few pro se (self-represented) litigants have the legal knowledge or skill necessary to navigate the complex legal system, leaving them highly vulnerable to judicial abuse. While the references here are to the pro se party, even private lawyers and small firms battling Big Law attorneys often find themselves before a biased judge that simply refuses to rule in their client's favor knowing they're unlikely to survive with the resources to endure a lengthy and costly appeal.
Judges have a duty (according to rules of judicial conduct called "cannons") to respect the inexperience of a pro se litigant and help them understand the legal process (but not the law). But most judges routinely dismiss cases by pro se plaintiffs before any evidence is even presented. And most are dismissed with prejudice - ensuring the claims can never be heard again by another judge - usually without even addressing the issues. Such acts are clear violations of a person's constitutional right to due process.
If a judge chooses not to respect their vow to be impartial, there's almost nothing that can be about it. Pro se litigants often accuse a judge of bias only to be disregarded as the ramblings of a disgruntled loser. But ask yourself why, if a judge was just doing their job, would he transfer all the blame for the damage caused by the opposing party to the judge? Most attorneys have experienced judicial bias against their financially disadvantaged clients. But they know scrutinizing the "system" is never tolerated, and any suggestion that a judge is biased would only ensure they never win a case in that court again.
Judicial Abuse is Pervasive and Unchecked
It may seem a stretch to say most judges are biased, but the information contained on this site demonstrates systemic judicial abuse resulting from a number of factors:
Judges simply don't have to follow the law. They can decide against you without acknowledging the facts, issues and legal arguments you spent months or years preparing. They often issue orders dismissing claims based solely on unsupported arguments of the opposing attorneys, and and even argue their case sua sponte (on their own accord) without allowing you to respond. They issue orders that appear well-reasoned to the naked eye, but contain only the unsupported facts and arguments of the attorneys they favor and omit any relevant facts that would otherwise show the absurdity of their rulings.
Judges know a pro se litigant is unlikely to appeal. Once a a trial court judge dismisses a case or renders their judgment, the only means of reversing even the most ludicrous decision is an even more complex, costly, and lengthy appeal. And even if the pro se civil litigant perfects such an appeal, it will be heard by other judges that always favor upholding the lower court decision over ensuring a fair and just outcome. And, like the lower court, the appellate judges (usually a panel of 3) similarly ignore any facts, issues or law that would require reversal and issue ambiguous and unpublished rulings to conceal their own judicial bias.
Judges get to decide for themselves if they're biased. The rules of court required that a judge be recused from a case merely to avoid the "appearance" of judicial bias. But that's one rule the courts rarely follow. The rules require that a motion to recuse a judge be heard by a different judge. But the motion first goes to the judge accused of bias, who often invents a technical reason to deny it themselves. Then, the rest of your case will be decided by the same judge you just accused of bias.
Judges have absolute immunity from any liability for their judicial acts, including legal abuse, no matter how clearly biased or malicious. This is actual law - and about the only law that is always followed. Supposedly, it's designed to prevent judges from being bombarded with lawsuits every time they make a decision someone doesn't like. But it really just allows them to break the rules and ignore the law without consequence.
The judge can never be removed from the bench. Federal judges enjoy life-term appointments. Most state judges are also appointed but have to be re-elected every 6 years. But they typically run unopposed for life since attorneys fear running against a judge they may have to later face in court, and voters usually just blindly check the box next to the sitting judge.
The More Clear the Judicial Bias,
the More Likely the Decisions Will Be Upheld on Appeal
Wait, isn't that backwards? Nope. California courts are filled with judges who serve life terms, have immunity for any act (no matter how malicious) taken from their bench, and there's virtually no possibility of their ever being removed. They've become so accustomed to their absolute power that they can simply issue any ruling they see fit to keep the money flowing to the attorneys they support. The appellate court judges rose through the same ranks, and their #1 priority is to maintain the status quo.
The appellate courts conceal the bias, judicial misconduct, and deprivation of due process of the trial court judges by simply restating their rulings, similarly ignoring the same facts, issues and legal arguments on appeal that would otherwise require the lower court's decision to be reversed. By selectively omitting information that would reveal the real issue being appealed, their written opinions (usually found on a Google search) always have the appearance of a thoughtful and well-reasoned decision.
Of course, a small number of decisions are overturned (only about 5% of pro se appeals), but never the really bad ones. Such rulings can't be reversed without stating the reason, and the appellate courts find it better to uphold them than shed light on their absurdity. Don't believe it? Keep reading.,,
The Most Abused Civil Litigant in U.S. History
that Multiple Courts Will Stop at Nothing to Keep Quiet
Anthony Johnson, the founder of Storix (Johnson) and sole creator of its only software product, was forced out of his own company by his own employees after he collectively gave them 60% stock in the company for free. They combined their controlling interest to convert nearly half a million dollars of his earnings to their personal equity accounts, then used the company to sue him for ownership of his registered copyrights and for "intending" to compete with his own company - all to prevent him from discovering the stolen money.
After 8 years of litigation, not one of 5 federal and state trial court judges and several courts of appeal would even acknowledged who was in control of Storix and driving all the litigation against Johnson - or that they self-approved using all Johnson's company earnings to fund actions against him and their personal defense of all counter claims. Every judge issued ambiguous rulings against Johnson without actually addressing any relevant facts or issues that would have required a different outcome. After entering judgement against Johnson on every issue, every judge ordered Johnson to pay the costs and attorney fees of the two behemoth law firms that were already paid 100% of Johnson's own company earnings for years.
But Johnson was no typical pro se civil litigant. His legal research, pleadings and arguments far surpassed that of the prestigious attorneys who opposed him. And that's why you will never see Johnson's arguments in any of the orders and opinions of the courts. The judges simply would not allow a self-represented plaintiff to win against their favored attorneys but they concealed their judicial bias in ambiguous rulings that left out anything that would show the absurdity of their decisions. Johnson persisted, appealed, and repeatedly demanded that facts be acknowledged and the actual issues be decided. But they never were. Every appellate court denied all appeals and petitions by similarly ignoring every fact and argument that didn't support the lower court rulings.
If such persistent denial of due process across different courts seems hard to believe, six different state and federal judges were repeatedly asked to decide one simple issue - whether any decisions by the "Storix board" relevant to the litigation were made by disinterested (i.e. impartial) directors. That single-most important question underlying every claim and issue throughout 7 years of litigation still remains unanswered.
Why is Johnson's case so important? Because it disproves the common misconception that everyone who complains about a biased judge is just a disgruntled loser. It took a pro se litigant to expose the rampant bias of civil court judges (since attorneys will never make such accusations without ruining their careers), and no one has endured such clear legal abuse by so many judges and lasted so long against the Big-Law attorneys they support. Johnson's cases don't simply involve legal abuse by a single judge, but blatant judicial bias and misconduct by multiple federal and state courts that underestimated Johnson's knowledge of the law and his fierce and determination to obtain justice.
No such justice ever came, but the unprecedented decisions against Johnson on every issue show that judicial abuse is rampant, especially against pro se litigants in civil cases. The courts did everything to sabotage Johnson's cases, and then gave everything he had to the opposing attorneys who would have been disbarred for their misconduct in any fair court. The courts took everything from Johnson but his voice - and the actual proof of their abuse.
Seems too hard to believe? Click Storix v. Johnson to see more about his cases. See for yourself the actual Case Documents showing the real facts and issues Johnson repeatedly raised, and how the trial court judges simply refused to acknowledge any undisputed fact, issue or law contrary to the unsupported positions of the Big-Law attorneys. And see how the appellate courts upheld every trial court decision by doing exactly the same.