The Institute for Tsunamic Justice


August 15, 2011


Kwasi Seitu, Director

1855 3rd St. NW

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 538-3792



United States House Judiciary Committee*

A Report and Demand to the House Judiciary Committee for Immediate Action


Justice Denied: the Routine Violation of Human Rights by Federal Judges

William Gladstone, a 19th century British politician is credited with the phrase “Justice delayed is justice denied,” which Thurgood Marshall appended to America’s response to the rightful demand for the end of “de jure segregation.” By definition there is absolutely no substantive difference between what was called “de jure segregation” and “apartheid,” accept for the fact that one was practiced by the United States and the other by the former regime of the Union of South Africa. Yet, in 1973 “apartheid” was declared a crime under the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, to which the United States became a signature. Under Article II of the Convention the crime of apartheid includes “similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination … for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” Ironically, the U.S. as a signature to the convention was the first, and to this day remains a, apartheid state.


* Congressman Trey Gowdy must be recused and should be suspended not only from the Committee, but from Congress as a principal participant in crimes set forth herein. 


The Institute for Tsunamic Justice is a grassroots Human rights advocacy group and we have engaged in the long-tern investigation and exposing of the continuation of institutional racism in America, including within this Congress. This report is designed to serve that purpose, as well as to report on the findings of our investigation of the judicial branch, to which it has already established irrefutable proof that the courts is not the only place where “Jim Crow” lives. This report is a resubmission of similar reports to this Body in 2003 and again in 2008, to which absolutely no response has ever been given by any member of the Committee, past or present, including not one single black member. Indeed, we have found that even the staffers of the black members work entirely to suppress and prevent the raising of this most serious problem, being even more obstructionist than the offenders of black, brown, and red people are themselves. This “gatekeeping” by blacks is merely a testament to the strength and presence of “Jim Crow” in Congress, and the lie that America has somehow become post-racial or post-racist.

No where within the U.S. government does policies of racial segregation and discrimination persist more than within the judiciary, particularly the federal judiciary. There, for black, brown, and red people the problem is not one of “justice delayed,” it is the constant denial of justice, which is then called “justice.” This report shows that routinely members of the federal judiciary openly engage in the denial of the right to life and liberty, by condoning police murders of black, brown, and red people. The judges routinely inflict and uphold the infliction on non-whites serious bodily or mental harm through the infringement of their freedom and dignity, including subjecting them to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including torture. Far too many federal judges engage in the obstruction and denial of due judicial process in order to support or facilitate arbitrary arrests and illegal imprisonments of non-whites, completely voiding habeas corpus. Many members of the U.S. judiciary operate in violation of the first dozen articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in so doing, operate in violation of the United States constitution as well as its laws.

According to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination , the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” The following is a list of federal judges whom are guilty of violating domestic and international law, not once or twice, but routinely: 


1. Patrick Duffy, Judge, U. S. District Court of South Carolina - (appointed by William J. Clinton)

2. Terry Wooten, Judge, U. S. District Court of South Carolina – (appointed by George W. Bush) 

3. Hugh Lawson, Judge, U. S. District Court, M.D. of Georgia – (appointed by William J. Clinton)

4. George Ernest Tidwell, Judge, U. S. District Court, N.D. of Georgia – (appointed by Jimmy Carter)

5. Robert Vining, Judge, U. S. District Court, N.D. of Georgia – (appointed by Jimmy Carter)

6. Stephen V. Wilson, Judge, U. S. District Court, C.D. of California – (appointed by Ronald Reagan)

7. Liam O’Grady, Judge, U. S. District Court, E.D. of Virginia – (appointed by George W. Bush)

8. Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals – (appointed by Ronald Reagan)

9. Chief Judge James L. Edmondson, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals – (appointed by Ronald Reagan)

10. Chief Judge Alex Kosinski, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -   (appointed by Ronald Reagan)


There are numerous others that we could specifically name in this report in Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. At some point their names too will be published, but for now the above-named federal judges are perhaps amongst the worst and need to made examples. Let the House Judiciary Committee do its lawful duty of oversight in this matter reflecting the commission of specific high crimes and misdemeanors by these federal judges. Let this Congress address the total dangerous inadequacy and total absurdity of allowing the judiciary to police itself as provided by the Judicial Council and Judicial Conference system. There can be no disputing that conduct or acts committed by federal judges that are “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” is considered as misconduct, for which a judge can and should be impeached as a matter of public interest. Even more so, when federal judges act contrary to well established law with the intent or impact of obstructing the administration of the law, to thwart the due administration of the prescribed business of the courts, those judges are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors under domestic and international law.


