The Courts Now Actively Engage in Censorship
With blocking of evidence, sanctions, bar complaints, judges & lawyers are shutting down political dissent
We are in an Alice In Wonderland time. The American courts of law, and in many cases the “officers of the court,” who practice law in the counties, states and federal courts, reveal the the judicial process has become a sham, controlled by openly hostile, apparachik prosecutors and activist and, in some cases, cowardly judges. If you are not familiar with the term, Mirriam Webster defines “apparatchik” • “\ah-puh-RAH-chik\ • noun. 1 : member of a Communist apparat 2 : a blindly devoted official, follower, or member of an organization (as a corporation or political party) Examples: The boss seemed to prefer apparatchiks to anyone with a glimmer of independent thought.” It appears that is what has beset America.
Even the grand juries that aren’t supposed to issue indictments on anything less than “probable cause,” which is substantial evidence that an actual crime was committed and the suspect named likely did it, have been caught up in the breakdown of the American judicial system.
Many attorneys, good people who love their craft, whom I have spoken with, most with over 30 years of practice, have exclaimed, “I am saddened to see that the court no longer represents a justice system for resolving disagreements, but has instead bveen turned into a macabre weapon designed to do maximum damage to the individual not favored.”
For those of us who believe in the courts as the home of neutral arbiters —judges— of fact v. fiction, that is supposed to be presented as a theory of the case with evidence supporting the theory, in a bias-free court room, it is stunning to learn that the AZ Supreme Court has established a “Task Force on Countering Disinformation.”1
It seems odd indeed that the Arizona Supreme Court in its administrative role over the entire court system, Maricopa County Superior Courts included, are concerned about “disinformation,” yet they refuse to hear evidence and testimony on election defects that would provide a pathway to testing assertions in the courts of law. Case on point, Judge Thompson in the Lake v. Hobbs 2022 election challenge —essentially an election tampering case— would not address the clear lack of signature comparisons involving hundreds of thousands of mail-in affidavits.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Mark Finchem's Inside Track Substack to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.