Judicial corruption

Question(s) Presented The value of this case is over tens of millions of dollars. Defendant obtained huge amount of illegal proceeds through illegal business pattern: wage theft, wrongful termination, willful misclassification. Defendant used the large amount of illegal proceeds, to purchase judicial decision in favor of defendant, to influence and corrupt judges in the judicial system, and to form a multi-judge corruption ring. Facing the emergence of the reality of the multi-judge corruption ring, how does U.S. Supreme Court severely punish business who obtained huge illegal gains through illegal business pattern and stop the formation and spread of the multi-judge corruption ring? “Judicial corruption can be understood as the selling and purchasing of legal decisions.” (STRATOS PAHIS, Corruption in Our Courts: What It Looks Like and Where It Is Hidden (2009) 118 THE YALE LAW JOURNAL 1900, 1903) The bribery of judges has a direct impact on the very essence of the judicial function, ; which is to deliver an independent, fair and impartial decision. The consequence is unfairness and unpredictability in the legal process from start to finish, and a systematic undermining of the rule of law. Corruption in the judiciary is all the more damaging because of the important role the judiciary is expected to play in combating this very evil. As a consequence judicial corruption hampers national development, and the institution at the heart of the fight against corruption is disabled.(TI, Global Corruption Report 2007 supra P62) . “Denial of a trial by jury to one constitutionally entitled is “both reversible error and an act in excess of jurisdiction”, "This "denial of a trial by jury to one constitutionally entitled thereto constitutes a miscarriage of justice and requires a reversal of the judgment." however, 2.4 Appellate District Of California Court of Appeal did not reverse the judgment; “court reversed sanctions order when order did not recite in detail the conduct or circumstances justifying it”, however, 2"4 Appellate District Of California Court of Appeal did not reverse the sanction order; “a biased decision maker is constitutionally unacceptable,” however, Justice Hoffstadt committed fraud upon the court to deny constitutional entitled jury trial; he undermined impartiality mechanism of randomly selecting cases; he undermined Judge’s passive role; he was highly partial to defendant; he could not remain impartial; he served the interest of defendant; and he refused to disqualify himself. How can U.S. Supreme Court make “Every constitutional provision is self-executing to the extent that everything done in violation of it is void.” into reality? i “Every constitutional provision is self-executing to the extent that everything done in violation of it is void.”( Katzberg v. Regents of University of California (2002) 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 482, 29 Cal.4th 300,58 P.3d 339 .Constitutional Law 640) Denial of a trial by jury to one constitutionally entitled thereto is “both reversible error and an act in excess of jurisdiction” [Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Co. (1977.) 74 CA3d 383, 389] "This “"denial of a trial by jury to one constitutionally entitled thereto constitutes a miscarriage of justice and requires a reversal of the judgment."" (Arciero Ranches v. Meza (1998.) 17 Cal.App.4th 114, 126, 21 Cal. Rptr.2d 127, quoting People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe (1951.) 37 Cal.2d 288, 300, 231 P.2d 832..) [The U.D. Registry, Inc. (2003) 105 Cal. App. 4th 1382, 1392 (court reversed sanctions order when order did not recite in detail the conduct or circumstances justifying it)] “Not only is a biased decisionmaker constitutionally unacceptable, but “our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." In re Murchison, supra at 349 U.S. 136; cf. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510, 273 U. S. 532 (1927). In pursuit of this end, various situations have been identified in which experience teaches that the probability