Favors by a corrupt judge to a sex offender from the judge's church choir - and sanctions against an attorney who exposed a corrupt judge: cleaning the courts the Louisiana way

It is worth reading this article in its entirety.

It is written by a law professor emeritus from Louisiana.

It was published on May 13, 2015.

It describes a 30-day suspension of a judge who accepted a - guess what? - all-expenses-paid trip to a HUNTING RANCH in - guess where? - Texas - by a party who just won a settlement in his court of $1.2 mln.

Sounds familiar?

#AntoninScalia? #ASSLaw? Hunting trips? Judicial corruption?

Again, it was written long before the Scalia final "hunting" trip.

30 days' suspension for judicial corruption.

And, as I wrote in my previous blogs, a year's suspension with subsequent "probation" for an attorney in the same blessed state of Louisiana - FOR TELLING THE TRUTH about judicial corruption.

Suspended on the complaint of the corrupt judge, no less, a criminal who involved court personnel in fabricating court records to cover up her misconduct.

The criminal was elevated to the appellate level, the attorney who exposed the criminal got suspended.   For telling the truth on behalf of a client.

Any logic?  No logic is needed.

The only part of the article I VIGOROUSLY disagree with is this:

"The great majority of Louisiana’s judges, I assume, are honest. "

In cases of judicial corruption one may not ASSUME. 

Especially when that one is a law professor who knows better and who writes about institutional rules of cover up and unwarranted leniency to admittedly corrupt judges, while the same system punishes whistleblower attorneys who have the courage to expose judicial corruption to do their duty and protect their clients.

What is the BASIS to "assume" that "the great majority of Lousiana's judges" (or judges of any other state, or the federal judiciary) are honest?

• Judges invented absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts in office for themselves, and apply that illegal self-gift far beyond its declared scope - does that sound honest to you?
• Judges toss majority of comlaints against themselves, thus falsifying statistics, and then claim that, because statistics of judicial discipline (that is within the hands of the judiciary) is low, the "majority of judges are honest".  
• Judges "regulate" attorneys and regulate them in such a way that they strip those who, even correctly, expose judicial misconduct, based on irrefutable evidence, lose their reputation, license and livelihood.

When creator of statistics falsifies the statistics by not recording events that are supposed to be recorded, by refusing to register complaints about judicial misconduct, by tossing majority of such complaints without investigation or with little investigation - that is not called statistics.

That is called fabrication of image.

And no, no reasonable person should "assume" that judiciary of any state or federal court is honest in its majority -

• specifically because of self-gifts of judicial immunity FOR MALICIOUS AND CORRUPT ACTS,
• specifically because of leniency by judges to judges for ascertained acts of judicial corruption,
• specifically because judges retaliate against attorneys who report true facts on judicial misconduct

And a "Scalia" afterthought - he went on that trip AFTER a judge was suspended for 30 days because he went to a hunting trip to Texas, on a trip paid by a party in litigation who won in the judge's court?

AFTER THAT?

What kind of audacity are we talking about?

At the highest level of the judiciary?

And, by the way, Judge Free who was suspended for 30 days for the all-expenses-paid trip to a Texas ranch (that Professor John S. Baker, Jr. was writing about in his article) is, possibly, facing a suspension again:

this time, for

• making joking comments about domestic violence as defendants arrested on those charges appeared before him,
• using mocking language with female defendants,
• improperly holding defendants in contempt and
• jailing them without following Supreme Court rules and, in one case,
• speaking to family members of victims in a vehicular homicide case when the defendant and his lawyer were not present

A 30 days' suspension for misconduct was, I guess, not enough of a "deterrent of future misconduct", for Judge Free.

And, yet another Louisiana judge, James Best (think about it - one is Judge Free, the other is Judge Best, you really cannot make it up) - is now investigated for "cutting short the probation of a sex offender he knew casually from his church choir without notifying prosecutors about a hearing in the case."

A sex offender
a judge casually knows
from a church choir

gets a benefit from the judge

who was previously suspended for corruption - for whopping 30 days.

Oh wow!

And, as Professor Baker says - no amount of legislation will help when existing laws, and principles of honesty, integrity and court neutrality, are not adhered to.

What Professor Baker does not say though - judicial corruption may start to crumble when:

1) cameras are allowed into courtrooms;
2) rules of "frivolous conduct" used by judges as weapons of mass destruction against critics of corruption - are repealed; and
3) regulation of attorneys by judges, infringing upon independence of court representation and also preventing reporting of court corruption, is abolished.