App. No.
`
`N the 6upreme Court of the oniteb btatr5
`
`JOHN A. GENTRY, PETITIONER
`V.
`THE HONORABLE JOE H. THOMPSON, RESPONDENT
`
`ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
`
`MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, JUSTICE
`KENNEDY, JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE
`BREYER, JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, JUSTICE
`KAGAN, JUSTICE GORSUCH, AND ALL CLERKS ASSISTING THE
`AFORE LISTED JUSTICES OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO
`AFFIRM AND/OR EVIDENCE IMPARTIALITY
`
`JOHN A. GENTRY
`208 Navajo Court
`Goodlettsville, TN 37072
`(615) 351-2649
`john.a.gentry@comoast.net
`sui furls /Pro Se
`
`

`

`Table Of Contents
`
`Introduction..............................................................................................1
`Standard Of Review .................................................................................3
`Judicial And Attorney Misconduct Would Not Occur If Judicial
`Oversight Agencies And Federal Courts Were Functioning As
`Intended....................................................................................................4
`Brothers And Sisters Of The Robe ..........................................................8
`Membership In Fraternal Organizations Undermines The
`IntegrityOf The Court...........................................................................11
`Supreme Court Opinions Suggest Change In Due Process
`Enforcement............................................................................................14
`The Present Business Model Of The Legal Profession And
`Judiciary Is Not A Sustainable Business Model...................................18
`A New Aristocracy? ................................................................................28
`Alternative Motion To Affirm Impartiality And/Or Evidence
`Impartiality............................................................................................30
`CONCLUSION.......................................................................................31
`AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER .............................................................32
`
`Cases
`Browning v. Foltz, 837 F.2d 276, 279, 6th Cir. 1988.........................................4
`Caperton v. ATMassey Coal Co., Inc., 556 US 868, 129 S. Ct. 2252, 173
`L. Ed. 2d 1208 Supreme Court, 2009.......................................................... 14
`Exparte Young, 209 US 123, 28 S. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714 - Supreme
`Court, 1908....................................................................................................... 7
`Litekyv. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S. Ct. 11477, 127
`L.Ed.2d 474, 1994..........................................................................................28
`Mitch urn v. Foster, 407 US 225 - Supreme Court 1972.................................. 21
`re Murchison, 349 US 133, 75 S. Ct. 623, 99 L. Ed. 942 - Supreme
`Court, 1955 ................................................................................................. 4, 17
`United States v. Story, 716 F.2d 1088, 1091, 6th Cir. 1983..............................4
`
`11
`
`

`

`Withrow v. Larkin, 421 US 35, 95 S. Ct. 1456, 43 L. Ed. 2d
`712 - Supreme Court, 1975.............................................................................30
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1927................................................................................................27
`28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) ...........................................................................................3
`28 U.S.C. Section 455(a) ...........................................................................1, 3, 28
`42 U.S.C. § 1983................................................................................................21
`Other Authorities
`A Nation Under Lawyers, (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1995..........11
`FederalistNo. 43...............................................................................................28
`THE FRATERNITY, Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, (Paragon
`House, 2004).......................................................................................11, 17, 20
`Rules
`MD Tenn. Local Rule 16.01(b)(2)(a) .................................................................21
`Constitutional Provisions
`Article I § 9, U.S. Constitution.........................................................................28
`
`111
`
`

`

`I. Introduction
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a), Petitioner respectfully requests
`
`that CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, JUSTICE KENNEDY, JUSTICE
`
`THOMAS, JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE BREYER, JUSTICE ALITO,
`
`JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, JUSTICE KAGAN, JUSTICE GORSUCH, AND
`
`ALL CLERKS ASSISTING AFORE LISTED JUSTICES disqualify from these
`
`proceedings, due to faèts strongly suggesting personal bias in favor of the
`
`Defendants, or in the alternative, affirm and/or evidence their impartiality.
`
`Petitioner comes before this Honorable Court as a friend of the court,
`
`and humble patriot seeking to preserve the republican principles upon which
`
`our country was founded. Petitioner has repeatedly stated throughout
`
`proceedings that he wholeheartedly believes in our system of justice. Though
`
`this motion, Petitioner merely seeks to ensure fair and impartial proceedings.
`
`In light of recent events throughout the country, this Court should
`
`recognize the imperative of exercising this Court's supervisory power in this
`
`case to protect constitutionally protected rights. With each passing day, the
`
`need protect constitutionally protected rights becomes more apparent.
`
`Judges throughout the country are losing control of their courtrooms.
`
`Recently a sixteen -year-oldboy was shot and killed by a court officer during
`
`proceedings. Whether or not that court officer's actions were justified is
`
`1
`
`

