Most Americans are aware that there are three branches in the U.S. Government – the Legislative, The Executive, and the Judiciary.
Those same Americans have also heard that the legislative and executive branches are completely and totally vulnerable to outside money powers and lobbying groups which actively seek to undercut the wishes and will of the average American voter by sponsoring and essentially “bribing” the two former named bodies of American government, in order to get what they want within U.S. domestic and foreign policy.
However, few Americans are able to grasp the concept that the American judiciary (federal, state and local) are also equally susceptible to this type of bribery, lobbying and institutionalized corruption through their “Achilles Heel” – the un-elected, un-appointed, and generally life serving court magistrates, law clerks, and administrative staff, that heavily populate and run the American judicial system.
These court officers and staff literally run amok in America’s courts, issuing decisions and deciding what happens to lawyers and litigants each and every day, with little to no scrutiny paid to them, their daily activities, who they know and talk to, and who they get bribed/paid by, in order to affect and influence case outcomes and decisions.
Nearly all of the 50 states in America have some type of Commission on Judicial Conduct, where supposedly average American citizens can file complaints against corrupt judges who routinely flout the law, violate administrative and judicial (substantive and procedural) due process, and who otherwise act and engage in conduct and behavior which smacks loudly of corruption, cronyism, and the fundamental deprivation of civil rights and liberties, all under the color of law and authority.
But these same state commissions on judicial conduct are notorious for routinely rubber stamping “form dismissal” letters of these citizen complaints, no matter how serious the allegations, or well-documented with tangible evidence of misconduct/evidence tampering/ obstruction of justice/denial of due process that they are, because these commissions will often state that they “do not have jurisdiction over magistrates, law clerks and court staff” because those individuals are “not judges,” and thereby fall out of the paradigm of what they were constituted by the American citizenry to address.
Herein lies the rub – and herein lies the secret “backdoor” for organized crime, foreign and domestic intelligence services, private investigators, criminals, and other organized (or disorganized) corrupting elements to do their dirty work.
Routinely, and seemingly daily, these out of control, unregulated, and unsupervised court magistrates, law clerks, and court administrative staff that infest our nation’s federal, state, local, family, civil, and criminal courts will:
(1) lose your motion papers;
(2) alter your motion papers;
(3) remove or tamper with evidence;
(4) write court decisions without the knowledge or permission of their judge bosses, and then get them signed off surreptitiously under the judge’s name;
(5) take money bribes, pecuniary promises, make side deals, and meet with people or individuals representing opposing sides in an illegal and unethical fashion, in order to affect or influence the case outcome;
(6) engage in improper and illicit sexual relationships with litigants, their children or family members, and lawyers to influence case decisions and outcomes;
(7) hide important information from judges;
(8) retaliate against disfavored or unpopular (or less monied) litigants/lawyers who complain about, or challenge, them;
(9) delay or derail court dates, proceedings, and hearings; and
(10) all in all completely undermine and pollute the third and arguably most important branch of the United States government, all under the watchful eye of the government.
Thus, it is no surprise when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (which has been accused of collaborating with these court-parasites under their outlawed COINTELPRO – now called COPS – program to target/retaliate against certain disfavored lawyers/litigants) routinely tell American citizen complainants that they can not investigate, or open up a complaint when obvious judicial corruption or misconduct exists, because they “quite simply have no jurisdiction over judges,” who are supposed to be nuetral and impartial arbiters of American justice, under the color of law and authority.
Similarly, other law enforcement and regulatory agencies of the U.S. Government also routinely tell American citizen complainants that there is “nothing that they can do” when confronted with these types of legal abuses emanating from the federal, state and local government in this third judicial branch, because again, “they do not have jurisdiction.”
Unfortunately today this means that well-funded and well organized criminal groups, organizations, movements, foreign and domestic intelligence agencies, terrorists, and other monied enemies of the American government and its people are also aware of this, and take full advantage of this weakness to exploit it for their own political and financial gain.
This is why horrific groups and organizations seem to keep getting away with their crimes in broad and open daylight, such as global and domestic child pornographers and pedophile child traffickers, illegal and illicit drug traffickers and narcotics purveyors, organized crime, terrorists, illegal arms/weapons traffickers and gun runners, illegal alien smuggling rings, “coyotes” and other human slave traffickers, and other well funded, billion dollar illegal entities.
