It is the OPINION of this editor that gross criminal judicial misconduct has transpired against Mr. Noack.  However, that would all be for law enforcement investigators to determine, as well as (ahem) some court/s of law (-if an honest one can be found for it all).  While all parties are presumed inocent until proven guilty in a court of law, that is no different than for someone who commits a crime in public, seen by all, and is caught red-handed.  The documents seen plus the U.S. Constitution and various laws, legal precedents, etc.  all seem to paint a grim & unpleasant picture of our justice system. 

      Various parties seem to have violated moral law and their duties to society to such an extent I would consider it a problem involving moral turpitude.   I don't think it involves moral insanity, as the parties involved likely could not have attained their statuses in life without any moral compass.  I also don't think any intended to outright "vitiate" or nullify our Constitution.  Yet, they seemed willfully intent upon impairing or weakening our laws.  Their actions boldly removed justice so as to make the image of someone who, scornful of the law, twists and manipulates it to render what one wills to pass as judgment, with perfect prejudice.  

      Such persons tear down the law via "perverse verdicts".  However, perverse verdicts usually involve a jury not abiding by the law or stipulations of a judge.  What do we say, then, when even judges vomit the law & Constitution from their hearts, thinking nobody can touch them?  Isn't it called "fraud on the court"?  Look at the old adage: "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?"  Of course it does.  So, if there is fraud on the court and nobody is honest enough to admit it, did it really happen? - Same thing.   It looks like misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance -- all three!  Various officers of the court appear to have acted in ways they should not have, ignored their duty to act, and inappropriately acted with malevolence.

       In contemplating the legal Standards for "summary judgment" law, such things were nodded & winked at and then tossed out the window -- the same goes for the overall due process in Mr. Noack's labor claim as well as in his pro se lawsuit, as best I can tell.  With no employer affidavit nor a subpoena on record, although required, the EEOC has no legitimacy for closing the man's labor claim, yet did so without so much as asking questions of the employer's witnesses.  How is that?  Likewise, how do judges ignore utter proof that someone lied to a govt. agent, as if it means nothing in regards to the truth? 

      In regard to the lawsuit, the evidence and the PDF's of Noack's Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (shown on the first page of this website) seem to show outright felonious behavior - apparently criminal conduct and intent.  The things looming as improper seem not to have been accidents, in large part.  Honestly, there was so much done and so much overlooked that appears far from coincidental; and, after the plaintiff pleaded with the magistrate (and other judges) to not allow the use of false testimony against him, there remains no doubt as to the will & intellect being involved when they chose to do so anyway.  After all, the poor man did prove the testimony was untrue.  Why, I must wonder, are these people still walking our streets instead of being locked up in jail?  People get locked away for far less these days!

      Then, judges became criminal protectors, it seems, and America, through inaction, appears to condone it.  Are judge-made laws and judicial activism that rampant these days?  The criminal contempt practiced in our courts is becoming unbearable and is unvenerable.  There is a legal saying, "Judicia posteriora sunt in lege fortiora" -- that is, that the latter decisions are the stronger in law.  The courts repeatedly disregarded that and didn't even recognize Mr. Noack had a right to a more equitable burden of proof than they'd allowed (The Civil Rights Act of 1991 axed the old burden-sharing ploy of employers.)  Judges who ignore what has been the law for 20 years, while expecting to be called "Your Honor", should be expelled & jailed.  If the law is disagreeable to them, they should retire rather than breaking it via false decisions hastily enacted without a jury.

      The lack of justice is offensive - like walking into a smelly restroom.  Here, it seems far from a mere miscarriage of justice or "error of impunity" (in the opposite direction).  Rather, it looks & "smells" like in-your-face stubborn, determined error - challenging, unapologetic, and detrimental to Mr. Noack and society.  It is a willfully-rude, toxic fart in a crowded theatre and " 'sears' the nostrils"; yet, it was far more harmful.  Justice is supposed to enlighten.  Where is the outcry?  Where are the newscasters, politicians, pundits, and talk show hosts?  This tragedy is still more shameful to America due to being willfully overlooked -- like a hideous family secret.  Yet, it involves things highly cherished in the U.S.; that is, honesty, unwillingness to suffer oppression,  playing by the rules, integrity, the rule of law, justice, the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.  The arbitrary, willful, arrogant nullification of Mr. Noack's 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in which to plead his cause is heinous.  That deprivation fell from the tables of depraved courts where justice was under-valued in the judges' hearts & minds.  It bespeaks faithlessness and a broken trust.  How many will it happen to before such wrongs -- such SINS -- are corrected?


Okay, after the bad news about our U.S. judicial system, how about feasting on a fun little puzzle, maybe learning some new words along the way?  You can print it and share it, too -- kids or adults!  Hey, this can even be used in schools.  Just remember where you got it, okay? -- "Still Supremely Unjust"  or  http://StillSupremelyUnjust.Yolasite.com.  Have fun! 

 Judicial Corruption

 Word Search





                                             breach of covenant
                                             breach of duty
                                             criminal conspiracy
                                             criminal contempt
                                             criminal protector
                                             due process of law
                                             false representation
                                             false statment
                                             false swearing
                                             false verdict
                                             felonious intent
                                             fraud on the court
                                             fraudulent concealment
                                             judgment void on its face




               judicial activism
               judicial misconduct
               legal duty
               miscarriage of justice
               moral insanity
               moral law
               moral turpitude
               oath of office
               penal code
               perverse verdict
               suppressio falsi
               suppressio veri
               verdict contrary to law

Further Opinions & Musings

    What will be interesting in all these matters is to see how far the fall-out will reach.   Considering the apparent violations of federal and state laws, including evidently felonies, it will likely get ugly, sooner or later.  It won't all stay concealed, nice and tidy, forever.  Judges knowingly allowing - even using - false testimony to illegally and unconstitutionally deny a man his right to a jury will surely rile Americans.  The EEOC covering up for themselves, before that? The government is already swamped with scandals, plus politicians disquieting Americans about their 1st and 2nd amendment rights.  Now, there is a scandal about the 7th Amendment rights, too?  Yes, there will be a backlash, I think.

     A huge, famous and popular NPO submitting false testimony as evidence in a discrimination case, likewise, will irk many.  Who at the YMCA knew?  Who there knew their official testimony to the labor board also contained gross lies?  What else did they know?  It would seem prudent for any innocent parties at the YMCA to quickly contact appropriate law enforcement and give a statement, perhaps saving themselves when the hammer falls.  Why get "sent up the river" with everyone else, in this commentator's opinion?  

     Did YMCA legal counsel know the YMCA was using lies?  Who used whom, or did both know?  Since attorneys are officers of the court, if they knew the testimonies in court and to the labor investigator were false, they could also be prosecuted for something, it seems.  At some point, YMCA counsel did know, as records prove Mr. Noack did address the false affidavit testimony and as a matter of common legal course would have been required to provide similar documents to the YMCA or its legal counsel.  Did YMCA counsel officially disavow the false testimony to the magistrate and ask the court to take it off the record?  According to U.S. law about Misprision of Felony, negligance to do just that would appear to bring guilt upon that legal counsel, for not reporting felony crimes against the United States.   If YMCA counsel originally knew nothing of such crimes and were haplessly caught up in it, they will likely release a statement to that effect asking for leniency regarding their oversight and neglect in all the matters.   That could help avoid a fiasco upon themselves, their lawfirm and their profession. 


Make a free website with Yola