The Thom Seymour Paine Foundation

Questioning "Authority"

The Center for Judicial Accountability, a tireless, grassroots organization, recently submitted comments challenging the Judiciary's draft of new "rules" for filing citizen complaints of judicial misconduct. (Rules in quotes for reasons we'll make clear shortly.)

Ostensibly, the new draft "rules" are this year's response to last year's (September 2006) "Breyer Committee" report, titled "Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980." (We've been meaning to report on this report for more than a year now. Sorry.)

But the Judicial Conference Committee is using the opportunity to make the "rules" more difficult. And it's taking some liberties with the law. While the Breyer Committee Report suggested changes to make things better for citizens, the Judicial Conference is trying to make things harder. In fact, the judges are doing what lots of judges do best... they are making up law.

While Congress was fairly clear when it make law governing citizen complaints against judges, the Judicial Conference is rewriting (or "interpreting" those laws, under the guise of "Rules." Unfortunately, unless Congress gets into the picture, the Judiciary will make us play by their rules when we file complaints.

The whole thing is incestuous.

The unchecked Judge, Larry Piersol

Rush Limbaugh was reading from the stack of stuff on his show Thursday, March 29. Seems there's this old DemocRAT judge, who should retire, but won't. At least, not until the next Presidential election, when he hopes Hillary will win the White House.

It also seems he's incapable of handling his workload. So two other DemocRAT judges have stepped in to help.

What caught our ears was Rush's reference to Tom Daschle and his good friend on the bench. That can only mean one judge. Judge Larry Piersol, who Tom Daschle nominated to the bench. Larry Piersol, who's had an ethics complaint filed against him recently.

Remember on Election Eve how Drudge reported Tom Daschle's ridiculous and frantic attempt to thwart John Thune by bringing a frivolous lawsuit against him? (Although in fact, Mr. Thune was never named in the complaint. The suit should have been dismissed for defect.) Aside from the absurdity of the thing, the judge, Judge Larry Piersol, violated the law!

You see, there's this silly little law for judges about "impropriety" and the "appearance of impropriety." Like, you're not supposed to be the judge when your wife or kid is on trial. Looks bad. And you're not supposed to be the judge when your "good friend" is at trial either. But this is exactly what Judge Larry Piersol did, and he did it with malice aforethought, even staying up way past his bedtime to hold court in the middle of the night. (You probably could have guessed that Larry Piersol was a former Democrat Senator in South Dakota?)

So someone filed a complaint of judicial misconduct against Judge Piersol. But judges are above the law. Unfortunately, the complaint was dismissed, and Judge Larry Piersol, like an unchecked teenager, is acting up again. He's one of the judges helping to keep the old Democrat floating.

You have Chief Judge Loken to thank for that. We hope you will.

Justice Rehnquist and Disability.

Perhaps this should be posted on our Outrage page, as it is outrageous. Here's a story titled FBI Files: Rehnquist Had Hallucinations. Not only do we learn that the Justice was temporarily insane while suffering withdrawal symptoms from a certain medication, but parts of his FBI file have been redacted under the guise of "National Security." Yeah, right.

Here are some disturbing excerpts from the article:

The file also offers insight into the hallucinations and other symptoms of withdrawal that Rehnquist suffered when he was taken off a prescription painkiller in 1981. A doctor was cited as saying that Rehnquist, an associate justice of the Supreme Court at the time, tried to escape the hospital in his pajamas and imagined that the CIA was plotting against him.

The FBI investigated his dependence on Placidyl, which Rehnquist had taken for at least 10 years, according to a summary of a 1970 medical examination.

When Rehnquist checked into a hospital in 1981 for a weeklong stay, doctors stopped administering the drug, causing what a hospital spokesman at the time said was a 'disturbance in mental clarity.'

The FBI file, citing one of his physicians, said Rehnquist experienced withdrawal symptoms that included trying to escape the facility and discerning changes in the patterns on the hospital curtains. The justice also thought he heard voices outside his room discussing various plots against him.

Unfortunately, Supreme Court Justices are immune from the Judicial Conduct & Disability Act. The only remedy for a crazy Justice is impeachment. Or our proposed Constitution Amendment, forcing life and term limits for judges.

Note also in the article the politics of protecting judges:

In one previously secret memo from 1971, an FBI official wrote, 'No persons interviewed during our current or 1969 investigation furnished information bearing adversely on Rehnquist's morals or professional integrity; however ...' The next third of the page is blacked out, under the disclosure law's exception for matters of national security.
'It would be nice to know what is still classified, three decades later,' [Alexander] Charns [a Durham, N.C., lawyer who has extensively researched the FBI's relationship with the courts] said.

We concur.

The Lefty Mr. Wheeler.

Mr. Russel R. Wheeler — always use your middle initial, like Tom S. Paine. Makes you look important — worked for nearly 30 years at the Federal Judicial Center, an organization we applauded for their study on recusal issues, presumably during Mr. Wheeler's reign.

Even so, we called Mr. Wheeler a "Lefty" on our Examples page. You only need read his blurb from a recent interview with Mr. Wheeler to see why we say this.

If you didn't get it, the giveaway codeword is "judicial independence." See our comments in our Letters page. Further, he now works at The Brookings Institution, a notably Liberal think tank. It's interesting to note how those on the Left migrate to positions of power. Maybe those of us on the Right should do same, but we already have a God to worship and are busy raising our families.

The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee Report is out!

Only a little overdue (carefully timed, we think, for Congressman Sensenbrenner, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary) to be distracted with re-election), it's big. (180 + pages.) Give us time to read and digest it and we'll report on it. For now, based on what others are saying, it might be somewhat evenhanded, which is more than we were expecting.

Unfortunately, as usual, names have been redacted, to protect the guilty. There's still the problem of so-called confidentiality, where Justice Breyer keeps using the Nazi technique of repeating "a lie often enough and it will become the truth." Fortunately, the State of Arizona, which is notable for its judicial reform, now releases the names of judges in complaints.

Upon further review, we reverse ourselves regarding Judge Diggs Taylor and judicial misconduct. She's guilty.

The information we didn't have when we made our August 18 entry came from Judicial Watch. They reviewed Judge Taylor's financial disclosure form and found a conflict of interest.

We'll plan to post more when we have time, but basically, she's in violation of 28 USC, Section 455(a) and (b)(1).

Justice Scalia says some interesting things about bias and the appearance thereof. (More to come.)

Federal District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor made news yesterday when she struck down the NSA's foreign intelligence collection program as unconstitutional.

Predictably, those on the Left see it as a good decision because, of course, it's the decision they wanted. (Those on the Left think judges ruling outside the law is okay as long as their ends justify their means.)

Those on the Right are, of course, not happy with the decision, but present a fact based rebuttal as opposed to name calling. They find a lot of fundamental, basic law student problems with the aging almost 74 year old judge's reasoning. (Another reason for term limits on Federal judges.) A David Rivkin, an official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan said,

It is an appallingly bad opinion, bad from both a philosophical and technical perspective, manifesting strong bias.

So does a strong bias constitute judicial misconduct? Especially if Judge Diggs Taylor is stongly overturned on appeal? (Which would confirm the Right's claims of "purple prose.") Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. Until we scream loud enough.

The problem is twofold. First, all the circuits have re-written the law Congress gave them (being based on a template generated during the Judicial Conference.) As above, the law plainly says "personal bias concerning A party?" But the judiciary changed this to "bias against persons of a particular class." The former is narrow, the latter is vague. (Purposely?)

