Judge Langton has a history of behavior making him grossly unfit for the bench - in addition to what attorney Myers raised.
Here is Judge Langton, on the right, in a 2005 picture.
In 2005, Judge Jeffrey Langdon was censured and suspended for 31 days (the horror!) for (1) after he pled guilty to driving under the influence, (2) sentenced to probation and (3) violated his term of probation. (The headline refers to another judge, I will run a separate blog dedicated to that particular male chauvinist pig in black robe compared to whom #JudgeAaronPersky is a paragon of propriety).
As to Judge Langdon, consider that usually when people violate probation, they are sent to jail.
Not so for Judge Langdon. The system protected him. Just a censure and a 31-day suspension from the bench.
Here is another article about Judge Langdon describing that he continued drinking in defiance of a court order.
Judge Langdon not only drank after the court prohibited him to do so, placing him on probation, but drunk to the point that he was found by police as "passed out" near his hotel room.
There was a recall effort at the time of Judge Langdon's censure, which apparently, was unsuccessful, so Judge Langdon continued on the bench.
When imposing the censure, the presiding judge reportedly stated to Judge Langdon: "Judge Langton, your past habitual intemperance is a constitutional basis for censure".
This is what Judge Langdon reportedly said at imposition of the discipline of censure:
- Criminal proceedings - no real accountability (Judge Langdon's breath test when he was arrested for drunk driving was reportedly twice the legal limit in Montana, not a petty violation, a serious crime exposing motorists and passengers' lives to danger);
- Probation violation proceeding - no accountability at all, usually violators of probation go straight to jail, Judge Langdon didn't;
- Judicial disciplinary proceeding - resulting in a "censure", like a tongue-lashing, "go forth and do not sin again";
- A recall effort - not successful;
- A motion to recuse - when caught in documented ex parte communication; Judge Langdon chose to preside over that motion himself and deny it;
- Appeal of Judge Langdon's decision refusing to recuse - denied;
- A disciplinary complaint against Judge Langdon regarding the ex parte communication - dismissed, apparently, Montana, same as New York, considers ex parte communications as proper conduct for its judges - at least, for some of them.
Instead, Judge Langdon is allowed to:
1) decide a motion to recuse against himself;
2) quash a subpoena against himself;
3) punish an attorney for making a motion to recuse (for catching the judge red-handed in an ex parte communication, with documentary evidence of such ex parte communication) $10,000 based on attorney's behavior AFTER the proceedings in front of judge Langdon concluded.
All of the above indicate that Judge Langdon is not simply bias - he is enraged at attorney Myers and should never be near his cases.
- that's the discretion Judge Langdon used to refuse to recuse when caught in the ex parte communication,
- that's the discretion the appellate court used in denying the appeal from that refusal and allowing Judge Langdon to proceed on the case,
- that's the discretion judicial disciplinary authorities used in not prosecuting judge Langdon and dismissing attorney Myers' complaint against him, and
- that's the discretion the attorney disciplinary authorities (who claim quasi-judicial power and absolute judicial immunity in federal court) use to prosecute attorney Myers and not attorney Langdon.
Post a Comment