Let it be clear that this Congress is not called upon to intervene in any “judicial” action or decision, denial of the due process of law in order to deny persons of the First Amendment right of access to the courts and to petition for redress of grievance are not “judicial,” but is the denial of Human rights. Allowing the judiciary to define what is “judicial” is like allowing criminals to define what is crime, Congress can and must affix a definition of “judicial” into law. The Founders of this nation provided for the impeachment of judges and other officials who violate the law or who fall below the standard set forth in the Constitution, thus, judges can be impeached for misconduct or gross incompetence. And impeachment is intended to protect the fundamental principle that “the consent of the governed to be governed (We the People)” is based on the promise and guarantee that those entrusted with the power of public office will not abuse that trust and that when this is done, the government will move to impeach and correct as a matter of duty to the governed. The Constitution does not guarantee a federal judge his position for life, but only for the duration of “good behavior” under Article III, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution.


The following recitals reflect a pattern, particularly in habeas corpus matters, of federal judges and magistrates engaging in the deliberate obstruction of access to courts of law or otherwise, obstructing justice and the violating Human Rights. These are not matters of “erroneous judicial decisions or acts,” but of wide-spread criminality requiring impeachment and prosecution, to wit:


The Impeachable  Liam O’Grady: the Case of Mwando Amerson

When Virginia governor Robert McDonnell was the attorney general for the state, his office began the practice of applying to the state courts for the civil commitment of any person charged with any sexual offense, contending that state code §37.2-900 allowed for such. However, that code concerns itself only with “Sexually Violent Predators,” which clearly sets forth in its defining paragraph that in order for a person to be subjected to civil commitment as a “Sexually Violent Predator,” they must be a "Defendant… charged with a sexually violent offense who is deemed to be an unrestorably incompetent…” and the statute then specifies eleven “sexually violent offense(s).”


Mawondo Amerson is a young man who in 1999, was poorly advised by counsel to plead guilty to a minor and baseless charge of “Attempted Rape,” where upon he was sentenced to five-years in prison. The judge thought so little of the case that he suspended all but nine-months, which Amerson served and was released, but caught another minor charge just over a year later resulting in the revocation of the remainder of his probation. The same year that Amerson was to complete the sentence the remainder of the sentence, §37.2-900 came into effect and the Commonwealth attorney filed to a court to issue a hold on Amerson as a “Sexually Violent Predator.”

In 2011, Amerson, with the assistance of an independent law advocate, filed for the writ of habeas corpus to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The petition was assigned to U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady, an appointee of George W. Bush and a former Commonwealth Attorney for the state of Virginia. Immediately, without issuing process, O’Grady rejected the application on the basis that it should have been filed as a 28 U.S.C. §2254 habeas petition, rather than one seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. §2241, directing that the petition be filed on that basis or not at all.

Amerson then sent to Judge O’Grady a request for Judicial Notice pointing out the fact that he is not detained pursuant to a state court judgment, that he is not attacking a conviction and he is not serving a sentence. The notice clearly and plainly informed Judge O’Grady that the Commonwealth was holding him based on a law that did not apply to him, as evidenced prima facie by the statute and the offense with which he was charged. Judge O’Grady responded with a summary denial of the Judicial Notice, but without addressing the content of it, and reiterated his initial command.

There are substantial jurisdictional and procedural differences between habeas corpus under 28 USC §2241 and 28 USC §2254, with the former designed to address illegal detentions and the latter to test the constitutionality of state court convictions. In this regard there is substantial difference with regard to process in terms of length and the course of inquiry by the federal court. In the case of an illegal detention 28 USC §2241-42 provides for a process that is not to exceed twenty (20) days, while  28 USC §2254 has no such limitation due to the more involved nature of the federal court inquiry that is also couched in the “presumption of correctness” of the state court judgment. In the latter case, the burden of proof is on the petitioner, whereas in the former the burden is on the entity or person holding the petitioner.

