According to the recent news, the Georgia #ThiefCircuitJudgeBrendaWeaver (see my earlier blog posts here, here, here, and here) - who recently orchestrated felony charges, arrest and jailing of a publisher and his attorney with her former employee and now prosecutor Alison Sosebee for seeking public records exposing her shenanigans with court operating account - actually spent thousands of dollars on restaurants for herself, judges and their family members.
Great integrity.
The comment of the Fannin County attorney (who did release some records and was the focus of Judge Weaver's rage in this case) that her own daughter enjoyed the meal, as well as "educational value" of communicating with the taxpayer-fed judges - and that somehow justifies paying for judges and their families' restaurant bills - is no less amazing than Judge Weaver's brazen behavior in using taxpayer money to feed herself, other well-salaried judges and their families.
Let's hope that the federal grand jury that is reportedly investigating the whole mess at this time, will return charges for Brenda Weaver and her accomplices in the theft of public funds.
I will continue to cover this story.
Stay tuned.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Kathleen Kane's crooked conviction by the crooked system for crooked reasons - and the crooked post-conviction actions of the judge and the prosecutor
So, Kathleen Kane, the Pennsylvania elected Attorney General, was:
Knowing the connection between DA Seth Williams, who hired prosecutors involved in Porngate, and Senator Anthony Williams, I do not know why Kathleen Kane did not remove criminal prosecution to federal court, because it was clear that the state court system, the system where she investigated misconduct in the highest echelons, will not provide her with a fair trial. I think, at least an attempt for removal should have been made.
Kathleen Kane's criminal proceedings - from how they were brought, in August of 2015, to how they were prosecuted - were tainted by egregious judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.
The pretrial #judgeCatherineRebar
was badgering Kane's defense attorney Shargel long before the trial, to the point that the attorney had to state to the court that he actually has a right to speak on behalf of his client.
Judge Rebar issued an unprecedented order as to the preliminary hearing of August 24, 2015 , right after the charges were brought against Kathleen Kane, not only prohibiting electronic communication from the courtroom (many courts do that), but prohibiting ANYONE from standing up and leaving the courtroom unless allowed by the judge - for a bathroom break, because they were bored and did not want to attend any more, or for any other reason. It was practically a temporary arrest order by judge Catherine Rebar against all members of the public and the press who had the misfortune of having come to that "open" public hearing.
It is absolutely unprecedented to put such restrictions upon the public's comings and goings during an open criminal proceedings and preliminary hearings.
And, it is apparent that Judge Rebar's ruling on not using electronic devices and not leaving the courtroom without court permission for members of the public and the press was targeted at prevention of communication as to what was happening in those proceedings before they closed - which amounted to an illegal temporary gag order and made that public hearing not really public, because if it was truly public, the larger public that was not present in the courtroom, could not be prevented from hearing what was going on in the courtroom, nor did the judge have authority to regulate when members of the public and the press could leave an open court proceeding.
In September of 2015, another judge, #JudgeWilliamJFurberJr., was assigned to handle all pre-trial motions and hearings.
Judge Furber is a former prosecutor.
Yet, in December of 2015, Judge Furber "chose" #JudgeWendyDemchick-Alloy
to preside over Kathleen Kane's trial, instead of himself, because allegedly Judge William J. Furber's "increasing responsibilities as president judge and other duties would prevent him "from devoting sufficient time to the proper handling of this case".
Right.
"Other duties" will prevent a judge from presiding over the most notorious case, prosecution of a state Attorney General, coincidentally, at the time when that AG exposed state judges and prosecutors to be a disgusting bunch of racists, misogynists and homophobes.
The judiciary wanted a female judge to do the dirty job - so that the disgusting male bunch of racists, misogynists and homophobes who were pulling her strings would look good.
On July 29, 2016, just two weeks before the trial, judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy, who also presided over Kathleen Kane trial, true to her goal of railroading Kathleen Kane, law or no law, issued a decision prohibiting Kathleen Kane's defense from using materials from the Porngate investigation to show that criminal charges were brought by people connected to the Porngate scandal in retaliation for Kathleen Kane's doing her job as the Attorney General and trying to root out corruption and misconduct among high-ranking public officials.
