The other day, I was cleaning out my wallet and found a “prediction” from a fortune cookie I had pocketed a while back for good luck. It read, “If a true sense of value is to be yours, it must come through service.”

Indeed, many years ago, after about 17 years in the trenches of a legal profession that to me had come to resemble a cesspool rather than a bastion of righteousness, I conceived of and founded the public interest group Judicial Watch, which during my tenure there developed a reputation for bringing frequently successful cases intended to ensure that “no one is above the law.”

In this regard, I am the only lawyer ever to have obtained a court ruling that a U.S. president committed a crime – a sad but necessary precedent which occurred during the Clinton administration. The case involved the infamous Filegate scandal, where the Clintons – two lawyer officers of the court no less – had illegally obtained and then used Privacy Act-protected confidential FBI files against their perceived adversaries. The victim in the ruling at issue was one Kathleen Willey, a woman whose analogous confidential White House files were released in a failed attempt to discredit her, orchestrated by then President Bill Clinton and his equally ethically compromised political adviser, James Carville. Ms. Willey had been sexually harassed in the Oval Office by President Clinton shortly after her husband had died, and she had become a key witness in the president’s impeachment proceedings.

Get Larry Klayman’s fascinating account of his battle with the powers that be: “Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment.”

While the president of the United States is not above the law, neither are the judges whom he or she chooses. That was the primary reason I conceived of and founded Judicial Watch, as its names belies. Over the years, I had come to realize that our federal judges in particular had broken away not only from their supposed ethical underpinnings, but also from “We the People.” They had become, in their own arrogant and lawless minds and ways, the new American nobility – accountable to no one but themselves.

As I chronicle in my book, “Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment,” one judge in particular, William D. Keller, then of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, had pushed me over the edge with his bigoted remarks and highly prejudicial conduct toward my client and me. But he was not the first; only the last one to break the back of this “legal camel.”

So, in many ways, I owe this corrupt federal judge a debt of great gratitude. He sent me on a road toward public service, as predicted in my fortune cookie.

But neither I nor my flock have yet to complete our journey on this road. The state of the nation is in more than in dire straits. It’s on its last legs, and our federal judiciary bears more than small responsibility for this.

Our Founding Fathers created our judicial branch in large part to protect “We the People” against the tyranny of the other two branches of government. Ironically, and sadly, the judicial branch has over the last decades proven to be even more tyrannical than its legislative and executive “brethren.” Regrettably, with a federal bench that protects itself from scrutiny and remedial measures, it has, as I have written before in this column, become a “legal outlaw.” The people have been left defenseless as result, and it is no wonder that we have entered into a pre-revolutionary state amid a severely depressed and worsening economy and other disasters on the horizon – such as likely will soon occur in the Middle East. Ironically, the judiciary has pushed us to become would-be outlaws, but more in the vein of Robin Hood than John Gotti. We are, as a result, regrettably faced with the option of peacefully breaking the law to enforce the law, otherwise known as civil disobedience – which could prove to be the precursor to full-scale revolution if it does not succeed.

So it came as no surprise to me that the arrogance and lawlessness of the federal judiciary was witnessed yet again this week, when the new chief judge of the Northern District of California, James Ware, ran interference for and protected one of his former colleagues, former Chief Judge Vaughan Walker. It was Judge Walker who had infamously ruled unconstitutional “Proposition 8,” the ballot initiative of the people of California democratically banning so-called “gay marriage.” At the time of the ruling, Judge Walker did not disclose that he has been in a homosexual partnership with a male doctor for 10 years. Indeed, after this partnership was uncovered by pro-family advocates, he only begrudgingly confirmed this after he retired from the federal bench in April 2011. Because of his well-developed homosexual partnership, Judge Walker – who probably would like to marry his significant other if the law so allowed – had a clear conflict of interest in sitting on a case where he later ruled against Proposition 8.

But rather than grant an ex post facto motion by pro-family advocates to disqualify Judge Walker– which they filed once they learned of the jurist’s decade-old homosexual partnership – and nullify his prior compromised ruling on Proposition 8, his compliant colleague, Judge Ware, issued a nonsensical and intellectually insulting ruling that there was no conflict of interest. In a tortured 19-page opinion issued last Tuesday, Judge Ware stated: “The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief.”

This ruling has no legal justification, particularly since a judge should be disqualified even when there is, at a minimum, just the “appearance” of a lack of impartiality. That is because our judiciary is encharged to further and mete out not only justice but the “appearance” of justice. In this way, the confidence of “We the People” in its integrity can be maintained. Only through this confidence can the edicts of our courts be ultimately enforced in a democratic society.

What we have today is a complete breakdown in our judicial system. The masses are not being respected and served, and they know it! This judicial tyranny is giving way to revolution! When revolution finally comes full scale, these same judges will be among the first held to account, I hope peacefully, in “peoples’ courts.” They, with their intellectual and frequently more blatant dishonesty, have contributed significantly to the downfall of the republic as we now know it.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.