"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Friday, March 18, 2016

Will #JudgeJoelBaker of East Texas be criminally prosecuted and disbarred for physical and virtual stalking of women?

Here is the very recently resigned Judge Joel Baker from East Texas.

In 2011 - five years ago - a criminal complaint was reportedly filed against #JudgeJoelBaker claiming that the judge sent thousands of unsolicited sexually explicit e-mails to a woman.

The alleged female victim also reported that the judge stalked her physically, putting messages like "call me or text me" and "do not hide behind the curtain" on her window.

The matter was investigated in 2011.

The judge refused to turn over his laptop to the investigator claiming the laptop contained "sensitive material" related to his "official business" as a judge.

For that, search warrants for in camera court review exist.  There was enough evidence to obtain such a search warrant.

Obviously, the police, fearing the judge's status, did not apply for such a search warrant.

Of course, how could they.

Look how many "committees" the "honorable" Judge Baker was on, see that the "honorable" Judge Baker was also previously a prosecutor  (in case authorities pull this information offline, I also include it as scans) - how could such a criminal complaint against A JUDGE and a former PROSECUTOR be taken seriously?

How could the police put in turmoil the whole life of a "family man" and a "proud parent of three children" - as well as an "active member of Marvin United Metodist Church" where this "family man" is "serving on several church committees".  Like they do with the lives of other criminal defendants?

Once again, even after such serious accusations, supported by evidence - police reports were published by a blogger here, of sexual stalking - both physical and online, by use of means of interstate commerce, the judge was not criminally prosecuted by either the state or federal authorities (online stalking is a federal crime), and was not IMMEDIATELY taken off the bench as an interim measure of protection of the public.

Look at the police reports - from 2011.

When caught, the judge claimed that he had problems with neighbors stealing his electricity - and that's why his Logitech camera was pointing at the neighbor's bedroom window in the middle of the night.

Now is the question - since the alleged victim of Baker's online stalking asked to remain anonymous (at least for now), the question is - was it the same neighbor, or is it a different victim already.

And, whether it is a different victim or not, wouldn't Judge Baker's alleged use of his Logitech webcam on his laptop to catch his neighbors in stealing electricity (Baker's version), or, rather, to videotape or photograph a naked woman in her own bedroom in a neighboring house, like a regular peeping Tom (the alleged victim's version from 2011 police reports) acquire a new meaning with the reports of Judge Baker's online relentless stalking of a female, even during the sessions of the court where he sat on a panel hearing judicial misconduct cases?

Appears Judge Baker was fixated on sexual stalking, and the way the law deals with such fixation is not only and not so much resignation and prayer, but criminal prosecution.

So far, Baker was blaming his victim in 2011 - accusing the neighbors who complained about his sexual stalking of stealing electricity from him (wouldn't the judge then install a night-vision security camera then, specifically where the electric meter on his house(es) is or are, instead of pointing his webcam at the neighbor's bedroom window?)

Blame the victim it was in 2016, too, when Judge Baker accused the woman he was reportedly stalking with thousands of sexually explicit unsolicited messages was, instead, stalking him and trying to "destroy his family".

Which did not explain why Baker-the-family-man-the-church-committee-member has sent to the woman reportedly thousands of unsolicited sexually explicit messages in the first place.

By the way, this particular tactic ("blame the victim") was used before Judge Baker, coincidentally, by TWO judges out of Texas (federal judges) - Judge Walter S. Smith (according to deposition of his victim, Judge Smith's law clerk called the victim asking her to end investigation and practically accusing her of causing trouble for the judge, see also here) and Judge Samuel Kent.

Baker has actually resigned - "after much thought, consideration and prayer".  

I wonder whether Baker prayed much when he was stalking a woman in 2011.

I wonder whether Baker prayed much when he was SEXTING from the bench while sitting in review of judicial misconduct cases (!).

Remember, Baker remained on the bench for 5 more years after serious accusation of sexual stalking and harassment first surfaced.

To save face, the system exposed people to a sexual predator on the bench and in the streets for 5 years.

Now, the question is, will this "family man" and prayerful person be criminally prosecuted - as every one of us would, had any one of use, mere mortals, committed what Baker did - by state criminal authorities or by the feds?

Will there be an investigation whether any of the multiple connections of Judge Baker - the people from the numerous "Committees" noted in his biography, law school buddies, fellow judges - interfered with criminal investigation in 2011 and stalled it?

Will his law license be revoked?

Will his state pension be revoked?

For how long will the public tolerate sexual predators in black robes?

For how long will the public tolerate the cover-up and non-prosecution of public officials committing serious crimes against public safety?  Against women?

I will continue covering this story.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment