The North Carolina Supreme Court gave itself a Christmas gift, by exempting itself from attorney discipline

I wrote in August of 2016 about an attorney disciplinary case that was unfolding at that time in North Carolina against a sitting judge who engaged in a case-fixing for his son, escaped with a "public reprimand" from the judicial disciplinary authorities, and was the subject of attorney disciplinary proceedings.

In May of 2016, the top court of the State of North Carolina first imposed a stay on disciplinary proceedings against Judge Jerry Tillett, while mulling over the question whether it can regulate Judge Tillett as an attorney on the subject Jerry Tillett was already disciplined - kind of, through an agreed-upon "public reprimand" - as a judge.

The concern was that:

Now, the Supreme Court of North Carolina decided that licensed attorneys, as soon as they become judges, are not reachable by attorney discipline, even though being a licensed attorney and remaining a licensed attorney is a condition of getting and remaining on the bench.

The American Bar Association matter-of-factly reported on the decision, without any attempt to criticize its self-serving nature and impropriety, even while listing a description of what Judge Tillett did wrong - which had nothing to do with his authority or job as a judge:

Let's list what Judge Tillett did, which was the subject of the "reprimand", without taking him off the bench, and see whether it is related to his work as a judge, or whether it was actions of a private individual who uses his authority as a judge in other cases in order to influence a criminal case of his close blood relative - which is handled by another judge.

Reportedly, in 2010, after the Kill Devil Hills Police Department had detained his adult son "for an unspecified reason", Judge Tillett undertook the following:

1. He had "arranged an in-chambers meeting with town and police officials" - since the judge could not possibly preside over his own son's potential criminal proceeding, the judge could not meet with the police (investigators) and especially with the "town officials" who must have no participation in any one criminal case.  Neither prosecution, nor defense attorneys were present, and the judge certainly did not have a right to practice law on behalf of his son, but apparently appeared as his defense attorney - which was unauthorized practice of law, but the judge was not criminally charged.  The judge obviously tried to fix his son's criminal case, which is a state and federal criminal offense - but was not criminally charged, in either state or federal court.  Let's go further.
2. During that meeting, judge Tillett not only engaged in ex parte communications with the police and the town officials in the effort to fix his son's case, but also attempted to intimidate town officials with threats of using his judicial power to remove them from their positions if they do not help fix his son's court case.  That is criminal conduct, but Judge Tillett was never charged or prosecuted.
3. Next year, the judge tried to personally seek removal, and criminal charges of the police chief and of the assistant town manager by asking the District Attorney (unsuccessfully) to prosecute them.  Personally, I do not see any problem with a judge reporting a crime to the District Attorney, if there was evidence of a crime being committed - and in this case I simply lack information whether there was enough, or not enough evidence, to criminally prosecute the police chief and the town manager.  Of course, the judge would hardly have asked to prosecute these people, had they gone along with the judge's threats and pressure regarding his son's case.  Yet, one thing is to simply report a crime, if you have enough evidence about it (and, once again, I do not know whether judge Tillett had enough evidence to ask the DA to start criminal prosecutions against the police chief and the assistant town manager) - the crime should be reported to the police or to the prosecutor, the judge reported it to the prosecutor, so it's ok.  But, the judge went too far when he has tried to harass and intimidate the police chief and the town manager by sending to them threats of prosecution on judicial stationery.
4. Moreover, the judge initially presided over court cases involving police complaints - while being personally involved in the story up to his ears and while having acted as a complainant, an investigator, and an interested witness in those cases;
5. The judge then recused, but after recusal, contacted other presiding judges and suggested the way that the cases against the police are supposed to be decided.

It is very clear that a person who committed this string of misconduct, should be:

• taken off the bench;
• disbarred; and
• criminally prosecuted

Instead, Judge Jerry Tillett

• was never criminally prosecuted;
• "agreed" to a "public reprimand", and
• was shielded from attorney discipline by a decision of the attorney regulator court claiming that it does not have "jurisdiction" to review clear misconduct of a licensed attorney committed while he is employed as a judge, but is acting in cases where he has a personal interest, acted mostly out of court, not in his judicial position, simply abusing his judicial position.

