My Life Story by Leah Johnson







One unforgettable August night I answered a knock on my door. I met terror head-on as the police informed me of a car crash involving my beautiful 21 year old daughter, Laura, and her girlfriend. In one senseless act of callous irresponsibility, both of their lives were destroyed by a drunk driver who so ignorantly chose to get behind the wheel of a 3,000 lb speeding bullet. Continue reading

The 7 Deadly Sins of Alcohol

7 Deadly Types of Cancer

Directly Linked

to Alcohol Consumption

Image result for guzzle wine

By now, you’re probably aware that alcohol can do some pretty significant damage to your body. Drinking even moderate amounts of alcohol can and will do some lasting damage to your system if you’re not careful. Of course, almost everyone is going to have a drink here and there. Aside from the well-known issues associated with alcohol consumption, you should know that drinking has a direct relationship with one of the deadliest diseases in the world: cancer.
Scientists have known that there is a relationship between alcohol consumption and cancer for a long time. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest alcohol is carcinogenic, but we don’t often think of it as being as destructive or dangerous as other substances like tobacco. A new study, conducted by researcher Jennie Connor at the department of preventive and social medicine at the University of Otago in New Zealand, suggests that it’s time we take the carcinogenic properties of alcohol more seriously.

 Alcohol as a carcinogen — further evidence

Published in the journal Addiction, Connor’s research shows that drinking is more or less a direct cause of no less than seven types of cancers. Again, we already knew alcohol consumption increased the likelihood of a cancer diagnosis, but Connor’s work says that 5.8% of the world’s cancer deaths can be attributed to drinking — a figure we didn’t have before.

“There is strong evidence that alcohol causes cancer at seven sites in the body and probably others. Current estimates suggest that alcohol-attributable cancers at these sites make up 5.8% of all cancer deaths world-wide,” the study concludes. “Confirmation of specific biological mechanisms by which alcohol increases the incidence of each type of cancer is not required to infer that alcohol is a cause.”

For more details, be sure to read through the entire brief. But for the specific types of cancers Connor’s study points out, read on.

1. Liver cancer

Drinking does damage to your liver, there was never much doubt about that. And we already knew that booze can have a potent carcinogenic effect on the liver. This study simply adds another log to the proverbial bonfire, as far as evidence goes. If you care about your liver, it would serve you well to moderate your drinking habits.

2. Colon cancer

Colon health isn’t something you hear much about, especially compared to all the campaigns focusing on breast or prostate health awareness. But aside from cancers of the lung, colon cancer is the second-most-deadly form you can be diagnosed with. For that reason, you’ll want to take the risks very seriously.

3. Breast cancer

If you’ve been on Earth for any amount of time over the past decade or so, you’ve seen all of the work being done to raise awareness about breast cancer, and the risks and dangers associated with it. Well, it turns out that drinking and alcohol consumption are one of those risks.

4. Rectal cancer

Cancers of the rectum are closely associated with and are sometimes synonymous to those of the bowel and the colon. But they’re not exactly the same, and there are some differences in the treatment courses for each. If you’d rather not deal with either, staying away from booze should be added to your list.

5. Larynx cancer

When you drink, you’re putting your larynx in harm’s way — almost directly. Your larynx is what many people may commonly call a voice box. It’s the structure in your throat that holds your vocal cords and passages to your lungs. Needless to say, it’s pretty important, and if you want to avoid a diagnosis, steer clear of alcohol.

6. Oesophageal cancer

As far as your neck and throat goes, the larynx isn’t the only biological structure in danger from your drinking habits. The esophagus, or the tube that connects your mouth to your stomach, is also at risk. As booze passes from bottle to belly, it seems there’s some real damage being done.

7. Oropharyngeal cancer

Last but not least, the oropharynx is another part of the throat and digestive system that’s put at serious risk by drinking alcohol. The base of your tongue, your tonsils, and other parts of your throat are all a part of the oropharynx. If you can’t imagine life without those, then cutting out alcohol would be a wise choice — at least according to the available research.

7 Deadly Types of Cancer

Directly Linked

Image result for cancer

to Alcohol Consumption

Let’s Make a Deal – Terry Ekl Edition


This gallery contains 5 photos.

Let’s Make a Deal – Terry Ekl Edition This is your wake-up call! Vehicular homicides are enabled by the DuPage County Criminal Defense System: the same system responsible for the murder of my daughter and her friend. Terry Ekl and … Continue reading

This Will Make You Ill

Driver in Deadly

Crash Never had

License Revoked

despite Many Violations

(Take the time to read this)

Des Plaines crash

Repeat Offender Hall of Shame

Repeat Offender

Hall of Shame


WARNING: We urge you to visit the traffic court in your county and observe the proceedings on how drunk drivers and repeat offenders are getting plea bargained back out on the streets – to endanger you and your children, as you see on this site. At least once a week.

There is nothing that takes a higher priority. The courts belong to you, your tax dollars fund their salaries. They are your employees. Leah Johnson.

