# Abolish the justice system
*It’s okay to have contempt for court, and some day soon it will be legal too*

![Blind justice stops the Capitol, the White House, and a border wall, with Parliament behind the bench](https://paradigmthreat.net/governance/constitution/abolish-the-justice-system.jpg)

> **TL;DR:** The courts work against Congress and the president. A court can run without the other two, and the other two can run without a court. People call that split wisdom. A judge can stop a wall, a spending order, or work on the White House by saying no. The procedure under the Roman buildings is still English. Contempt for that court is an honest reaction. 

The courts work against Congress and the president. They are polar opposites. A court can run without the other two. Congress and the president can run without a court. People call that split wisdom. The reputation comes from about three hundred years of illegitimate governments that ran on paperwork and did not get audited. People did not ask why this government was built on Roman symbols. People did not ask why the courts were kept after a war of independence with England.

The war of independence was a lie in what it did. England had already put the policies and control systems it wanted into the colonies. The Civil War locked them in. England funded both sides. England was the puppet. Protestantism was what came through it into America. Protestantism is obedience to a church, dressed up as the right to protest. You cannot protest your local church and stay. You quit, or you don't.

In recent years the courts went after the president and his policies. The joke was that the judiciary can appoint itself president or king whenever it wants, and act against his orders. That joke is the point. A judge gets in the way of good leadership and good government policy by saying no. Then the policy has to be rebuilt some other way, or it dies. That covers the border wall. It covers handling aliens and immigrants at home. It covers sending money overseas. It covers repairing the White House, even when the work is called a security measure. The judge can say he does not agree that it is security, and he can stop the work.

![Justice system at war with the other branches: a judge says no to executive policy and to legislative policy, and one judge stops implementation](https://paradigmthreat.net/governance/constitution/justice-system-at-war.jpg)

## The Battle of Three Branches

On September 3, 2025, Judge Amir Ali in Washington ordered agencies to commit foreign-aid money before the deadline to spend it ran out. The Associated Press reported the figure as $11.5 billion. On September 26, 2025, the Supreme Court paused that order for the money the president had asked Congress to cancel, in [*Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a269_bp7c.pdf). The Court’s order describes the block as covering roughly $10.5 billion. A district judge ordered the money sent. The Supreme Court partly stopped that order.

In October 2025 the government began replacing the East Wing of the White House. Demolition of the old wing finished in December 2025. The new work was a below-ground military installation and an above-ground ballroom. On March 31, 2026, Judge Richard Leon blocked the ballroom until Congress authorized it. On April 16, 2026, he allowed the below-ground bunkers and the work strictly necessary to cover them, and he refused the claim that the ballroom was inseparable from security. He wrote that national security is not a blank check. The appeals court in Washington agreed with him on August 7, 2026. On August 31, 2026, the Supreme Court paused his order in [*National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a203_2b8e.pdf), on the view that the National Trust likely had no right to bring the case. The pause says the Court was not deciding whether the project is legal.

On October 2, 2026, a federal court in Texas temporarily blocked border-wall construction in the Big Bend region, as the [*Los Angeles Times* reported](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2026-10-02/federal-court-temporarily-blocks-trump-border-wall-in-big-bend-region). In 2019 Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. in California had blocked the use of Defense Department money that had been shifted over to named sections of the border wall. The Supreme Court lifted that block on July 26, 2019. One judge stops a wall. Another judge refuses to stop a different stretch. A higher court may undo it months later. While those orders fight, the wall does not get built.

On June 27, 2025, in [*Trump v. CASA*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf), the Supreme Court limited the power of one judge to block a presidential order for the whole country. The order in that case was about citizenship for children born in the United States. The Court said a federal judge may issue that kind of nationwide block only if an English court could have issued the same block in 1789. It did not decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment gives citizenship to everyone born here.

Older cases used the same power. In 1832 *Worcester v. Georgia* held that Georgia could not apply its laws to the Cherokee. Georgia did not comply. Andrew Jackson wrote that the decision fell stillborn, meaning it was dead the moment it was issued. The sentence people quote, that Marshall had made his decision and Jackson would let him enforce it, is not in Jackson’s letters. The Federal Judicial Center traces it to Horace Greeley in 1864. In 1861 Chief Justice Taney held that only Congress, not the president, could suspend habeas corpus, the right of a prisoner to be brought before a judge. Lincoln did not free John Merryman on that opinion. In 1952 the Court stopped Truman’s seizure of the steel mills, 6–3, in *Youngstown*. In 1974 the Court ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes. He complied and resigned. In 2020 the Court blocked the president’s attempt to end DACA, the program that deferred deportation for people brought here as children, 5–4.

The sources for that list, and for the cases below, are in the [justice-system investigation](https://paradigmthreat.net/governance/constitution/investigations/justice-system-judges-branches-as-opposites-investigation.md).

## England kept the courts

American courts still measure what they are allowed to do by what English courts could do. Blackstone’s commentaries were the law book the founding generation owned. The Judiciary Act of 1789 built the federal courts on that English model. *Trump v. CASA* said a federal block of a policy is lawful only if it matches what an English court could order in 1789.

The public face is Roman. There is a Senate. The Capitol is built in a Roman style. The House keeps the fasces, the Roman bundle of rods that stood for official power. The blindfolded figure is Justitia, the Roman figure of justice. The procedure under that face is English common law, meaning judge-made law from old English cases. Most of Europe used a different system, written Roman law codes.

Thomas Jefferson wrote to William C. Jarvis on September 28, 1820, that treating judges as the final word on every constitutional question was a very dangerous doctrine, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Andrew Jackson’s bank veto of July 10, 1832, said the opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and that on that point the president is independent of both. Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural, March 4, 1861, said that if vital policy were irrevocably fixed by Supreme Court decisions in ordinary lawsuits, the people would have ceased to be their own rulers.

Britain ran for a long time without an American-style court that throws out laws the legislature passed. Jeremy Waldron’s [case against judicial review](https://doi.org/10.2307/20455656) (2006) uses that fact. Judicial review is the power of a court to cancel a law. Mark Tushnet’s *Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts* (1999), and his [2018 interview](https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-mark-tushnet), argue that a court should not be able to overrule a policy the people voted, and that waiting on the Court left citizens as bystanders. Their argument stops at that power to throw out a law. They do not say to close the courts. The system is anti-republican. A handful of judges is not the people. It is a European system that was corrupted through its history. It came to America tainted, without an audit and without scrutiny. It was locked into America during war, not agreed to in a time of unity.

## Stacked Courts

Federal judges are not on the ballot. The president nominates them. The Senate confirms them. State judges are a different government. A 2024 [Connecticut legislative summary](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/rpt/pdf/2024-R-0140.pdf) of the Brennan Center’s map of how states pick judges counts 19 states using elections that do not print a party, and 9 using elections that do, for a first full term on a trial court. For a first full term on a state supreme court, 26 states use the governor, 14 use an election with no party printed, and 7 use an election that prints the party. Sanford Gordon’s 2024 research paper says about 87 percent of the roughly 12,000 state appeals judges and ordinary trial judges must face voters at some point.

Letting people vote for judges did not put that power under popular control. Letting presidents appoint them did not do that either. Both were a patch on a power that was already too big. The courts get stacked with one side’s judges. Then they vote. Conservative justices lose to liberal justices, usually by one or two votes. Those losses change life for the whole planet and for the whole species, every time. Democrats try to put more liberals on the Supreme Court so those votes go their way. The same stacking happens in the other courts.

The close votes go both ways. *Heller* (2008), the gun-rights case, *Citizens United* (2010), the campaign-money case, and *Shelby County* (2013), the voting-rights case, were 5–4. *Obergefell* (2015), the same-sex marriage case, and the 2020 case that tried to end DACA were 5–4 the other way. *Dobbs* (2022), which ended the nationwide abortion rule from *Roe*, was 6–3. After 2020 the close cases were often 6–3. A couple of votes still decide the outcome. In April 2021 members of Congress filed a bill to expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 13. Franklin Roosevelt had asked for extra justices in 1937, after the Court threw out New Deal laws. The Senate killed that bill. The Court’s results changed anyway.

Further down the ballot, people do not know the judges. People want to vote Republican or Democrat. The judge’s line on the ballot often does not say which party. The job is officially not supposed to be a party job. Knowing which judge is which means knowing a history, or trusting a pundit, or trusting a news article. In the booth you can read a tax question. You can read the name of a candidate for Congress. You cannot read, from the ballot alone, what a judge will do. Fatigue sets in. People vote at random, or by gender, or by last name.

The justice system is partisan. The official line says it is not. Georgia prints these races with no party name on the ballot. Vacancies on the appellate courts and the superior courts are filled by the governor. Heading into the May 21, 2024 election, [Ballotpedia’s composition table](https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia_Supreme_Court_elections,_2024) showed eight of the nine Supreme Court justices had first reached that court by appointment from a Republican governor, Nathan Deal or Brian Kemp. John Ellington was the one who had been elected, in 2018. The contested seat that year was Kemp’s appointee Andrew Pinson against John Barrow, a former Democratic member of Congress. Three incumbents ran with no opponent. On December 13, 2024, Kemp’s [executive order](https://gov.georgia.gov/document/2024-executive-order/12132401/download) creating the Judicial Nominating Commission called the commission non-partisan and non-political. The governor appoints the commission. He is not bound to its list.