Judge Demchick-Alloy reportedly worked for the prosecuting office until 2010 - and continued to act as a prosecutor and not a neutral judge, in the criminal proceedings.
By blocking Kathleen Kane from exposing involvement of the former Office of Attorney General prosecutors Frank Fina
and E. Marc Costanzo
in the exchange of pornographic e-mails, Judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy violated Kathleen Kane's 6th Amendment right of confrontation of witnesses and blocked effective impeachment of witnesses, which was egregious judicial misconduct, a display of bias towards prosecution before trial, and an act of a judge-advocate on behalf of prosecution.
Then, during the trial, the criminal prosecutor, DA Kevin R. Steele,
reportedly vouched and practically preached to the jury about credibility of prosecution's witnesses, according to reports, that constituted prosecutorial misconduct, and a denial to Kathleen Kane of an impartial prosecutor that tainted the proceedings and the verdict.
The next problem, after the jury returned a "guilty" verdict, the judge quickly disappeared somewhere to get advice and instructions as to how to act next from someone - and that is obvious from the report of what occurred in the courtroom that day.
The criminal prosecutor did not ask for bail enhancement - the judge did that after disappearing to chambers. The judge, thus, acted as a prosecution's unsworn witness and advocate in (1) trying to enhance bail without the prosecution asking for it, (2) testifying about Kathleen Kane's alleged travels abroad in 2014, and in (3) putting a direct threat of a sentencing of incarceration if Kathleen Kane "retaliates against witnesses" - which can be deemed as a threat not to release compromising materials from the Porngate investigation.
Such behavior of a judge points at the whole purpose of criminal proceedings against Kathleen Kane: to discredit her, prevent further leaks of compromising materials against the old boys' club, remove her from office and thus prevent further investigations of misconduct in Pennsylvania judiciary, and to make an example her in a severe punishment for going after judicial misconduct.
It was obvious that setting bail with a threat against Kane not to "retaliate against witnesses, directly or indirectly" (also what the prosecution did not ask for, at least in open court), meant Judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy further pushed her own agenda or her common agenda with the prosecution and with other targets of the Porngate investigation - to prevent release of Porngate materials that were not previously released - and that appeared to be the whole reason for the criminal prosecution, as well as the removal of the stubborn State Attorney General doing her job from office.
Since Judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy reportedly stormed into the courtroom with her new bail restriction ideas with the prosecution after being absent between the announcement of the jury verdict, together with the prosecutor, while Kane remained in the courtroom with the defense while the judge and the prosecution were away, apparently, important issues regarding Kane were discussed without her presence - and that's a possible ex parte communication and a disqualification of the judge.
Criminal defendants have a right to be present at the time of all important discussions pertaining to their constitutional rights, and discussions of bail issues directly relate to Kathleen Kane's constitutional right to liberty.
The next thing is selective non-enforcement of criminal laws against the high-ranking witnesses against Kathleen Kane:
The case against Kane was apparently based upon immunized testimony of people who could be charged with identical or similar crimes - and Kane can raise that issue on appeal as a due process violation.
And, the very next day after the conviction, as I already wrote above, the Philadelphia DA Williams found it was the right time to reveal $160,000 in gifts he previously did not report - and was not charged with any misconduct. It is apparent that Kathleen Kane may have been conveniently taken out of office to prevent prosecution of #DASethWilliams, decades-long friend of #PennsylvaniaStateSenatorAnthonyWilliams, too.
It is interesting to mention that there was a podium created in front of the courthouse during the trial, beforehand, and I doubt that it was done to report a "not guilty" verdict.
Apparently, those who built the podium before the "guilty" verdict was returned, knew ahead of time what the verdict will be.
And, please, note, that the only non-white people who may be behind the onslaught against Kathleen Kane were the Philadelphia DA Seth Williams who hired Porngate prosecutors and hid his undisclosed gifts until Kathleen Kane was safely convicted, and his longtime friend Senator Anthony Williams.
Otherwise, the prosecutor, the judges presiding over Kathleen Kane's case and the witnesses against her were all white, and it was a white judge who blocked introduction of racist emails mocking African Americans that Kathleen Kane exposed causing white judges to resign (McCaffery or Eakin) or retire (Castille).
What can I say.