Be aware through Citizen’s Advocates 4 Justice web site that your constitutional rights are being violated by your criminal justice system as you can see from their lengthy arrest records below. Your 14th amendment to due process has been violated. This has been going on for years unbeknownst to us. There is no higher crime than violating their sacred oath to uphold your constitutional rights to protect your family. (People have said it’s mass murder) Many of these tragedies were preventable if we had responsible and ethical government. It is time we incarcerate these political criminals for all the justice denied to law abiding citizens.

To honor the memory of Laura and Dina and all others whose lives were destroyed needlessly, sign our petitions for power of the people. Approximately 50,000 drivers are charged with driving while intoxicated in Illinois per year. Of those, an estimated 20% are repeat offenders. Calculated, that means 10,000 people annually are charged with more than one DUI violation. Statistics show that the percentage of repeat offenders increases to 33% nationally. It is frightening to think of what happens when those figures are compounded year after year.

We are sharing our highways with hundreds of thousands of repeat drunk drivers – potential time bombs just waiting to explode, endangering the lives of those around us. Drunk driving has been called the nation’s most frequently committed violent crime, yet light sentences and dismissed charges continue to prevail. Our own criminal justice system is enabling these criminals to strike again and again. How many lives will be destroyed before something is done?  Citizen’s Advocates 4 Justice is ready to take action, but we need your support.

Click on the link below:

Drunk driving repeat offenders

Repeat Offender Hall of Shame

Laws and Cases: How to Do Legal Research

Laws and Cases:

How to Do Legal Research

Image result for legal research


Answers & Explanations

Definitions — The Jargon Used in Legislation

As with every other area of life, legislation comes with some jargon that, once mastered, should come in handy when you’re trying to understand the law. Here are some terms you may encounter when researching federal or state statutes:

Annotated Codes: Publications that combine state or federal statutes with summaries of cases that have interpreted the statutes. With a few rare exceptions, annotated codes are only available in a law library or on subscriber-based legal websites.

Bill: What a statute is called when it is introduced in Congress or a state legislature. When a bill is passed by both houses and the President or a state governor, it becomes a law and will usually be published according to its bill number in a publication called “Session Laws” or “Statutes at Large.”

Bill Number: Bills are referred to by number. The number really has two parts: the abbreviation for the specific wing of the legislature in which the bill is introduced, as in HB (house bill) or SB (senate bill), and the number which identifies the particular bill, as in HB 1507.

Chapter: A term that identifies a group of related state or federal statutes that have been gathered together within a particular Title or Code.

Chaptered: A bill becomes chaptered if it is approved by the legislature and signed by the governor.

Citation: Formal references to statutes that describe where they are published. For instance, the citation 23 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 1185 tells us that this cited statute is Section 1185 of Title 23 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated. And the federal citation 42 U.S.C.§ 1395 tells us that this cited federal statute can be found in Title 42, Section 1395 of the United States Code.Code: In general, the term “code” refers to the main body of statutes of the jurisdiction (for example, the United States Code or the Arizona Revised Statutes). The statutes that are published in a state’s code are grouped by subject matter into Titles, as in Title 11 of the United States Code (bankruptcy laws). In some states, including California, Texas and New York, the term “code” may be used both to refer to the overall collection of statutes and the separate subject matter groupings of statutes, as in “Penal Code,” “Family Code,” or “Probate Code.”

Engrossed: A bill is engrossed when a legislative body (such as the House) votes to approve it and sends it on to the other legislative body (such as the Senate).

Enrolled: A bill is enrolled when both houses of a legislative body have voted to approve it and it has been sent to the executive branch (the President or a state governor) for signing.

Legislative history: Assorted materials generated in the course of creating legislation, including committee reports, analysis by legislative counsel, floor debates, and a history of actions taken. Legislative history for recently enacted federal statutes can be found at Legislative history for state statutes is sparse and not easily found on the Web.

Session Laws: When bills become law, they are published in a text according to the session of the legislature that enacted them into law. For instance, laws passed by the California legislature in 1999 were passed in the 1999-2000 session. The individual laws in the publication for a particular session (such as Session Laws 1999-2000) can be found according to their original bill number.

Statutes at Large: See Session Laws.

Statutory Schemes: Groups of statutes that relate to one particular subject. For instance, all of the federal statutes that make up Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (which forbids employment discrimination and sexual harassment) are known as a “statutory scheme” because they are all related to each other.

Title: In the federal system and in some states, “title” is used to denote a collection of state or federal statutes by subject matter, as in Title 11 of the U.S. Code for bankruptcy statutes or Title 42 of the U.S. Code for civil rights statutes. Title is also used to denote a group of statutes within a larger set of statutes, as in Title IX of the Civil Rights Act (which itself is located in Title 42 of the U.S. Code).

