Help Abolish Legal and Judicial Tyranny 2015

In the spirit of HALT (1978-2013) this page is dedicated to abolishing legal and judicial tyranny in 2015. Archival information about HALT is posted at the borrom of this page.



Judgepedia is an encyclopedia about America's courts and judges. Its goal is to help readers discover and learn about court systems and the and judiciary in the United States. Judgepedia: About

What's going on with the 11th Circuit's Fuller investigation?
Southern District of Florida Blog, December 3, 2014

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.) letter to Eleventh Circuit Chief Judge Ed Carnes and Judge Tjoflat regarding Judge Mark Fuller in Atlanta, Georgia.

Letter to Chief Judge Ed Carnes and Judge Tjoflat
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Adobe Acrobat document [142.7 KB]

Supreme Court of the United States, Judgepedia

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit Judgepedia


C.A.11 No. 12-11028-B, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Circuit SCRIBD

Motion to Reconsider-RICO 12-11028-B, C.A.11 May-30-2012

Amended Disability Motion Etc 12-11028-B, 12-11213-C, C.A.11

Motion to Consolidate Related Appeals 12-11028-B, 12-11213-C

Notice InFormaPauperis, Toll Time 12-11028-B, C.A.11

Counsel Appointment and Disability 12-11028-B, C.A.11

Docket-CA11-12-11028-B-Gillespie-v-13th Circuit-FL
Adobe Acrobat document [55.8 KB]
Adobe Acrobat document [32.5 KB]
ORDER-DENIED-Circuit Judges-WILSON-and-M[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [100.1 KB]
ORDER-DENIED-Circuit Judge Charles Wilso[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [79.7 KB]

United States District Court, Middle District Florida Judgepedia

Florida Second District Court of Appeal Judgepedia

Florida Thirteenth Circuit Court Judgepedia

Article III - Judicial Power of The United States

How the Courts Failed Germany, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum



Judicial Immunity vs. Due Process: When Should A Judge Be Subject to Suit? Robert Craig Walters. Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987) The author was Judicial Clerk to Justice Rosemary Barkett of the Florida Supreme Court.


In the American judicial system, few more serious threats to individual liberty can be imagined than a corrupt judge. Clothed with the power of the state and authorized to pass judgment on the most basic aspects of everyday life, a judge can deprive citizens of liberty and property in complete disregard of the Constitution. The injuries inflicted may be severe and enduring.



What's So Special about Judges?, Frank H. Easterbrook

61 University of Colorado Law Review 773 (1990).


Article III of the Constitution says that the "judicial Power of the United States" belongs to the Supreme Court and such "inferior" courts as Congress chooses to establish. It tells us that judges may resolve "Cases" and "Controversies" and that Congress may make "Exceptions" to and "Regulations" of the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. And it says that federal judges hold office during "good Behavior." That is a spare mandate. The Constitution does not identify the scope of the "judicial Power" or spell out what "Behavior" is "good."


Article III does not mention the power that has come to be synonymous with the judiciary in popular, political, and academic minds: to set aside statutes and regulations that do not comport with the Constitution and to direct other political actors to implement the judges' constitutional vision. Such a power of review was not granted; it was inferred.


It was not inferred because of any attribute unique to judges. Under the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution binds the states; the President takes a special oath to uphold the Constitution; every political actor owes an obligation to put the Constitution (the "supreme Law of the Land") first, a statute’ or regulation second, and his private conception of The Good third.[fn1]. Nothing in the text of the Constitution marks a special role for judges; each public official applies the Constitution when it is time to act....

UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Carol BAYLESS, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket No. 98-1580
Decided: January 18, 2000


A. Recusal
 1. The statutory scheme.- Bayless's claim that Judge Baer should have recused himself rests on 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (1994), which provides simply:  "Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."  Id.  Notably, under § 455(a), recusal is not limited to cases of actual bias;  rather, the statute requires that a judge recuse himself whenever an objective, informed observer could reasonably question the judge's impartiality, regardless of whether he is actually partial or biased.   See Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988).  Section 455(a) complements § 455(b), which addresses the problem of actual bias by mandating recusal in certain specific circumstances where partiality is presumed.   See 28 U.S.C. § 455(b) (requiring recusal when, inter alia, a judge has "a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party").1