The case stinks. And that's not only my opinion. Pennsylvania judges fly off the bench through "retirement" or "resignation", are blasted by the U.S. Supreme Court for committing egregious misconduct, misconduct fraught with racism, in a death penalty case, but it is Kathleen Kane who stands convicted for a felony - while denied her right to impeach witnesses against her by evidence of their possible corruption by THIS court system.
Let's see what happens next with sentencing and appeals. And let's not forget that what is happening to Kathleen Kane is happening in the "Kids for Cash" state where attorneys were already afraid, even before Kathleen Kane's conviction, to expose judicial misconduct - which already resulted in a public safety crisis, massive unlawful incarceration of children in exchange of kickbacks and one child's suicide.
And intimidation of attorneys for exposing judicial misconduct - and consequences for public safety - will get only worse with Kathleen Kane's conviction.
I will continue to cover this story.
Stay tuned.
- charged with crimes;
- suspended from the practice of law;
- sought to be removed from office through the suspension;
- sought to be removed from office through a Senate hearing;
- convicted of a crime while her defense was straight-jacketed by a judge, and will now be disbarred, as a convicted felon;
- was finally forced to resign from office, and now may face incarceration - all for investigating misconduct of judges, up to the highest-ranking judges in the State of Pennsylvania, and of prosecutors.
At the same time, there were multiple resignations as a direct result of her investigation, and multiple people were openly committing crimes Kane was charged with.
called upon judges and other public officials involved in the Porngate scandal revealed by Kane's investigation, to resign.
Actually, one of the targets of Kane's Porngate investigation, Judge Seamus McCaffery, already did resign by that time, in 2014.
Porngate emails were reportedly discovered by Kane's office unexpectedly, during the investigation as to how the Sandusky sex abuse case was handled.
The 2nd Judge, Pennsylvania Supreme Court #JudgeMichaelEakin
did resign, in March of 2016, after being exposed by Kane's office for sending racist, misogynistic and homophobic emails, but not before he participated in suspending Kathleen Kane's law license in September of 2015, which was then used as a basis of further harassment of Kathleen Kane to remove her from office, and in February of 2016 Kathleen Kane was denied her motion to vacate the suspension because of participation of Judge Eakin in it - because she allegedly "waited too long" to raise the issue of bias.
Of course, in June of 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Williams v Pennsylvania, that Pennsylvania Chief Judge Castille's
failure to recuse of a judge who was also an accuser in the case (and in this case Judge Eakin was the target of Kathleen Kane's prosecution, which also should be an absolute disqualification for reasons of personal interest) tainted the entire judicial panel and made the resulting decision void, thus voiding as a matter of law Kathleen Kane's suspension of law license by making it unconstitutional - not that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stirred to reinstate her law license.
Moreover, there was an interestingly-timed revelation by a Philadelphia DA Seth Williams
that he "omitted" to reveal $160,000 in gifts in his mandatory disclosures - where the revelation came the next day after Kathleen Kane was conveniently convicted of felonies and threatened with prison not to "retaliate" against witnesses - obviously, by releasing compromising information against public officials.
DA Seth Williams is reportedly a decades-long friend of Senator Anthony Williams, so Senator Williams' call upon Judge Eakin to resign - which Senator Williams strategically made only in November of 2015, AFTER Judge Eakin participated in suspension of Kathleen Kane's law license - was simply a smoke screen to protect his friend Seth Williams.
Kathleen Kane's criminal proceedings - from how they were brought, in August of 2015, to how they were prosecuted - were tainted by egregious judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.
The pretrial #judgeCatherineRebar
was badgering Kane's defense attorney Shargel long before the trial, to the point that the attorney had to state to the court that he actually has a right to speak on behalf of his client.
Judge Rebar issued an unprecedented order as to the preliminary hearing of August 24, 2015 , right after the charges were brought against Kathleen Kane, not only prohibiting electronic communication from the courtroom (many courts do that), but prohibiting ANYONE from standing up and leaving the courtroom unless allowed by the judge - for a bathroom break, because they were bored and did not want to attend any more, or for any other reason. It was practically a temporary arrest order by judge Catherine Rebar against all members of the public and the press who had the misfortune of having come to that "open" public hearing.
It is absolutely unprecedented to put such restrictions upon the public's comings and goings during an open criminal proceedings and preliminary hearings.