For more definitions, see Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

The Role of Statutes in our Legal System

When people talk about “what the law says” or “what the law is,” they are generally referring to statutes (sometimes called codes). Statutes, which are created by the U.S. Congress and by our state legislators, attempt to lay out the ground rules of “the law.” When disputes arise over the meaning of statutes, state and federal courts issue court opinions that interpret the statutes more clearly. This is referred to as “case law.” In addition, numerous federal and state agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the IRS, and the various Secretary of State’s offices, issue regulations that cover the legal areas that the agencies control (such as environmental law, federal taxes, and corporations law).

Should I Search Federal or State Laws?

Most legal research involves state statutes rather than federal statutes because states have the sole power to make the law in many areas, such as child custody, divorce, landlord-tenant, small business, personal injury, and wills and trusts. A growing number of legal areas are covered by both state and federal statutes, including consumer protection, employment, and food and drug regulation. (State laws give way to stricter federal laws that address the same issue.) Finally, the federal government alone creates the law for a few specific subject areas, such as copyrights, patents, bankruptcy, federal taxes, and Social Security.

How to Find a Law

There are two main ways to find a particular state or federal statute on a state’s website — by doing a search or by browsing the table of contents. Not all states allow you to do a search, but for those that do, simply enter a few terms that relate to the subject you’re looking for. For instance, in you’re looking for the minimum number of directors that your state requires a corporation to have, you might enter the terms “corporation” and “director.”

However, this can often be difficult to do because you may not know the exact terms your state uses to address the issue you’re researching. Browsing the table of contents of statutes is often a better way to find laws on your subject because it lets you look first at the general subjects (titles, or sometimes divisions). From there you can move to particular topics (chapters, or sometimes articles), and then to the precise statutes you need (sections). By browsing, you also get a general idea of all the statutes there are on a specific subject.

How to Read a Law

Some statutes are clearly written, meaning that you can easily understand exactly what the legislature intended and what “the law” is on a particular subject. Unfortunately, many statutes are very difficult to understand. Exceptions to the statute, “whereases,” and cross-references to other statutes can make it very hard to understand what a statute means. Here are some rules to use when interpreting a statute:

  • Read the statute three times and then read it again.
  • Pay close attention to all the “ands” and “ors.” The use of “and” to end a series means that all elements of the series are included, or necessary, but an “or” at the end of a series means that only one of the elements need be included.
  • Assume all words and punctuation in the statute have meaning. For example, if a statute says you “may” do something, that means you are allowed to do it. But if it says you “shall” do something, it means you are required to do it.
  • It’s tempting to skip words you don’t quite understand. Don’t do it. If you’re confused about what a word means and can’t understand from the context, look the word up.
  • If the statute is one of a number you are studying, interpret it to be consistent with the other statutes if at all possible.
  • Interpret a statute so that it makes sense rather than lead to some absurd or improbable result.
  • Track down all cross-references to other statutes and sections and read those statutes and sections.

How to Make Sure a Law Is Up to Date

Once a statute becomes law, it seldom remains unchanged for very long. A future legislature may change (amend) or revoke (repeal) a statute for any number of reasons. Unfortunately, many online collections of statutes are not kept up to date. For one, the online U.S. Code is often a year behind — it takes a lot of time to work new federal legislation into the existing organizational framework. In this case, you can use Thomas, a Congressional website that provides both pending and recently enacted legislation, to find out if there have been any recent changes to the statute you’re interested in.

In addition, many state collections of statutes are not up to date, but the state website will usually tell you the year that the collection was last updated. In that case, you will have to search all the bills that have passed since the last time the statutes were updated. The text of these bills is available on your state legislature’s website, which is often linked from your state’s statutes.

Laws and Cases:

Image result for legal researchHow to Do Legal Research

DUI Plea Deals – CA4J Spotlight

DUI Plea Deals

sidestep mandatory

license loss


How Illinois drivers get away with DUIs

Joe Mahr and Ted Gregory,Tribune reporters
Lose your license for DUI? The law may say so, but many suburbs cut deals around it.

Illinois’ tough-sounding DUI statutes make one thing clear: Those arrested for drunken driving are almost guaranteed to lose their licenses for a time.

But in suburbs across the Chicago area, a Tribune analysis found a special plea deal is regularly cut that allows those arrested to weave around get-tough laws and remain behind the wheel.

That’s in stark contrast to laws that proclaim anyone arrested for drunken driving will not be able to drive for at least a month, typically followed by months of intensive supervision that include a breath-monitoring device on their vehicles.

Defense attorneys say the Tribune’s findings reflect a common-sense response by the courts to an overly harsh law, while advocates for tougher enforcement say the special deals reflect longtime concerns that some towns seem more interested in collecting fines than rehabilitating offenders.

“I don’t know what can be done,” said Rita Kreslin, executive director of the Schaumburg-based Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists. “We all know this is a moneymaker.”

When told of the Tribune’s findings, Secretary of State Jesse White said he would seek recommendations from his traffic safety advisory panel on how to better enforce the law.