Here is the disgraceful opinion of the North Carolina Supreme Court, all of its 41 disgraceful and self-serving pages.

And here are judges who made that plurality decision on a discretionary review - after choosing to hear the case, the case whre each and every of these judges had a huge personal interest.

The decision was made by judges:

Barbara Jackson and Paul M. Newby, a clear minority, with other judges - Edmunds, Hudson, Beasley, Martin and Ervin filing separate concurring opinions. 

Judge Barbara Jackson, the author of the opinion, is, according to her official biography on the court's website, is still living and is still not buried, and who is or was a part of the NC Bar, a party appearing in front of her, the present or former Vice Chair of the Administrative Law Section of the North Carolina Bar - which should be a complete disqualification in deciding a case whether the North Carolina bar may regulate Judge Jackson's OWN law license, which Judge Jackson used to get on the bench and receive her judicial authority, salary and benefits:

Here is Judge Jackson's bar membership information:

Here is Judge Jackson's self-admitted biography posted during her election campaign:

It is apparently a complete disqualification for a judge to preside over a case where her own personal interests are involved, and, by deciding that Judge Tillett (and, as a member of the same class as Judge Tillett, an attorney-judge, Judge Jackson herself) are not subject to attorney regulation and discipline while on the bench, Judge Jackson protected herself from attorney discipline and disbarment, no matter what she does on or even off the bench.

It is not even a sad irony, but is quite predictable for the "honorable" judiciary of this country, that Judge Jackson, and other judges of the panel, all licensed attorneys, ruled in a self-serving manner in a case of a judge acting out of court in a self-serving manner, and claiming that they cannot be touched by attorney discipline, even while being "active members" of the bar, while they are on the bench, are covered by absolute judicial immunity on the bench, and are now covered by absolute immunity to attorney discipline for misconduct and corruption off the bench.

After all, judges of this country gave themselves absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt conduct on the bench, which they interpret as applying to any decisions off the bench, too, as long as they are "related" to a court case, and they find everything "relating" to a court case, so judges GIFTED THEMSELVES with an absolute license to violate the U.S. Constitution, their state Constitutions and any other laws, civil and criminal, state and federal, with immunity from lawsuits from the victims of their misconduct.

Such an extraordinary immunity is unconstitutional because NOBODY in the United States, by the U.S. Constitution, may claim themselves to be above the law, because the power to grant such immunity, if it existed, would be with the legislature, not with the judiciary, and because using one's office to give themselves a permission to violate the law with immunity - which is what the judiciary did with absolute judicial immunity - is a gross due process violation making such a decision void.

Yet, Judge Jackson, obviously inspired by the precedent by which judges gave themselves absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench, now gifted to herself, her colleagues and to all judges in the State of North Carolina an exemption from attorney discipline, acting instead of the Legislature of North Carolina, and clearly acting in a self-serving manner.

I am wondering what, other than self-interest, made the three women judges on the North Carolina Supreme Court, Judges Robin Hudson, Cheri Beasley and Barbara Jackson

absolve from attorney discipline a judge who was not only putting himself above the law, not only engaging in misconduct OUT OF COURT - not as a judge doing is official duties - but also who is so ardently misogynistic as to belong to an organization that does not allow women into its government, see also the "Sudan Shriners'" board of trustees - also all men.

I understand that judges should be impartial and independent of personal feelings, but, first, in this case, personal interests of these judges were very much vested anyway, and, second, the review of the case was "discretionary", so the judges had to agree to hear this case, and consider it important.

Here is the second female author of a concurring decision, an Associate Justice of North Carolina Supreme Court Cheri Beasley

Judge Beasley pushed for voters to "vote smart", and advertised in her election campaign that she was a member of "Professional Standards Committee" - implying that she herself maintains high professional standards.