And, it is apparent that Judge Rebar's ruling on not using electronic devices and not leaving the courtroom without court permission for members of the public and the press was targeted at prevention of communication as to what was happening in those proceedings before they closed - which amounted to an illegal temporary gag order and made that public hearing not really public, because if it was truly public, the larger public that was not present in the courtroom, could not be prevented from hearing what was going on in the courtroom, nor did the judge have authority to regulate when members of the public and the press could leave an open court proceeding.
In September of 2015, another judge, #JudgeWilliamJFurberJr., was assigned to handle all pre-trial motions and hearings.
Judge Furber is a former prosecutor.
Yet, in December of 2015, Judge Furber "chose" #JudgeWendyDemchick-Alloy
to preside over Kathleen Kane's trial, instead of himself, because allegedly Judge William J. Furber's "increasing responsibilities as president judge and other duties would prevent him "from devoting sufficient time to the proper handling of this case".
Right.
"Other duties" will prevent a judge from presiding over the most notorious case, prosecution of a state Attorney General, coincidentally, at the time when that AG exposed state judges and prosecutors to be a disgusting bunch of racists, misogynists and homophobes.
The judiciary wanted a female judge to do the dirty job - so that the disgusting male bunch of racists, misogynists and homophobes who were pulling her strings would look good.
On July 29, 2016, just two weeks before the trial, judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy, who also presided over Kathleen Kane trial, true to her goal of railroading Kathleen Kane, law or no law, issued a decision prohibiting Kathleen Kane's defense from using materials from the Porngate investigation to show that criminal charges were brought by people connected to the Porngate scandal in retaliation for Kathleen Kane's doing her job as the Attorney General and trying to root out corruption and misconduct among high-ranking public officials.
Judge Demchick-Alloy reportedly worked for the prosecuting office until 2010 - and continued to act as a prosecutor and not a neutral judge, in the criminal proceedings.
By blocking Kathleen Kane from exposing involvement of the former Office of Attorney General prosecutors Frank Fina
and E. Marc Costanzo
in the exchange of pornographic e-mails, Judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy violated Kathleen Kane's 6th Amendment right of confrontation of witnesses and blocked effective impeachment of witnesses, which was egregious judicial misconduct, a display of bias towards prosecution before trial, and an act of a judge-advocate on behalf of prosecution.
Then, during the trial, the criminal prosecutor, DA Kevin R. Steele,
reportedly vouched and practically preached to the jury about credibility of prosecution's witnesses, according to reports, that constituted prosecutorial misconduct, and a denial to Kathleen Kane of an impartial prosecutor that tainted the proceedings and the verdict.
The next problem, after the jury returned a "guilty" verdict, the judge quickly disappeared somewhere to get advice and instructions as to how to act next from someone - and that is obvious from the report of what occurred in the courtroom that day.
The criminal prosecutor did not ask for bail enhancement - the judge did that after disappearing to chambers. The judge, thus, acted as a prosecution's unsworn witness and advocate in (1) trying to enhance bail without the prosecution asking for it, (2) testifying about Kathleen Kane's alleged travels abroad in 2014, and in (3) putting a direct threat of a sentencing of incarceration if Kathleen Kane "retaliates against witnesses" - which can be deemed as a threat not to release compromising materials from the Porngate investigation.
Such behavior of a judge points at the whole purpose of criminal proceedings against Kathleen Kane: to discredit her, prevent further leaks of compromising materials against the old boys' club, remove her from office and thus prevent further investigations of misconduct in Pennsylvania judiciary, and to make an example her in a severe punishment for going after judicial misconduct.
It was obvious that setting bail with a threat against Kane not to "retaliate against witnesses, directly or indirectly" (also what the prosecution did not ask for, at least in open court), meant Judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy further pushed her own agenda or her common agenda with the prosecution and with other targets of the Porngate investigation - to prevent release of Porngate materials that were not previously released - and that appeared to be the whole reason for the criminal prosecution, as well as the removal of the stubborn State Attorney General doing her job from office.
Since Judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy reportedly stormed into the courtroom with her new bail restriction ideas with the prosecution after being absent between the announcement of the jury verdict, together with the prosecutor, while Kane remained in the courtroom with the defense while the judge and the prosecution were away, apparently, important issues regarding Kane were discussed without her presence - and that's a possible ex parte communication and a disqualification of the judge.