The analysis showed the deal occurs across the state. But the data suggest that in metro Chicago drivers in DuPage County are most likely to be offered the deal. And within the county ground zero for the deal has been a middle-class enclave in the heart of suburbia: Bloomingdale, a west suburb known more for shopping malls than unusual courthouse tactics.

The Tribune studied 2011 misdemeanor DUI arrests — to best ensure cases had been completed in the courts. Records show the plea deal was regularly cut in Bloomingdale not just for first-time offenders barely over the legal alcohol limit, but also for those who crashed or were previously arrested for DUI. In case after case, they didn’t miss a single day behind the wheel.

One was Jorge Gamboa.

According to police reports, Gamboa rear-ended a car so hard in Bloomingdale that it flew across an intersection, injuring the other driver. Testing at nearly twice the legal alcohol limit, he insisted he wasn’t drunk.

Another was Lawrence Sbertoli.

He had pleaded guilty two years earlier to a DUI in Oak Brook before he tested at three times the legal limit in Bloomingdale, according to court and police records. On the way to the station, Sbertoli dropped a balled-up receipt in the back of the squad car that indicated he paid for 10 drinks that night, records state.

Also getting the deal was Frank Willis.

It was his third arrest in a decade, according to police and court records. Each time he refused testing, which is supposed to trigger an even longer suspension. Willis got a suspension after his second arrest in Mount Prospect. But he got no suspension for his third, in which Bloomingdale police said he nearly sideswiped a moving vehicle.

Another three-peater getting the deal was Joseph Zuccaro.

In his first DUI arrest, Zuccaro, then 20, crashed a new SUV into a light pole while being pursued by Glendale Heights police, according to records. He was arrested a second time at age 26 in Lombard before his third arrest in Bloomingdale at age 29. He refused breath tests all three times, flatly telling the latest duiofficer to question him: “Just go ahead and arrest me.”

Two of the drivers who spoke to the Tribune said they deserved the deal because they weren’t really drunk, but records show they agreed to deals that included hefty fines.

Bloomingdale is under a new mayor, Franco Coladipietro. He switched prosecutors after taking office in 2013 but said it had nothing to do with complaints the old prosecutor was too lenient.

Bloomingdale’s former prosecutor did not respond to requests for comment from the Tribune, but in the past defended the deals as better ways to ensure drivers get treatment and avoid repeat arrests.

Special prosecutors

The revelations come amid a decadeslong debate about just how much to punish drunken drivers — in a state with a rich history of get-tough legislation that contains enough fine print for arrestees to wiggle out of supposedly automatic penalties.

A cornerstone of the law is the automatic loss of a driver’s license even if you’re only arrested and not convicted.

To supporters of get-tough laws, the threat of losing a license provides a key incentive to keep many drivers sober. It also is a tangible punishment for those who drive drunk yet are cut breaks by what advocates often deride as notoriously lenient courts eager to cash in on lucrative DUI fines.

“I believe a driver’s license is a precious commodity,” said Cathy Stanley, an anti-DUI advocate whose daughter was killed in 2001 by a repeat drunken driver.

“If they’re not hit right away with a consequence, it’s so old it becomes meaningless,” added Stanley, who monitors the courts for the Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists. “We all need consequences, and it’s not in fines. It’s in losing that driver’s license.”

Critics, including many defense attorneys, counter that those arrested have a hard time being rehabilitated if they lose licenses they need to keep their jobs, drive to counseling and pay off fines. They bemoan get-tough laws that they say seem geared for politicians’ re-election brochures, not problem-solving.

“It became overly harsh, and not everybody fits that cookie-cutter mold,” said longtime Wheaton DUI defense attorney Don Ramsell, who said his office has handled more than 14,000 DUI cases. “You can’t excise human compassion. You can’t steal people’s souls.”

And some of those defense attorneys — because of the peculiarities of Illinois’ court system — also find themselves on the other side of the courtroom handling the prosecution for DUI cases.

Illinois allows many cities and villages to prosecute their own DUI cases and keep much of the fine money. Cities and villages typically hire part-time prosecutors, drawing applicants from the ranks of defense attorneys, many of whom have cut their teeth defending drivers arrested for DUI.

Critics say those defense attorneys-turned-prosecutors are more willing to cut the special deal in ways that stretch the boundaries of state law.

Dodging suspensions

It’s because of the unique way DUIs are prosecuted.

Just for testing over the legal alcohol limit or refusing testing, a driver can have his or her license suspended by the secretary of state. This “statutory summary suspension” is supposed to occur 46 days after an arrest, regardless of what’s going on in the criminal case.

635927041187205797-dui-posterSeparately, if the criminal case ends with a DUI conviction, that also sparks a license revocation, a sanction that requires greater effort for a driver to undo.

The suspension and revocation are supposed to complement each other to take drivers off the road for at least a month, and then bring them back with restrictions, such as breath-monitoring devices installed in their cars, before they get their full licenses back.