`

`irrelevant; that state court judge clearly did not maintain control of his
`
`courtroom, resulting in the death of a young boy. Just a few months prior, the
`
`father of a litigant had a shoot out with a judge and court officer on the steps
`
`of a courthouse near Chicago. Judges now carry firearms for self-protection.
`
`Whatever the personal political opinion of the Justices of this Court, it
`
`must be recognized that THE PEOPLE have risen up against their government
`
`and elected a President from outside the political establishment. Clearly, THE
`
`PEOPLE are demanding change and a return the republican principles upon
`
`which our country was founded.
`
`The people of California are in open rebellion against their government
`
`and seek to throw off a "tyrannical" government that refuses to adhere to state
`
`and federal constitutions. In related case filed concurrently (Gentry v. TN Bd.
`
`Judicial Conduct, et al), Petitioner seeks reform of the State of Tennessee due
`
`to the fact that the state government now subjects its people to despotism.
`
`Social media groups have formed with memberships including tens of
`
`thousands of people from throughout the country who have suffered severe
`
`rights violations, all complaining of corruption in state and federal courts.
`
`The facts of this case are not disputed. The Respondent and state court
`
`judge openly conspired, to perpetrate federal crimes and violate
`
`constitutionally protected rights. In related case, (for 'which consolidation is
`
`2
`
`

`

`sought) The State of Tennessee does not provide any objective oversight of its
`
`legal professionals or judiciary thus endorsing corrupt conduct. The State of
`
`Tennessee has enacted laws repugnant to the U.S. Constitution, laws enacted
`
`with the single decipherable intent of corrupting due process, and subverting
`
`constitutionally protected rights. State court judges routinely rely on
`
`unsupported and perjurious testimony, resulting in wrongful denial of parental
`
`rights, deprivation of property, and violation of constitutionally guaranteed
`
`rights, and when, later proven perjurious, refuse to enforce perjury statutes.
`
`Intending no disrespect to this Honorable Court, Petitioner respectfully
`
`asserts these problems facing our country, have been exacerbated and
`
`permitted to propagate, due to the personal bias of this our highest Court and
`
`this Court's unwillingness to review cases questioning the integrity of our state
`
`court judges. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully asks each Justice, and their
`
`respective Clerks, to disqualify from these proceedings, or in the alternative,
`
`affirm and/or evidence their impartiality.
`
`II. Standard Of Review
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge
`
`of the United States shall disqualify in any proceeding in which their
`
`impartiality might reasonably be questioned: "Where he has a personal bias or
`
`prejudice concerning a party." [28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1)1. A federal judge is
`
`3
`
`