 Under the law governing the administration of habeas corpus, Judge O’Grady had no authority to summarily reject the application merely because he believed that it set forth grounds for relief under another section of the law rather than the one cited within it. Federal judges are required to construe pro se petitions liberally to allow for the development of potentially meritorious claims (if not evident), see: Hugh v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (1980); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972). However, in this case there was no need for Judge O’Grady to have sought to develop any claim, the application was well prepared and plainly set forth the issues. O’Grady was also required by law to assume the allegations of the application as true and issue process in accordingly, even if he thought that the citation of 28 USC §2241 as its basis to be incorrect. See Fine v. New York City, 529 F.2d 70 (1975); Escalera v. N.Y.C. Housing Authority, 425 F.2d 853, 857 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 853, 91 S. Ct. 54, 27 L.Ed.2d 91 (1970).

Judge O’Grady has told Amerson that he file as a person attacking a state court judgment, or that he will not be allowed to file at all, thus violating his Constitutional and Human rights of access to the courts to seek redress. Amerson cannot and will not file as a “state court prisoner,” for he is not and to do so would undermine the purpose of the writ. Resort to appellate review is inapplicable except by way of a writ of mandamus, which is inadequate to address judicial misconduct of this nature and not within the ability of the average person to pursue. Wherefore, grounds exist for the immediate impeachment and removal of Liam O’Grady for obstructing justice and the free exercise of civil, constitutional, and Human rights.


The Impeachable of Stephen V. Wilson: the Case of Sean Patrick Mitchell

In 2010, an application for the writ of habeas corpus was made to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of Sean Patrick Mitchell. The application was then assigned to U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson, another appointee of George W. Bush, who summarily refused to process the application on the basis that it was filed on behalf of another by a “non-lawyer.” Stephen Wilson claimed that a person filing for the writ on behalf of another not only had to be a lawyer, but that they also had to be a lawyer barred in the state where the petition was made and had to obtain a “next friend” status from the court.

The application was made on behalf of Sean Patrick Mitchell due to the fact that he has the severest form of Marie Shark-Tooth Syndrome, or what is commonly understood as Muscular Sclerosis. In 1997, Sean Mitchell was sentenced to over 1,800-years as a supposed serial rapist not only in clear disregard of his physical incapacity, but in total absence of even a shred of identification and other forensic evidence. Although Mitchell was charged with kidnapping and raping nineteen women, it was found through an independent investigation commenced in 2005, that at least 14 of the alleged victims were never raped and that the prosecution concealed this information from the defense. And in the few cases where there was material for DNA testing, the test results excluded Mitchell and were destroyed by the prosecution.

The whole case against Mitchell stemmed from what came to be publically known as the “Ramparts Scandal,” which focused public attention on widespread criminal conduct by the LAPD and by implication, by Los Angeles prosecutor Gil Garcetti and the L.A. county judiciary. Mitchell was subjected to a single trial on all nineteen cases even though there was no nexus between them, no evidence of any sort, and in disregard of Mitchell’s severe disability. In addition to permitting the binding of the cases in a single trial, the destruction of evidence, the denial of a defense investigator, and the removal of experienced counsel; the trial judge also refused to allow the jury to see that Mitchell was disabled. The judge had Mitchell brought in and seated in the courtroom before bringing in the jury, even taking his walker and hiding it behind the bench, then forbidding Mitchell from even attempting to stand in front of the jury.

When the petition for habeas corpus was filed to the federal court, the clerk sent Mitchell a form to sign waiving court fees, however, prison guards and administrators then refused to allow him to return the form. Prison officials told Mitchell that they were not required to respect his right of access to the court because the petition for habeas corpus was filed on his behalf by “a non-lawyer.” Only as a result of intervention by the California ACLU lawyers charged with overseeing the conditions of confinement class action, did prison officials back off and allowed Mitchell to mail the form back to the clerk. However, immediately upon receipt of the papers, Judge Wilson rejected the application on the basis stated above.