Yet, such a claim of professionalism is incompatible with what she did on December 21, 2016, when she, 4 days before Christmas, gave a huge Christmas present to herself, a licensed attorney,

to the criminal still on the bench Judge Jerry Tillett, a licensed attorney

who is officially called "The Honorable Jerry R. Tillett - Senior Resident Superior Court Judge" - despite his completely dishonorable, and criminal, conduct,

and to all judges in North Carolina who are licensed attorneys - a gift of exemption from attorney discipline, not provided by any court rule or statutory law.

I wonder whether the fact that Judge Jerry Reginald Tillett is a hereditary mason and a "Potentate" in a powerful "Sudan Shrines" mason's organization,

was any factor in the decision gifting him - and, through him, all other judges who are licensed attorneys, an exemption from attorney disciplinary and from rules of professional conduct for attorneys.

Here is the full information about Judge Tillett on the "Sudan Shriners'" website, if they consider removing it after this blog is published:

Here is a description of what the "Shriners" are, and a self-description of this particular chapter on their own website.  "Shriners" is a segregated organization that allows only men as their members, with only a couple of "women-only" chapters in the country.

The segregation is clearly visible in the "divan" of Judge Tillett's "Sudan Shriners" - maybe, people from North Carolina will recognize faces and names::

Given the power Judge Tillett wields, as a judge, and as an office of a powerful masonic organization, one can only respect the police chief of the Kill Devil Hills township, its town members and the District Attorney who refused to yield to Judge Tillett's pressure...

Judge Beasley, and her colleagues, who obviously yielded to their own self-interest and to the likely behind-the-scenes pressure to absolve Judge Tillett of attorney discipline, and who now should be proud of their "honor" and their "professionalism" in this case, while the public may have concerns about their clear corruption and complete lack of integrity in issuing such an unlawful and self-serving decision, legislating from the bench and changing the rules of attorney regulation, in their personal favor, through abuse of their judicial office.

The third female concurring author of the opinion regarding Judge Tillett is the North Carolina Supreme Court Judge Robin Hudson. 

Of course, Judge Robin Hudson was portrayed in the press as this fair and democratic judge who "big business" "bankrolls" to unseat.  Only this past September, 3 months before her disgraceful decision in Judge Tillett's case, Judge Hudson was invited as a speaker to students at Willis Hackney Library on campus of the Barton College on Constitution Day, and was characterized as a "bold thinker and leader".

Yet, in her decision of December 21, 2016, Judge Hudson is very pro-business and pro-judicial corruption, making such corruption of judges - by big business included - unreachable by attorney discipline.

By the way, the Barton College is a Christian missionary college:

so Judge Hudson's decision exempting a Christian missionary and hereditary freemason Judge Tillett of attorney accountability has little to do with the law and, likely, a lot to do with her own religious beliefs - because, a Christian missionary college would not have invited as an inspirational speaker a judge who would not share their beliefs.

Apparently, when a judge is invited to "speak" somewhere, the inviting institution usually provides a lavish reception to such a speaker, so judge Hudson got some material benefit from her speech, and who knows who met with her there, during the pendency of Judge Tillett's case, in the aftermath of her "speaking" activity, over dinner and wine.

The four male judges who participated in absolving themselves and Judge Tillett of attorney discipline, who carved an exemption without a court rule or legislative enactment, without public notice or public debate of such an important, and self-serving rule, are no less liable for misconduct as the three female judges, they are simply more prone to side with their own gender.

And, of course, the NC bar and the ABA did not make any statements criticizing this corrupt decision.

Remember, this is happening in North Carolina, where an attorney last year resigned from the NC bar in disgust against the bar operating as a business concerned only about its bottom line, instead of its claims of "serving the public".

This is happening in North Carolina, which, 2 years after North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v Federal Trade Commission, an antitrust precedent fought by the North Carolina Bar, not only did not comply with the U.S. Supreme Court precedent, not only did not restructure the operation of its attorney regulation system from being run by market-players as a private cartel, in violation of civil and criminal anti-trust laws, but now aggravated and added to that disgraceful cartel regulation when the regulators completely absolved themselves, as licensed attorneys, from the reach of their own regulation of attorneys.

