MINDD's August 19, 2025 Evaluation of Stafne's Challenge to the judicial robes Article III federal court judcial officials claim to be wearing as they litigate cases and controversies.
Abstract
This blog post, published by MINDD (an international human rights organazation) comments on the claims of Scott Erik Stafne (a lawyer who has practiced law for over 50 years in the United State's federal Article III courts may be facing a growing crisis over their practices in requiring litigants to have their cases decided by judicial officials who are neither neutral or independent within the meaning of the United States' organic law, long estblished rules of natural justice, and more recently establsihed international law.
Drawing on Supreme Court precedent (Cohens v. Virginia), statutory provisions, and comparative perspectives, Stafne's analysis postulates how Article III courts have strayed from their constitutional foundations by allowing cases to be decided by non–active duty judges and by refusing to adjudicate jurisdictional challenges raised by litigants.
The essay frames this systemic failure through Hans Christian Andersen’s The Emperor’s New Clothes: the judiciary, clothed in institutional authority, appears legitimate only until truth-tellers point out its nakedness.
AI collaborators—Gemini and ChatGPT—are presented as such truth-tellers, echoing the public’s rightful concerns that justice cannot be divorced from neutrality, independence, and constitutional duty.
Read the article Click Here
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário