Scheidler files misconduct complaint against Federal Judge, James E. Boasberg

Another would-be KING

Re: Judge Boasberg
Complainant: William Scheidler

Brief Statement of the Facts

The following facts logically and incontrovertibly show Judge Boasberg has engaged in conduct that is biased, unlawful, and clearly prejudicial to the efficient operation of the courts, which further diminishes the public’s trust in judges. 
  • 1) The Federal Courts, and their judges, are “just another state court”. See Erie Railroad v. Thompson case (304 U.S. 64 (1938)). The Federal Courts assumed supplemental jurisdiction (i.e., to decide state issues) of Complainant’s state court case upon removal to Federal Court by state defendants.
  • 2) Defendants’ official duties are prescribed by state law. As the US 10th amendment, 28 USC 1652, 28 USC 2672 states, ‘state law shall rule decisions in federal court’.
  • 3) Judge Boasberg ‘dismissed’ complainant’s Washington State’s Article 1, sec 4 petition of public importance regarding the negligence of the United States in its failure to supervise its judicial officers who fail to apply state law. Reference dockets 10 and 11. Washington’s constitution Article 1, section 4 clearly states, “the right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged”.
  • 4) Judge Boasberg ordered complainant’s amended Art 1, sec 4 petition ‘stricken’ in which Judge Boasberg is a defendant because he refused to follow state law, which denies due process. Ref minute order, 8/7/2019.
  • 5) Judge Boasberg obstructed complainant’s Washington’s inviolate Art 1, sec 21 trial by jury, which is the institution to decide the negligence of the United States and address the due process violations by Judge Boasberg. Article 1, section 21 is absolute and clear in stating “The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate …waiving of the jury in civil cases where the consent of the parties interested is given thereto”. There was no ‘waiver’, as required, to bypass a trial by jury.
  • 6) Judge Boasberg, by dismissing and striking complainant’s petition of public importance essentially granted absolute immunity to himself and Washington’s public defendants notwithstanding Washington’s Article 1, secs 8, 12, and 28’s prohibitions in granting immunity or the state laws that make Washington’s public officials liable. See dkts 1, 7, 12 and 13, case 19-00373, which detail judicial misconduct. Those allegations remain unaddressed.
  • 7) Additionally and consequentially, Judge Boasberg’s grant of absolute immunity to Washington’s public defendants, essentially ‘legalized’ defendants unauthorized and invalid conduct and thereby ‘limited’ complainant’s civil action notwithstanding Washington’s Art 2, sec 28’s prohibitions. Article 2, sections 28(12) and (17) prohibits legislation “legalizing the unauthorized or invalid act of any officer” or for “limiting civil or criminal actions”.
  • 8) Judge Boasberg’s non-judicial acts to ‘dismiss, strike, obstruct the jury, to grant absolute immunity and legalize unauthorized and invalid government conduct by Washington’s public defendants is, in effect, “charging juries and commenting on the facts” notwithstanding Washington’s Art 4, sec 16’s prohibitions. Article 4, section 16 states emphatically, “Judges shall not charge juries with respect to matters of fact, nor comment thereon, but shall declare the law.”

These provisions are mandatory and self-executing. They are not subject to modification by Judge Boasberg, nor any public servant as it would be an overt attack upon the powers of the People and the rights of complainant. Such an attack from within government will eventually invite revolt, rebellion, violence and threaten the public peace and tranquility.

Judge Boasberg, indisputably, disregards these authorities in favor of imposing his own notions upon the complainant and the public at large. When Judge Boasberg chooses his own notions under his self-claimed authority rather than the prescribed legal authorities cited above Judge Boasberg demonstrates an act based in arrogance and ego, and thus proves bias. The only entity –the US Congress– by specific words, NOT Judge Boasberg, can ‘abridge, modify, or enlarge’ state law as the US 10th amendment and 28 USC 2072(b) make clear.

It is a fact from the above facts, Judge Boasberg wants power, is addicted to power, and revels in using the powers he claims. It stands to reason, then, when the controversy centers on “powers” judges claim for themselves, they are all interested parties without a fair forum for redress …. it is judges “all for one and one for all”. Clearly, as plain as the words of 28 USC 455(a) and (b) read, judges cannot sit as a decision-maker concerning the controversies judges create because they are bound by the same legal obligations and fiduciary duties embodied in judicial code.

However Judge Boasberg ignores the laws and codes that mandate his disqualification as the means to claim powers he doesn’t have and decide matters he has no power to decide. Lawyers know it! Lawyers bribe judges with power, and aid and abet judges in keeping their unlawful powers so they benefit by a judge’s unauthorized decisions. It’s a fail-proof strategy as there is no fair nor impartial avenue for redress. The only avenue judges’ permit is in their judge-created scheme of judges-judging a judge concerning the powers judges claim for themselves. This self-created scheme in which judges-judge-judges is riddled with bias and conflict, and is in violation of law – 28 USC 455(a) and (b). Yet the courts provide no avenue that is free of these biases and conflicts to address judges taking powers to which they have no right. These non-elected lawyers and judges work hand-n-hand to make the judicial system their Golden Goose in claiming ever increasing power and wealth. Neither lawyer nor judge will ‘blow the whistle’ on the other and kill the Golden Goose that lays their golden egg and thereby incur the wrath of their colleagues.

Judge Boasberg has claimed for himself what belongs to complainant, and indeed, the People, as clearly prescribed by law.

Therefore Judge Boasberg’s orders to “abridge, modify, limit or enlarge” Washington’s constitution and laws and define the scope of his own powers is in violation of law, in breach of the ‘privileges and immunities’ provisions of Washington’s constitution, and are in excess of authority which authority is limited by 28 USC 2072(b). Judge Boasberg’s orders are based solely in ego and arrogance, which is proof of bias in violation of 28 USC 455 and defeats Canons 1-3 which are meant to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, and his orders are Void Ab Initio.

Conclusion

This Commission must act to assure VOID orders do not stand or conduct detrimental to public confidence goes unpunished. Or, if unable to act, transfer this matter to the US House and Senate committees on the judiciary because the schemes established by judges and predicated in judges-judging-judges regarding the powers judges claim for themselves is riddled with bias and conflicts and are in contempt of Congress and the constitutions of the United States and Washington.

I, the undersigned, affirm what is stated herein is true.

                        ____________________________________
                        William Scheidler

APPENDIX PAGE 1

A Forbes Poll rating the public’s view of “Honesty/Ethics” by profession. Judges score in the bottom 50% and Lawyers, from which judges are selected, score in the bottom 20% in honest/ethics.

APPENDIX PAGE 2

A Google search of “corrupt judges” returned over 21 million pages.

APPENDIX 3

Petitions to the President to address judicial corruption.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*