But there are ways to stay on the road. For the statutory suspension, the defendant can ask a judge to void the suspension but has to prove at a hearing that police somehow mishandled the arrest. Examples might include the police lacking a good reason to stop the driver or not offering the chance to take a test to prove sobriety.

The prosecutor, in theory, tries to show that the arrest was legitimate, and the judge is left to decide whether to toss the suspension.

But when the plea deal is cut, the prosecutor, in essence, lets the driver win the suspension hearing and keep his or her license. The law offers only a limited number of ways that can happen — a plea deal is not one of them. And yet the Tribune found that on many court forms someone justified letting the driver win by scribbling some version of the phrase “plea deal.”

The deal also ends the criminal case — and the chance of a revocation — with a finding that it wasn’t technically a DUI conviction. A driver is convicted of a lesser crime, such as reckless driving or improper lane usage. Or the driver can plead guilty to DUI but get sentenced to a special probation that doesn’t technically count as a conviction.

Either way, without a formal conviction for DUI, no license revocation is triggered.

The legal maneuvering often creates a head-turning set of documents in the court file.

Drivers will “win” the hearings on the summary suspension, implying they were wrongfully arrested, yet plead guilty to driving drunk. Then they’ll be sentenced in ways that carry hefty fines and fees — often $2,000 to $3,000 — but aren’t officially logged as DUI convictions.

Though the legal matrix can be confusing to follow, the end result is simple: no loss of license.

Towns that deal

The plea deal has been offered for years, prompting occasional public outrage from advocates and county officials. But the state hasn’t studied how often the deals are cut — or where.

In an effort to find out, the Tribune analyzed suspension and conviction data from the secretary of state’s office for those arrested in 2011, looking for the highest rates of drivers who kept their licenses.

In the Chicago area, that appeared to occur most often in DuPage County, according to the analysis.

The Tribune obtained court data from DuPage County to study where the deals were offered the most — scoring suburbs based on how often drivers left the courthouse without losing a day of driving.

Whether someone got the deal often depended on where he or she got the DUI.

In Burr Ridge, which straddles the Cook-DuPage border, only one of the 31 people arrested for DUI on the DuPage County side stayed on the roads uninterrupted after the arrest — for a rate of 3 percent.

But the town is one of 15 suburbs in DuPage County that haven’t hired their own prosecutors. Instead, the DuPage County state’s attorney’s office handles the cases, and — common of countywide prosecutors — they’re leery of offering the more generous deals.

That’s often not the case for towns that handle their own prosecutions.

Image result for back door dealsIn Wheaton, the 2011 figures show the deal was cut for 19 percent of those arrested for misdemeanor DUI.

It was cut for 22 percent of those arrested in Elmhurst.

And 23 percent in Naperville.

And 37 percent in Downers Grove.

And 50 percent in Bloomingdale.

Those numbers don’t count the times when a driver got the special deal after the summary suspension started. In those cases, drivers lost their licenses, but only for a few days or weeks until the deal was cut. Then everything returned to normal for their licenses, as if the DUI never happened.

Adding those cases to the mix, the rate of arrested DUI drivers who benefited sometimes doubled in suburbs, topping out at 76 percent in Bloomingdale.

`I don’t even drink’

That west suburb of 22,000 stands out among its peers for having a regional mall that anchors rows of big-box stores. But it also drew the ire of former DuPage County State’s Attorney Joseph Birkett, who told the Daily Herald in 2005 that the town was far too lenient in how it cut deals for those arrested for DUI.

Still, the plea deals continued — even to those previously arrested for DUI. In the 2011 cases studied by the Tribune, repeat arrestees were more likely than not to get the deal. Eighteen had their suspensions voided — most of them after refusing to be tested.

Records show the town made the prosecutor, Thomas Howard, file reports every month documenting how he handled DUI cases.

For some cases he said he cut the deal out of sympathy for the defendant, such as: “Gave 58-year-old woman chance to save job.” He didn’t note it was her second arrest in a year.

Other times, Howard complained of weak evidence, such as with Willis and Zuccaro. In both cases, he justified the deal by saying in his reports that there were no field sobriety tests or breath tests. He did not note that the tests weren’t given because both men refused to take them, according to police reports — a scenario envisioned under Illinois law that mandates at least a one-year license suspension.

Instead, court records show, the two men got the special deal that voided that suspension.

Willis and Zuccaro both told the Tribune they weren’t drunk the nights they were arrested by Bloomingdale.

Zuccaro said he simply didn’t “trust the computer” and that he “would never take a sobriety test. I don’t even drink. I’m a diabetic.”

Willis also said he’s never been drunk enough to merit arrest. That, he said, included his most recent arrest, 11 months ago, in Chicago’s Portage Park neighborhood. Police said they saw him stumbling out of a parked car, with its engine running, carrying a bottle of rum and smelling of alcohol, records show.

