By Chris Spencer

Every Father in America Risks He and his Wealth Becoming Rabbit Food for Judges, Lawyers, Commissioners and Pscho-Babble Spokes "persons" all freeloading off of the work of others. The Family Parasite Court System, Now Overseen by Her Lordess, Kamala Harris...

In theory, integrity in the judiciary should be the bedrock of the rule of law and a fully functioning democracy. In practice, this noble ideal is far from the truth. Under leaders such as Kamala Harris—who tout their experience in the law while overseeing a judiciary thoroughly corrupted and riddled with ethical breaches—the foundation of our system of justice has been gravely and irreversibly undermined. Her tenure as Attorney General of California has been marred by a disturbing trend of failing to uphold standards of integrity, especially when it comes to the rights of men within the justice system. How does Harris tout a judicial system that has on her watch, ground innumerable men into grist?

High-Profile Cases of Judicial Corruption

One glaring case of judicial corruption was the impeachment of Judge Thomas Porteous in 2010 for bribery and perjury. He accepted money from lawyers and subsequently lied about it to federal investigators. This case illustrates that federal judges can indeed be corrupt, highlighting the larger problem: leadership, such as Harris, does nothing to stem the endemic corruption in the judiciary; corrupt activity continues with impunity.

Money Speaks: Justice for Sale

The alarming trend today is shaped by judicial campaign contributions, termed "justice for sale." For instance, former Pennsylvania Supreme Parasitic Court Justice Michael Eakin drew criticism for salacious emails he sent. His lack of impartiality when attorneys from his online network appeared in front of him raises red flags over the disproportionate impact financial interests have on judicial decisions. On Harris's watch, this system has degraded into an elitist playground wherein the ordinary citizen, particularly men seeking justice, has been left behind.

Bribery within Family Law

Even family law has not been spared from corruption. Notable cases include the conviction of Judge John M. O'Connor from New Jersey for accepting bribes to influence custody matters, ensuring many fathers did not receive justice. Former Family Parasitic Court Judge John J. McCarthy was also convicted for accepting bribes for favorable child custody decisions. Harris, during her tenure, failed to address these concerns and further propagated biases against men, leaving many fathers feeling disfranchised.

Corruption of Court-Appointed Commissioners

Corruption extends to court-appointed commissioners. Commissioner Thomas L. Adams of California was found guilty of receiving bribes for favorable family court decisions. Another example is Texas court-appointed commissioner Jennifer Lynn Riddle, implicated in a bribery scheme in 2021 that resulted in prejudicial rulings and harmed families (Miller, 2021). These weaknesses are issues that Harris has discreditably failed to address.

Systematic Differences in the Justice Process

Research shows that this area of the judiciary is characterized by racial and economic disparity, with minorities often receiving harsher sentences than their white counterparts for similar offenses (American Bar Association, 2017). This system tramples on equality before the law. While Harris has enjoyed the glory of her public persona, she has done nothing to mend these disparities, which have continued under her tenure.

The "Kids for Cash" Scandal

The "Kids for Cash" scandal has demonstrated the urgent need for judicial accountability. Former Judge Mark Ciavarella took kickbacks for jailing juvenile delinquents, showcasing how pecuniary gain can corrupt judicial decision-making. Harris's failure to act on such issues reflects poorly on her leadership and ability to effect real change.

Cost in Human Terms from Judicial Misconduct

Bad behavior by judges can lead to disastrous consequences, including wrongful convictions. For instance, Judge Timothy H. O'Neill from Florida failed to disclose crucial law enforcement connections, resulting in a wrongful conviction that caused years of anguish for an innocent defendant. Similarly, former Cook County Judge James S. O'Hara accepted bribes to dismiss charges against violent offenders, perpetuating further crimes. Harris's alarming silence on these injustices raises questions about her commitment to accountability.

The Perception of Judicial Corruption

A majority of attorneys are alarmed by the impact of money in judicial elections, according to a report published in the Journal of Law & Courts. Many believe that financial contributions destroy judges' impartiality (Meltsner, 2020). This perception is exacerbated by leaders like Harris, who have failed to alleviate such disturbing concerns.