The self-serving decision of the NC Supreme Court regarding Judge Jerry Tillett - and regarding each and every judge who has made the decision - is reason enough to do that.

As judicial conduct, judicial regulation of themselves, their accountability and their ethics demonstrates in Judge Tillett's case, we the mere mortals can always rely on the "honorables" to do the self-serving thing, while claiming they serve us, the people.

Yet, by allowing themselves to engage, with impunity as attorneys in ANY misconduct OFF the bench, and outside of their judicial duties, the judiciary actually showed to the public, in full glory, that North Carolina is not subject to the rule of law.

Only to the rule of whim of the judicial elite that rules it.

As is elsewhere in the country.

And that "rule of judicial whim" should be changed, if we want to continue to claim ourselves a democratic society, as soon as possible.

I wonder when voters in North Carolina, and elsewhere in the United States, will raise their voices to remove attorney regulation from the hands of the judiciary completely, and will require their legislators to cancel this corrupt decision through a legislative enactment.

Not only the much publicized transgender bathroom law is disgraceful in North Carolina. 

This decision, quietly snuck in before Christmas without much fanfare, has a lot more impact on human rights in North Carolina. 

This decision hurts every litigant, every voter and every person in North Carolina, whether resident or guest, including the transgender community.

Because, a corrupt judiciary hurts everyone.  And, to have any hope for the rule of law, the judiciary should be precluded from regulating itself, giving gifts of immunity or exemptions from liability to themselves, and thus leave victims of their misconduct without a remedy.

We the people must be able to stop this corruption.  The judiciary most certainly won't.

I will provide an analysis of the 41-page decision by the NC Supreme Court regarding Judge Jerry Tillett - an extremely interesting one in the way the NC Supreme Court inventively tried to protect their own - in the coming days and weeks.

Stay tuned.

Public Access to Court Electronic Register (PACER) is being sued for overcharging customers, and continues to fail to notify customers that it charges for documents that it knows are not viewable

In September of 2016, a federal judge allowed a class lawsuit to proceed against a federal court archiving system, Pacer.gov, for overcharging its customers.  The lawsuit was filed in January of 2016.

Pacer.gov is a federal archive of open filings with federal courts, and claims that its fees (10 cents per page) are justified because they defray the costs of maintaining the system.

Yet, the lawsuit alleges that Pacer charges much more than to pay for maintaining that system.

I am a longtime user of Pacer, and I have recently encountered yet another problem with the system - the problem that Pacer charges for services it does not deliver.

Here is what's happening.

When you find on Pacer.gov a case you want to view, you click on it, and there is a link to view, for example, the case's "docket report" - every filing made in a certain federal court case open to the public.

Within the docket report, documents to which public access is allowed are interlinked, so you can click on any link.

When you click on the link, and if it is not a court opinion (which is sometimes free and sometimes not free - in my experience) - you are asked whether you agree to be charged a certain amount for either an alternative of viewing or downloading the document, or for viewing only.

I have found no indication on Pacer why some documents are offered for viewing and downloading, and others are offered for viewing only.

Yet, when you choose the option of viewing, sometimes - lately, often, the document is not opening, and there is a notification on your screen from Pacer: "Can't open PDF".

The interesting part that the opening of one PDF document, and not being able to open another PDF document can be happening in the same Pacer session, working on the same computer, with the same browser, and even within the same case, while there are no Internet disruptions - which is obvious from the same computer, and other computers in the householders working at the same time perfectly well on the Internet, with other members of the family using the Internet at the very same time without any problems.

Yet, when you are billed at the end of 3 months (Pacer uses quarterly billing through a credit card), there are no breakdowns of what you were able to see, and what you were not able to see.

After Pacer refused to show me several documents, on several occasions, in politically sensitive cases I was researching, on November 30, 2016 I have sent a message to Pacer reporting the problem.

I received a nearly immediate reply:

When I indicated that I was using a PC, Windows 10, here is what Pacer representative answered:

So, Pacer DOES know that, with its documents are not viewable in the most popular web browser that is installed on all PC computers currently sold in the United States.

