Offering common sense solutions for judicial discipline.
How to file a complaint of judicial misconduct
Outrageous Misconduct
Here are some examples we've found of runaway judges. We don't have the time to file complaints against all of them and for State judges, it might be better if someone from that State wrote one. How about you?
If you feel compelled to complain about one of these judges, please let us know. We'll send you a free copy of our booklet and, if time permits, will help tune your complaint to avoid some of the common pitfalls. We'll post your complaint on our Examples page and follow it from there.
So here's the list.
- Sticky: To quote Steve Martin, "I forgot"
Fraudulent Financial Disclosure - Sticky: You'll find this comforting. No Transparency.
Shhhh... it's a secret! - Posted October 25, 2006, but old news. This is good behavior?
Sarcasim from an insider. - July 21, 2006: More Prosecutors Gone Wild ™
Want to hide too. - June 14, 2006: Isn't this basic contract law?
Read before you sign. - November 16, 2005: Judge Posner doesn't learn.
"Loose lips sink ships." - October 28, 2005: Prosecutors Gone Wild ™
Like father, like son. - October 15, 2005: California Judge MacLaughlin overrides Constitution.
Is sued for limiting free speech.
- Not much we can add to this. From the blog "Underneath Their Robes."
This is EXACTLY the type of behavior a complaint of judicial misconduct is for! But who, within the judicial workforce, has the fortitude to report an appeals court judge? Everyday citizens to the rescue! - (See also our previous entry on this, below.) From a July 21, 2006 editorial in The Wall Street Journal, regarding the KPMG "tax -fraud case:"
-
Wish we had the audio clip for you, but we missed it (three times). Professor John Eastman, Chapman University School of Law, tells a story about an informal conversation he had with a federal judge in California. The judge made a remark about some case violating the Constitutional requirement for "Separation of Church & State." Professor Chapman popped out the copy of the Constitution he carries in his pocket. When he read the judge the 1st Amendment, she remarked that he must have a "flawed" copy of the Constitution!
If a federal judge can't even read a document she solemnly swore to uphold, why should we expect judges to obey lesser laws about judicial misconduct?
-
There was quite a splash today among the priesthood (and altar boys and girls) as the author behind a "frivolous" blog on the judiciary revealed his secret identity. (Underneath Their Robes) We don't care about the blog... although it was good for seeing that most judges aren't the upstanding, distinguished citizens you probably thought they were. Not quite as "Honorable" as their title might lead you to believe.
What we do care about is Judge Posner's comments in the article about blogging.
If he does it on his own time and does not compromise his official duties in some way, I don't see the problem. We have free speech too, don't we?
Actually, Judge Posner, No. You don't. The Code of Conduct for judges calls for judges to be very circumspect in what they say. Anyone remember the old saying "Loose lips sink ships?" (A reference to how easy it is to inadvertently give away the location a ship during World War II.) Best to keep your mouth shut.
Aside from the fact Judge Posner should know this, Judge Posner should REALLY know this. A few years ago he was confronted with a complaint of judicial misconduct about a judge under him, Judge Cudahy, whose loose lips leaked out secret Grand Jury testimony! But Judge Posner feels he is just as free as we are. Judges routinely tell people what they're not free to talk about, even when they're not in a courtroom! Let him take off the robe if he wants to blog unencumbered. (With all the backlog in the court system, when do judges find time to blog anyway? Hopefully not on company time or court computers.)
Once again, we see the disdain judges have for the Code of Conduct and the internal discipline system. Truly, many of these judges are acting badly and need to be impeached for their bad behavior.
-
Prosecutors Gone Wild!
We suppose this is the logical progression as the dominoes fall from a corrupt judiciary. That is, if judges won't discipline themselves and can't be trusted, why should we expect better from prosecutors? (Remember, being a prosecutor is a government job. The more cases you win, the more likely you will advance and maybe become a judge someday.)
Today -- tactically timed for the weekend news cycle -- we saw Special Prosector Patrick Fitzgerald announce multiple indictments against Scooter Libby. Ostensibly, the investigation was about "outing"a CIA agent, who was not working under cover and whose life was clearly not jeopardized by the publicity she's received. But at Mr. Fitzgerald's press conference, while many invectives where indiscriminately aimed at Mr. Libby, none had anything to do with the focus of the investigation. We suspect the indictments, like the indictments against Texas Representative Tom DeLay, are simply political. This is a horrible abuse of the Justice System and is more like something you'd expect in Russia or China.
We just mentioned the indictment against U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, brought by Democrat prosecutor (and part time TV producer, as he's simultaneously filming a documentary about this fiasco) Ronnie Earle. It took three years and three Grand Juries to finally get an indictment. It would have been easier to indict a ham sandwich and saved the taxpayers a lot of money. It's obvious this is political again, and has nothing to do with the pursuit of Justice.
And the Wall Street Journal has been documenting the abuses of New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in many of his flawed and failed indictments/prosecutions. What's the penalty for when a prosecutor abuses his power?
There is a remedy for this, and it's found in the judicial Code of Conduct. Specifically, Canon 3 B.(3) reads,
A judge should initiate appropriate action when the judge becomes aware of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood of unprofessional conduct by a judge or lawyer.
Unfortunately, the remedy relies on judges to invoke, and we're learning judges rarely (read, never?) invoke the code. (Too much Good'ol'boys club within the professional ranks of lawyers.) Here's an example of how it should go.
