Liam O'Grady, another Skunk of the Fed. Bench
        When Bob McDonald, the current governor of Virginia, was the attorney general for the state he began applying the state's Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) law across the board to any and "Everyone" charged with a sexual offense. The SVP law allows for the state to parole a sex offender to a civil commitment rather than to the streets, but the law only applies to eleven of the most serious and  violent offenses, all of which carry life. 

       Mwando Amerson was not charged with any of those offenses, he only had a five-year sentence for a minor sex charge, and was initially only required to serve nine-months in prison before being released on unsupervised probation. When he was re-arrested on another minor charge, Virginia sent him to prison to finish the remaining four-years of his sentence. However, when his sentence expired, McDonald's office moved to block his release claiming that all persons in Virginia convicted of any sexual offense was subject to the SVP law simply because the statute begins with the word "Everyone." Of course the statute plainly makes clear that the "Everyone convicted" applies only to persons convicted of the eleven offenses set forth in the statute. 

Sign the Petition Demanding the House Judiciary Committee                                        to Hold Hearings on the Racism and Lawlessness Within the Federal Judiciary

    Terry Wooten, Patrick Duffy, John Bates, Ellen Huvelle, Steven V. Wilson, Alex Kosinski, Hugh Lawson, Liam O'Grady are all federal district or appeals court judges who need to be impeached and in most cases, prosecuted for high crimes and misdemeanors against Humanity.  


 along with all who serve on the U.S. Judicial Council are bandits in black robes who need to be removed from the bench and from positions that in any way deal with the ethical quality of the judicial system and the integrity of the judicial process.

    ITJ has dealt with many cases in federal courts across this nation and at no point has it encountered a descent one, every one of the judges listed above, and the courts of which they are a part, has shown that they act based on considerations of race, class, and political expediency, and not the rule of law. Mostly, our experience with these judges, courts, and the process of self-policing has concerned issues of fundamental human rights, such as the routine denial of basic due process in criminal and civil matters. We have never been under any illusion that the American judiciary is any different from the rest of the government in terms of its racist and criminal nature, for these are the courts of the white-settler state. It was the courts that "legalized" the taking of Native lands (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831), that legitimized the enslavement of blacks beginning with the colonial courts in the mid-1700s and carried on to the Drd Scott case in 1857). Even after the purported end of the era of "chattel-slavery," the American judiciary played a major role in shaping and maintaining the new form of slavery that came in the form of "Black Codes" and policies of racial discrimination (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896).     

    There are many who would argue that since the Brown v. Board of Education cases beginning in 1954, that racism started to become less of a controlling factor in this society, pointing to the fact that today there is a black person serving as president. Such symbolic change does not amount to substantive change, Franz Fanon wrote "Black Face, White Mask," what the U.S. has done with the selection of Barack Obama, has put a black mask on a white-settler state. In feeling that its true nature has been masked, America has reverted back to blatant expressions and exercises of its racist nature, which actually began back in the early 1970s under the purported "War on Crime" declared by then president Richard. M. Nixon. All of the purported "gains" made in the 1950s and 60s, began to be gradually reversed in various ways, on every level, including through the courts. By the mid-1970s the courts were giving legitimacy to claims by whites of "reverse discrimination," thus we had the victory for Allan Bakke, who argued that "affirmative action" discriminated against whites. This opened the door for many more "reverse discrimination" challenges in housing, employment, education, and voting.

    Then came the ruling in McClesky v. Kemp (1987) where  their "Supreme" court held that a defendant cannot challenge a violation of the constitutional requirement of "equal protection of the laws" by showing that the violation is consistent with a system-wide pattern of racial discrimination, but that in order to make out an equal-protection violation, a defendant is required to prove that some specific actor or actors in his or her individual case (i.e., the prosecutor or the judge or the jurors) intentionally discriminated against the defendant on the ground of race. The absurdity and insult of this position is to place the burden on the victim to prove that, although evidence of racism governs proceedings in general, the person must show that those engaged in it in their particular case intended to be racist.  

