Scalia admitted the courts are a scam and that you are a SUCKER.  

"There are a lot of non-reviewable ways a [trial] judge can make the case come out right," said Scalia.  The fix is in; it's a rig job.  Watch and listen to Scalia's 15-second "joke" that the courts are a fraud—fixed "to come out right."  He wasn't actually joking. The real joke is on those who are suckered into swallowing the "rule of law" baloney. (Minnesota courts are baloney supreme but now Iowa courts have overtaken Minnesota's in the race to the bottom. The good news is that neither's courts are as bad Maryland's, which are irredeemable. I think there's hope for Minnesota, which is why I keep on pitching. I'm now far less hopeful for Iowa courts, and Grassley is instrumental is this—maybe Joni Ernst, too.)

Click to watch Scalia.

If your connection is spotty, here's the 15-sec audio only.

(Audio/video from Federalist Society.) 

• Scalia and the FedSoc are laughing at your due process "guarantee" and all the SUCKERS who believe it exists, when the reality is the judge is in the pocket (Click for Chrissie Hynde historical artifact) of the favored lawyers and will "make it come out right" for them.  Judges want good clerks.  Good clerks want good jobs.  The biggest firms have the most jobs.  No lawyer?  You get the bone, of course.  The "suckers" made fun of by Scalia and the FedSoc include suckers who go off to war and fight (and fought) for our former Constitution—now crippled by the 1983 Feldman BOTCHED rule.  There's much more to say about this, but engineers simplify because we want to cut through the crap to the root cause.  Lawyers do the opposite.  Which method brought us out of the caves?  Which will take us back there?

• Scalia was no conservative.  A conservative would never joke about this obscene reality: that our due process and property rights are dead (and the rest of the Bill of Rights is crippled), because cases are wired "to come out right."  A "district judge" is a federal trial judge—you know, the ones you see in a courtroom on TV, banging the hammer; but they make crucial rulings before the trial.  Even if your case actually gets to a trial, it can already be dead from those pre-trial rulings.  You cannot appeal (in all but the rarest instances) the crucial evidence-rulings until after your pre-dead case is over. And you'll never win the appeal then anyway because: 1) trial-judge rulings that chop-out your evidence are virtually never reversed (and many/most appeals judges don't know and don't care how evidence rulings are actually reviewed on appeal): they just write, "the trial court did not abuse its discretion;" then go play golf; and 2) appeals judges demonstrating trial-judge incompetence/corruption would spotlight the entire fetid system.  It's a protection racket of judges protecting other judges protecting lawyers and their monopolized fees. I've got rock-solid examples of this, which I'll add here. (Judges don't realize that engineers are always taking data; and yes, the judge-lawyer mob will care eventually.)  The racket is successful, with the aid of fellow-traveling math flunkers (who skipped math for student council): the press/media, who are bamboozled by the Accordingly-Moreover-Indeed lawyer-jargon, and keep court corruption out of the press and off the public's radar.  This anti-corruption project will change that.

• No lawyer or judge is an actual conservative because none will question the reality of the govt-granted lawyer monopoly that got them where they are and the reality of its mob-control over courts.  No matter how much "originalism" and "textualism" and other polysci "isms" or "Constitutional republic" catchphrases lawyers babble, they won't bite the hand that fed them the money and power contacts that got them where they are—and, particularly, into Congress.  Truth: a government cannot be a Constitutional republic (or any other freedom-oriented entity, democracy or whatever) with a royal class—here, the lawyers.  Ask Utah's Mike Lee (who is right in some ways but critically-wrong in others) and other rote-learning lawyers who mindlessly intone "isms" and "Constitutional republic:" how can individual freedom coexist with the royal-class lawyer mob that gets federal-court privileges in the court rules, which we plebes do not get (never mind that cases are handed to them by their corrupt judge-pals)?  See if Mike answers you.  See if he starts calling names the way the playground-umbrellastepping lawyers do—like Kevin the Hennepin Menace Burke, the simpleton-fraud judge who demonstrated that he doesn't know what "civil procedure" is, even though he (and the 1996 Minnesota Supreme Court) tosses "civil procedure" around trying to intimidate people with it.  Burke was the canary in the Hennepin coal mine, in the months prior to George Floyd, that signaled that Minnesota courts (and the Star Tribune) were a uniquely-bizarre gang.

• Nor do any Democrat or "liberal" or "civil rights" lawyers (or whatever "for the people" label they pin on themselves) actually put YOUR interests above their monopolized kach$ng lawyer-fee interests for any length of time.  Maybe occasionally here and there, or they give a "courtesy" discount on their inflated fees when there's "client hesitation or pushback."  There are very rare exceptions, but no lawyer will dare blow the whistle on the Judge in Pocket lawyer-monopoly-mob.  They'll be hauled before a state supreme court with a Rule 8.2 charge: that the lawyer said bad stuff about a judge.  The lawyer-monopoly is about money and about preserving the illusion of  🤮 justice.  But they've never encountered a pissed off physics-math-EE.  I know exactly how they'll respond, if they dare. makeamericageekyagain@gmail.com