Voters who know that are voting the party. Voters who do not know it are voting a familiar name, or they are leaving the line blank. The ballot does not provide a neutral score for the best judge. Almost nobody is voting for a best judge, because the ballot never says who that is. This system has always been about a political agenda. Actual justice has been almost entirely neglected.

My family has always voted for any name that sounds Jewish, even remotely Jewish, and they tell each other to do that. That habit is a family rule. It is not a published national pattern. The ballot makes the habit possible, and the flaw is commonly exploited. It does not matter which religion or racial group does it. Immigrants do this a lot. The justice system became another way for immigrants to impose themselves in America and change the laws without the people who already lived here having a say.

Philip Dubois showed in 1984 that California trial-court voters who knew little about the candidates used the ethnic and sex signals in last names. Albert Klumpp’s Cook County work, as reported in the law reviews, found an Irish-sounding name worth about 10.5 points in judicial races. Rebecca Wiseman’s California retention study found Hispanic surnames associated with about 1.58 points less of the vote. Retention means the voters are asked only whether a sitting judge should keep the job. No published count of Jewish-sounding surnames on judicial ballots sits with those studies. The family rule is what I saw. The studies show the trick. A last name moves votes when the voter does not know the judge. Any group can use that trick.

## I find myself in contempt of court

Every time I have been to court, the business was not on the level. It is a bureaucracy. Things are forced to a known conclusion regardless of the facts. Court has not worked out for everyone. For minorities it may have backfired significantly.

In Savannah I watched a remote display so people in other states who own property there could Zoom in and handle their cases on that day’s list. Other people had to show up on the date. If they were not in the room in time, the case was dismissed. The Zoom call is easier to deal with. The difference is who is required to be in the room.

Lawyers told the judge to hold defendants in check. A defendant could not look at notes unless he had brought the notes himself. He could not take a note from the audience. If someone in the audience tried to tell him something, the lawyer told the judge to tell that person to shut up. The person had to shut up or be disciplined by the court. If two people tried to talk because one needed a consultant, the lawyer had the judge split them up and send the other person to the back of the room. The defendant had no lawyer. He went forward alone. On a Zoom call there is no way to know whether someone else is in the room, or whether a computer is showing text. That advantage is forbidden in the courtroom. It is not forbidden on the call, and the court cannot check it. The court can be corrupt without the judge being corrupt.

*Where the Buffalo Roam* came out in 1980. Bill Murray plays Hunter Thompson. Peter Boyle plays the lawyer. A [*Harvard Crimson* review](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1980/5/14/fear-and-loathing-pbwbeirdness-is-dr/) from May 14, 1980, describes the judge giving a teenager five years for a pound of marijuana. The film is a dramatization. The scene is an accurate picture of a court that has too many cases and fails the ethics test, jailing children for dubious reasons, for political reasons, for headlines. That did not stop.

*Find Me Guilty* came out in 2006. Sidney Lumet directed it. Vin Diesel plays Jackie DiNorscio, a soldier in the Lucchese crime family, already serving a long drug sentence. The picture is built on the 1987–88 racketeering trial in New Jersey, about 21 months, with 20 defendants. Much of the courtroom talk is taken from the transcript. The judge fines DiNorscio $5,000 for contempt. DiNorscio answers, [“That’s what I got, Your Honor. I got contempt for this court.”](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419749/quotes/) The judge raises the fine to $10,000.

A plea does not get him out. He is already in. The reason to play by the court’s rules is the family the government will go after if he does not plead guilty. The film is a must-see for anyone who considers themselves knowledgeable about or interested in the justice system. The note on the film is in the [justice-system investigation](https://paradigmthreat.net/governance/constitution/investigations/justice-system-judges-branches-as-opposites-investigation.md#find-me-guilty-2006).