When an officer asked to test him, Willis responded: “I have had DUIs before and I ain’t doing any tests, officer. Nothing against you.”

DUI Plea Deals

Image result for chicago tribune

 sidestep mandatory license loss

CA4J Judicial Report


The Judiciary Report


. judge_5The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” – Edmund Burke

Justice is supposed to be blind. Judges aren’t supposed to be when it comes to justice. This site provides a stunning, candid look at the judiciary and why you may not get your day in court. When one thinks of court, one thinks of justice. The famous picture of the lady with the blindfold covering one eye – but that blind fold is starting to look more like an eye patch on a pirate, as many Americans and foreigners as well are being robbed of their day in court.

And to the ones who do actually get their day in court, their rights are being stepped on by judges willfully violating their oath of office. Justice is not being served in an astonishing number of cases, with verdicts leaving the public scratching their heads – and not because of dandruff.


There are good judges out there, but sadly there are quite a few bad ones as well. This site aims to take a look at the inequity in the justice system and how innocent people are being harmed by it. It should interest you, as if you meet in an accident, are robbed, scammed or abused in anyway, the court system is supposed to be one of your (legal) remedies and the very one that might inexcusably fail you the most.

It is apart of why some repeat offenders in both the civil and criminal circuits are so bold and arrogant in breaking the law, as they know they can buy off cases click here for more. After publishing this web site, look for me to be set up for something I didn’t do, harassed and jailed like Nelson Mandela. U.S. judges have done it to others like her click here.

THE BAD NEWSImage result for bad news

Good Judges That Buck The Trend…And Were Punished For It

Some judges in the judiciary showed they care about the average American by awarding in their favor when their rights were violated. However, they were punished for it. “Buying Justice” Justice C.P. (Chuck) McRae is adored by trial lawyers–and reviled by business. A colorful, cocky figure who drives a motorcycle to the courthouse and dresses in cowboy boots, blue jeans and lots of leather, he was once president of the Mississippi Trial Lawyers Association.

Nearly all of his $700,000 campaign fund in 2000 came in the form of $5,000 gifts from plaintiff attorneys who stand a chance of appearing before him. McRae says he is proud of “defending the have-nots against the haves for more than 11 years,” a populist sentiment that unsettles business execs. He was “the dominant force on the court and in line to be the next chief justice,” says Chip Reno, director of Stop Lawsuit Abuse, a local pro-business lobby click here.

Spotlight Case: Elsebeth Baumgartner – An Accomplished Citizens vs. The Corrupt Visiting Judge

Judge Richard Markus is openly violating the constitutional rights of citizen Elsebeth Baumgartner for simply exercising her right to free speech in a non-threatening, peaceful manner. The lengths this just has gone to is sickening and appalling and is another black eye on the Judiciary. Markus, if you’re going to be doing your level best to bringing about the incarceration of law abiding citizens, do the country a favor, stop visiting and go into full retirement click here.

Elisebeth Baumgartner Judge Richard “What Constitution?” Markus


Judge Richard Palumbo

The criminally negligent judge whose actions lead an innocent woman to be severely burned by her abusive husband, with a history of domestic violence, once Judge Palumbo, carelessly, arrogantly and dismissively released him from what was clearly a necessary restraining order. This story was featured on the Oprah Winfrey Show.

In my humble opinion, if your criminal negligence causes someone permanent damage, you should do jail time for that. Had he not been so arrogant and dismissive, not listening to the woman’s pleas, as was shown on tape, none of this would have happened. His conduct has profoundly and negatively affected Yvette Cade for the rest of her life.

He should have been held accountable in criminal court for his conduct, as it was 100% negligence with disastrous results. If someone, through criminal negligence, opened him or his family members up to such danger, he would be furious. For more click here

Judge Marcia Cooke (center) – the judge that doesn’t need to read a case or the evidence to make a ruling.

The most crooked judge in the entire judiciary. Appointed by George W. Bush, she has shown wanton negligence in several cases, that has been criticized by the public and professionals alike, in pieces that are available online. The newest judge in the downtown Miami federal courthouse, she has been given cases of serious importance that is making a negative impact on the county’s name and the court’s credibility in the world.

Her conduct, among others, is the subject of a forthcoming Sonustar film titled “Justice And Truth.” Thanks to this dirty judge, I got to see first hand, the sweeping corruption present in the U.S. judicial system, that in my opinion, is the most corrupt in the world, bar none. For more, click here

Marcia Cooke’s oversight on my case was Judge Stephen Brown, pictured above, who probably didn’t read the case either, before signing off on her thoroughly corrupt ruling.

