BREAKING: PINELLAS COUNTY JUDICIAL CORRUPTION BOMBSHELL - PART 1

Q: Can judges preside and rule on cases which they are material witnesses, victims, participants or beneficiaries in the facts and evidence of a case?

It depends… If you are in a Kangaroo Court then sure…

What is a Kangaroo Court?

When a judge presides over and decides a case in which they are personally involved—as a material witness, victim, participant, or beneficiary—it creates severe ethical and legal problems. This violates fundamental principles of impartiality, fairness, and integrity required by courts and judges.

Why this is problematic:

1. Impartiality is compromised:
   A judge who has personal involvement in a case cannot remain neutral. They have a direct stake in the outcome, undermining their ability to decide the case fairly.

2. Appearance of bias:
   Courts rely heavily on public trust. Even if the judge tries to remain neutral, their involvement creates an undeniable appearance of bias. This damages public confidence in the justice system.

3. Due process rights:
   Parties in court have a constitutional right to a fair trial under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. When the judge is personally involved, it deprives the parties of this fundamental right.

Potential Violations of Law and Ethics:

When a judge presides over a case involving personal interests, several rules, laws, and ethical standards may be violated:

1. Judicial Ethics Violations:

• Canon 2 (Code of Judicial Conduct):
  Judges must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, meaning even if there is no actual unfairness, the judge must still step away if it looks unfair to the public.

• Canon 3(E)(1):
  Judges must disqualify themselves from any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, especially if they or family members have a direct interest in the outcome, or if they are likely to be material witnesses.

2. Violations of the Law:

• Due Process Violations (5th and 14th Amendments):
  The U.S. Constitution requires fair, unbiased trials. A judge with personal involvement undermines this right, making the proceedings unconstitutional.

• 28 U.S.C. § 455 (Federal Judicial Disqualification Statute):
  Requires judges to recuse themselves when impartiality might be questioned, especially when they're personally involved or have a direct interest in the outcome.

• State Statutes (such as Florida Statute § 38.10):
  Many states explicitly require judges to recuse themselves if they are involved in the facts of the case.

3. Attorney Ethics (Bar Rules) Violations (If the Judge is also a Lawyer or was an Attorney in the Case):

• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest):
  Lawyers must avoid representing or ruling on cases where there is a personal interest that conflicts with their duties.

• ABA Model Rule 8.4(d) (Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice):
  Lawyers (including judges who are also attorneys) violate ethics rules by engaging in conduct that harms public confidence in justice.

4. Criminal Implications:

• Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505):
  If a judge knowingly interferes with a fair legal proceeding due to personal involvement, it could potentially rise to criminal obstruction.

• Honest Services Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1346):
  If a judge knowingly misuses their official authority for personal gain or personal benefit, it may be prosecuted as honest services fraud.

Q. WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPLICATIONS IF THREE DIFFERENT JUDGES RULED ON A CASE IN WHICH THEY WERE LEGALLY MANDATED TO DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES FROM AND FAILED TO DO SO?

Q. WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPLICATIONS IF THESE THREE JUDGES WERE MATERIAL WITNESSES, VICTIMS OF, PARTICIPANTS IN, OR BENEFICIARIES OF THE FACTS RELATED TO THE CASE..THEN THEY PRESIDED OVER THE CASE AND MAKE RULINGS?

A. THE JUDGES CREATED A STRUCTURAL ERROR

Structural Error and Judicial Disqualification

When a judge refuses to disqualify themselves despite being a material witness to, victim of, participant in, or beneficiary of facts related to the case, this can constitute a structural error. Here’s why:

1. Judicial Bias and Impartiality:

   • The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution (5th and 14th Amendments) guarantees a fair trial before an impartial judge. A judge who has a direct stake in the case—whether as a witness, victim, participant, or beneficiary—cannot be impartial. This lack of impartiality is a structural defect because it taints the entire proceeding, not just a specific ruling or piece of evidence.

   • For example, if a judge witnessed a crime related to the case, was a victim of the defendant, participated in events giving rise to the litigation, or stood to gain personally from the outcome (e.g., financially or professionally), their involvement creates an inherent bias that undermines the trial’s legitimacy.

2. Appearance of Bias:

   • The U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that even the appearance of bias can violate due process if it creates a significant risk of actual bias. In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), the Court held that a judge’s failure to recuse himself violated due process when he had received significant campaign contributions from a party in the case. The Court noted that due process requires recusal when “the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.” If a judge is a material witness, victim, participant, or beneficiary, the appearance of bias is even more pronounced, making their refusal to disqualify a structural error.

3. Impact on the Trial Framework:

   • Structural errors are distinguished from trial errors because they affect the “entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end” (Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991)). A biased judge presiding over a case infects every aspect of the proceeding—rulings on motions, evidentiary decisions, jury instructions, and the final judgment. For instance:

     • As a material witness, the judge has firsthand knowledge of facts that should be presented through testimony, not judicial influence. Their role as a factfinder becomes compromised.

     • As a victim, the judge has a personal stake in the outcome, which inherently biases their decisions.