The first four pages of the purported “order” issued by Judge Wilson where entirely committed to setting forth argument that a person had to be a lawyer to file for habeas corpus on behalf of another, which is not the law at all. Stephen Wilson also claimed that by filing for the writ on behalf of another, that the person was also contending some right to also represent that person court. In this regard Judge Wilson then claimed that the “non-lawyer” needed to obtain a “next friend” status from the court, but even with this, a non-lawyer still would not be able to represent another person in court.

Judge Wilson also revealed in his “order” that he had been in communication with various state officials regarding the facts alleged in the petition, thus, explaining how prison officials not only knew about the filing of the petition, but felt authorized to try prevent Mitchell from proceeding on the basis that it had been filed on his behalf by “a non-lawyer.” On the last page of his “order,” Stephen Wilson went to the factual merits of the complaint, claiming that the petition contained unexhausted claims based on his conversations with state appellate officials, in total disregard of the alleged existence of circumstances requiring federal courts to set aside such considerations of comity. Essentially, Wilson claimed that the allegations of misconduct on the part of the police, prosecutors, and state judiciary were incredible and unbelievable. Judge Wilson also “ordered” that Mitchell could not appeal his decision, even if appeal where applicable to address his misconduct.

 A complaint was filed against Judge Wilson to the Judicial Council for the Ninth Circuit, but nothing was done to restore and protect the constitutional and civil rights deprived to Mitchell by his action. Recently, Chief Judge Alex Kosinski entered a summary denial of the complaint against Judge Wilson claiming that it concerned the merits of a “judicial determination,” without addressing the issues raised in the complaint. For example, where the complaint concerned Judge Wilson admittedly engaging in extrajudicial communication with state officials regarding the merits of the petition, Alex Kosinski made no comment, nor addressed the fact that the basis of the purported “judicial determination” were not only not based on law, but contravened the law. In the meantime, state prison officials have now put into motion efforts to remove Mitchell to punitive segregation in the notorious Pelican Bay. Wherefore, grounds exist for the immediate impeachment and removal of Stephen V. Wilson and Alex Kosinski for conspiracy to obstruct justice and to deprive civil, constitutional, and Human rights.


The Impeachable Terry Wooten, Patrick Duffy, Hugh Lawson, and Richard Hodge

            When Congressman Trey Gowdy was the prosecutor for the Seventh Judicial district of South Carolina, he was part of a racist criminal ring that included the sheriffs and judges that engages in the routine false arrest, false imprisonment, indefinite illegal detention, and wrongful imprisonment of blacks living in or caught passing through the district. This practice is actually wide-spread throughout the southern United States and goes back to the end of the “Reconstruction Era,” where Confederates re-took control of southern state governments through terror and fraud. This practice is commonly and fondly referred to by its practitioners as “Coon hunting,” “nigger skinning,” and “roasting darkies.”

            In 2000, Kwasi Seitu reported and provided documented proof to the Department of Justice that this practice was occurring in the Alapaha Judicial District of Georgia, and the Seventh Judicial District of South Carolina. Although investigations appear to have been initiated into complaint against both districts, they were terminated under George W. Bush, with assurances being given to the local officials that the federal government would not conduct any further action. This then emboldened Trey Gowdy to enter into an agreement with Bob Ellis, the prosecutor for the Alapaha Judicial District in Georgia, to kidnap and hold Kwasi Seitu between them in retaliation for having reported them to the DOJ.

            On July 23, 2001, after luring Seitu to Gaffney, South Carolina, under the threat of persecuting local people with whom Seitu was assisting, Trey Gowdy personally seized Seitu and had him detained, and tortured. Trey Gowdy then held Seitu until November 19, 2001, when Bob Ellis and the sheriff of Cook County Georgia entered South Carolina and took Seitu into Georgia. At no time was Seitu ever under any warrant for his arrest, no judicial proceedings where ever had, and no there where no actual criminal charges pending. In 2000, Seitu was stopped and seized in Cook County, Georgia, charged with “obstruction” of the police for supposedly informing the passenger in his car of her rights under the Fifth Amendment. In South Carolina, Trey Gowdy maintained the pretense of a prosecution by claiming that Seitu had committed an “assault of a jailer” by making a “quick move.” In neither situation was any effort ever made to actually proceed with a prosecution even though money had been obtained under the guise of bonds.  

