Were all judges from the entire recused court simply defrauded in the government corruption case or was there more to it?

A stunning decision in California where a judge ordered recusal of all judges of a certain court in a corruption case involving federal prosecutors and investigators.

Comments as to that are also priceless, especially that they are complemented with documents evidencing judicial misconduct that the blogger describes.

Yet, the question remains - now that all judges of the district court are recused and the case is removed to another court, will there be any investigations into the character and scope of the recused judges' potential involvement in the government corruption case?

And here, where the federal prosecutors and investigators (who would investigate any potential criminal misconduct of judges) are themselves the defendants in a case - who is going to do the investigations and, potentially, prosecutions?

With my knowledge of how incestous connections of the judicial system are with the other branches of the government on state and federal levels, I somehow doubt that the judges' involvement was just that they were allegedly "defrauded" by the federal investigators and prosecutors in a case where a corporation was falsely accused of starting a massive fire and had to pay millions of dollars in fines and cede thousands of acres of land in satisfaction of the false claims of the government.

And yet another question arises.

A victimized corporation obviously has money and power to go against the federal government and make their rights vindicated.

What about the average person from the streets who was falsely accused and hurt by the government at any level?

For an average American - between ignorant, incompetent and biased state courts who deem constitutional claims frivolous and impose anti-filing injunctions for raising such issues, and Younger abstentions dumping all federal constitutional claims from federal courts into biased and incompetent state courts, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, "barring jurisdiction", in the opinion of federal courts, from review of constitutional claims filibustered by state courts in federal courts - no remedy for violation of his or her civil rights exists in this country.

And that has to change.