Criminal defendants have a right to be present at the time of all important discussions pertaining to their constitutional rights, and discussions of bail issues directly relate to Kathleen Kane's constitutional right to liberty.
The next thing is selective non-enforcement of criminal laws against the high-ranking witnesses against Kathleen Kane:
- The #formerChiefJudgeDonald Castille,
who recently was disgraced - but not criminally charged - for acting as a judge in the same death penalty case where he acted as a prosecutor and where his office committed egregious prosecutorial misconduct (hiding evidence from the defense, eliciting perjury from witnesses on multiple occasions in a death penalty trial), for which Judge Castille, or prosecutors from his office, were not held accountable. Judge Don Castille talked to a reporter about contents of the grand jury proceedings that Kathleen Kane allegedly leaked, see also here. Yet, former Pennsylvania Chief Judge Castille, a witness against Kathleen Kane who did the exact same thing Kathleen Kane was charged with, was not charged with leaking secret grand jury material to the press - and Kathleen Kane was consciously prohibited by the presiding judge to raise the question of selective enforcement of criminal laws and politically motivated retaliation against her, which improperly restricted her defense and deprived her of effective assistance of counsel.
- Prosecutor #BruceBeemer, the prosecution's witness, was not charged for exact same conduct Kathleen Kane was convicted of. Evidence against Kathleen Kane is that she told the grand jury that she did not sign an oath of secrecy while she did - and she claimed it was an honest mistake.
If those three people were offered immunity from criminal prosecution, that was apparently not revealed to the defense or to the jury, as well as implications upon their credibility from such offers of immunity from prosecution.
The case against Kane was apparently based upon immunized testimony of people who could be charged with identical or similar crimes - and Kane can raise that issue on appeal as a due process violation.
And, the very next day after the conviction, as I already wrote above, the Philadelphia DA Williams found it was the right time to reveal $160,000 in gifts he previously did not report - and was not charged with any misconduct. It is apparent that Kathleen Kane may have been conveniently taken out of office to prevent prosecution of #DASethWilliams, decades-long friend of #PennsylvaniaStateSenatorAnthonyWilliams, too.
It is interesting to mention that there was a podium created in front of the courthouse during the trial, beforehand, and I doubt that it was done to report a "not guilty" verdict.
Apparently, those who built the podium before the "guilty" verdict was returned, knew ahead of time what the verdict will be.
And, please, note, that the only non-white people who may be behind the onslaught against Kathleen Kane were the Philadelphia DA Seth Williams who hired Porngate prosecutors and hid his undisclosed gifts until Kathleen Kane was safely convicted, and his longtime friend Senator Anthony Williams.
Otherwise, the prosecutor, the judges presiding over Kathleen Kane's case and the witnesses against her were all white, and it was a white judge who blocked introduction of racist emails mocking African Americans that Kathleen Kane exposed causing white judges to resign (McCaffery or Eakin) or retire (Castille).
What can I say.
The case stinks. And that's not only my opinion. Pennsylvania judges fly off the bench through "retirement" or "resignation", are blasted by the U.S. Supreme Court for committing egregious misconduct, misconduct fraught with racism, in a death penalty case, but it is Kathleen Kane who stands convicted for a felony - while denied her right to impeach witnesses against her by evidence of their possible corruption by THIS court system.
Let's see what happens next with sentencing and appeals. And let's not forget that what is happening to Kathleen Kane is happening in the "Kids for Cash" state where attorneys were already afraid, even before Kathleen Kane's conviction, to expose judicial misconduct - which already resulted in a public safety crisis, massive unlawful incarceration of children in exchange of kickbacks and one child's suicide.
And intimidation of attorneys for exposing judicial misconduct - and consequences for public safety - will get only worse with Kathleen Kane's conviction.
I will continue to cover this story.
Stay tuned.
Monday, August 15, 2016
#JudgeBrendaWeaver resigned from the Judicial Qualification Commission of the State of Georgia - but did not resign and was not suspended from the bench. Why?