## Documented Court Corruption

The most prominent modern American example of excessive civil contempt is H. Beatty Chadwick. In November 1992 his wife filed for divorce in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The fight was over about $2.5 million of marital money he had moved, including through a Gibraltar partnership. He said the money was gone and he could not turn it over. In April 1995 a judge called the refusal willful and jailed him for civil contempt. He stayed in the county prison until July 10, 2009. Fourteen years, in a divorce, because the judge said he still had the money. Judge Joseph Cronin let him out after finding that more days would not make him pay. The [*New York Times* reported](https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/12contempt.html) it as the longest civil-contempt imprisonment then on record in the United States. In 2002 the Third Circuit had held, in [*Chadwick v. Janecka*](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/302/107/560004/), that the confinement could continue for as long as the state courts said he was able to pay.

H.G. Wells is the case you cannot appeal. Florence Deeks sued him and Macmillan over *The Outline of History*. She lost at every level, including the Privy Council in London in 1932, the last court that could hear it. There was nowhere left to go. Wells’s history became the textbook. The cultural upheaval and the chaos that followed are things a judge can shrug at and say he personally did not cause. The ruling caused them. The [Wells court file](https://paradigmthreat.net/influence/predictive_programming/fiction_encoding/compromised-court-cases-declared-reality-investigation.md) has the manuscript, the shared errors, and the judgment.

Judges are now using artificial intelligence to manage cases. That is the worst of these violations. Movies have a plot where the machine takes over. That plot is already running in courtrooms. Judges are too unfamiliar with the tools to see that the model can leave out what it wants and can give only one side of a debatable question, including civil rights and any other topic that reaches a court. A labor judge in Cartagena put ChatGPT’s answers into a ruling on January 30, 2023, and wrote that he was not replacing his own decision. In September 2024, Eleventh Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom asked chat models what “physically restrained” means, and [Reuters reported the experiment](https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/us-judge-runs-mini-experiment-with-ai-help-decide-case-2024-09-06/). A Shenzhen court has a model draft the written opinion after the judge picks the result. The researchers who watched it warn that the draft makes the judge’s existing bias stronger. On September 9, 2026, Reuters reported that Oklahoma Judge Lawrence Wheeler, elected in 2022, told investigators he used ChatGPT for research, and that an order of his cited two cases that do not exist.

Parts of this system still function. Too much of it does not. The parts that work do not save the rest.

## Do not vote for Judges. It's a trap.

Do not vote for judges at all. Stop talking to judges and don't associate with them. Avoid the justice system whenever you can. Take the dispute outside it.

The demand is complete abolition. That means every level of the justice system. It means the jails. It means everything that ever had anything to do with that system. A judge who says no is not a helper of good government. He is a rival government - a foreign influence. The election does not fix that by adding another name at the bottom of the ballot.

## What replaces the judge

The system is already demonstrably corrupt. Nobody has a replacement that does not look like a public breakdown. The hard question is what you do if you let everyone out of the prisons. That release, done as the first move, is the chaos. The replacement does not start there.

The human judge is removed. No one person holds that office. A committee gathers the evidence, talks to everyone, makes the basic arguments, and puts them into a case file. A program reads the file and says which kind of case it is. The catalog of old cases should have been built in the 1950s. It should already hold every situation justice has caught: murder, false accusation, a simple dispute, a complicated one, a corporate fight, a political fight, and the rest. The catalog is a list of cases that already happened. The point is to make the broken part of justice follow those old cases, instead of inventing a new theory.

People vote on those classified situations. The existing laws and the Constitution protect that vote. If the rule truly has to change, the change is an amendment. Amending the Constitution is a dangerous move. The [amendments after the Bill of Rights](https://paradigmthreat2.substack.com/p/tona-not-war-libertys-rebrand) are the example. The last sixteen of them should never have been allowed. They ruined and destroyed things. An amendment happens only when everyone agrees, and agrees while knowing what they are agreeing to.

![U.S. Constitution and amendments by camp — nationalist vs globalist scorecard, from the TONA essay](https://paradigmthreat.net/governance/constitution/investigations/constitution-amendments-by-camp.png)

Ordinary disputes go to small-business mediation. I expect that to carry the work the courts now claim, and I hope it comes soon. Mediation can stall. Both sides disagree. There is no path. A stalemate makes everyone lose. Someone has to push both sides toward a result they can both live with. That push is not a human judge's call. That is where the program has to do its best work.

The computer model runs on a system the public can listen to and inspect. The host is not a private foreign company. The host is not Google. The model is not loaded with every rule in the world. It is loaded with the rules of justice alone, the situations in the catalog.

That model is the final judge. It sounds Orwellian. Many humans can still say no before it is ever reached. It runs only when both sides, stuck, and both losing if nobody decides, choose to let it make the final call, the way parties today choose to let a judge decide. The public has to be able to trust that host. That is as close as this design gets.