`

`required to recuse "only if a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts
`
`would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonable be questioned."
`
`United States v. Story, 716 F.2d 1088, 1091, 6th Cir. 1983, (quoting Trotter v.
`
`International Longshoreman's & Warehousemen's Union, 704 F.2d 1141, 1144
`
`(9th Cir. 1983)). This standard is not based "on the subjective view of a party."
`
`Browning v. Foltz, 837 F.2d 276, 279, 6th Cir. 1988. Prejudice or bias must be
`
`personal, or extrajudicial in order to justify recusal. Id 279. "A fair trial in a
`
`fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires
`
`an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always
`
`endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. re Murchison, 349
`
`US 133, 75 S. Ct. 623, 99 L. Ed. 942 - Supreme Court, 1955. (at 136)
`
`The (1) facts of this case, (2) public statements and opinions of Sup. Ct.
`
`Justices, (3) memberships in, and receipt of gifts from fraternal organizations
`
`to justices and/or their clerks, (4) active rebellion of Californians against their
`
`government, and (5) the unenforce ability of constitutionally guaranteed rights,
`
`all strongly suggest that the Justices of the Supreme Court and their Clerks
`
`possess a profound personal bias in favor of the Respondent in this case.
`
`III. Judicial And Attorney Misconduct Would Not Occur If Judicial
`Oversight Agencies And Federal Courts Were Functioning As Intended
`
`It is common sense reasoning that if the state judicial oversight agencies
`
`were functioning as intended and "as advertised"; rights and federal law
`
`

`

`violations such as those inflicted upon Petitioner would not occur. State court
`
`judges would not violate rights or perpetrate crimes under color of law, and in
`
`collusion with attorneys, except for the fact that they know they can do so with
`
`impunity. This argument cannot be defeated.
`
`By that same logic, if the federal district courts were functioning as
`
`intended and enforcing constitutionally guaranteed rights, hereto also our
`
`state courts would adhere to constitutional provisions. Instead, our federal
`
`courts deny due process in cases bringing suit against state court judges and
`
`legal professionals, and wrongfully dismiss these cases under false application
`
`'A
`
`of: res judicata, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, sovereign and/or judicial immunity.
`
`Continuing with this common-sense logic, the federal district courts
`
`would not be able to wrongfully dismiss cases against state court judges and
`
`legal professionals except for the fact that the district courts know their
`
`erroneous rulings will be upheld in federal circuit courts. See Appendix C,
`
`Petition for Writ Certiorari, filed concurrently, which is the Sixth Circuit
`
`ORDER dismissing suit against a state court judge in a case with undisputed
`
`facts evidencing rights violations and where only equitable relief was sought.
`
`Finally, and continuing with this simple and common-sense reasoning,
`
`the circuit courts would not render such erroneous rulings except for the fact
`
`5
`
`

`

`of knowing that this our highest court will not grant cert in cases of circuit
`
`court "error".
`
`These unfortunate facts render constitutionally guaranteed rights
`
`completely unenforceable causing great harm to individuals throughout the
`
`country as well as harm to the country as a whole. Our president has succinctly
`
`stated the effects of this harm in recent Executive Order as follows;
`
`Human rights abuse and corruption undermine the values that
`form an essential foundation of stable, secure, and functioning
`societies; have devastating impacts on individuals; weaken
`democratic institutions; degrade the rule of law; perpetuate
`violent conflicts; facilitate the activities of dangerous persons; and
`undermine economic markets. Executive Order Blocking the
`Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or
`Corruption, December 21, 2017
`
`These same harms described by our President are the same harms
`
`caused by rampant state court corruption and the federal courts' unwillingness
`
`to enforce constitutionally guaranteed rights.
`
`Petitioner recognizes the need to preserve public trust, and he
`
`empathizes with the Court's personal bias but respectfully asserts an
`
`unwillingness to enforce constitutionally guaranteed rights and erroneous
`
`abrogation of jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman or sovereign immunity
`
`doctrines amounts to treason to the Constitution according to early Supreme
`
`Court Opinion as follows:
`
`