Need for Reform

Not all judges engage in corrupt practices, but enough ethical breaches exist to shake public confidence in the U.S. judiciary. This is why reform is urgently needed, particularly regarding bribery in family law and systemic disparities faced by minority defendants. Influential figures, such as Kamala Harris, must prioritize transparency and accountability to restore public trust in the judicial system they claim to uphold.

Blood-Sucking Judiciary: The Corruption of Conservatorship

The issue of conservatorship abuse in recent decades has unveiled a troubling reality within our legal systems, particularly in California. In numerous high-profile cases, the very courts meant to protect the vulnerable have become part of a blood-sucking judiciary, complicit in systemic corruption. This corruption often manifests through a network of leeching federal and state courts, along with parasitic lawyers and judges who prioritize their financial interests over the well-being of those they are supposed to serve. The result? Funds are absconded, leaving vulnerable individuals without recourse.

A Disturbing Trend

The emergence of bloodsucking attorneys—those who thrive on exploiting the legal system—has been fueled by a culture of corruption within the courts. Many judges and commissioners overlook glaring abuses, often favoring friends or associates in the legal community. This nepotism creates an environment where justice becomes secondary to personal relationships, leading to a chilling effect on those seeking protection.

Case 1: The Britney Spears Conservatorship

The highly publicized conservatorship of Britney Spears serves as a prime example of this corruption. Initially intended to safeguard her interests, the arrangement quickly devolved into a scheme for financial exploitation. Court-appointed attorneys like Andrew Wallet and financial advisors drained millions from her estate. The lack of oversight from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, often ignoring evidence of mismanagement, points to a troubling alliance between legal professionals who prioritize profit over justice.

Case 2: The Case of Mary McCaffrey

In Florida, Mary McCaffrey's case underscores how leeching federal and state courts can become enablers of corruption. Her court-appointed guardian, Rebecca Fierle, seemingly favored by the system, exploited her condition for personal gain. Despite clear signs of elder abuse and financial misappropriation, the Orange County Circuit Court remained indifferent, allowing this tick to continue draining McCaffrey’s assets. The judges involved failed to take action, indicating a potential complicity driven by financial interests and personal connections within the legal community.

Case 3: The Adams Family Estate

The Adams family's tragic experience further exemplifies this pattern. The brother granted conservatorship over his elderly sister operated with impunity, pilfering her estate while the Santa Clara County Superior Court turned a blind eye. With judges seemingly in cahoots with parasitic lawyers, the judicial system failed to protect the sister’s interests. Instead, it became an instrument of exploitation, allowing the brother to abscond with funds that rightfully belonged to her.

These cases reveal the urgent need for reform to ensure that the vulnerable are genuinely protected from the predatory practices that have infiltrated the conservatorship system.

Through justice, integrity, and accountability, the judiciary can restore public confidence. Leaders in all capacities should advance these ideals rather than reinforce a status quo of corruption and partiality. Until these changes are made, men—and many others—will continue to struggle against a judiciary that often fails to protect their rights. In this great theater of justice, Kamala Harris may appear to be the hero, but her actions tell a different story: one of neglect, bias, and an unyielding commitment to a deeply flawed system.

Pomona's Child Custody Crisis

Corruption allegations have been raised against Pomona, California's child custody system. Central to this crisis is the unnerving influence of Dr. Roy Bradbury, whose evaluations and recommendations raise serious red flags.

The Role of Dr. Roy Bradbury

Dr. Roy Bradbury has gained notoriety for his custody evaluations, considered a highly influential factor in the courtroom. Numerous allegations suggest he unduly influences judges, leading to biased custody decisions based on his reports. Many parents complain that judges inflate his authority, allowing him to decide family fates.

Corruption in the Pomona Courts

The Pomona Superior Court has been criticized for making financial resources the motivating factor in accessing justice. Parents face exorbitant legal fees that marginalize lower-income families, preventing effective advocacy for their rights. Judges have been accused of excessively relying on Dr. Bradbury's assessments, raising ethical questions about the integrity of the court system and the best interests of the children.