And, there is no notification about that for PACER customers, no breakdown of billing, and no indication that Pacer does not charge for items that the customers agreed to be charged for (in anticipation of viewing the documents), but were unable to view because such documents are allegedly not viewable in the browser - but the customers are not notified by Pacer ahead of time about it.

The PACER representative did not explain why, in the same Edge (Windows 10 browser), in the same court case, some PDF documents can be viewed, but others can't.

What is also unclear is - why, if PACER is aware of such a problem, it does not notify customers that it is preferrable to choose the option of downloading the documents instead of viewing - which would eliminate the problem with being unable to view PDF documents in certain browsers, and why PACER actually eliminated the downloading function for some documents, allowing only the "viewing" option - which does not work.

If a person wants to see a document for research, and time is of the essence - and the viewing cost is several dimes - the customer who was unable to open the PDF may repeat the attempt to view the file, likely incurring an additional charge.

I say likely because I, as a PACER customer, have never received a breakdown of charges, and I have just asked for such a breakdown.  I will also file a FOIA request for all my logins, "views" and "downloads", and will compare the breakdown of charges with logins to see whether PACER charged me for any failed "viewings" for the last 6 years - the statute of limitations for fraud.

Since, reportedly, over 2 million people are using PACER, the dimes for unviewable pages may have trickled for Pacer into hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of unlawfully obtained revenue.

And, another question, since the "can't open PDF" instances usually happened to me when I researched politically sensitive cases, I am starting to wonder whether PACER is carrying out a deliberate policy of blocking public access to certain sensitive public documents, by pretending that it is all "browser failure" - without putting notices or disclaimers for customers about it, and thus putting customers before such choices:

• to try and view the document again - risking to lose more money; or
• to give up viewing the document, or - the most unlikely of options;
• to try and mail PACER demanding to provide a paper copy of the document the customer paid for, or
• to bring a lawsuit for breach of contract, false advertisement, fraud and false business practices - which not many people will consider to do.

For example, today I was researching a case about apparently politically motivated criminal charges against attorney Marcus Mumford.

In the same browser, I was able to open:

• the docket report;
• the over 5 MB PDF image of handwritten charges against attorney Mumford, and
• attorney Mumford's emails to the court that the court claimed to be "ex parte communications", even though they were sent seeking public records before charges against attorney Mumford were filed.

But, I was unable to open the court order appointing an out-of-the-area judge to preside over the case, which may contain information about reasons for recusals of other judges from this disgraceful case.

The same things were happening to me before in other politically motivated cases.

By the way, in 2014 I sued a federal judge, magistrate David E. Peebles, then of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (his term expired mid-May of 2016, he continued to pretend he is a judge without an order of reappointment, and my challenge to that remained unanswered) for directing his personnel to spy against me on the internet.

Since LinkedIn allowed me to see the electronic traces of Judge Peeble's "intern"'s visit to my page, I was able to save that evidence and file it with the court.

The case was dismissed by the Northern District of New York judge who was then promoted to chief judge, Judge Glen Suddaby, on the grounds of "judicial immunity" - even though the spying occurred outside of court cases.

Then, in June of 2016, an attorney who I never saw or talked to, made a claim in a court pleading that the suspension of my law license in November of 2015 (which was claimed to be for undisclosed "frivolous conduct"), was actually for suing "everybody who is anybody" in New York State and in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

That interesting piece of knowledge the attorney came up with after an ex parte hearing, off the schedule, without notice to me, with "judge" David Peebles - the transcript of which was sealed, and I was blocked from seeing it.

Now, the federal court system, NDNY and the 2nd Circuit, is fighting my FOIA request seeking, very simply, the lists of state and federal judges, as well as their "advisor" attorneys that have been participating for more than 30 years in the so-called New York State-Federal Judicial Council.

The information is denied to me on the pretext that I am seeking information about the federal judiciary.

Such a claim, of course, means that, somehow, state judges who appear as DEFENDANTS in civil rights actions in federal courts, are not part of federal judiciary - as well as attorneys who appear in federal courts as private attorneys, but who are at the same time advising state and federal judges.