Second, as we wrote in our booklet, actual bias is one of those nebulous things that usually must be demonstrated over a long period of time before you can prove it exists. In lawyer speak, you must demonstrate a "pattern and practice." of bias. (An exception being, we argue, presumptive bias or the appearance thereof. As when a judge who is a Grand Kleagle in the KKK sits on a trial of a Black man. Or when a judge has previously sworn an oath to his Church, who is at trial. That is defacto bias.) Unless Judge Diggs Taylor has ruled almost every time against a Republican President and been severely overturned each time, or has been consistently been short with or rude to Republican Administration lawyers (and maybe she has), or if she's on record consistenly "dissing" President Bush, then it's hard to prove, she's biased for misconduct purposes, even though we all can see she is.

Additionally, disciplinary committees are loath to entertain claims of bias that cite court rulings as evidence. As when a cop shoots an unarmed women in broad daylight, claiming he was in fear for his life, disciplinary committees (made up of other cops) are hesitant to second guess their colleagues. And so it is trying to prove judicial misconduct claiming bias in a ruling. (Even though we all know it.)

BUT — and this is where we were originally going with this — Congress does not need to wait for a citizen to try to prove Judge Diggs Taylor's bias to her colleagues. Congress has the power to remove this judge if it sees bias. Or incompetence. Or senility. Or all of the above. It's called bad behavior, and the remedy is Impeachment. Especially when terrorists have sworn to murder us and especially when the judge's decision is so blatantly unmeritorious to put our lives in jeopardy. (We're not lawyers, but when lawyers, who ARE officers of the court and sort of bound to pay homage to judges, when they openly criticize this judge, you know she must be horribly bad.) It was the Legislative Branch who confirmed the judge, and it is the Legislative Branch who can fire her. Even if she's simply senile (as opposed to biased), Congress would be doing her — and us — a favor by removing her from office. And it would send a strong signal to other would be biased judges on the Left.

^ ^ TOP

Ten Years and Out was an excellent article appearing in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal. (August 10, page A9, Editorial section.) The writer, Mr. John Andrews, of Limit the Judges, describes a ballot initiative in Colorado this November, which mandates term limits for judges on the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado Court of Appeals.

While not exactly the same as our proposed Constitutional Amendment for term limits for Article III judges, which allows a super majority of confirmation votes to retain judges who are "super good," we think his initiative is a step in the right direction. Given man’s bent toward evil (absolute power corrupting absolutely), we’re always in favor of "throwing the bums out."

If this initiative passes, it, along with South Dakota’s initiative to hold judges accountable may set the stage for term limits for federal judges. In other words, instead of trickle down from the Fed to the States, these grassroots efforts, make possible by the Internet, may "trickle up!"

Here are some salient excerpts from Mr. Andrews’ article:

Americans’ concern with a court system out of control has simmered for decades... Coloradans have long favored the principle that rotation in office can help curb abuse of power... The state let the nation in 1990 by imposing term limits on the legislative and executive branches of state government...

Mr. Andrews’ makes no bones about what fueled this initiative. While he doesn’t use our phrase, "bad behavior," that’s essentially the catalyst for combustion. The problem is liberal, activist judges. (Or was that redundant?) He cites " the perennial frustration with judges rewriting the laws and the Constitution...

The petition drive was fueled by outrage at a blatantly political June 12 ruling of the state Supreme Court... Other hot buttons include the justices’ leniency to murderers... a judge in a custody dispute who restricted where Cheryl Clark could take her daughter to church, lest the child be exposed to "homophobia." The last... a property claims ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court in 2002 is less notorious than Kelo, but its disruptive effect in clouding all Colorado land titles cannot be overstated."... Five of the seven state Supreme Court justices, all mostly liberal, would be gone in two years if the measure passes; likewise seven of the 15 Appeals Court judges.

Naturally, all the liberal lawyers — oh, are we being redundant again? — are outraged that their prize bull is being gored. Ironically, as we write this, there’s a breaking news story about homosexual activists running to a state Supreme Court to appeal, on a technicality, a judge’s decision today okaying a citizen initiative Amendment to the State Constitution verifying the definition of marriage.

