In 2016 I filed a Civil RICO Case pro se and under pauper status at the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Because I filed under pauper status, to mean without an attorney and unable to pay the costs myself, this Civil RICO Case was handed over to a process called: SCREENING FOR MERIT. Now lets be clear. Judges don’t like Civil RICO Cases, or in fact any case brought by ordinary citizens. Too many judges equate being poor to mean frivolous; having no legal merit. The separate and unequal treatment that follows is biased to believe that if a case will not be taken on by an attorney that case must be unworthy at the outset. More likely than not a waste of the courts valuable time and resources. Enter, SCREENING FOR MERIT.
When filing a pro se case under pauper status within the federal courts that case is first reviewed by an assigned judge; often a magistrate judge. That judge will decide if the case rises to the level that due process is warranted. If this is news to you. Or if this sounds inherently unconstitutional that is because it is. In this huge imbalance of power corrupt judges, more aligned with a personal ideology or political agendas than they are with the rule of law. More interested in containing budgets, improving turn around court statistics, or protecting against recognition of certain crimes can all too easily exceed the strict screening criteria and kill any case they choose.
The expectation is that victims of screening in the hands of a corrupt judge, overcome by the huge imbalance of power and disparity regarding knowledge of basic constitutional rights and the law will simply follow the pro se script and give up. I chose to fight back. In doing so I encountered a culture offended and defensive of my right to do so.
At the SCREENING FOR MERIT juncture all claims are to be accepted as true. This is because “screening” is NOT DUE PROCESS. There is no judge sitting on the bench with whom one can interact with. There is no jury or access to discovery, nor opportunity to challenge lies coming from the defendants.
Since the immediate goal was to catch and kill my Civil RICO Case while at the same time curtailing any risk that federal law enforcement might take a hard look at the claims and extensive proof I had amassed Due Process as a right of every American had to be denied.
Asserting vigorously and repeatedly that one has fulfilled a legally required responsibility while utterly failing to do so, was a strategy of the Magistrate Judge assigned to tank my case before it could be heard. These same tactics seated in denial of the right to be heard followed me from the district court to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The primary duty of appeals courts is the error correction mandate. They are to address possible errors and mistakes at lower courts. If errors under law are found (such as overtly slandering the claims; failing to screen a case, but in fact ruling on a case) that case would be sent back to the district court.
Appeals courts cannot use SCREENING FOR MERIT as a tool to winnow cases, obstructing access to due process while denying the right to be heard. The solution is a far more devious, insidious practice. This is the practice of delegating “less than” or troublesome appeals to the sole discretion of those that are not judges. Clerks and, or, Staff Attorneys write the opinions that judges then rubber stamp. Right to appear is foreclosed on the front end. The expectation that judges actually read the briefs and do the work required under law does not exist for every appeals case. Therefore, constitutional rights are not evenly applied.
These are Civil Rights Violations. These are Constitutional violations statistically impacting a separate class of people, i.e., average American citizens in ever increasing numbers. Just as those that sought to see slavery accepted, before and after the Civil War; accepted as an economic necessity as though the end really does justify the means courts today are less likely to operate for the people. Distilled to one word this inequity is operational, self protected, and institutionalized as CORRUPTION.
The very act of delegating an appeals case to those that are not judges opens the door to unprecedented levels of corruption. Influencing the actions of corrupt court employees to catch and kill an appeal is far easier to accomplish when judges are taken out of the equation. Access to bribe or influence outcomes per employees of the court carries far less risk than actually bribing or even blackmailing individual judges.
I filed four complaints of judicial misconduct with the Circuit Executive at the Sixth Circuit. I mailed these complaints along with exhibits, priority mail on November 1, 2018. Because two years later these complaints were treated as if they did not exist in the realm of fact. And still are. Because my efforts to be heard on objection(s) at the sixth circuit were, and currently are, repeatedly tanked by the same career bureaucrats deeply embedded and bunkered down; self protecting against numerous violations of Procedural Due Process (including forgery and replacement of a filing), I published these complaints in my book. You can find and read these complaints in chapters six through nine.
While it has been intermittently hard to find my book… yes, censorship exists. Here is a link. I hope to offer this book on this website, but for now it can be found at: Amazon.com: Alexandra Clair: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle Though I am self-published I purchased my ISBN numbers from Bowker. You should be able to order this book by title, author name, and ISBN Number from any book store. ISBN Number: 9780984705948. Please do let me know if you have any trouble.