            In September 2001, Seitu filed to the U.S. District Court for South Carolina for the writ of habeas corpus, which was assigned to Terry Wooten, who had been a magistrate-judge, but who had just been confirmed as an Article III judge by the Senate. After withholding process on the petition, Wooten entered what he contended was a “report and recommendation” for summary denial, which procedurally is inapplicable in habeas corpus petitions raising illegal detention. In his “report” Wooten first claimed that Seitu was “a pretrial detainee,” but then acknowledged that Seitu had supposedly been sentenced to “time served” a month before. Wooten then claimed that Seitu was a “fugitive” from Georgia, all of this without ever having issued any process and clearly indicating extrajudicial communication with Trey Gowdy.

Seitu was not a “fugitive” from Georgia, there was no felony charge pending against him in Georgia or anywhere else, and no warrant had been issued for his arrest in Georgia or anywhere else. Seitu was held in South Carolina for nearly four-months and then one night turned over to deputies sent into South Carolina by the sheriff of Cook County in Georgia and taken across state lines. Upon receiving a copy of Wooten’s “report,” Seitu immediately notified U.S. District Judge Patrick Duffy, under whom Wooten served as magistrate, informing him of Wooten’s misconduct and his involvement in a conspiracy to carry out an interstate kidnapping. Judge Duffy took no action until January 2002, in which he summarily dismissed the issue on the basis that Seitu had already been removed into Georgia.

Upon being taken into Georgia, Seitu first sought the issuance of mandamus to the DOJ and FBI to perform their duties to investigate. The petition was received and summarily denied by U.S. District Judge Hugh Lawson of the Middle District of Georgia, who claimed that the DOJ and FBI had “absolute discretion” to investigate and had no duty to Seitu. A few months later Hugh Lawson affirmed the summary denial of process by his magistrate, Richard Hodge, on over a dozen petitions for the writ of habeas corpus against the sheriff of Cook County for illegal detention. Each petition related arrest without warrant and cause, detention that was indefinite and without process, and that included the denial of right to counsel and to be taken before a judicial officer.

And even though each petition concerned a person not detained due to any state court judgment, Hodge treated each as if they did, and did not require the sheriff or prosecutor to respond to the specific allegations of illegal detention. Instead, it was sufficient for the prosecutor to state that each applicant in custody was black, to which he appended pictures of each as confirmation and with that, Hodge withheld process for months on end until eventually Judge Lawson entered orders affirming his action. Complaints of misconduct were then filed to the Judicial Council of the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits, with all being summarily denied as concerning the “merits of a judicial determination” by the chief judges of each, and confirmed by the entire panels.


 The Meaningless and Ineffectiveness of Self-Policing by the Federal Judiciary

As stated above complaints of misconduct were made to the Judicial Councils of the Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh circuits that all met with the same treatment of summary and empty one phrase denials. And in each situation the petitioners were placed in danger of retaliation by their captors, who after all, are informed by the lawlessness of the federal judiciary that anything goes. Obstruction of process is a high crime, as is the resulting obstruction of justice, under 18 USC §1501. The actions complained of herein against each judicial officer, also violates paragraphs one through twelve of the Universal Declaration of Human rights and as such, the Supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, not to mention numerous other federal laws.

The United States Department of Justice has refused to investigate the conduct of Trey Gowdy, Terry Wooten, Patrick Duffy, Hugh Lawson, Richard Hodge, and the state officials with whom they acted in concert. To date no one in this Government has been willing to address the crimes and criminal conduct reported herein, and the failure of this Government to continue to take immediate corrective action makes it nothing more than a rouge state whose power grows exclusively out the barrel of a gun or a predator drone, and otherwise entirely lacking “all legitimacy” as a civilized nation.