Since so many interesting things are happening to me lately:

• a suspension without a hearing for a motion to recuse a judge;
• an alleged suspension, also without a hearing, in federal court, where the entire file of the proceeding is sealed, including the order of suspension - which must be a public record;
• the spying against me of judicial personnel on the internet;
• the interesting revelations that I was actually suspended because of my own - and even my husband's - professional activities of civil rights attorneys;
• and, information as to whether any of those judges that I sued on behalf of myself of my clients ever participated in the "shadow government" and were "part of the federal judiciary", without anybody's knowledge, is somehow secret - 

I will not put it beyond the court system from giving some kind of secret orders to block my viewing of certain documents on Pacer.

Whether this appears to be far-fetched or not, as far as I am concerned, personally, the issue of lack of notice to people about "non-viewability" of Pacer document, while charging for viewing those documents, and while providing no alternative option of downloading the document and viewing it off-line on customers' computer, remains a concern for all PACER customers.

Since, for me, these occurrences are ongoing, happen while I was using different browsers, denying me access to some, but not other documents in the same court case, in the same browser and during the same viewing/downloading session - which makes absolutely no sense - and the same may be happening to all other 2 million Pacer customers, it is obviously another class action waiting to happen, and I am seriously considering to bring it.

Right now I have notified PACER that I am considering a legal action, and I will continue to report how the case will develop.

Attorney Bryndon Fisher's class action on behalf of 2 million of PACER customers also claims - and the court so far allowed the claim to proceed - that when customers choose between viewing or downloading a PDF or an HTML format (and PDF format is sometimes not "viewable", pushing customers into obtaining docket reports in HTML formats only - that is my addition, not part of the lawsuit), they are being overcharged:

PACER counts the bytes it is charging against customers as billable pages 5 TIMES "when the case caption is more than 850 characters long" - or, in other words, for cases with a large number of defendants, likely, for politically "sensitive" cases.

Thus, whether the "systemic error" is deliberate or not, PACER, in effect, punishes customers - without notifying them - for trying to view politically sensitive cases against the government with a large number of defendants, or to view dockets in the lawsuits, whether civil rights actions, or class actions, with a large number of plaintiffs.

For those interested in the Fisher v USA lawsuit, here are:

1. The complaint;
2. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims' opinion denying the U.S.A. its motion to dismiss and allowing the class action to proceed;
3. The U.S.A.'s answer to the complaint;
4. The latest "status report" of the case, dated January 3, 2017.

I will monitor and report on this case, and on my additional claims of fraud and breach of contract against PACER, for lack of notice of non-viewability and charging for non-viewable documents.

Stay tuned.

While criminal charges are hardly brought against corrupt public officials, they are immeditely trumped up against defense attorney #MarcusMumford

I have been writing on this blog since 2014 about cases where attorneys are targeted and punished by the government for their professional activities as attorneys - by monetary sanctions, by disciplinary actions, by arrests and criminal charges, as they did to attorney Russel Stookey in Georgia, John Aretakis and George Galgano in New York, and now, as the government is doing to attorney Marcus Mumford in federal court - the defense attorney for Ammon Bundy, recently acquitted of criminal charges based on his standoff in a National Wildlife Preserve, a defense attorney who was, reportedly,

• physically tackled - by 9 marshals: 6 men and 3 women;

tasered;

handcuffed;

arrested;

taken into custody, and

criminally charged  -

all for making a legal argument for his client that his client's detention by the federal government without a proper court order, after he was acquitted by the court where he was seized by U.S. Marshals, was illegal and unconstitutional.

Now, while the feds are notoriously slow and reluctant to press criminal charges against high-standing public officials involved in corruption and misconduct - think federal judges involved in sexual misconduct with their employees, for example, think corrupt judges who usually are allowed to "resign" and keep their pension, but are practically never charged with crimes - criminal charges for "contempt of court" were immediately drummed up against attorney Mumford.

