[jasonkolb]

When I was doing real estate investing I ran into a kangaroo "court" that the local corrupt city set up to handle property code violations. They would have a cop set up at the front and an appointed "judge" (they had some other name for him to not offend the law too mightily) who wore robes and asked everyone to stand up and sit down. The person in the robes would arbitrarily make up fines for the offenses according to their whims and moods. I know because there was a $4500 "judgement" on one of the houses I bought for having a driveway that needed to be repaired.

Anyway, it turns out that this "court" is a complete fabrication that the city put up as a way to put up the appearance of being fair. But cities are corporations, they aren't allowed to establish courts like this, and it was a complete sham. That's why you have to have a real judge hear traffic cases.

This is a sham traffic court too. This is not part of the judicial branch of government any more than the "property code violations court" presided over by a clown in black robes. There's a reason we have a separation of powers. A paid employee wielding a rubber stamp is not justice.

[techsupporter]

> But cities are corporations, they aren't allowed to establish courts like this

This depends on the laws of the state in which a city is located. In Texas, for instance, cities are "municipal corporations" whose only commonality with a "business corporation" is the word "corporation." State law, consistent with the state constitution, gives certain cities the authority to establish a variety of courts and "administrative tribunals" by passing a city ordinance. So, they are very much "allowed to establish courts like this," though the fairness in practicality may be in question.

[jwoah12]

I agree with your sentiment, but the Constitution gives congress the power to establish inferior courts.

[greenyoda]

But still, state and local governments are bound by the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause[1], so if a city court makes arbitrary and whimsical decisions they can probably be sued for civil rights violations.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

[3825]

I must be reading this incorrectly because if this is what I think this is then states and local governments cannot discriminate based on citizenship. Please correct me (and sorry for going off a tangent) but doesn't this make what they're doing in Arizona unconstitutional?

[rohansingh]

Yes, that was part of the basis of the DoJ's case there. The Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to all persons, not just citizens.

[redthrowaway]

How does that jive with the US citizen / non-citizen split in what the NSA feels entitled to do? Does that not imply all people are granted 4A rights?

[sjtgraham]

IANAL but I think the constitution only applies to people under the jurisdiction of the US, i.e. in US sovereign territory.

[dlitz]

They talk of "U.S. persons", not U.S. citizens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_person

[superuser2]

The government argues (and many lawyers agree) that 3rd party business records are not covered by the 4th amendment and reading them is not a "search." The amendment is very clear on the government's authority to come into your house and look around, and while it seems like it should protect electronic communication, it doesn't (necessarily).

It's actually the Wiretap Act that protects telephone calls, not the 4th amendment. But there's no real analogue of the Wiretap Act for things like email and Facebook.

[duaneb]

A US non-citizen person is still different from an alien.... consider children.

[jasonkolb]

Thanks... I actually hadn't thought about that aspect of it (that real estate court was still not established by Congress ;)

I've been reading up on that a bit since your comment, it's a pretty interesting topic because it touches on one branch's ability to influence another. It's a little troubling that a supreme court justice (Roberts, in this case) has the ability to fill this oversight court with whoever he wants. It seems that needs to be fixed.

[maxerickson]

He has to fill the court with federal judges that have been appointed by a President and approved by the Senate. That's a somewhat higher standard than whoever.

[tracker1]

I wish more people understood this... I keep seeing comments about being appointed with no oversight... there was oversight when they were approved by the congress(Senate). If they aren't fit to be on this court, then perhaps they aren't fit to be federal judges.

[cdash]

Perhaps they aren't, I think you would find that to be true in a lot of cases.

[nitrogen]

Perhaps there are people one would trust to be judges when there's a full public record of their proceedings, but not when those proceedings take place behind closed doors with no public oversight.

[tracker1]

My problem is the proceedings taking place behind closed doors and without any real oversight. Especially since DOJ/NSA/FBI have been outright lying to congress.

[Spooky23]

That real estate court was headed by someone more like an administrative law judge. Some states allow that sort of thing. In New York, towns and villages have elected justices who go to judge school for 60 hours. They preside over minor cases like traffic and "police court" type matters.

One of the more serious issues with the FISA court is that they appear to be only nominally distinct from the Executive. The staff seems to come from the DoJ, for example. I think this reflects the fact that this was until recently a sleepy backwater of the court system.

I wouldn't focus too much on the Chief Justice's ability to appoint the judges. Federal judges are very powerful people, and that power (and the permanence of their position) gives them more independence in terms of judgement than just about anyone.

[joonix]

There is a such thing as Administrative courts. IRS has them. Department of Justice has them for immigration. So, as long as this court was authorized by Congress the Executive can implement it.

[rgbrenner]

This sounds very similar to the description the NYtimes gave on their piece about NYs local court system:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/nyregion/25courts.html?pag...

[nodata]

So what was the end of the story? What did you do about this kangaroo court? Report it?