`

`"It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it
`should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction
`if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid
`a measure because it approaches the confines of the
`Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With
`whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be
`attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have
`no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is
`given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the
`other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may
`occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them.
`All we can do is to exercise our best judgment, and
`conscientiously perform our duty." Ex parte Young, 209 US
`123, 28 S. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714- Supreme Court, 1908 (at
`143)
`Here before the Court is a case with undisputed facts evidenced in the
`
`record showing that constitutionally protected rights are no longer enforceable.
`
`How possibly can this Court deny cert except due to profound personal bias?
`
`Of course, it is in this Court's discretion whether or not to grant cert, but in a
`
`case such as this, such denial, according Justice Peckham in Ex parte Young,
`
`amounts to treason against the Constitution.
`
`When in terms of "The Court", or any other branch of Government is
`
`concerned, the first and foremost question when assigned an inherited
`
`emolument that begs to be answered is: "What do the words "Your Honor"
`
`mean to you? Do they simply imply a "Job Title", or do they mean "You're
`
`Honorable?" Petitioner respectfully trusts in the latter, as pertaining to this
`
`Honorable Court.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Again, Petitioner has no desire to bring the judiciary into disrepute and
`
`wholeheartedly believes in our system of justice. Petitioner has repeatedly
`
`sought humble redress only to be met with repeated injury. The fact Petitioner
`
`seeks review in this case, evidences his belief in our system of justice.
`
`It is plausible to consider that this Court has been insulated from these
`
`type cases due to the complexity of navigating the federal court system, and
`
`the fact that no member of the legal profession would provide representation
`
`in case like this. It is further plausible to consider, that this Court has
`
`remained insulated from these type cases based on "recommendations" of the
`
`Justices' Clerks.
`
`It is Petitioner's hope that through this motion, this Honorable Court
`
`will fairly consider whether such personal bias exists and whether such bias
`
`should be set aside to preserve the republican principles upon which our
`
`country was founded.
`
`IV. Brothers And Sisters Of The Robe
`
`In a New York Times article, it was reported, Justice Gorsuch made the
`
`statement: "it is incredibly disheartening to hear things that might undermine
`
`the credibility and the independence of the judiciary.", and that: "any criticism
`
`of his brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack or a criticism on everybody
`
`

`

`wearing the robe as a judge." Specifically, that article included the following
`
`report
`
`Mr. Sasse said on the Senate floor that Judge Gorsuch "got a
`little bit emotional, and he said that any attack or any
`criticism of his brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack or
`a criticism on everybody wearing the robe as a judge."
`
`"I think that's something that this body should be pretty
`excited to hear someone say who's been nominated to the high
`court," he added. "He said that it is incredibly disheartening
`to hear things that might undermine the credibility and the
`independence of the judiciary." New York Times, February 9,
`2017
`
`How possibly can Petitioner hope for fair and impartial consideration in
`
`a case such as this demanding enforcement of rights against a state court
`
`judge? A case where the facts are not disputed and well evidenced in the
`
`record? A case where a person wearing robes of justice violated rights and
`
`perpetrated crimes against Petitioner?
`
`Based on the above statement, and belief that: "any criticism of his
`
`brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack or a criticism on everybody wearing
`
`the robe as a judge.", such a Court would consider a case such as the one before
`
`the Court today, not only a personal attack or criticism, but an attack on the
`
`entire judiciary. It is perhaps that belief system and that unwillingness to
`
`accept criticism of the judiciary that places our republic in jeopardy.
`
`

`

`As stated above, Petitioner comes before this Court as a friend of "The
`
`Court", and in defense of the principles upon which our country was founded.
`
`"The Court" are the various state and federal entities comprised of fair and
`
`impartial persons who uphold the law, ensure justice is served, and render
`
`impartial decision based upon the rule of law and according to the principles
`
`provided for in our federal and state constitutions.
`
`"The Court" is not the bad actors who violate rights, perpetrate crimes
`
`under color of law, and render decision based on corrupt interests - those
`
`persons, despite the fact they may wear the robe of a judge, are not "The Court",
`
`they are merely "bad actors". It is those "bad actors" like the Respondent, who
`
`bring disrepute to the judiciary, not Petitioner.
`
`Considering this belief that "any criticism of his brothers and sisters of
`
`the robe is an attack or a criticism on everybody wearing the robe as a judge.",
`
`one can reasonably assume this is a fraternal code and belief held by all judges
`
`and justices who wear the robe. Although only Justice Gorsuch is alleged to
`
`have made this statement, one can reasonably assume this belief is universally
`
`held amongst the judiciary. Considering the facts of district court and circuit
`
`court proceedings, and wrongful dismissals, a reasonable person would agree
`
`this is a universally held belief amongst the judiciary.
`
`10
`
`

`

`V. Membership In Fraternal Organizations Undermines The Integrity Of
`The Court
`
`In his book, "THE FRATERNITY, Lawyers and Judges in Collusion,"
`
`Paragon House, 2004, endorsed by Senator John McCain and other legislators
`
`and dignitaries, The Honorable Judge John Fitzgerald Molloy tells us that the
`
`legal profession must change lest chaos consume our courts. This is such a
`
`profound and visionary passage in Judge Molloy's book that its requires
`
`reproduction in its entirety herein as follows;
`
`But, caution! If we are to move away from the potentially fatal
`favoritism that the Fraternity has achieved for itself, it will
`require delicate tailoring because the present system is still
`working - and, in some respects, well. But, change course we
`must, for we are on the "edge of chaos," as an objective
`observer of this system has concluded.'
`
`Changing course does not necessarily mean throwing away a
`precious baby with the bathwater. There is great good in parts
`of our system - proven by our standard of living and freedom
`from tyranny, oppression, and discrimination. But the legal
`system that achieved this is simply not the same legal system
`that we have today, as it has been massaged to the benefit of
`the few - the Fraternity.
`
`Changes as fundamental as now needed should be achieved in
`increments, keeping always to the twin objectives of providing
`a judicial system that will effectively reveal the truth and that
`will discourage forces that are anti-social, i.e., discourage
`burglary, rape, murder, etc. And it is in this category of the
`"anti - social" that the dominance of our society by the
`Fraternity should be placed.
`
`1 Quoting from Mary Ann Glendon's A Nation Under Lawyers, (New York Farrar, Straus &
`Giroux, 1995), p. 285
`
`11
`
`

`

`This means that every opportunity should be taken to sever
`the Fraternity into its two constituent parts - lawyers and
`judges - so as to deprecate the awesome strength that it
`obtains by having the bench and the bar as one fraternal
`organization. This separation should take place in as many
`ways as possible and whenever possible.
`The Fraternity "Lawyers and Judges in Collusion " p. 227-228
`
`The unfortunate circumstances our nation presently faces, proves we
`
`are no longer on the "edge of chaos" - our courts are now in a "state of chaos"
`
`• A young boy is shot and killed during state court proceedings and shoot-
`outs are occurring in and outside courthouses across the country.
`• Obvious perjurious testimony is routinely used as basis of decision, and
`when perjury is proven false, perjury statutes are not enforced.
`• State court judges openly conspire to violate rights and perpetrate
`crimes with impunity.
`• States have enacted statutes repugnant to the Constitution and with the
`single decipherable intent of protecting corruption.
`• Constitutionally protected rights are not enforceable even when only
`seeking equitable relief.
`• Since constitutionally protected rights are not enforceable, THE
`PEOPLE are subjected to despotism.
`• The people of California are in open rebellion against their state
`government and are seeking to form a new state government.
`• Attorneys conspire against their own clients as occurred in this case.
`
`Clearly this country is in dire need of this Court to exercise its
`
`supervisory power and put us back on track to reinstitute the principles upon
`
`which this country was founded.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Unfortunately, members of this Court and the Clerks who assist the
`
`Justices, appear to have a Conflict of Interest suggesting an appearance of loss
`
`of impartiality. Petitioner respectfully refers the Court to its own docket Case
`
`No. 17-256 in which that Petitioner has also requested Justices of this Court
`
`to recuse.
`
`In that Petitioner's Request For Recusal, she has evidenced an
`
`appearance that the Supreme Court Clerk's Office has interfered with judicial
`
`proceedings by denying entry into the record. This Petitioner is not surprised
`
`as he has experienced much the same interference, by the Sixth Circuit's
`
`Clerk's Office. See closely related Sixth Circuit Case No. 17-6171, Second
`
`Motion For Circuit Court Judges: Batchelder And Cook To Recuse Or
`
`Disqualify, DktEntry 29.
`
`In Case No. 17-256, that Petitioners Request For Recusal, has also
`
`evidenced a financial relationship between members of this Court and their
`
`Clerks with the American Inn Of Courts. Where The Honorable Judge John
`
`Fitzgerald Molloy tells us: "This separation (of judges and lawyers) should take
`
`place in as many ways as possible and whenever possible", conversely, the
`
`mission of the American Inn Of Courts is exactly the opposite, and draws
`
`judges and lawyers together "to improve the law." Clearly the financial
`
`relationship between this Court and the American Inn of Courts draws into
`
`13
`
`