From Psyche Crime Reporter:

California custody evaluator Roy W. Bradbury was unqualified to serve in the courts; case now under review

Filed under: Divorce and custody,mental health counselor,psychologist — Psych Crime Reporter @ 9:42 pm

Tags: Roy W. Bradbury

The following story ran in the August 6, 2010 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel:

The man who did psychological evaluations of children involved in divorce cases in San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Orange counties, guiding the courts in determining custody, and whose recommendations controlled the fate of thousands of individuals for over a decade took his own life earlier this year.

The death of Dr. Roy W. Bradbury, who was a court appointed expert for so-called 730 evaluations, has thrown into question the validity of the determinations that were made in hundreds of divorce cases in San Bernardino County.

Bradbury worked with lawyers, known as minor counsels, who were appointed by the court to represent children caught in the middle of the divorce of their parents.

Bradbury admitted under oath that he had lacked the proper licensing updates with regard to domestic violence since 2003.

Those minor counsels would recommend interviews with and reports on the children, known as 730 evaluations, to determine the child’s state of mind, preference toward one parent or the other and to make an evaluation as to which parent should get primary custody of the child.

For his work, Bradbury was paid $120 per hour, or in the neighborhood of $10,000 to $15,000 for each 730 evaluation he delivered.

In virtually all cases in which Bradbury was brought in as an expert witness, the court made a custody decision in accordance with his recommendations.

Bradbury was deemed so credible, that judges routinely overlooked contradictory opinions rendered by other psychologists or evaluators brought in on the same cases.

For years, however, critics have alleged that Bradbury was capricious, arbitrary or biased in his findings and that he in fact lacked the requisite training and licensing to function in the role of an expert psychological witness.

Within the last 12 months, evidence to undergird those accusations emerged. In September 2009, according to court records, Bradbury admitted under oath that he had lacked the proper licensing updates with regard to domestic violence since 2003. Such a lack of credentials rendered him unqualified under the family law code to serve as an evaluator.

Despite Bradbury’s possession of a PhD. in psychology from USC, he was unable to pass the state of California’s licensing exam as a psychologist.

Earlier this year, as information about his lack of training and his fraudulent licensing spread, rumors were rife that Bradbury was on the verge of departing the United States and seeking some form of refuge in Costa Rica.

A little more than two months ago, he died by his own hand. His action in taking his own life brings into question his own mental stability, and by extension, the validity of the thousands of conclusions he provided about the mental state of others.

On Saturday May 29, according to the Los Angeles Coroner’s Office, Bradbury who resided in Walnut, drove to an industrial park in the city of Industry. There, at 21508 Ferrero Parkway, a spot secluded by railroad tracks and relatively isolated and remote buildings, Bradbury shot himself while in his vehicle.

According to the coroner’s office, Bradbury expired from a single gunshot wound to the head.

Two years ago, a website, http://courtlawabusers.blogspot.com/2008/11/dr-roy-bradbury.html, was set up for the purpose of chronicling complaints with regard to Bradbury.

Since that time, questions about his level of competency, his bias and his tendency to make findings that were considered damaging to children have mushroomed. That adverse publicity may have played a role in the more recent revelations about his lack of accreditation.

Despite those revelations, San Bernardino County Superior Court has maintained Bradbury on its experts list for psychologists.

In one case, an eight year old girl was removed from the custody of her mother. Subsequently, tapes of Bradbury’s sessions with the girl surfaced in which Bradbury could be heard screaming at the child. One counseling professional who has heard the tapes told the Sentinel the tapes demonstrated Bradbury was mocking a child under stress and was not engaged in a therapeutic relationship with his client.

In the aftermath of his death, dozens of Bradbury’s 730 evaluations are due for consideration in various courts in Southern California. Motions to strike several of those evaluations as evidence are now being prepared.

-###-

Corruption in the Judiciary: A Critical Look at Kamala Harris's Role in Femi-Justice
https://olivebiodiesel.com/