By the way, even though some sources on media and social media claimed that attorney Mumford was charged with a "contempt of court", that is not so.

Attorney Mumford was charged with "failure to comply with lawful direction of a federal police officer".

Attorney Mumford's e-mails to the court sent before the criminal charges were filed are also part of the docket.

The e-mails indicate that Attorney Mumford sought videotapes of the court proceedings showing the "incidents" of October 17, 2016 and October 27, 2016 where the U.S. Marshals instigated a conflict with him, and mentions in his e-mails that the same U.S. Marshall who instigated the confrontation that led to attorney Mumford's tasering, was also yelling at a judge and disobeying a judge on different occasions - yet, contempt of court charges were not brought against U.S. Marshals.

It appears that, since attorney Mumford was not criminally charged immediately after the tasering "incident", on October 27, 2016, and was only charged on November 29, 2011, after he sought video surveillance tapes from the court, the charges are in retaliation for seeking public records to expose misconduct of government officials - in continuation of an ongoing tendency of persecution of people trying to get access to government records that I previously reported on this blog. 

The charges are, of course, all bogus, since they charge attorney Mumford with "failure to comply with lawful direction of a federal police officer" - while the essence of the charges is kept secret (and sealed in the docket), 

and while attorney Mumford was specifically demanding from the U.S. Marshals who were taking his client to produce the court order upon authority of which they were arresting his just-acquitted client in the courtroom.

Since no court order was produced, the government will have a really hard time to prove - and it has to prove each and every element of his crime beyond the reasonable doubt - that:

• a federal police officer issued an order;
• that it was directed at attorney Mumford;
• that it was "lawful", and that
• attorney Mumford knowingly, of the order and of its being lawful, did not comply with it.

As a minimum, the government will have to produce the order that was the basis of "lawful" direction by U.S. Marshals, whatever that "direction" was, and the fact that attorney Mumford actually sought from the U.S. Marshals, on behalf of his client, production of that order, and was tasered instead of given the order, should be a basis of a motion to dismiss.

Of course, no judges of the court where the "incident" occurred agreed to preside over the case, so a judge from Washington, D.C. was imported for such purposes - and, when I tried to access the order of assignment of that judge on Pacer, Pacer claimed that it "can't open PDF" - while I could open other pdf documents from the same case and using the same browser, computer and viewing session.

Attorney Mumford recently appeared for an arraignment and pled "not guilty", and his own defense attorney, Michael Levine, reportedly stated the following to the court at his client's arraignment:

“I can’t recall an incident where a defense attorney in the midst of an argument on behalf of his client is tackled and tased, twice surrounded by the force of the state,” Levine said to reporters after Friday’s hearing. “If this is what America is coming to, ladies and gentleman, we are in deep trouble.”

And we are.

#MaleChauvinistGaloreOnTheBench continues. Judges do not have to be courteous or civil with "recalcitrant" female attorneys - a Maryland judge argues

I wrote recently about male chauvinist judges, like Judge  in Nevada, who handcuffed a female public defender for making constitutional argument on behalf of her indigent client when the judge did not want to listen to her, because he already pre-judged the case and made up his mind.

And, I wrote about other male judges engaging in egregious gender discrimination against women - in four different states. 

After a public outrage, the Nevada judge Conrad Hafen was voted out of office.

Other judges, as far as I know, still remain on the bench.

Now in Maryland now, another case of #MaleChauvinistGaloreOnTheBench develops where #JudgeAlfredNance

fights a disciplinary complaint claiming that he is persistently rude with female public defender Deborah K. Levi by claiming that she is "recalcitrant" - and thus, the judge's logic appears to be, is not entitled to be treated by the male judge in a civilized manner.

Specifically, female criminal defense attorneys for the indigent should be treated, as long as they are labeled "recalcitrant" by male judges, in the following way:

Deborah K. Levi, a young female attorney, is a publicly recognized dedicated defender of the poor in the felony division of Maryland Public Defender's office:

Here is how Judge Nance reportedly treated Deborah Levi though when she represented an indigent criminal defendant in a high-stakes murder trial:

After demeaning Levi throughout the trial, Judge Nance called a mistrial in a murder case claiming that Levi's behavior during the trial was allegedly so "disrespectful" that it affected the jury's perception of her client and interfered with her defense.

