This page is constantly updated.
Judge Larry Burns attended Point Loma College, a Christian school associated with the Nazarene denomination of Protestant religion. This school later became known as Point Loma Nazarene University. Judge Burns subsequently attended law school at a Catholic university, the University of San Diego. Clearly Judge Burns was steeped in a traditional academic environment rich in the teaching of Christianity. Not only can it be said he was steeped in a Christian environment it is believable that Judge Burns consciously sought out such environment for his education. It is thus most likely that Judge Burns considers himself a Christian or in the very least he has an affinity for Christianity.
With such background knowledge, it is highly improbable that Judge Burns could not have known that the Cross is the symbol of the suffering of Jesus Christ who was crucified. History has shown that Christians have used the sign of the Cross to identify themselves to each other and the world as followers of the Son of God, Triune God of the Bible. Therefore history is replete with precedence and evidence that the symbol of the Cross is incontrovertibly a religious symbol specifically the symbol of Christianity.
Judge Burns however ruled the Cross is not a religious symbol in specific circumstances (the ruling of the case is available on the Internet). Considering his knowledge of Christianity Judge Burns without doubt committed fraud on the Court, he breached his oath of office by ruling out of bias and failing to uphold the Constitution. This is a disgrace to the office he holds, and a betrayal of God and the citizens of the United States.
Evidence of Judge Burns' twisted mind can be seen in his own words:
'The Latin cross is, to be sure, the preeminent symbol of Christianity, but it does not follow that the cross has no other meaning or significance. Depending on the context in which it is displayed, the cross may evoke no particular religious impression at all...The cross has a broadly-understood ancillary meaning as a symbol of military service, sacrifice, and death; it is displayed along with numerous purely secular symbols in an overall context that reinforces its secular message.'
What did he say? Depending on context...the cross may evoke no particular religious impression at all? Really? Since when? In what reality? Burns further revealed his twisted mind by writing 'the objective observer can observe the cross is not a religious symbol'! Oh? So, Burns would have us believe that the average citizen observing the Cross has no bias as to whether it is religious or not. That's a good one!
The practice of law is not a subjective exercise in intellectualism, as it seems Judges Burns believes or wants it to be. It is not the place to create alternate realities, it is a place where fact and truth must prevail. His intellectual manifestation from the bench does not serve justice, it only serves to mock and subvert it.
Judge Burns however continues to sit on the bench, a clear danger to society. In fact he has made similar questionable rulings (stayed tuned to this site for more) and yet not one of his judicial peers has acted to remove him from his judgeship. Indeed Chief Justice for the 9th Circuit Alex Kozinski praises him for good work and has recently assigned him a high profile criminal case (Jared Loughner Tucson Arizona murder trial).
Evidence of 'fabricated facts'
In the case of the pro se couple who was unjustly threatened with bodily harm, stalked, terrorized and harassed by federal government employees of the Forest Service, Burns distorted facts to get the employees 'off the hook'. Most interestingly Burns did not accept any of the facts the pro se couple pleaded but accepted all the facts pleaded by the defendants. Furthermore Burns pulled off the creating facts out of thin air routine, a 'tip-off' of corruption as reported by investigative reporter Sherman Skolnick as mentioned on this site.
The evidence for this allegation is on public record, it is only a matter of pointing to the briefs filed in that case (see below case numbers). The elements of the case will be revealed in detail in a 'coming soon' article titled 'Evidence and Facts to Support No Confidence, a Factual Story' on the Entry page of this site.
Their suit against the employees was thrown out by Burns because he found fault in the presentation of briefs filed by the pro se couple. He ignored facts and changed them through distortion and outright fabrications. He gave them a chance to amend their complaint (an obligation he is under as a matter of law) however his directions were vague and not clearly specific for a layman to understand. Therefore their misunderstanding of his directions led to dismissal 'as a matter of law' which means the couple did not properly follow what Burns supposedly wanted them to do. Burns could then dismiss the case without the defendants ever answering the complaint or a jury hearing the case. Burns' actions were however contrary to his duty as stated by the Supreme Court that is wide latitude is to be given to pro se litigants in interpreting their pleadings, and
fault in understanding court rulings and legal format should not lead to a dismissal without leave to amend. No limit is to be placed on how many times Pro se are given leave to amend unless it is clear beyond any doubt there are no valid grounds for the complaint to go forward to trial.Records indicate the couple claimed they lost the chance to acquire income because their life was disrupted by the defendants' actions to the point they could not function normally in their daily life particularly their income-producing activities.
