the Peoples' Defense NetworK

       When the claimed government proves itself incapable and unwilling to provide Justice for all, then it is the right of the people to oppose and overthrow that government. This is a human right and duty to one self and people.

    The system then asserted a validity to its laws justifying its crimes, aimed at severely restricting resistance from all quarters, but particularly the most oppressed. The Natives were steadily driven from their land, driven west like cattle until there was no more land on which they could be driven except "reservations"/prisons. 

    At the same time,another type of prison has been constructed for the blacks beyond chattel-slavery. This is why a network of impacted people and communities is critical to bringing about real social change. 

   The public is invited and indeed encouraged  to participate in any action set forth on these pages,  building the Peoples' Defense Network. The Peoples' Defense Network is not as much about building organization, for it is more of a concept for acting in unity. The name itself describes this objective as being one in the global fight against racism and imperialism. The PDN is about communities empowering themselves by organizing against and addressing racism as a system dynamic, not as isolated incidences. We then place ourselves in the position of responding to systemic problems, rather than reacting to them..

    In DC, as in other parts of this nation wherever there are black communities and populations, major problems exist with continuation of Jim Crow in the operation of local government operations, inane and deliberate. It is the right and duty of the People to resist and oppose such a system of systemic and racist injustice. This is how


Due to the fact that the District of Columbia has no representation in Congress, and is held as a colony of the U.S., District residents are also denied any right to have any input as to who are appointed as judges over them. People are nominated to serve as judges on the courts, people who often have no genuine connection or relationship with the residents of the city, and are selected by people who also have no connection or relationship. Judges are nominated to the DC courts by the Judicial Nomination Commission, of which there are seven members, with the mayor being able to select two and the city council one, the president selects two, the chief judge of the federal court selects one, and the board of governors for the DC Bar selects one.  While the residents have no representation or input into who serves on the nomination commission, WalMart  does. This is one thing that must be changed, while we are not allowed to elect our judges, then District residents should most definitely be a part of the selection process.  It will be argued that District residents do have a part in the selection process by way of the three votes held between the mayor and city council, but there is no reason why residents should accept majority rule and any participation by persons not resident to the city, nor the fact that the mayor and city council do not consult with the community in making their recommendations.

   1. Entirely Revamp the CJDT, Remove All Current Members and Staff

   The Commission on Judicial Disability and Tenure is a seven-member body charged with investigating and taking action to against lawless judges. The District is allowed to place only three people on the Commission, which is done without any accountability to the residents. The stated mission of the CJDT is to investigate complaints of misconduct, in addition to re-certifying the appointment of judges.

    For more than a decade, the CJCT has been led by Gladys Kessler, an old decrepit White woman who is a federal senior judge. Under Kessler, the CJDT has refused to investigate allegations of serious misconduct on the part of DC judges.

    Understanding the Mechanisms of  Oppression 

    The following is a layout in law and fact as to just how judges of the DC "Superior" court act in complicity with corrupt police and the U.S. Attorneys office to maliciously prosecute black and brown people in DC and coerce many of them into pleading guilty to non-existent cases.

   1. When police arrest without a warrant - "The Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest.The prosecutor's assessment of probable cause, standing alone, does not meet the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and is insufficient to justify restraint of liberty pending trial."  Gerstein v. Pugh - 420 U.S. 103 (1975)

    The probable cause determination is a non-adversarial aspect of a criminal proceeding, therefore, a person may not have his or her conviction overturned on the mere failure to conduct a probable cause determination. Where the person was still appointed and represented by counsel, and all other forms of due procedure were followed as to not deprive them of the right to a fair trial, the failure to perform the probable cause determination is considered negligible. However, where the failure is intended to not only deprive the person of the right to a fair trial, but to subject them to malicious prosecution, that is a horse of a different color. And this is the horse we are dealing with here. 

    Routinely police in DC target and arrest black people without any probable cause and in most instances, this fact appears on the face of their own reports in their own words. It matters not what the police charge, what matters are the facts they relay in their report for making the arrest and placing the charge. For example: in a recent case of two young black men  charged with possessing marijuana, the police officer's reported stated that, while cruising along they "observed two black males sitting in a truck," just two black males doing nothing more than sitting in a truck does not even amount to articulably suspicion, more less probable cause for them to have approached. The officers stated that upon approaching the two young black men in the truck, they "smelled" marijuana, even though the truck windows were rolled up and neither men was smoking anything. The police officers then conducted an illegal search of the men and the truck, then claimed to have found "in plain view under the driver's seat" a bag of marijuana.

    This case should have never made it out of the prescient, more less onto any court "trial" calender, the U.S. Attorney knew or should have known that the charge lacked probable cause and "no-papered" it. However, the U.S. Attorney papered the case and the matter was placed on the trial calender of the court. In the meantime all manner of restraint was placed on the liberty of the two young black men such as being required to submit to weekly reporting to give urine, a curfew, and even monitoring devices being attached to their ankles. This went on for many months before the matter was simply dismissed after it became evident that the young men were not going to plead guilty.  