`

`question whether or not this Court can fairly and impartially consider this
`
`case. Out of respect for the members of this Court, Petitioner will not belabor
`
`this concern, but surely any reasonable person should have prudent concern.
`
`VI. Supreme Court Opinions Suggest Change In Due Process Enforcement
`
`In the case Caperton v. ATMassey Coal Co., Inc., 556 US 868, 129 S. Ct.
`
`2252, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1208 - Supreme Court, 2009, Chief Justice Roberts stated
`
`in dissenting opinion: "The end result will do far more to erode public
`
`confidence in judicial impartiality than an isolated failure to recuse in a
`
`particular case." (at 2267).
`
`Intending no disrespect, this statement by Chief Justice Roberts
`
`suggests that "public confidence" is more important than justice, and it is
`
`better to preserve public trust than to reverse the decision of a biased judge.
`
`Petitioner respectfully suggests Chief Justice Roberts has been too long
`
`removed and/or too insulated from what is happening in our state courts.
`
`Failure of obviously biased judges are no longer "isolated failure".
`
`Denial of recusal is common occurrence forcing litigants to try their cases
`
`before judges who are bent on abrogating rights and perpetrating crimes under
`
`color of law. It is exactly this type of thinking in our highest Court, that has
`
`exacerbated the problem of rampant corruption in state courts.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Justice Roberts further stated: "We have thus identified
`
`only two situations in which the Due Process Clause requires disqualification
`
`of a judge. when the judge has a financial interest in the outcome of the case,
`
`and when the judge is presiding over certain types of criminal contempt
`
`proceedings." (id at 2268).
`
`This statement that due process requires disqualification in only two
`
`instances is contrary to the intent of congress's enactment of 28 U.S.C. §
`
`455(b)(1) which requires disqualification "Where he (or she) has a personal bias
`
`or prejudice concerning a party..."
`
`Chief Justice Roberts concluded his dissenting opinion in the Caperton
`
`case with the following statement:
`
`It is an old cliché, but sometimes the cure is worse than the
`disease. I am sure there are cases where a "probability of bias"
`should lead the prudent judge to step aside, but the judge fails
`to do so. Maybe this is one of them. But I believe that opening
`the door to recusàl claims under the Due Process Clause, for
`an amorphous "probability of bias," will itself bring our
`judicial system into undeserved disrepute, and diminish the
`confidence of the American people in the fairness and integrity
`of their courts. I hope I am wrong. (id at 2274)
`
`This statement that "opening the door" will bring our judicial system
`
`into "undeserved disrepute" turns a blind eye to the rampant corruption
`
`occurring in state court proceedings. In this case, Petitioner has repeatedly
`
`asked state court and federal court judges to recuse with each request denied
`
`15
`
`