Hon. Dennis Jacobs, The Secret Life of Judges, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 2855 (2007). Excerpts, An Ambient Bias (NYT PDF)


When I refer to the secret life of judges, I am speaking of an inner turn of mind that favors, empowers, and enables our profession and our brothers and sisters at the bar. It is secret, because it is unobserved and therefore unrestrained-by the judges themselves or by the legal community that so closely surrounds and nurtures us. It is an ambient bias.  (par. 3, p. 2856)


I sometimes think that the problem at bottom is really a lack of respect by lawyers for other people. Judges live chiefly in a circle of lawyers. But outside that circle there are people who are just as fully absorbed by other pursuits that deserve consideration and respect. Judges need a heightened respect for how nonlawyers solve problems, reach compromises, broker risks, and govern themselves and their institutions. There are lawyers on the one hand; and just about everybody else is the competition in the framing of values and standards of behavior. (par. 4-5, page 2861)


The legal mind is indispensable to lawyering, and for other purposes it is perfectly okay in its way. But it has its limitations. For example, every problem-solving profession-except ours--quickly adopts as preferred the solution that is simplest, cheapest, and most efficacious, or (as they say) elegant... (par. 5, p. 2862)


As a matter of self-awareness and conscience, judges should accept that the legal mind is not the best policy instrument, and that lawyer-driven processes and lawyer-centered solutions can be unwise, insufficient, and unjust, even if our friends and colleagues in the legal profession lead us that way. For the judiciary, this would mean a reduced role, but not a diminished one if the judiciary is elevated by considerations of honor, self-restraint, and respect for other influences. (last par., p. 2863)

HALT, Help Abolish Legal Tyranny -  R.I.P. 1978-2013

"Ordinary citizens, not lawyers, should run the disciplinary process. If a jury made up of non-lawyers is good enough to decide a murder case or a million dollar lawsuit, it's certainly capable of determining whether a lawyer has cheated a client."


Email R.I.P. HALT, 1978-2013 - Responsive Law, December 27, 2013, HALT Board voted to dissolve
Dec-27-2013 email R.I.P. HALT, 1978-2013[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [96.8 KB]
HALT-Message Regarding-Tom Gordon Letter-from Conrad Martin, HALT Board Chair
HALT-Message Regarding-Tom Gordon Letter[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [497.3 KB]

HALT has closed. This information is for archival purposes.


About HALT (Help Abolish Legal Tyranny) - an Organization of Americans for Legal Reform, Inc. was founded in 1978, by four pioneering legal reformers - Paul Hasse, Matt Valencic, Bob Tigner and Kathy Ekedahl. In the three decades since then HALT has matured into the nation's largest legal reform organization, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest group of more than 50,000 members.

"Instead of working for all Americans, too often our legal system arbitrarily denies us access and unfairly shields unethical lawyers from answering for their misconduct," explains HALT Executive Director Jim Turner. "Sadly, when this happens, it's not justice; it is legal tyranny."

Dedicated to providing simple, affordable, accountable justice for all, HALT's Reform Projects challenge the legal establishment to improve access and reduce costs in our civil justice system at both the state and federal levels.

HALT's educational program has provided over a million copies of self-help books and public educational materials to help citizens understand the legal process and better manage their legal affairs. Its self-help series includes Using a Lawyer... And What To Do If Things Go Wrong, Do-It-Yourself Law, The Easy Way to Probate, Small Claims Court, Your Guide to Living and Other Trusts, If You Want to Sue a Lawyer: A Directory of Legal Malpractice Attorneys, and Everyday Contracts.

BLIND OVER-SIGHT?: Complaints against attorneys are exploding, Daily Business Review
Adobe Acrobat document [2.3 MB]
HALT amicus brief for Roberta Cripe, 18 pages
Halt amicus, Roberta Cripe.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [67.3 KB]
HALT amicus brief, in the matter of Mark Hager, disbarment, 20 pages
Halt amicus, Mark Hager disbarment.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [61.0 KB]
HALT, How Accessible is the Civil Justice System, 2p
HALT, How Accessible Is The Civil Justic[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [32.6 KB]