    Racism and lawlessness in the federal judiciary is rampant in criminal and civil matters, whereby judges routinely engage in acts of malfeasance and dereliction of duty in order to justify a certain outcome against a non-white party. One area in particular where ITJ has encountered this practice is with habeas corpus, the purported "Great Writ" that is supposed to safeguard against the unconstitutional deprivation of life or liberty. Routinely, in cases involving illegal detention by local law enforcement, a federal magistrate or judge will proceed on the petition as one attacking a state court conviction. Under federal law there are basically two types of petitions for the writ of habeas corpus, 28 USC 2241, which deals with illegal detentions; and 28 USC (convictions or sentences from state courts) and 2255 (convictions or sentences from federal courts). ITJ has consistently found in cases where petitions attack an illegal detention, the federal magistrate or judge will mistreat the petition as one attacking a state court conviction. This means that the petition is essentially denied from the outset, for the process for attacking a state court conviction is entirely different from that to be employed for addressing a claim of illegal detention. 

    Once a person has been tried and convicted in state court, the federal courts are required to attach a "presumption of correctness" to the conviction and the burden is on the petitioner to prove otherwise, thus there is a drawn out process of producing the trial transcripts, traversing those transcripts, the filing of responses and rebuttals. Then, usually a magistrate reviews al of these things and submits a report with a recommendation for disposition as to whether a habeas corpus hearing should be granted or the petition denied and takes many months to as much as a year. This process is on its face inapplicable to cases of illegal detention, where a person has been seized and is being held against their will without any lawful authority, in these instance, the process is more immediate. In the case of an illegal detention the writ is issued and the person holding the petitioner is required to appear in court within 72-hours to show proof of lawful authority to detain, otherwise, the court then must order the person released. Under the statute (2243) this process can be extended only for a maximum of 20-days "upon a showing of good cause," otherwise the matter is to be resolved within 72-hours.

    Terry Wooten, Hugh Lawson, Patrick Duffy, and John Bates are all guilty of thwarting habeas corpus by misapplying process in habeas corpus as described above. ITJ presented each of them with petitions raising instances of illegal detention, where the petitioners were being illegally held by law enforcement, none had been tried or convicted, yet each one of these federal judges treated the petitions as if they were attacking state court convictions. In doing so, they gave the sheriff or jailers the opportunity and incentive to further violate the person's rights, to engage in retaliation and intimidation. Thus, each of these federal judicial officers are guilty of conspiracy to violate civil rights, violating human rights, and the obstruction of justice by derailing the due process of the courts...high crimes and misdemeanors. Additionally, in each instance it can be shown that these men engaged in extrajudicial communication with those holding the petitioner, that is, communicating with the sheriff or local official about the matter outside of the mandated judicial process. 

    When a judge departs from the due performance of their ministerial duties there is the writ of mandamus (to mandate) that person can file for from a higher judge or court ordering the judge to perform that duty. This writ too is routinely rendered void by judges of the federal appeals courts, not legally, but through fraudulent representations of the facts and/or empty denials. The average person is unable to engage in the "paper chase," especially where the judges reduce the rule of law to a fantasy and make the rule of caprice the reality. This then is misconduct plain and simple, for which there is supposed to be a remedy through the Judicial Council and Judicial Conference system, whereby the judges are essentially allowed to police themselves without any transparency and no accountability. A complaint of misconduct is first made to the Judicial Council for the circuit, which consists of the chief judge and judges of the appeals court, however, the complaint must first make it past the chief judge to be reviewed by the entire counsel. However, when the chief judge places his stamp of denial on the complaint, the routine course of the rest of the judges is to merely rubber-stamp it no matter how egregious. Not being able to get past, or get any justice from the Judicial Council, the complainant then has no avenue to the Judicial Conference.   

    The petition to the House Judiciary Committee demands that it hold hearings to investigate and address these major flaws in the American judicial system that violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the U.S. constitution and laws. And it is because in conjunction with this is the failure and refusal of the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the misconduct of federal judges that these hearings must be held. ITJ has documented the refusal and failure of the DOJ to take action when shown that federal judges and state officials engage in conduct to deprive black and brown people due process of law, while holding them prisoner without any lawful right or authority. Terry Wooten, Patrick Duffy, and Hugh Lawson were all shown to have conspired with Trey Gowdy (when he was the prosecutor for the 7th Judicial District of South Carolina) and other state officials in not only carrying out the routine illegal seizure and detention of blacks and Latinos, but also engaged in an interstate kidnapping. Although the DOJ and FBI were very well aware of this criminal conduct, they refused to take any action, and continue to do so, leaving black and brown people without any way to protect their rights except by arming themselves and fighting against such lawlessness.

Lamar Smith and the House Judiciary Committee: 

Conduct Hearings on Racism and Lawlessness in Federal Judiciary