`

`so as to subject him to further rights violations and federal crimes. Again, the
`
`facts of this case are not contested and are well evidenced in the record. Again,
`
`this would not happen if state oversight agencies and federal courts were
`
`functioning as intended.
`
`Petitioner refers this Court to Auditor's Compilation Report, D. Ct. Dkt.
`
`Case No. 3:16-cv-02617, DktEntry 90-1, PagelD #1927-2081, which is an
`
`analysis of eighteen states' Annual Reports of various state judicial oversight
`
`agencies. This report proves that the various states receive thousands of
`
`complaints against judges and dismiss 100% of those complaints filed by non-
`
`legal professionals. This analysis is not a statistical analysis, it is matter of
`
`basic addition and subtraction proving the states provide no oversight of their
`
`judiciary based on their own reporting.
`
`Petitioner invites the Court to review social media sites such as the
`
`Judicial Accountability Mvt. at https://www.facebook.com/groups/3*am20l6/, or
`
`Estranged Parents at https://www.facebook.com/groups/940766166013314/
`
`with thousands of members. THE PEOPLE are suffering great harm because
`
`we no long have means to enforce our rights and we are being subjected to
`
`"mock trials" held before biased judges who render decision based upon corrupt
`
`interests.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Further in the Caperton opinion, Justice Scalia echoed Chief Justice
`
`Roberts sentiments and stated:
`
`The decision will have the opposite effect. What above all else
`is eroding public confidence in the Nation's judicial system is
`the perception that litigation is just a game, that the party
`with the most resourceful lawyer can play it to win, that our
`seemingly interminable legal proceedings are wonderfully
`self-perpetuating but incapable of delivering real-world
`justice. (Id at 2274)
`
`Undoubtedly. The relevant question, however, is whether we
`do more good than harm by seeking to correct this
`imperfection through expansion of our constitutional mandate
`in a manner ungoverned by any discernable rule. The answer
`is obvious. (Id at 2275)
`
`In his book, "THE FRATERNITY, Lawyers and Judges in Collusion",
`
`endorsed by Senator McCain, The Honorable Judge John Fitzgerald Molloy
`
`tells us Justice Scalia's concern is exactly what our courts have transformed
`
`into
`
`"The unique symbiotic relationship between bench and bar
`has resulted in making a game of our trials, a game played by
`clever and expensive lawyers whose skills in technical rules
`and in salesmanship control the outcome. Today's judges do
`not interfere with the games lawyers play."
`As the years have progressed, the judiciary has taken more
`and more of a passive role during the taking of evidence,
`Judges now almost never ask questions in trials because the
`Fraternity frowns upon such aggressiveness judges are
`expected to be content in their function as umpires at contests
`of skill between lawyers. at p. 14
`
`17
`
`

`

`Contrary to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia's sentiments, in the
`
`case, re Murchison, 349 US 133, 75 S. Ct. 623, 99 L. Ed. 942 - Supreme
`
`Court, 1955, Justice Black stated:
`
`A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due
`process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias
`in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always
`endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To
`this end no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is
`permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.
`That interest cannot be defined with precision. Circumstances
`and relationships must be considered. This Court has said,
`however, that "every procedure which would offer a possible
`temptation to the average man as a judge . . . not to hold the
`balance nice, clear and true between the State and the
`accused, denies the latter due process of
`law." Tumeyv. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510, 532. Such a stringent rule
`may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias
`and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice
`equally between contending parties. But to perform its high
`function in the best way "justice must satisfy the appearance
`of justice." Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S. 11, 14.
`
`These earlier Supreme Court opinions compared to the more recent
`
`opinions suggest a shift of opinion about the essential elements of due process.
`
`VII. The Present Business Model Of The Legal Profession And Judiciary Is
`Not A Sustainable Business Model
`
`Petitioner would have this court know, he empathizes with the personal
`
`bias of this Court as it is necessary to preserve the public trust in the judiciary.
`
`However, such personal bias must be made with deference to the constitution
`
`and preservation of the principles upon which our country was founded.
`
`IN
`
`

`

`It is likely the Justices of this Honorable Court have never presided over
`
`domestic issues such as the one that gave rise to this case. It is also likely
`
`Justices of this Court have been long removed from the trial courts. Under
`
`these assumptions, it is improbable that the Justices of this Court can know
`
`the profound and far reaching consequences of corrupted state court
`
`proceedings. In Petitioner's Motion To Expedite Initial Hearing En Banc, filed
`
`in the 6th Cir. Case No. 17-6171, Petitioner stated as follows:
`
`As stated by Mr. Gentry in his complaint, "The conduct of
`the State through its agencies, agents and arms of the state is no
`different than a law enforcement officer watching a gang rape