That was instead of stepping down from the case where Judge Nance obviously felt a strong bias against the female defense counsel.

And, Judge Nance has been infamous for that bias, and misconduct, and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for such conduct on two prior occasions - in 2001 and in 2004:

Of course, notwithstanding that biased ruling, attorney Levi moved to dismiss criminal proceedings against her client on double jeopardy grounds - and won it, in front of a female judge.
Had judge Nance been properly disciplined before his 2014 re-election campaign, he would likely not have been elected, and women in the courtroom would not have been subjected to his outrageous misbehavior.

Yet, the latest charges against Judge Nance were dismissed, and, despite Judge Nance's apparent bias against women, he was re-elected to a 2nd 15-year term in 2014, so he will "grace" the bench, unless he is booted now, until 2029, or until his mandatory retirement, whichever is closer.

In the disciplinary charges just filed by the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disability against Judge Nance, the Commission states the following:

So, contrary to Judge Nance's claims in his mistrial decision in the murder trial, it was not attorney Levi's "disrespectful" behavior that caused a mistrial, but it was Judge Nance's own biased behavior toward attorney Levi and her client that should have caused Judge Nance to step down from the case - but didn't.

The charges also indicated

• the level of disrespect to attorney Levi, asking what she is up to that she has put on her "go-to-war glasses", while attorney Levi did not ask the judge for any action, so the interaction was initiated by the judge and indicated that the judge either wanted to flirt with the young female attorney, or punish her for being young and independent;
• Judge Nance's comments that attorney Levi worked previously in a county the judge disliked, 
• disrespectful comments to female jurors based on their education and disabilities, and
• sexually based comments of the judge to attorney Levi's client advising him to wait until he will start "playing with himself" until he reaches his jail cell, and warning him, in another case, that the judge will find a violation of his probation if "his tinkle was dirty".

It is apparent that Judge Nance enjoys his power, and enjoys his ability to abuse his power to impose his dirty language and inappropriate comments and innuendoes on attorneys and litigants present in the courtroom.

In everyday, not politically correct, language, Judge Nance acted like a complete jerk who has no place on the bench.

And, the Commission made the report after its investigative counsel reviewed documents and videotapes of the court hearings in question.

To which obviously irrefutable evidence, documented in transcripts and by audio and video recording, and that happened in front of multiple witnesses, Judge Nance adamantly responded in this manner:

So, now when a litigant or attorney asks for a bathroom break, that is called "conduct of a recalcitrant counsel" that a judge has a right to "control" - and deny ability to go to the bathroom?

I wonder whether the judge will deny a bathroom break to himself...

As to his comments about "playing with himself" and "getting his tinkle dirty" about a criminal defendant, Judge Nance has the following response:

Judge Nance responded in the same fashion to all allegations, claiming that he was within his authority committing all the obvious misconduct he was charged with.

Judge Nance obviously claims selective stupidity in not understanding that he is charged with ABUSE of office - that, while a judge may have authority to "regulate conduct" in the courtroom, the judge may not abuse his authority in regulating conduct that does not need regulation, or regulating conduct in an unacceptable, humiliating or discriminatory manner.

I wonder whether Judge Nance's tactics will save him this time.

The problem though, is that Judge Nance continues to remain on the bench while the charges are pending and has a potential to ruin more lives in retaliation for charges brought against him.

Cases like Judge Nance's clearly show that

• judges should be elected for shorter terms;
• should not be allowed to be re-elected for repeat terms, not to get too "cozy" on the job, feeling he can do anything at all with impunity; and
• there should be a quicker and easier mechanism for removal of judges from the bench, and a mechanism involving jury panels of lay jurors, not panels populated by judges or attorneys whose livelihood is regulated by judges - because both of these groups have irreconcilable conflicts of interest in disciplining "their own".

I will continue to report on this case.

Stay tuned.