This modest proposal has infuriated the bench and bar—aided and abetter, of course, by the media—who characterize it as radical, reckless, an assault on judicial independence and a dangerous politicizing of the courts... The Colorado bar Association bemoans a cumulative loss of 185 years’experience on the bench...

Of course, we who play by the rules, we conservatives, realize what this is all about. Liberals have been attracted to the power of the bench, have sought and used that power unfairly to promulgate their Personal Policy Preferences. We suspect their hypocrisy would be exposed if conservative judges were the majority. Then the liberals would favor term limits.

Summing up, Mr. Andrews writes,

Robert Nagel, a law professor at the University of Colorado, argues that the imperial judiciary is self-stoking; that is, the legal system, by its very design, inexorably tends toward excess because it is sealed off from democratic forces. He recommends devising "other political checks" on the runaway courts. Colorado’s judicial term limits, it seems to me, are a good start."

We concur. Now let’s hope, if the initative passes, that the judges don’t try to rule it unconstitutional. THAT would be a recepie for combustion.

^ ^ TOP

Wow - this is getting scary. Not just for judges. For US too!

So last week we were catching up on our reading. We found Chief Justice John Robert's 2005 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. (See, we have made this a reluctant hobby.) Section II is titled "Violence Directed at Judges." He says,

... we must take every step to ensure that our own judges, to whom so much of the world looks as models of independence, never face violent attack for carrying out their duties.

Then, right on queue, an AP story — coped ad nauseam in newspapers everywhere — came out this week titled Threats against judges are on the rise. Coincidence? We don't think so.

The story reinforces Justice Robert's "need for all branches of government, state and federal, to improve safety and security for judges and judicial employees, both within and outside courthouses." To that end, last year, Congress "set aside $12 million to install security systems in judges' homes." (Instead of using their own money. Nice perk. That would be considered taxable income for the rest of us.) The story continues: "About 1,700 judges have asked for the home alarms." That's $7000 per system. We have to wonder if someone's cousin in the alarm business didn't lobby for the story, wanting more money from Congress?

But there's a sinister side to this story that affects concerned citizens everywhere. In the second paragraph, the writer, who we're sure was fed the story, lumps "threats" with "inappropriate communications," saying

Threats and inappropriate communications have quadrupled over 10 years ago.

Inappropriate communications? What's that? Isn't that constitutionally vague? (Purposely?)

Inappropriate communications range from rambling letters to accusations of bias to envelopes that contain feces.

While we have never sent envelopes containing the latter (and don't condone it), we certainly are guilty of sending the first two. As this bullet item demonstrates, we are kings of rambling letters. And we've sent more than one letter accusing judges of bias, both formally and informally!

What? Citizens can't write to judges and tell them they're biased? Judges are not immune from criticism. (Paraphrase from Congressman Sensenbrenner, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary.) We're allowed to write our elected Representatives, telling what we think of them. But we can't complain to unelected judges? That seems to be the way it's going, and that seems they way the Priesthood wants it.

So will federal marshals be coming for us? (Don't laugh. It's already happened to someone else. (Drill down to his Footnote 1.)

^ ^ TOP

FWIW, we called the Federal Judicial Center and were told the Final Report of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Commitee should be available in September. (Delayed from when the Supreme Court public information officer's guess of August.)