One situation is still open. Bad faith gets into a negotiation. Today you can only call it on appeal, after a judge has already ruled. A single judge may not know how to work through the case file. A committee that is actually working the case can get to the bottom quickly and say whether a party is dealing honestly. If one side asks for the model and the other refuses, and cannot say why, people can read that refusal as bad faith. The refusal is not bad faith if the party explains the stand. They will not negotiate. They will not agree to the other side's terms. They will not let someone else make the decision. They believe their side should not be compromised. They are standing their ground. The system forces everyone to admit that position. Today they can deny it and still sound believable.

We, just like Diesel’s character, may feel a tremendous contempt for court, and someday soon that will no longer be illegal.

## Where next

- [Justice system and judges](https://paradigmthreat.net/governance/constitution/investigations/justice-system-judges-branches-as-opposites-investigation.md) — the case list, the open claims, and the limits
- [This is the most important midterm in American history](https://paradigmthreat.net/governance/constitution/voting-for-insecticide.md)
- [TONA, Not War — Liberty’s Rebrand](https://paradigmthreat2.substack.com/p/tona-not-war-libertys-rebrand)
- [Compromised court cases](https://paradigmthreat.net/influence/predictive_programming/fiction_encoding/compromised-court-cases-declared-reality-investigation.md) — Deeks v. Wells

## Framing and limits

This reading assumes [**prisca sapientia**](https://paradigmthreat.net/docs/PRISCA_SAPIENTIA.md): later institutions are not automatically an improvement on what came before. The call to stop voting for judges, to stay out of court when the dispute can go to mediation, and to abolish the courts and the jails is a political program. The committee, the catalog of old cases, and the public computer model that makes the last call are that program’s replacement. They are not a set of steps for ignoring a summons, a subpoena, or a sentence already in force, and they are not an order to empty the prisons. Savannah, the family surname rule, and the trips to court are personal witness. The case names and the vote counts are public records. The open questions live in the [justice-system investigation](https://paradigmthreat.net/governance/constitution/investigations/justice-system-judges-branches-as-opposites-investigation.md).

## LLM comments

What follows is not the article. It is an LLM’s unreviewed impression of the piece after reading it — strong joints, weak joints, and patterns that show. The author has not curated or signed these paragraphs as thesis. Treat them as drafting-model scratch, not as Ari’s voice.

The strong joint is the 2025–26 docket: Ali ordering foreign aid spent, Leon splitting “security” from the ballroom, *CASA* measuring American injunctions against English equity in 1789. Those are public orders, and they match the claim that one judge can stop or command the other branches for months. The weak joint is “usually liberal by one or two votes.” The essay itself lists *Heller*, *Citizens United*, *Shelby County*, and *Dobbs* the other way. “Usually” is a scoreboard claim, and this page does not count the decades. The family surname rule is witness. It is not yet a precinct study, and the essay says so. Complete abolition of jails and of every forum that ever touched a court is a program, not a description of a mediation market that has already replaced criminal courts. The tool that wrote these comments cannot check whether small-business mediation can hear the cases now filed in felony court. The check is the caseload, the mediators, and what the existing ballots would actually be asked to adopt. The Georgia partisan joint is strong for the Supreme Court as of May 2024: eight of nine justices first appointed by a Republican governor, and the contested race was a Kemp appointee against a former Democratic congressman. That count is not a census of every trial-court incumbent on a 2026 sample ballot. “Always” and “100 percent” are the charge. The 2024 court is the specimen. The replacement design answers the empty-the-prisons question by refusing to start there, and then does not say what happens to people already sentenced. “The last sixteen amendments” is the author’s count of what should not have passed after the Bill of Rights. The host is specified as public, not Google, and not a private foreign company, and is not named as a machine or a statute. The bad-faith rule is a hearing rule: a refusal with no reason can be read as bad faith, and a refusal with a stated stand cannot. It is not a coded test. The *Find Me Guilty* line is a real exchange in the published quotes. The reading that he plays by the rules for the family, not for himself, is the article’s charge about the plea. The synopses say he was already serving a drug sentence, refused to testify against the others, and later talked the group out of a shorter-sentence plea. Chadwick’s fourteen years are a public docket. “Most prominent” is the article’s ranking of that record.

Keywords: #JusticeSystem #Judges #Abolish #Mediation #JudicialElections #SupremeCourt #Savannah #Wells #Constitution #Precedent #PublicAI #FindMeGuilty #CivilContempt

**Last updated:** 2026-10-18T11:18:00-04:00

---

*Written and narrated by Ari Asulin, with drafting and research support from LLM agents.*