The American people need to realize and recognize that organized judicial corruption and misconduct is indeed a multi-variate National Security risk and problem, as it helps judges avoid accountability and responsibility, and keeps the trillion dollar organized criminal, terrorist and espionage groups around the world in thriving and expanding business, all at the expense of the average American citizen, voter, and taxpayer.
And it is now high-time for this type of organized and institutionalized form of government corruption to end, and end now.
The American people need to demand that these un-elected, un-appointed, life-serving, and thoroughly corrupted court magistrates, law clerks and court administrative staff be subject to the same (if not more) scrutiny, regulation, discipline, supervision, and monitoring that their judge bosses seem to be put through, for the sake of the United States of America, and its national security and day to day integrity.
Wendy Sherman’s China visit takes a terrible for the US turn
US Deputy Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman, had high hopes for the meeting in China. At first, the Chinese side did not agree to hold the meeting at all. The reaction had obvious reasons: Antony Blinken’s fiasco in Alaska left the Chinese disrespected and visibly irritated. This is not why they travelled all the way.
So then the State Department had the idea of sending Wendy Sherman instead. The US government actually needs China more than China needs the US. Sherman was in China to actually prepare the ground for Biden and a meeting between the two presidents, expecting a red carpet roll for Biden as if it’s still the 2000s — the time when it didn’t matter how the US behaved. Things did not go as expected.
Instead of red carpet talk, Sherman heard Dua Lipa’s “I got new rules”.
That’s right — the Chinese side outlined three bottom lines warning the US to respect its system, development and sovereignty and territorial integrity. In other words, China wants to be left alone.
The bottom lines were not phrased as red lines. This was not a military conflict warning. This was China’s message that if any future dialogue was to take place, China needs to be left alone. China accused the US of creating an “imaginary enemy”. I have written about it before — the US is looking for a new Cold War but it doesn’t know how to start and the problem is that the other side actually holds all the cards.
That’s why the US relies on good old militarism with an expansion into the Indo-Pacific, while aligning everyone against China but expecting the red carpet and wanting all else in the financial and economic domains to stay the same. The problem is that the US can no longer sell this because there are no buyers. Europeans also don’t want to play along.
The headlines on the meeting in the US press are less flattering than usual. If the US is serious about China policy it has to be prepared to listen to much more of that in the future. And perhaps to, yes, sit down and be humble.
Why Jen Psaki is a well-masked Sean Spicer
When Sarah Huckabee Sanders showed up on the scene as White House Press Secretary, the reaction was that of relief. Finally — someone civil, normal, friendly. Jen Psaki’s entry this year was something similar. People were ready for someone well-spoken, well-mannered, even friendly as a much welcome change from the string of liars, brutes or simply disoriented people that the Trump Administration seemed to be lining up the press and communications team with on a rolling basis. After all, if the face of the White House couldn’t keep it together for at least five minutes in public, what did that say about the overall state of the White House behind the scenes?
But Psaki’s style is not what the American media and public perceive it to be. Her style is almost undetectable to the general American public to the point that it could look friendly and honest to the untrained eye or ear. Diplomatic or international organization circles are perhaps better suited to catch what’s behind the general mannerism. Jen Psaki is a well-masked Sean Spicer, but a Sean Spicer nevertheless. I actually think she will do much better than him in Dancing With The Stars. No, in fact, she will be fabulous at Dancing With The Stars once she gets replaced as White House Press Secretary.
So let’s take a closer look. I think what remains undetected by the general American media is veiled aggression and can easily pass as friendliness. Psaki recently asked a reporter who was inquiring about the Covid statistics at the White House why the reporter needed that information because Psaki simply didn’t have that. Behind the brisk tone was another undertone: the White House can’t be questioned, we are off limits. But it is not and that’s the point.
Earlier, right at the beginning in January, Psaki initially gave a pass to a member of her team when the Politico stunner reporter story broke out. The reporter was questioning conflict of interest matters, while the White House “stud” was convinced it was because he just didn’t chose her, cursing her and threatening her. Psaki sent him on holidays. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Psaki has a level of aggression that’s above average, yet she comes across as one of the most measured and reasonable White House Press Secretaries of the decade. And that’s under pressure. But being able to mask that level of deflection is actually not good for the media because the media wants answers. Style shouldn’t (excuse the pun) trump answers. And being able to get away smoothly with it doesn’t actually serve the public well. Like that time she just walked away like it’s not a big deal. It’s the style of “as long as I say thank you or excuse me politely anything goes”. But it doesn’t. And the American public will need answers to some questions very soon. Psaki won’t be able to deliver that and it would be a shame to give her a pass just because of style.