^ ^ TOP

With due respect to Rush Limbaugh, who claims if he could have anyone's brain other than his own, he would choose Justice Scalia's: Buried in the Supreme Court's decision authored by Justice Scalia on "No knock" is a subtle subjective flaw. See if you can find it:

Aside from the tacit Ivory Tower assumption that professional government employees conscientiously obey the law for fear of repercussion (yeah, right. Consider officers of the court, like Prosecutors Elliot Spitzer, Ronnie Earle and lately, Mike Nifong {up for re-election during the Duke rape case}), one of our members regularly attends the local meeting of a State Agency that oversees police officers. Aside from an eye opening, never ending parade of police officers disciplined for sex, drugs and rock & roll, a Board member pointed out that many of the smaller police departments in the State cannot afford an Internal Affairs division. And many of those with IA do not have the resources to investigate all complaints from the public. As a result, many police chiefs report that they have complaints "up to here" (gesture a huge stack of paper) that go uninvestigated about police officers. The longwinded point being, contrary to Justice Scalia's ignorant assertion, there are rarefy repercussions for government employees. That's why we want you to file complaints of judicial misconduct.

There is also a profound, albeit unintentional, truth buried in here. If it "is not credible to assert that internal discipline, which can limit successful careers, will not have a deterrent effect," then by the same token, it is not credible to assert that federal judges, who are (span class="ital"> not subject to any meaningful internal discipline (thus limiting successful careers), will be deterred from bad behavior.

Bring on Impeachment and Term Limits!

^ ^ TOP

Mrs. Sandra Day O'Connor is an arrogant elitist thinking that Activist Judges aren't really activist, but merely applying the rule of law. (Like Blackmun making up stuff about a right in our Constitution to murder the unborn? Or her swing vote saying we can't execute teenagers for murder or rape because that would be "cruel and unusual punishment"?) She thinks any effort to impeach judges for "bad decisions" must be politically motivated because, after all, she - and all judges - are priests, if not gods who can do no wrong. They would never be politically motivated or push their Personal Policy Preferences, would they?

Well, at least she got it right when she said, "And there is no natural constituency for so called judicial independence." Amen! We've noticed this already. She went on to say, "That's where you [public advocacy] come in..."

We are pleased to come in to the battle for judicial independence, calling for oversight of judges by the Legislative Branch of government. That is, the impeachment of judges for bad behavior, which includes judicial activism. We sent an email asking if she'll distribute our booklet as she goes about giving seminars to the public.

^ ^ TOP

We'll, if now Supreme Court Justice Alito didn't recuse himself when he had a financial conflict of interest, why should lesser Judge Boyle? Judge Boyle bought stock in a company at trail during the trial! (Before he ruled!)

Admittedly then Judge Alito's involvment with a party at trial was somewhat distant, the company's stock being part of a mutual fund portfolio. (Would you be happy if, instead, his brother in law owned the stock outright?) But the rules are very clear. He should have recused himself, as even he admitted.

Comes now Judge Boyle, who, while sitting on a case involving GE, bought GE stock while that trial was ongoing! Couldn't he have waited two months?

Those on the Right claim this is all okay because the losing attorney said Judge Boyle "was fair to his client AND that Judge Boyle had indicated how he would rule in the case BEFORE he bought some General Electric stock."

Unfortunately, those on the Right are as loose with their standards as those on the Left, claiming the "judge neglected to avoid NOT actual impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety. This is a tempest in a teapot..." NO, it isn't! It's the LAW! The law requires judges to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, as we show in our booklet.

Can't we on the Right find anyone who is above reproach?

^ ^ TOP

Here's one minute of audio from Representative Tom DeLay that sums it all up. We're gratified to see we're not alone in our assertion that impeachment is the Constitutional Cure for an out of control judiciary and, contrary to former (in)Justice O'Connor's assessment, Congress has the power to impeach a judge for whatever it considers "bad behavior." Mrs. O'Connor doesn't get it. Letting the judiciary rule on the definition of good behavior is like letting your kids rule on your definition for their good behavior. Not only is it a perversion, it short circuits the system of checks & balances our Founder's gave us.

^ ^ TOP

We haven't had ANY satisfaction from the Florida Judicial Qualifications Committee regarding a member''s complaint against the infamous Judge Greer. (Not even a letter of acknowledgement that the complaint was received.) But here's the latest with the JQC and Judge Downey's problems with pornography.