Following the dismissal of the case the couple filed an appeal in forma pauperis because they were severely diminished financially from their inability to focus on monetary gain activities. Burns denied their application to proceed in forma pauperis. He twisted facts to make it look like the couple lied about the loss they claimed in their suit against the government employees. He made it look like they had claimed they had income and that income was lost due to the defendants' actions. Records clearly show the couple claimed they had been working on activities to acquire income. They did not claim a disruption of income that was flowing into their coffers. The couple had been working without pay, writing grants to the federal government to fund their scientific research and get their newly formed non-profit corporation off the ground. Common understanding of employment is found in dictionaries which state employment is a state of working for pay.
To proceed in forma pauperis you must state when you were last employed. Obviously the question is there to determine when you had income last so as to determine your financial ability to pay the $450 fee to appeal the case. It appears Burns was determined to prevent the couple to appeal possibly because his ruling clearly demonstrated his bias towards pro se litigants. The case would have possibly revealed to the appellate judges improprieties in the case dismissal!
In a twisted intellectual performance Burns ruled against the couple to proceed in forma pauperis by stating that the couple either lied about being employed when they claimed a loss OR they lied in the application to proceed in forma pauperis. Facts out of thin air, the Skolnick tip-off!
In the application to proceed in forma pauperis the couple claimed they had not been employed to a time prior to when they claimed the loss. In the pleadings, as well as the administrative claim, the couple never stated they were employed at the time they claimed loss nor did they state they had an income at that time. In fact they specifically stated the loss they claimed was the expected funding from the grants they had been in the process of writing. The process was interfered with and that interference caused the loss of expected gains and a lost chance to be in a position for acquiring funding.
Burns may have thought he was clever to concoct such a devious distortion however he will find his career is going to be in jeopardy because of his deviousness. A judge who deliberately creates distortion of facts cannot be trusted to rule over any kind of civil or criminal matter and should be impeached, if not jailed.
Herein are the specific cases of the pro se couple which offer proof of Judge Burns' fabrication of facts and bias against pro se citizens.
The following case numbers are federal cases that may be seen on the federal court internet system called PACER
07CV1425 LAB, 09CV1478 LAB, 10CV1307 LAB
The public may access the PACER system for a nominal charge.
March 17, 2011: Burns Retaliates Against This Website, Sends Armed Force to Threaten Pro Se Couple
 The Dishonorable Judge Larry Burns |  Clerk Mark David Myers writes Judge Burns' rulings |  Judge Burns' rubber stamp Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo |
 Former San Diego Assistant U.S. Attorney Alan Richard Tolles Known for aloofness, devious pretrial motions, and blatant lies submitted in court briefs This person is unethical and a disgrace to the legal profession He protects government employees from liability by lying and twisting facts in court documents |  Another one of Judge Burns' rubber stamps Magistrate Judge Bernard Skomal |  San Diego Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve B. Chu On record for submitting lies in Summary Judgment Motions In case # 10CV1307 LAB Chu swore defendants violated a permit, yet he offered no evidence of his accusations. Judge Larry Burns accepted his word, and false affidavits, which suggests collusion and corruption in the DOJ and the Federal Judiciary besides bringing fraud and perjury to the court. The Department of Justice is to stand for justice and NOT for subverting our judicial system. An attorney who lies in sworn statements to the Court should be jailed. How many people have been, and how may more will be, victims of this liar? |
Readers of these articles are invited to submit any evidence they may have of Burns fabricating facts, we can publish with anonymity.