Judge Thomas J. Maloney – “Judge With Criminal Connections,” was one of several judges and lawyers caught red handed taking bribes via the FBI sting, Operation Greylord. Judge Maloney took bribes and rigged murder cases. He easily qualifies as one of the worst judges in history click here

Judge James Henson – Judge advises client to flee the country to avoid manslaughter charges. With tactics like these, this judge could work for the mafia. Congress and the people install judges to see that justice is served and victims vindicated. How is a judge, still working in an advisory role as attorney, telling a client to flee rather than faces charges like a man, which would in effect deprive families of justice, in the malfeasance that transpired against the deceased, remotely virtuous conduct befitting a judge click here

paper-moneyJudge Jon Gordon

“God Bless The Child – Not If Jon Gordon Can Help It.” One of Miami’s most callous judges, who is so arrogant, dismissive and cold blooded, that the ruled against a sick child in favor of the wealthy corporation. This is a serious pattern with him, meaning the average U.S. citizen will not get justice in his courtroom.

However, if you are a young female lawyer and you flirt with him, he will shamelessly respond to your request, making a fool of himself. Yea, I’ve seen him do just that, then bark at other innocent people unprovoked, who he prejudicially made up his mind against from the jump. He has a sarcastic, nasty, mocking attitude fit for an ill-mannered scoundrel. Ebenezer Scrooge has a more pleasant disposition than this man. For more click here

Judges Caught Red Handed – Judge Victor Barron, Justice Gerald P Garson, Judge Thomas J Maloney. Who are they, you ask. Why, they are judges who took 6 figure bribes.

For Judge Victor Barron click here For Judge Gerald P Garsonclick here
For Judge Thomas J Maloney click here

The Masturbating Judge – Judge Donald “Penis Pump” Thompson got 4 years in prison for his freaky conduct in masturbating while presiding over cases that he clearly was not paying attention to. They found semen under his desk on the carpet click here

Judge Melissa Jackson“Hit her!” – Judge Melissa Jackson orders bailiff to pimp slap Foxy Brown, literally and further accuses her of not really being deaf, though medical science said she was. Does this judge work for the Judiciary…or the WWF. Her actions were described as racist by notable African American figures. For more click here.

Judge To Bailiff: “Hit Her!”

Foxy Brown cuffed and accused of not really being deaf.

Law theme, mallet of judge, wooden gavel

Judge Cecilia Altonaga – A judge consistently making decisions in contradiction to U.S. law to benefit big business and her family’s bank account, while trampling the rights of the innocent and downtrodden. For more click here

Judge Penfield Jackson – The judge who sought to punish Bill Gates for being rich and attempted to do so in violation of the judicial cannons governing judicial conduct. Further spoke to the press, conducting demeaning, malicious interviews against Gates click here

Judge Federico MorenoA friend of big business and not the American citizen whose taxes pay his salary click here

Judge William Turnoff – “Defendant Given Stocks Aren’t A Turnoff To Him.” A judge who on two known occasions ruled in favor of his stocks given to him by lawbreaking defendants, against innocent people. That constitutes a repeated, willful failure to disclose serious financial ties in legal cases, which is grounds for recusal and disciplinary action. Never mind he kept his corrupt mouth shut in favor of his stocks. For more click here

 Judge George GreerThe judge who sentenced Terri Schiavo to die. For more click here

FEATURED ARTICLE2,000,000 Americans in prison

The featured article is penned by the California based, American owned, Judicial Accountability. They did a stunning expose on the judicial system. Here are a few excerpts (for more go to ):

Rigged courts, bribed judges, phony trials, extortion by lawyers, and over 2 million prisoners in the USA gulag

Multi-millionaires and big corporations, vs. everybody else

The only people who really can expect some fairness in American courts are multi-millionaires and big corporations. Nobody else really matters to American judges and lawyers. There is a huge amount of bribery in America, perhaps even more than in the courts of any other country in the world. Even some American ex-judges have admitted the near-universality of bribery there. Nearly all bribes are given to the judges by lawyers; this is considered the safe way to bribe a judge.

Bribery is rarely spoken about, just understood. Rich people pay huge amounts of money to law firms with connections, the lawyers walk around with a certain amount of cash in their jacket, and they pass it to the judges in their quiet moments together. It is mostly all cash of course. Sometimes the bribery is blatantly obvious, because of the other crimes that lawyers and judges commit in broad daylight together. In the courtrooms you can see the judges being extremely friendly to their rich lawyer friends who pay big bribes.

CA4J Judicial Report


Outrage & Disappointment

Continue reading

Our Food, Government and You

Would Government

Allow Bad things

in Our Food?

Related image

One of the questions I get asked very often is, “The government wouldn’t allow bad things to be put in our food, would they?  Isn’t that what the FDA is for?!”

I think this is a very fair question!  After all, isn’t that what the original purpose of a government was?!  So let’s clear up this elephant in the room once and for all.  I’ll start with the words of former FDA commissioner Herbert Lay:

“The thing that bugs me is that people think the FDA is protecting them.  It isn’t.  What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day.”

The simple fact that the government allows cigarettes, a proven cause of lung cancer, for legal sale in America should say more than enough about the government’s lack of consideration for the health of its citizens.  There is not a single health benefit or purpose that can come from cigarettes.

