The state and federal judiciaries are very immoral and corrupt. While there are some honest judges, they are few and far between. The truth be told if there was a way to show the dishonest practices and the “under the table” money shenanigans that are going on, there would be a lot of judges in prison. The reason there are not that many judges in prison is because the judiciary has built-in protections making it extremely difficult to impossible for people to prove what is happening—and law enforcement simply isn’t interested in exposing it. It’s just the sad reality and sad truth. We should have learned long ago from Operation Greylord, a federal sting operation from the 1980s into the Cook County Courts in Chicago, that there are many judges who are on the take and that there is a great need to investigate the goings on in the judiciary.
There is no question that Operation Greylord was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the seriousness of this problem, a problem that haunts us to this day, but a problem that is essentially unmonitored and unchecked unfortunately. The federal sting operation in the Chicago court system proved that there are many corrupt judges and public officials who are dishonest or outright criminals, which resulted in prison time: ninety-two officials were indicted including seventeen judges, forty-eight lawyers, eight policemen, ten deputy sheriffs, eight court officials and one state legislator. Nearly all were convicted with most of them pleading guilty.
And then after that sting operation was over, it has been business as usual again. If the feds were truly interested in judicial integrity, it would conduct more sting operations as it did in Greylord, but the feds aren’t at all interested in stepping on the comfort level of the corrupt judges that permeate the judiciary. I am sure there is a reason for that. I will leave it up to you to come to your own conclusion as to why there are no sting operations in the judiciary.
If there is a profession in this country that warrants taking a yearly polygraph exam—a lie detector test—it is the judicial profession. Every state and federal judge in the United States should be required to take a yearly polygraph test in order to safeguard the public from malfeasance within the judiciary. It should be a condition of employment for all judges. Doing so would go a long way towards “disinfecting the swamp.” The American Polygraph Association sets the standards for testing and maintains that polygraphs are “highly accurate” citing an accuracy rate above 90 percent. Polygraph tests are used by law enforcement in criminal investigations, by federal agencies to screen potential employees and for probation officers to supervise sex offenders. And yet while government agencies use polygraph tests which have an accuracy rate of above 90 per cent, it is mind-boggling that the judicial system won’t allow polygraph tests to be allowed into evidence.
Think about it; the judiciary routinely allows false information regarding documents to be admitted into evidence and allows for people who have histories of lying and doing very bad things, including felons convicted of heinous crimes, to testify in criminal proceedings at the request of prosecutors. But yet in the face of all of those highly questionable sources of information, the judiciary disallows polygraph test results into evidence despite an accuracy rate of above 90 percent. That makes no sense. Polygraph test results can be challenged just like any other piece of information, but the judicial system is set up to keep information that could be helpful in getting to the bottom of the truth out of the proceedings even though the information has a relatively high rate of accuracy, and in most cases, more accurate than information that is being allowed into evidence.
There are a few states that are open to polygraph test results being used in court, but they are the exception to the rule. In Florida, California, Georgia and Nevada, polygraph tests can be used if everyone agrees to it. In California lawyers can present the results to the jurors and allow them to make up their minds. So if polygraph tests are good enough for the Florida, California, Georgia and Nevada courts, it stands to reason that they should be good enough for all of the courts in the rest of the states and in the federal judiciary. And because fixing cases and accepting bribes is almost certainly a major problem with our judges, which was proven to be the case in Greylord, common sense dictates the need for yearly polygraph testing of judges and additionally for every judge who has been accused of wrongdoing in a case to be required to submit to a polygraph test whenever there is a complaint filed against the judge.
Three simple questions are all that is needed:
- Have you ever predetermined the outcome of a case contrary to evidence and facts?
- Have you ever accepted a bribe of any kind?
- Have you or others within your control been involved in misconduct, including, but not limited to, evidence tampering, falsifying official records, perjury, and fraud?
Sadly, in today’s courts here in Amerika, this kind of test would likely weed out 90 percent of our judges. But as it stands, there are no truly effective ways to eliminate the bad apples. Furthermore, any judge who does not pass the test could be given the opportunity to take it again. Any judge disqualified by this method would also lose any retirement benefits and be permanently removed from the bench. The threat of this kind of discipline hanging over their heads should be enough to sterilize our system. After thousands of judges are terminated in this way, their successors would be wary to have the same fate befall them.
It is a crime against the people when judges are allowed to operate in an unmonitored and unchecked system that allows them to line their pockets with money in court-related shenanigans. The infestation of corrupt judges is a serious problem without question. Polygraph testing of judges can help cure that problem.