   2. What DC judge are violating - "The Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest.The prosecutor's assessment of probable cause, standing alone, does not meet the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and is insufficient to justify restraint of liberty pending trial." 

     Under the criminal rules of DC "Superior" court, Rule 5(c), if  any conditions of release which constitute a "significant restraint on pretrial liberty" are placed on any person who is arrested without an arrest warrant, then: "...the Court shall, unless the defendant waives an initial probable cause determination, require the prosecutor to file with the Clerk of the Criminal Division by the end of the next working day a copy of a sworn statement of fact offered to establish probable cause.... Upon the filing of the sworn statement of fact, the Court shall then proceed promptly to determine if there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it. The determination or probable cause may be made by the Court without conducting a hearing. The Court's finding of probable cause may be based upon hearsay evidence in whole or in part. The Court shall enter its determination as to probable cause on the case jacket along with the date of the determination. If the Court determines, based on the information offered by the prosecutor, that there is no probable cause, the Court shall release the defendant, without significant restraints on the defendant's liberty, and shall order the defendant to appear for the next Court proceeding."

         So, there are five things that a judge must ("shall") do, they being 1) require a sworn statement of fact, 2) proceed promptly to determine if there is probable cause, 3) enter its determination on the case jacket, 4) release the person without any significant restraints on their liberty, and 5) order the person to return for a preliminary hearing. As for the determination of "probable cause."     


Just One Solution

We will need people to volunteer time to go to the courthouse and monitor the conduct of judges identified as skunks and record their conduct, which will then be used to support complaints to the Commission on Judicial Disability and Tenure for disciplinary action by the Commission. However, the complaints will actually be to put the Commission to the test, we are demanding that all dispositions be detailed and specific to the allegations made in the complaint since the Commission is supposed to be an investigative body. Currently, the Commission issues general summary denials claiming that the complaints  "raise issues of law," or that it found no misconduct. The Commission does not cite any facts on which it claims to have acted.

The Commission on Judicial Disability and Tenure answers to the Committee on the Judiciary of the City Council, which up until this past election was headed by Councilman Phil Mendelson. The other members of the Committee are Marion Barry, Mary Che, Muriel Bowser, and Jack Evans. It is through our elected city council members that the community can demand transparency and accountability by the Commission. If in fact the council members fail to act, then we can and must use that as the basis for mobilizing the vote against them in the next election.

ITJ has already informed the Committee members of the problem and thus far, other than a letter to Gladys Kessler, chair of the commission, asking for it to explain its prior baseless disposition of two complaints, none of the committee members have shown any concern or interest. Phil Mendelson's office sent a letter to Kessler this past summer, in which it was requested that she give detail behind the disposition of the two complaints. In dismissing the two complaints, the commission only claimed that it had no jurisdiction to act because the complaints "raised issues of law," and not conduct. However, the commission did not site any allegation made that it could conclude raised issues of law, made no reference to a single fact, thus creating an empty and baseless denial. Gladys Kessler did respond, claiming that the commission was "revising" its disposition of the complaints in order to provide more detail, but instead all that Kessler did was to repeat the same baseless denial. By claiming that the allegations "raised issues of law," Kessler and the commission are contending that the issues concerned the exercise of judicial discretion, when in fact each allegation concerned the failure to perform ministerial duties or refrain from conduct not authorized by law, for example:

  • Jenifer Anderson and Florence Pan acting where they had not made a probable cause determination, and locking people up under the pretext that they had "failed to appear" in court, when in fact they had only not been present the moment the doors of the courtroom were opened to the public;
  •  Lee Satterfield, as chief judge, refusing to police and report the misconduct of Anderson, Pan, and other judges below him;
  •  Russell Canan trying and convicting people in cases where they had not been arraigned, were no probable cause determination had been made, were without counsel, and the charges amounted to prosecuting for the free exercise of civil and constitutional rights in the courts.

D.C. Commission on Judicial Disability and Tenure 

Claims Misconduct an "Issue of law"

          The Commission on Judicial Disability and Tenure for the District of Columbia, is a seven-member body charged with the removal of any judge of the DC courts for willful misconduct in office, for willful and persistent failure to perform judicial duties, and for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice or which brings the judicial office into disrepute. 

          The Commission also has the  authority to involuntarily retire a judge if the Commission determines that the judge suffers from a mental or physical disability which is or is likely to become permanent and which prevents, or seriously interferes with, the proper performance of judicial duties. In addition, the Commission may, under appropriate circumstances, censure or reprimand a judge publicly

      Gladys Kessler (pictured left) is the chair person of the Commission, she is also a senior judge with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and was appointed as chair by the president. Recently, ITJ filed two complaints regarding serious misconduct by a number of DC judges, such as permitting and participating in malicious prosecutions, illegally seizing and detaining people, not performing ministerial duties in order to deprive people of their liberty and property, falsifying judgments, making false entries into the court record, and generally acting in violation of the law.  Ms. Kessler and the Commission summarily dismissed the complaints claiming that they did not concern acts of misconduct, but instead "raised issues of law," which was to say that the complaints concerned judicial decisions. The allegations of the complaints exclusively concerned acts, lawless conduct, such as acting without a legal cause, not performing ministerial duties, withholding or obstructing due process.

