Politics and Prostitution; Professions Cut From the Same Cloth
By: Keith Allison
Under normal circumstances, Iâ€™m not one to ponder on the advisability of making additional amendments to the Law of the Land, our U.S. Constitution. However, with our politicians and judges becoming so openly corrupt and/or corruptible, that time might be nearer than any of us would prefer. Iâ€™m beginning to believe we need to pass a Constitutional Amendment limiting our federal legislators and judges to maybe 10 years in office before they get the boot. Also, after theyâ€™ve been booted from office, there should be no more government perks for them, or even any â€œretirement pay.â€ They need to get out and earn a living like the rest of the population must do, rather than just roosting about on some influential corporate board sucking up their ill gotten gains at the expense of the investors.
Take this current scandal with politician Weiner. The vast majority of our current stable of politicians are remaining ominously silent about his recent â€œphoto op.â€ Is that because they too have much to hide from their constituents, or is it because they see nothing wrong with his poor choices of where, when, and to whom he mails apparently â€œxâ€ rated pictures of himself. Or, is it because they too have been holding dalliances with women of the street rather than their own wives. Frankly, Iâ€™ve got more respect for the women of the street than I do for both federal and/or state politicians riding herd over our legislatures. At least those women donâ€™t attempt to conceal what their true occupation is, while our politicians and some judges act more like $20.00 street prostitutes than the proâ€™s do. From what Iâ€™ve seen, it appears to me that many of our less than illustrious legislators and judges hold off making decisions on important matters until such time as one party or the other in the debate has â€œmade their final offer.â€
One of my favorite targets among the corrupt judiciary is one U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart; that being due to his total lack of judicial or personal ethics; I factor personal ethics into the equation because it appears to me that when a judge loses his/her judicial ethics, their personal ethics had to have been the first victim of the swamp theyâ€™ve been wading through. And, once theyâ€™ve lost their all important ethical standards, what good are they on the bench; how can they be trusted to ever again make an unbiased or bought and paid for decision in any case brought before their bench.
In Robartâ€™s case, his was where I filed my first claim of Restraint of Trade and violations of denturists civil and/or constitutional Rights against the American Dental Association, et al. The defendants did not bother to respond to the lawsuit during the 21 day â€œgrace periodâ€ they have to respond to any lawsuit, so I filed for a â€œDefault Judgment,â€ but received no response from Robart. This went on for quite a while with me filing motions for Default Judgments due to the defendants failure/refusal to respond, all while Robart sat on the case sans any response from him also. Finally, attorneys for the defense filed an item stating â€œthere was no need for the defendants to file anything because â€˜the allegations were taken as admitted.â€™â€ To me, that was a clear admission of guilt on the part of the defendants. Because of this, I filed another Motion for Default Judgment; but, to my chagrin, Robart continued to sit on his back side until a few months later when I received a notice from his court that my lawsuit was â€œdenied with prejudice.â€
Can you imagine that? Here you have a seated federal judge with what amounts to an admission of guilt in his grubby little paws, and he dismisses the case with prejudice in order that it couldnâ€™t be re-filed.
I donâ€™t know how my readers look at the facts Iâ€™ve just laid before them, but to me, it appears that Robart might have held an auction with the defendants to see how high he could â€œbid upâ€ his decision on the case. Frankly, nothing else makes any sense to me as to why he would declare the defendants innocent when their counsel had already stated they were guilty as alleged.
As some literate wag once said, It Ainâ€™t Over Til The Fat Lady Sings!