Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and twenty Senate cosponsors have introduced S.1638, a bill to authorize a fifty-one percent pay raise for the federal judiciary. Until the judiciary reforms itself and treats all parties involved in litigation equally, regardless of economic or social standing, this bill should not pass.

I am a blue collar worker in Salt Lake City and was one of the plaintiffs in a labor lawsuit filed in October 2004, in federal court against a large transit agency and a corrupt, company-controlled union that has been forced on the workers. We wanted to exercise our right to vote whether to retain the corrupt union or form a new union that would actually represent us. We followed established labor law, cited to an overwhelming amount of case law that supported our contention and relied on a nationally accepted test for evaluating "appropriate bargaining units" or unions. The case was assigned to a district court judge in Salt Lake City known to be very conservative and a member of the Federalist Society. He denied us all discovery and due process, discarded established labor law and made up his own, new legal standard that had no basis in law. He also created numerous procedural obstacles for us; for example, he refused to sign his own order making it difficult for us to appeal, ruled that we should have objected to a related governmental action before it occurred and, just as our attorney had predicted he would, pretended not to have seen an amended complaint before granting summary judgment and closing the case. This last action came about after three hearings in his court where it became obvious that he had no intention of ruling for us despite the strength of our case. We waited for a decision for three months but the judge would not issue an order. Our attorney prepared an amended complaint, which is allowed, reflecting changed circumstances that strengthened our case. He explained that he believed that the judge would immediately rule against us when the amended complaint was filed, leaving us free to appeal. The judge had the duty to consider the amended complaint and address it, however our attorney doubted that would happen. The amended complaint was filed at 11:48 p.m. on Sunday, August 14, 2005. It was docketed Monday, August 15, at 9:17 a.m. and the judge issued an order dismissing the case that afternoon at 2:13 p.m., just as our attorney had predicted he would. The decision allows companies and corrupt unions to decide who will represent transit workers.

We appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver and the case was heard. Oral arguments were held in May, 2006. The three judge panel consisted of a circuit court judge who is another Federalist Society member and who employed the district court judge's former judicial clerk; a ninety-year-old circuit court judge, retired from active status for twenty two years who gave no indication that he was lucid, and a visiting district court judge from Oklahoma who yelled at our attorney during oral arguments. She was apparently quite angry with our attorney because he had demonstrated, by filing the amended complaint and setting a trap, that the district court judge was biased against us. This disturbing panel ruled that the district court judge had acted properly although they were forced to change important facts of the case to affirm his legally flawed decision. The Supreme Court denied our petition for writ of certiorari May 10, 2007.

We documented everything and recently notified all members of the Senate Judiciary Committee about this case. The district court judge resigned shortly after, effective November 5, 2007. We also filed complaints against all the judges involved in the case with the judicial council of the Tenth Circuit as well as an additional complaint against the chief judge of the Tenth Circuit who turned a blind eye to the abuses we endured. However, of the nine members on the judicial council, three were the same judges we had complained about. Although the judicial council did not dispute any of our allegations the complaints were dismissed. It was nothing more than a star chamber.

We spent two and a half years trying, unsuccessfully, to get some justice through the courts. We wanted nothing more than the right to select an honest union that would represent our interests. The union and the transit agency, which spent an enormous amount of public money on the case, acted in unison to prevent this. It is clear from our experience that many large unions have become bloated bureaucracies feeding off the dues paid by members who are powerless to fight the status quo. Similarly, the court system, now filled with judges appointed by George W. Bush, most of them affiliated with the Federalist Society, is no longer an effective check against corporate or union abuses. Even the non-Bush judicial appointees seem more concerned with protecting the power of judges than being a check on these conservative, Federalist Society judges who seek nothing less than the judicial repeal of the "New Deal."

Considering how brazen the judges in our case were, we believe that working class Americans who challenge the powerful and politically well connected are often treated as we were. After losing, people are broke, demoralized, exhausted and unable to fight the injustice any longer. Attorneys don't want to fight the corruption because they have to continue to practice in front of the same judges. There is no real oversight of the courts and arrogant, elitist judges, more concerned with preserving the concentration of power than administering justice, are rarely held accountable for their actions. Yet these judges have the audacity to demand a large salary increase at a time when many Americans are facing stagnant or declining wages. They might be more sympathetic to average Americans if they shared the same economic fate.

Unless the judiciary, from Supreme Court Justices down to every district courts judge, decides to show some integrity and police their own, citizens of this country should loudly refuse to grant this salary increase.