     When ITJ received the baseless dismissals of the complaints, we went directly to DC Councilman Phil Mendelson's office, Mendelson was at the time the chair of the DC Council Committee on the Judiciary. ITJ complained that as an investigative body, the Commission had a duty to explain its conclusions, rather than issue empty denials. The Commission answers to the Committee on the Judiciary, so Ms. Kessler had to respond when the Committee contacted her to explain the dismissal of the two complaints. Ms. Kessler then wrote two letters in which the Commission was "revising" its earlier dismissals in order to "provide greater detail" as to the basis for its decisions. However, what Ms. Kessler did was to simply repeat her prior statement, still, refusing to provide any detail.   Mr. Kessler and the rest of the Commission will have to account for their actions, it is insane that the Commission is not required to show accountability. As an investigative body, it must show proof of its work. 

 The Top Ten Most Impeachable DC Judges

    John M. Campbell         Associate judge, civil division, a repeat offender, recently caught in a scheme to steal a black man's house and money through a bogus probate action. The U.S. Attorney for DC has been called on to prosecute Campbell for his role in the scheme, which ITJ helped the victim to thwart.

   Lee F. Satterfield     Chief Skank for the DC "Superior" court, covers up racist and criminal acts committed by the judges under his charge, just like a good lawn jockey. Even though he was just recently given a second term to act as chief judge, this Skank must go. 

   Jennifer Anderson, Appointed by George W. Bush, Anderson has a habit of locking up black people when they come to her court if even minutes late after the courtroom doors are opened, then claim that they "failed to appear," which she then uses to coerce them into pleading guilty on the initial charge.

    Russell F. Canan,            Has no regard for things like "due process" when he decides that a black person needs to be "guilty." It is not beyond Canan to try and convict people who have never even been arraigned.

Stephanie Duncan-Peters, used to be considered a “fair” judge, but as a result of many years in the pit of snakes, has become one of sleeziest, kindly violating the rights of black and poor people.

Ann O'Regan Keary, thoroughly corrupt to the point of  being grossly incompetent and reckless. Keary recently announced her retirement from the bench, good rid dens.

Florence Pan, a real Bannana appointed by a real Oreo, has quickly established a reputation for hating blacks, incompetence, and lawlessness. Pan's self-hatred and utter lawlessness made her a real Asian doll in the regime of Baby Doc Bush. Pan is wholly unqualified to serve as a judge due to her gross arrogance, bigotry, incompetence, and total lack of an ethical compass.


Robert R. Rigsby, a zealot of war and lies, a real AmeriKKKlan knee-grow who routinely engages in taking lawless short-cuts, along with prosecutors, to coerce defendants into entering guilty pleas and whose equally corrupt wife sits on the DC Appeals court.

Rufus G. King, III, is the former chief judge who never addressed a single complaint of judicial corruption against the judges below him (which Lee Satterfield proudly and dutifully continues to do).

Peter H. Wolf, a real stinker in black robes, favors landlords over tenants, the rich over the poor, and privilege over the law.

Todd Edelman is another crappy appointment to the "Superior" court by Obama. Edelman likes to make rulings in spite of law and fact, he does not let little things like that get in the way of denying black and brown residents of their rights.

If you have complaints on any of the skunks listed above, or if you have skunks you would like to nominate, please fill out the form below so that we can not only identify their bad odor for the public, but work at it having them removed from the bench.  

Report a Skank

Judges are not gods, although many act as demigods, they are bound by the same laws they are entrusted to uphold and apply. Judges also must comply with a code of conduct called "Canons," which essentially provides:

      "A judge is to maintain and enforce high standards of conduct; a judge "shall" respect and comply with the law and "shall" act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; a judge "shall" be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it; a judge "shall" be patient, dignified, and courteous; a judge "shall" perform judicial duties without bias and prejudice; a judge "shall" not initiate, permit or consider ex parte communications; and a judge "shall" dispose of all judicial matters promptly and fairly."

      If you feel that a judge of the D.C. Superior Court has violated the code of conduct and/or the law then you should file a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Disability and Tenure, contact:

Cathaee Hudgins, FOIA Officer 
 515 5th Street, NW, Room 312 
Washington, DC 20001 
Phone: (202) 727-1364

If you need assistance contact us

PDN Intake Complaint Form

Does your complaint concern a criminal or civil matter

Name of Your Attorney

If criminal, please check appropriate box

What were circumstances of your arrest?

Date of Arrest

Are You a Veteran