I think it’s time that we start seeing Psaki as a veiled Sean Spicer. And that Dancing with the Stars show — I hope that will still run despite Covid.
As Refugees Flee Central America, the Mexican Public Sours On Accepting Them
Authors: Isabel Eliassen, Alianna Casas, Timothy S. Rich*
In recent years, individuals from Central America’s Northern Triangle (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) have been forced out of their home countries by extreme poverty and gang violence. While initial expectations were that the Lopez Obrador administration would be more welcoming to migrants, policies have slowly mirrored those of his predecessor, and do not seem to have deterred refugees. COVID-19 led to a decrease in refugees arriving in Mexico, and many shelters in Mexico closed or have limited capacity due to social distancing restrictions. Now that the COVID-19 situation has changed, arrivals could increase again to the levels seen in late 2018 or 2019, with overcrowded refugee centers lacking in medical care as potential grounds for serious COVID-19 outbreaks.
Mexico increasingly shares a similar view as the US on this migration issue, seeking ways to detain or deport migrants rather than supporting or protecting them. For instance, Mexico’s National Immigration Institute has been conducting raids on freight trains to find and detain migrants. Public opinion likely shapes these policies. In the US, support for allowing migrants into the country appeared to increase slightly from 2018 to 2019, but no significant majority emerges. Meanwhile, Mexican public opinion increasingly exhibits anti-immigrant sentiments, declining considerably since 2018, with a 2019 Washington Post poll showing that 55% supported deporting Central Americans rather than providing temporary residence and a 2019 El Financiero poll finding 63% supportive of closing to border to curb migration.
New Data Shows the Mexican Public Unwelcoming
To gauge Mexican public opinion on refugees, we conducted an original web survey June 24-26 via Qualtrics, using quota sampling. We asked 625 respondents to evaluate the statement “Mexico should accept refugees fleeing from Central America” on a five-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. For visual clarity, we combined disagree and agree categories in the figure below.
Overall, a plurality (43.84%) opposed accepting refugees, with less than a third (30.08%) supportive. Broken down by party affiliation, we see similar results, with the largest opposition from the main conservative party PAN (52.90%) and lowest in the ruling party MORENA (41.58%). Broken down by gender, we find women slightly more supportive compared to men (32.60% vs. 27.04%), consistent with findings elsewhere and perhaps acknowledgment that women and children historically comprise a disproportionate amount of refugees. Regression analysis again finds PAN supporters to be less supportive than other respondents, although this distinction declines once controlling for gender, age, education and income, of which only age corresponded with a statistically significant decline in support. It is common for older individuals to oppose immigration due to generational changes in attitude, so this finding is not unexpected.
We also asked the question “On a 1-10 scale, with 1 being very negative and 10 very positive, how do you feel about the following countries?” Among countries listed were the sources of the Central American refugees, the three Northern Triangle countries. All three received similar average scores (Guatemala: 4.33, Honduras: 4.05, El Salvador: 4.01), higher than Venezuela (3.25), but lower than the two other countries rated (US: 7.71, China: 7.26) Yet, even after controlling for general views of the Central American countries, we find the public generally unsupportive of accepting refugees.
How Should Mexico Address the Refugee Crisis?
Towards the end of the Obama administration, aid and other efforts directed at resolving the push factors for migration in Central America, including decreasing violence and limiting corruption, appeared to have some success at reducing migration north. President Trump’s policies largely did not improve the situation, and President Biden has begun to reverse those policies and re-implement measures successful under Obama.
As discussed in a meeting between the Lopez Obrador administration and US Vice President Kamala Harris, Mexico could adopt similar aid policies, and decreasing the flow of migrants may make the Mexican public respond more positively to accepting migrants. Lopez Obrador committed to increased economic cooperation with Central America days into his term, with pledges of aid as well, but these efforts remain underdeveloped. Threats to cut aid expedite deportations only risks worsening the refugee crisis, while doing little to improve public opinion.
Increasingly, the number of family units from Guatemala and Honduras seeking asylum in Mexico, or the United States, represents a mass exodus from Central America’s Northern Triangle to flee insecurity. Combating issues such as extreme poverty and violence in Central American countries producing the mass exodus of refugees could alleviate the impact of the refugee crisis on Mexico. By alleviating the impact of the refugee crisis, refugees seeking asylum will be able to navigate immigration processes easier thus decreasing tension surrounding the influx of refugees.
Likewise, identifying the public’s security and economic concerns surrounding refugees and crafting a response should reduce opposition. A spokesperson for Vice President Harris stated that border enforcement was on the agenda during meetings with the Lopez Obrador administration, but the Mexican foreign minister reportedly stated that border security was not to be addressed at the meeting. Other than deporting migrants at a higher rate than the US, Mexico also signed an agreement with the US in June pledging money to improve opportunities for work in the Northern Triangle. Nonetheless, questions about whether this agreement will bring meaningful change remain pertinent in the light of a worsening crisis.
Our survey research shows little public interest in accepting refugees. Public sentiment is unlikely to change unless the Lopez Obrador administration finds ways to both build sympathy for the plights of refugees and address public concerns about a refugee crisis with no perceived end in sight. For example, research in the US finds public support for refugees is often higher when the emphasis is on women and children, and the Lopez Obrador administration could attempt to frame the crisis as helping specifically these groups who historically comprise most refugees. Likewise, coordinating efforts with the US and other countries may help portray to the public that the burden of refugee resettlement is being equitably shared rather than disproportionately placed on Mexico.
Facing a complex situation affecting multiple governments requires coordinated efforts and considerable resources to reach a long-term solution. Until then, the Central American refugee crisis will continue and public backlash in Mexico likely increase.
Isabel Eliassen is a 2021 Honors graduate of Western Kentucky University. She triple majored in International Affairs, Chinese, and Linguistics.
Alianna Casas is an Honors Undergraduate Researcher at Western Kentucky University, majoring in Business Economics, Political Science, and a participant in the Joint Undergraduate/Master’s Program in Applied Economics.
Timothy S. Rich is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Western Kentucky University and Director of the International Public Opinion Lab (IPOL). His research focuses on public opinion and electoral politics.
Funding for this survey was provided by the Mahurin Honors College at Western Kentucky University.
The Monetary Policy of Pakistan: SBP Maintains the Policy Rate
The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) announced its bi-monthly monetary policy yesterday, 27th July 2021. Pakistan’s Central bank retained the...
China and Russia’s infiltration of the American Jewish and Israeli lobbies
– First: The reasons for the registration of (Communist Lobbyists in the Middle East in the United States of America)...
Wendy Sherman’s China visit takes a terrible for the US turn
US Deputy Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman, had high hopes for the meeting in China. At first, the Chinese side...
4 Crucial Factors That Helps in Selecting the Ideal FX Expert Advisor
The forex market is increasingly expanding at a rapid pace with millions of active traders executing trades daily. The use...
Top 10 Reasons to Come Back to Tokyo
Rediscover Japan’s captivating capital with these top 10 experiences, curated by the Concierge team at Four Seasons. 1. Stay at...
Thoughts From the Frontline
“Hip/Hop, Trap. I would describe my music as different, unique, compared to what I hear in the music industry in...
Middle Eastern interventionism galore: Neither US nor Chinese policies alleviate
A recent analysis of Middle Eastern states’ interventionist policies suggests that misguided big power approaches have fueled a vicious cycle...
Economy3 days ago
US Economic Turmoil: The Paradox of Recovery and Inflation
South Asia2 days ago
Examining the impacts of Globalization: A Case study of Afghanistan
Environment2 days ago
No pathway to reach the Paris Agreement’s 1.5˚C goal without the G20
East Asia3 days ago
Quad Infrastructure Diplomacy: An Attempt to Resist the Belt and Road Initiative
Middle East3 days ago
The Russian bear in Lebanon
EU Politics3 days ago
Commission proposes draft mandate for negotiations on Gibraltar
Green Planet2 days ago
Floods in Europe, Turkey, China and India
Travel & Leisure3 days ago
Iran’s memories in Afghanistan: two sisters apart