We noted in our booklet that Air Traffic Controllers, who are responsible for millions of lives, have to take yearly mental and physical exams. Why don't judges?

^ ^ TOP

We saw a repeat of Cameras in the Courts, part of C-SPAN's series America & the Courts. (Program date 11/9/05.) The Senate Judiciary Committee considered this question: should cameras be allowed to videotape the proceedings of the Supreme Court? (As is currently done with Congress.) We vote yes.

We're pleased to see this moving forward, for two reasons.

First, it should be obvious that in a country of government by the people, where citizen oversight (elected representation) is required to foster integrity, nothing should be done in secret. (Save matters of national security.) This is especially poignant to us, as one of our members has been burned in a legal matter, trying to get public records proving police nonfeasance in felony assault of some minorities. After repeatedly being denied access to public records, an appeal Board unlawfully call an "Executive Session" so as to move the discussion off to a back room, off the record. (Where the appeal was summarily denied.) It seems to us the Supreme Court thinks it can permanently be in "Executive Session." One of the problems with this, of course, is lack of accountability. Who knows why the judges make some of the decisions that they do? Perhaps their reasons are arbitrary and capricious? How can anyone know?

During the hearing, Senator Arlen Specter told of a Supreme Court 5 to 4 decision, where the court ruled part of a law unconstitutional because, it was learned some judges disagreed with Congress' "method of reasoning!" (United States v. Morrison) That's not right! It is not for the courts to legislate nor second guess Congress. While we think Congress often gives us bad law, it's not for an unelected, unaccountable cabal of politicos to dictate their will on Congress or We, the People. Unfortunately, the court has greatly usurped its authority here, and needs to be beaten back severely. Which brings us to the second reason we're pleased to see this issue move forward

Apparently, this issue has been cooking for a while. A few years ago there was an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal coauthored by Dick Wolf (of Law and Order fame), titled something like "Incamera." (We'll try to dig the clipping up from our 'stack of stuff' as time allows.) The authors made a good case for cameras in the courtroom. The good thing about the Senate moving to force the court to allow cameras in the courtroom is that the Senate is finally doing something, exercising its oversight authority as parents over the courts. Something judges, like rebellious teenagers, greatly resent, especially when they've had a free reign over the House.

(We wonder if the court will try to rule such an law "unconstitutional?")

Now, if only the House would exercise its authority and move to impeach a few judges for bad behavior. If cameras are allowed in the courtroom, and as we see more of what goes on in the courts, those of us who care will raise such a ruckus, it will encourage Congress to carry out its Constitutionally mandated oversight to check the court.

Perhaps this is one reason why judges don't want the cameras? (The other is that some judges are just plain arrogant. In the program, it came out how adamantly against oversight former Chief Justice Rehnquist was, as we also document in our booklet. Kinda like Senator Kennedy on The Sean Hannity radio show. "Don't you interrupt ME!" Seems to be an occupational hazard with power.)

^ ^ TOP

November 12, 2005: Should Judge Alito have recused? The short answer is, "Yes." (And to his credit, even Judge Alito concurred.)

There's been a lot of discussion this week about whether Judge Alito should have recused himself from a case where he had a financial interest in a party at trial.

^ ^ TOP

November 5, 2005: Reluctant Recusals.

This will give you some insight as to how the "system" works (or doesn't), and, in some jurisdictions, how the system can be made to "work" better. (As you read this story, remember the statement in our booklet that "only honorable men recuse themselves.")

You've probably heard all the fuss in Texas, where a runaway Democrat Prosecutor Ronnie Earle has relentlessly pursued Republican Tom DeLay. (As well as other prominent Republican office holders.) So what would you think if a Democrat judge, active in the Democrat Party, sat on Rep. DeLay's trial? Would that be right?

From an AP news story

"Republican U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay will get a new judge to preside over his criminal case after his attorneys successfully argued Tuesday that the judge's political donations created a conflict."