     • As a participant, the judge’s actions may be under scrutiny in the case, making it impossible for them to objectively rule on their own conduct.

     • As a beneficiary, the judge’s personal or professional gain from the outcome (e.g., financial benefits or career advancement) creates a conflict of interest that undermines impartiality.

   • Because the judge’s bias permeates the entire trial, the error is structural, and the case cannot be salvaged by assessing whether the bias directly affected the outcome.

Legal Precedents on Structural Errors and Judicial Bias

• Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927): The Supreme Court held that a judge’s financial interest in the outcome of a case (the judge received a portion of fines imposed) violated due process. This was a structural error because the judge’s bias tainted the entire proceeding. If a judge in your scenario benefits from the case’s outcome, this precedent directly applies.

• In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955): The Court ruled that a judge who acted as a “one-man grand jury” and then presided over the trial of the same defendants violated due process. The judge’s dual role as a participant (investigator) and adjudicator created a structural error. This applies if the judge in your scenario participated in events related to the case.

• Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (2016): A judge who had previously approved the death penalty prosecution of a defendant as a prosecutor could not later sit on the defendant’s appeal. The Supreme Court found this to be a structural error because the judge’s prior involvement created an unconstitutional risk of bias. If the judge in your scenario was a victim or participant, this case supports the argument that their refusal to recuse is a structural error.

• Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813 (1986): A judge who stood to benefit financially from a ruling due to a related lawsuit he was involved in was required to recuse. The Court found that his participation violated due process, constituting a structural error. This applies if the judge in your scenario is a beneficiary of the case’s facts.

Why It’s Structural

The U.S. Supreme Court has identified several types of structural errors, including the absence of an impartial judge (Tumey, Williams). When a judge refuses to disqualify despite their involvement as a witness, victim, participant, or beneficiary, the error is structural because:

• It affects the foundational fairness of the trial.

• It cannot be quantified or assessed for harmlessness (e.g., you can’t determine how the judge’s bias influenced each decision).

• It erodes public confidence in the judicial system, as the trial appears fundamentally unfair.

Application to the Scenario

If a judge with a direct connection to the case (as a material witness, victim, participant, or beneficiary) presides over and rules on the case, their refusal to disqualify violates due process and constitutes a structural error. For example:

• Material Witness: If someone requested a vote by mail ballot for the judge on Sunday, June 23, 2024 (IMPOSSIBLE LEGALLY) and there was no ID verification completed (ILLEGAL). That judge is a material witness who will absolutely need to testify if they made the request on Sunday June 23, 2024 online and how they managed to to this impossible task.

• Victim: If the judge was victim of, as they did not make the IMPOSSIBLE vote by mail ballot request on Sunday June 23, 2024, they have a personal stake or involvement as a victim, making impartiality impossible.

• Participant: If the judge was involved in the events, they cannot objectively rule on their own conduct.

• Beneficiary: If the judge gains financially or professionally as the result of a fraudulent election, their conflict of interest taints the trial.

In such cases, the remedy is typically automatic reversal of the ruling, and the case must be retried before an impartial judge. No showing of specific prejudice is required because the error is structural.

Practical Implications

In practice, codes of judicial conduct (e.g., the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3E) also require judges to recuse themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Failure to do so can lead to disciplinary action, in addition to reversal of the case.

Think of structural error as a "system failure" in the judicial process—unlike a small mistake that can be fixed, this is a flaw so deep that the whole trial is considered invalid.

Q: WHAT HAPPENS IF THE JUDICIAL ASSISTANTS, OR CLOSE RELATIONS OF THE JUDGES WHO RULED ON THE CASE ARE MATERIAL WITNESSES TO, VICTIMS OF, PARTICIAPANTS IN, OR BENEFICIARIES OF THE FACTS RELATED TO THE CASE?

FUN FACT: PROTECTED VOTERS CANNOT MAKE ONLINE VOTE BY MAIL BALLOT REQUESTS AT ALL

If every single Pinellas County Judge, who requested a vote by mail ballot on Sunday, June 23, 2024 as reported in “OFFICIAL ELECTION RECORDS” attempted to do so this is what they would have seen.

HOW BIG OF AN ISSUE WAS THIS IN PINELLAS COUNTY?

IF THIS WASN’T ENOUGH… HOW ABOUT A FEW MORE…?

Judicial assistants are confidential agents of the judge and have access to chambers communications, calendar settings, and sensitive court operations. If a judicial assistant is the victim of targeted vote-by-mail fraud related to an ongoing appeal, the judge is likely to be a material witness or possess personal knowledge of disputed facts.

As such, disqualification of the judge is mandatory under Rule 2.330(d)(1) and Canon 3E(1)(a), even if the judge's own voter record is not directly implicated. Failure to grant disqualification under these circumstances not only violates ethical and procedural mandates but also exacerbates the structural error inherent in this case, undermining the constitutional integrity of the tribunal.

This case is on active appeal to the 2nd DCA currently. Three of the DCA judges are on this list and another three were beneficiaries of the 219,673 illegally requested, illegally mailed, illegally cast, illegally counted vote by mail ballots.

PART 2.. Will show you what was filed this week.

Share your thoughts on this below…