To make matters worse, the same chemicals that got America charged with unethical war crimes during the Vietnam War are being sold to American people for use on their lawns.  The same chemically-treated green grass that children run barefoot through are treated with essentially the same chemicals used in Agent Orange.

I know, those aren’t food items.  So how about some food examples?

Have you ever heard about cyclamate? This artificial sweetener was deemed GRAS (generally recognized as safe–the standard used by the FDA to either allow or disallow products into the market) in 1958.  It was marketed to diabetics as an alternative sweetener and also offered as a tabletop sweetener.

Eight years later in 1966, a study revealed that this product could be chronically toxic.  Further studies in the following years proved that it contributed to or caused bladder cancer.  Consequently, it was taken off the market in 1969–11 years after it had been put into food and sold at grocery stores.

While the FDA eventually responded to those studies, this is not their normal way of operating.  For instance, hydrogenated oils are banned in other countries.  So is adding fluoride to drinking water.  And countries in Europe require that a special warning label be put on all foods containing artificial food dyes.  The warning must state that it can cause hyperactivity in some children.

Interestingly, all of these ingredients are allowed for use in food by the U.S. FDA.  (They are also some of the most toxic ingredients.)

And it doesn’t stop there.  The chemical sodium nitrites/nitrates is used in processed meats such as pepperoni, hot dogs, sausage, and lunchmeat.  Health Ranger Mike Adams says about this ingredient:

“Sodium nitrite is a dangerous, cancer-causing ingredient that has no place in the human food supply.”

The USDA actually tried to ban sodium nitrite in the 1970’s, but was preempted by the meat processing industry, which relies on the ingredient as a color fixer to make foods look more visually appealing. We now know a few things about this preservative:

  • People who consumed the most processed meats (hot dogs and sausage) showed a 67% increased risk of pancreatic cancer over those who consumed little or no meat products.
  • Leukemia also skyrockets by 700% following the consumption of hot dogs. (Preston-Martin, S. et al. “N-nitroso compounds and childhood brain tumors: A case-control study.” Cancer Res. 1982; 42:5240-5.)
  • Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have found that eating only one serving a day of processed meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats, was associated with a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes.
  • Pregnant mothers consuming nitrite meats increase their unborn child’s chances of having brain tumors increasing with the rate of consumption.(

When study after study revealed the high risk of leukemia and other cancers this preservative causes, what did the government do? Did they require its removal from our food supply?  Unfortunately no.  A discovery was made in 1970 that the addition of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) helps inhibit the formation of nitrosamines–cancerous chemical compounds.  As a result, the government requires 550 ppm of ascorbic acid be put into foods containing sodium nitrites.

So instead of requiring the cancerous ingredient to be removed, they simply required the addition of a vitamin to slow the cancer down.

But even those requirements are becoming lax.  Food manufacturers are also allowed to to use erythorbic acid, a cheaper version of ascorbic acid.  And for those food manufacturers who really care about their consumers health, they might also add vitamin E to further inhibit cancerous growth in consumers’ bodies as a result of eating their products.

Without citing the statistics and studies regarding the dangers of other things like MSG’s (which we’re currently covering on our Facebook page), hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrup, etc., I think it’s clear that horrible toxic chemicals are being allowed in our food supply. And in everything else. The government is fully aware of their dangers.

305979_10151314757822931_1921689739_n.jpg (618×325)

Unfortunately, the government does not value the health of its citizens over their profits.  When we also learn how they ban successful natural cancer cures and treatments in this country, we see further evidence to that effect.

(For more information on the legal drugs in America and how they also destroy our health for the sake of profit, check out my post In Medicine We Trust.

My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.” (Hosea 4:6)

If pursuing knowledge about how to take care of our bodies doesn’t appeal to us, then we can go on trusting the FDA. Ignorance is bliss, until it turns into cancer.

But I want to encourage you that it also isn’t necessary to do endless hours of research.  We can simply strive to get our diets back to God’s original plan outlined in Genesis 1:29:

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

Buy things that are grown–as much as possible. If it comes in a box, bottle, jar, plastic container, can, or any other packaging, the nourishment you’ll get from it is questionable.

The more food we buy in packaging, the more we’ll have to learn about ingredients. 

If we really want chips, canned soups, and other processed foods, we will have to learn to study labels.  If all the nutrition is heated out of it, then it will hinder your health even without dangerous chemicals.

However, if the food was recently alive, it will keep you alive and healthy.  You won’t have to read the list of ingredients, because there won’t be one!  Buy more produce.  Spend more of your money in the produce section and less in the middle aisles.  Shop farmer’s markets.  And plant a garden!

And for those who are finding this journey overwhelming, be encouraged that we will spare our children from this overwhelming task if we get back to the traditional way of life and teach it to our children!  Traditional societies spent every day teaching their children how to catch and grow their food, and how to get the most nutrition out of it.

Our Food, Government

Image result for toxic food

and You