We'll say. The keyword when it comes to recusal issues is NOT whether a judge is biased, but whether there's the appearance of bias. In fact, Judge Perkins did recuse himself in a previous matter when this same Prosecutor came after Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison about ten years before. But perhaps the judge doesn't understand recusal law. (A widespread malady among judges.)

In the matter involving Senator Hutchinson, the Judge had contributed to her political opponent, creating the appearance of impropriety. (Or perhaps he realized he WAS biased.) And so he recused.

However, in the Representative's case, the Judge had "only" contributed to MoveOn.org, and further argued that he hadn't contributed as often as DeLay's lawyers claimed. But just as it only takes one share of stock to disqualify a judge, it only takes ONE donation to MoveOn to cause same.

Despite the rules governing recusal, Judge Perkins didn't go willingly. "Perkins had declined to withdraw from the case..." But another judge was asked to make the call. Interestingly, a Democrat judge removed Judge Perkins from the trial. (Kudos to Judge C. W. Duncan for doing the right thing here.)

This is a slightly better method for ensuring impartiality in recusal matters... at least the biased judge isn't judging himself. (Assumes the other judge isn't in cahoots.) We've seen this method used before at the federal level, but not with the same results. What do you think about a colleague in the same district being asked if his buddy is biased?In this case, a federal judge decided his friend wasn't biased. There's still a lot of Good 'ol Boy's club here. And, too, imagine if you had to rule against a coworker. No, a better way is to have a retired (but not senile) judge out of the local jurisdiction to decide these matters, and the best way is for a jury of citizens to decide. Let's get the judiciary out of judging itself. Too much incest. (Just watch C-SPAN. These people are one big family.)

Now for an interesting twist: The replacement judge, Judge Schraub, a Republican, was himself asked to recuse, since he also had contributed to his party! To his credit, he left willingly.

Judge Schraub said he will ask the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court name a judge to preside over DeLay's trial. The chief judge is a Republican. He appointed a Democrat. Still, Prosecutor Earle complained, and asked the chief judge to recuse himself.

^ ^ TOP

October 4, 2005. Kudos to Judges Alex Kozinski (9th circuit)

Congress has surely not made us the most powerful judges in the world so we can bestow thousands of dollars of bounties on our personal favorites whenever we feel like it.

In a withering 39-page dissent last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge ripped into his colleagues for going soft on a Los Angeles federal judge accused of misconduct.

We've been following this story ever since Professor Hellman brought it to our attention. The Professor testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary as an expert witness. (Even though he had never filed a complaint of misconduct.) He was showing us the judicial discipline system works.

NOT. He brought this matter to our attention in 2004, when a petition for review against Judge Real (for judicial misconduct) had been sustained, overturning Chief Judge Schroeder's summary dismissal. Even though the "misconduct" was criminal (felony theft), the Chief Judge dismissed the complaint. That's typical, much like the FBI or any law enforcement agency investigating itself. But in an usual turn of events, attorney Stephen Yagman petitioned the judicial council -- and prevailed!

Unfortunately, at the end of the day, two and a half years after the process began, the system does not work. Judge Real escaped punishment for his bad behavior by apologizing and promising he would never do it again. And, reading Judge Kozinski's dissent, Judge Real, like former President Clinton, never really apologized. Judge Real doesn't think he did anything wrong. But kudos to Mr. Yagman for trying. Even though it seems futile, much as it must have seemed trying to eliminate slavery in this country, these battles are often won incrementally. Kudos to any good citizens who perseveres in the process. Individually we all have to make enough noise until Congress hears our collective scream and starts impeaching judges for bad behavior... hopefully before people lose total respect for the judiciary and society completely breaks down.

If ever there was a case for impeachment, this is one.

