Corruption or Complaining? How to Tell if a System Is Truly Broken

Why This Question Matters

When you’re digging into a wrongful conviction, a public corruption scandal, or a community complaint about abuse of power, the most important question you can ask at the very beginning isn’t about statutes or evidence. It’s this:

Is this system truly corrupt — or is someone just really angry that they didn’t get their way?”

And yes, both can be true at the same time. Someone can feel wronged and the system can be broken. But if you don’t sort out the difference early on, you risk two serious mistakes:

Discrediting real victims by treating every complaint as a tantrum.
Ruining your credibility by running with a story that’s really just sour grapes.

The difference isn’t always obvious. Here’s how investigators, journalists, and advocates can approach this line carefully and why doing so is essential to justice.

Step 1: Start With Verification, Not Sympathy

It’s natural to empathize with someone who says they were wronged, especially when their story involves government power, police misconduct, or judicial overreach. But empathy should never replace evidence.

Before you take their story as fact:

Request documents: police reports, court filings, transcripts, FOIA responses.
Check for consistency: Are their claims supported by the public record? Do they match official timelines? Did the person do what they were supposed to do, or were they intentionally skirting the rules?
Corroborate with third parties: Talk to attorneys, advocates, witnesses, or other impacted individuals.

If the story collapses under basic fact-checking, that’s a red flag. If it holds up and more questions emerge, that’s a sign there may be deeper systemic rot.

Step 2: Look for Patterns, Not Just Outcomes

A single bad outcome doesn’t prove corruption. Losing a case, getting disciplined at work, or being denied a permit feels unjust, but power systems make unpopular decisions every day.

Ask yourself:

Are there patterns of similar behavior? (e.g., dozens of defendants with the same judge reporting due-process violations, like Judge Michael Schipper)
Has this happened to multiple people — or just one?
Do those in power have conflicts of interest or financial incentives?

Corruption thrives in patterns: repeated misconduct, favoritism toward insiders, or consistent retaliation against critics. If the complaint is truly isolated, there might be bias, but it’s not necessarily corruption.

Step 3: Check for “Outcome Attachment”

One of the clearest signs someone is more upset about losing than about injustice is how they talk about their experience.

If they say, “I shouldn’t have lost because I’m right,” that’s emotion.
If they say, “The judge ignored the law and refused to hear key evidence,” that’s a process failure worth investigating.

Focus on process, not just result. Corruption almost always involves manipulation of process: evidence suppression, ex parte communications, selective enforcement, or misuse of discretion, not just an unfavorable outcome.

Step 4: Separate Personal Grievances From Public Impact

A legitimate systemic problem will almost always have implications beyond one person. A corrupt prosecutor isn’t just targeting one defendant; they’re likely cutting corners in dozens if not hundreds of cases. A biased zoning board isn’t just punishing one homeowner; they’re probably favoring developers over entire communities.

When someone’s story reveals a broader public-interest angle, it’s worth deeper investigation. If it’s a purely personal dispute (like a custody battle, an HOA fine, or a single hiring decision) with no signs of broader abuse, approach it with extreme caution.

For example, Judge Tracy Van den Berg appears to have a habit of silencing the press, Judge Michael McKay often assigns unconstitutionally high bond. Patterns always emerge.

Step 5: Understand That Anger ≠ Falsehood

Here’s the tricky part: people who have truly been wronged are often emotional, disorganized, or even paranoid; they’ve been traumatized. They have often been dismissed for so long that their story sounds exaggerated.

But it doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

Some of the most explosive corruption stories in history started with people who “seemed crazy” at first. The key is not to dismiss or accept them at face value but to test their claims against facts.

Here’s Why This Distinction Protects the Movement

If we want systemic reform to succeed, credibility is everything. Investigative journalism and advocacy collapse when movements become a dumping ground for every personal grievance.

When we only chase stories that stand up to scrutiny:

We build stronger cases for reform.
We protect resources for people truly harmed.
We prevent bad-faith actors from weaponizing the narrative.

Pulling It All Together

Believing survivors, defendants, or whistleblowers doesn’t mean abandoning critical thinking. It means honoring their story enough to investigate it thoroughly and understand it.

Ask the hard questions. Demand documentation. Look for patterns. And always — always — separate the human reaction from the institutional reality.

Because at the end of the day, that’s how we hold corrupt systems accountable and avoid getting played by people who just didn’t get their way.