Here's a case where prosecutors have apparently lied to make their case. (As we learn more and more about the judicial system, we're horrified to learn this happens a lot.
Now, if we lied to a judge, we'd be in jail for perjury. But the only thing that's going to happen to lying prosecutors here is that they'll be "taken to task."
[Kudos to Judge Wright for fining former President Clinton for contempt when he lied in her courtroom. (Although she should have dismissed herself from the case, being a former student of the former President.)]
-
This one is just asking for a complaint to be filed. In fact, the judge needs to be removed from office for violating the U.S. Constitution. California Superior Court Judge William MacLaughlin goes WAY overboard and WAY out of his jurisdiction by suspending the 1st Amendment rights of citizens. Fortunately, he's being sued at this time.
The way to handle this one is to wait for the suit to proceed. When the judge is rebuffed, that will be proof of his misconduct. Then someone in California needs to file a complaint and have this judge removed.
If you can't trust a judge, who can you trust?
Okay, suppose you start to suspect that a judge might have a vested financial interest in a case. It happens. A LOT! Despite the rules. How can you investigate further? Ostensibly, you can request a copy of the judges financial disclosure statement.
But, be warned. Judges don't appear to be the most honorable people around. Here is an excerpt about the corruption from testimony before Congress by Mr. Douglas Kendall.
We have only been involved in this "hobby" for a few years now, and already are tired of the fight. Kudos to Mr. Kendall, who has been involved a lot longer and yet continues to fight.
Judges Routinely Omit Required Information
Those succeeding in obtaining judges' financial disclosure forms are often disappointed in the accuracy and completeness of the information conveyed therein.
For example, after publishing its series on stock conflicts in April 1998, the Kansas City Star reviewed the financial disclosure forms filed in May 1998 by the 33 judges included in their study. The Star found that one out of every three reports included information that by law should have been disclosed earlier. This new information led to the discovery of three additional conflicts of interest that were hidden by omissions in prior disclosure forms.
CRC made similar findings with respect to disclosure of judicial junkets. The laws and guidelines concerning what a judge must disclose to the public are clear and simple. Both federal law and Advisory Opinion 67 require that judges "report the reimbursement of expenses and the value of the gift on their financial disclosure reports."
Comparing financial disclosure forms with attendee lists prepared by FREE and LEC, CRC determined that at least 22 federal judges failed to report FREE or LEC junkets, even after a September 1998 memorandum from the Financial Disclosure Committee warning: "Judges who have accepted such trips and not reported them on their financial disclosure forms in past years should immediately file amended reports." This represents approximately 11% of the judges that FREE and LEC report attending junkets during this same time period. Put another way, nearly one out of every nine federal judges apparently failed to report a privately funded trip even after a personal reminder about the requirements of federal law from the Disclosure Committee.
Under-disclosure is as large a problem as non-disclosure. Again despite clear mandates, judges' financial disclosure reports routinely fail to report all the information required. For example, in 1998, only 3 of the 34 judges who reported attending FREE seminars attempted to estimate the value of the seminar gift, as required under federal disclosure law.
Trust. But can't Verify.
Here's a typical response from a State Judicial Commission, signed by Mr. William P. Lightfoot, Chairperson. This was in response to a complaint filed by one of our members against Judge Holeman in D.C. You decide for yourself if there was any judicial misconduct.
This was the infamous trial of Elena Sassower, ostensibly for "disruption of Congress." We point out that after Elena's arrest, a bunch of activists unfurled a banner at a similar Senate Committee hearing - in session - holding up Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld until Capitol Police escorted the protesters out. (A short blog entry on this too. NOTE: Use your browser's FIND function to search for "John Aravosis writes".)
None of them were arrested. Elena waited until after the meeting was gaveled closed before politely asking if she could testify. Yet, she WAS arrested. It seemed to our member that the fix was in and the judge was prejudicial. (Elena got the full six month sentence - for a first time misdemeanor offense!) Guess that's what you get when you ruffle Judicial feathers... as we do here. (You'll come and visit us in prison, yes?) Elena is the co-founder of The Center for Judicial Accountability, one of our linked sites.
The District of Columbia Commissions on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure has reviewed your complaint... After careful review and consideration, the Commission has dismissed the complaint because it raised matters of law exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court and beyond the statutory authority of this Commission...
They always say this when they don't want to deal with you. It's the "magic words," as when a police officer says "I was in fear for my life." The magic words get you off the hook.
... and to the extent it [your complaint] raised matters of the Judge's bias and temperament, the Commission found insufficient cause to proceed.
Here's the kicker -
Both statutory and Commission regulations regarding confidentiality forbid the disclosure of the particulars of the Commission's deliberations.
Read: We sat in a back room, smoking cigars and drinking booze. Hey, you deliberate the way you want, and we'll deliberate the way we want! Trust us!
Please be assured, however, that the Commission carefully and thoughtfully considered all the of information submitted.
The Commission appreciates your interest in our Courts by having brought this incident of suspected judicial misconduct to our attention.
Oh, yeah. We feel better now.
Good for Judge Kaplan! Can you believe the arrogance of prosecutors nowadays? But really, they're just taking their queue from judges.
Now, according the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, he needs to do one more thing. Canon 3, B. (3) says,
We'll plan to write the Judge and remind him of his duty. What can be worse than unconstitutional conduct? A few prosecutors need to be disbarred, fined, sued - even jailed - for the message to get through.