A few kudos to Judge Winmill, who also dissented, saying that the councils decision didn't address "in any way the misconduct issue before us." However, Judge Winmill is wrong in asserting the Code of Conduct is only a guideline. Rather, the DC court of appeals said it was the law for federal judges. (See Step 4 from our booklet.) Even the ABA's new model Code of Conduct, as weakened as it is, tries to minimize weaseling in its Preamble, stating "The black letter Rules of the Code of Conduct provide a body of clear, succinct and enforceable rules to regulate the conduct of individual judges. ... They establish minimum standards of conduct with which all judges must comply."

Here is the final order. (PDF) Why not write a nice letter of encouragement to the judges? We will. Surely it is hard to be the lone righteous men among a bunch of Pharisees. We know... one of our members has done it. Standing up for what's right should be encouraged.

^ ^ TOP

September 15, 2005. We submit comments to the ABA

The American Bar Association drafted the current version of the Code of Conduct (judicial ethics) for Federal Judges. In Chapter 3 of our booklet, we praised the current Code of Conduct.

Now, upon receiving a grant, the ABA is revising the code. For the worse.

There is one very serious problem in the code for people of faith and that is the inclusion of "sexual orientation" (code word for homosexual) in the list that defines "invidious discrimination" as it defines affiliation with "discriminatory organizations." This change could require judges of faith to choose between the Bench and organizations like the Boy Scouts of America, or worse, between the Bench and their local places of worship.

The Joint Commission, responsible for this first draft, ostensibly sought public input on its Preliminary Report. The Foundation responded with a six-page letter. The first three pages express overarching concerns. The next three address specific requests for input.

^ ^ TOP

SAD NEWS

August 15, 2005. We're not alone in seeing gross problems within an unchecked judiciary. From The Empire Journal,

Public confidence in the judiciary is eroding from the town courts to the Supreme Court and members of the judiciary have no one to blame but themselves.

This story is about the "secret indictments" of two people who "bring alleged judicial and other public corruption to the public's view, supporting their allegations with documents and other substantiation. They have now been deemed paper terrorists by the special prosecutor in the case, Daniel Kasaris" That's pretty scary and not the first time we've heard of this tactic being used against watchdog citizens.

^ ^ TOP

DON'T CALL US...

July 21, 2005. We receive acknowledgment of our existence from The Supreme Court of the United States. We've been feeding material to select members of the Judicial Conduct & Disability Act Study Committee for a few months now. In addition to the written word and exhibits, we sent both these posters to make the point. We'll have more on the Committee in our HISTORY page as time permits.)

In the letter is the statement that "Any opportunity for public input to the Committee will be preceded by appropriate notice." Does that mean someone from the lowly public will actually be invited to give input? Early statements from the Committee said that "judges, administrators and practicing lawyers" were to be asked how they thought the system was performing. Oh - we wonder how that will go? Might as well ask a bunch of doctors working for a pharmaceutical company if their new experimental drug has any dire side effects. Can you say "Incestuous?" (We called a Professor who testified before Congress about judicial misconduct a few years ago. He's never filed a complaint of judicial misconduct and thinks everything is fine.)

Is there any chance we may be asked to appear before the Committee? As in Step 7 of our booklet, we'll keep our expectations low.

^ ^ TOP

July 19, 2005: Local TV Station in Phoenix (ABC15) aired an exposé on judicial misconduct at the State level and how judges get away with it. It could have been written by us, it so parallels our thoughts. Here's the video.

June, 2005: Arizona takes step in right direction. Will make all disciplinary actions public. We'll post the story as time permits.

(It's the the booklet.)

^ ^ TOP

June 2004. Chief Justice Rehnquist initiated a "Judicial Conduct & Disability Act Study Committee." Ostensibly, the purpose of the committee is to evaluate how well the complaint process is working. According to press releases, the committee met twice, and has gone underground since.

^ ^ TOP

If you have a newsworthy item pertaining to judicial misconduct, please send us a note. (here)

^ ^ TOP