In a belated move, Judge Brenda Weaver, the one who has brought criminal charges through her former employee-turned-prosecutor, against two people who sought public records exposing Judge Weaver's misconduct (see my blogs here, here, here and here), and whose husband (another former employer of the pet prosecutor Alison Sosebee) reportedly triggered the surveillance and investigation against a publisher and an attorney seeking public records exposing his judge-wife's misconduct - resigned from the Judicial Qualifications Commission of the State of Georgia where she was a Chairwoman.
It took Judge Weaver more than a month to make that decision after a disciplinary complaint was filed against her, so, the judicial disciplinary authorities can at least proceed with the complaint against Judge Weaver without the embarrassment of having to investigate and prosecute their present boss.
Yet, Judge Weaver still did not resign nor was suspended from the bench pending resolution of the disciplinary complaint against her and the FBI investigation of the case, which she should do also, considering the circumstances of the case that already became public knowledge.
Judges are suspended pending a disciplinary complaint for much less than what Judge Weaver is accused of.
With an FBI investigation pending, with Judge Weaver acknowledging in the press her theft of public funds from the court operating accounts to give that money to a private law firm as a reimbursement of legal fees for a private individual (not a court employee), Judge Weaver belongs behind bars and not on the bench.
I hope the Judicial disciplinary authorities of the State of Georgia suspend, and then remove Judge Weaver from the bench, attorney disciplinary authorities take her law license, and criminal authorities put Judge Weaver where she belongs - behind bars, for grand theft, not to mention abuse of office.
Then the people of the State of Georgia may have some hope for the equal protection of law and the rule of law in the state applying the same way to judges as well as to average Joes.
It took Judge Weaver more than a month to make that decision after a disciplinary complaint was filed against her, so, the judicial disciplinary authorities can at least proceed with the complaint against Judge Weaver without the embarrassment of having to investigate and prosecute their present boss.
Yet, Judge Weaver still did not resign nor was suspended from the bench pending resolution of the disciplinary complaint against her and the FBI investigation of the case, which she should do also, considering the circumstances of the case that already became public knowledge.
Judges are suspended pending a disciplinary complaint for much less than what Judge Weaver is accused of.
With an FBI investigation pending, with Judge Weaver acknowledging in the press her theft of public funds from the court operating accounts to give that money to a private law firm as a reimbursement of legal fees for a private individual (not a court employee), Judge Weaver belongs behind bars and not on the bench.
I hope the Judicial disciplinary authorities of the State of Georgia suspend, and then remove Judge Weaver from the bench, attorney disciplinary authorities take her law license, and criminal authorities put Judge Weaver where she belongs - behind bars, for grand theft, not to mention abuse of office.
Then the people of the State of Georgia may have some hope for the equal protection of law and the rule of law in the state applying the same way to judges as well as to average Joes.
Disregarding federal court precedent is a basis for disciplinary prosecution of judges in Alabama, Oregon and Wyoming, but not of an attorney in Texas
I recently wrote in this blog about the disciplinary prosecution against Chief Judge Roy Moore of the State of Alabama, who is accused of directing probate judges to defy the U.S. Supreme Court precedent legitimizing same sex marriage and to deny same sex couples marriage licenses.
Previously, I wrote on this blog about a Wyoming judge Ruth Neely who was taken off the bench for refusing to marry same sex couples.
The disciplinary case against judge Neely continues at this time.
Earlier, in September of 2015, an Oregon judge, Vance Day, also refused to perform same sex marriages.
In January of 2016, the Oregon judicial conduct panel recommended removal of Judge Day from the bench based on that conduct.
Yet, another state, the state of Texas, just refused to bring disciplinary charges against the State Attorney General Ken Paxton - for the same thing.
So, Oregon, Wyoming and Alabama consider behavior of a judge refusing to follow the U.S. Supreme Court a disciplinary violation (in Judge Moore's case - at least, to the point of bringing disciplinary charges and ordering a trial on them, there is no disciplinary decision yet), while in Texas the same conduct is not regarded by the state disciplinary authorities as a basis to bring disciplinary charges against an attorney.
Such a discrepancy must at some point reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The fight, as I noted in my previous blog on Roy Moore, is whether to consider the U.S. Supreme Court precedent binding upon state courts if state court judges - who are individually sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution - consider the decision legitimizing same state marriage an unconstitutional infringement on the state 10th Amendment privileges and a judicial re-writing of the Due Process and Equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not include judicial decisions, even those of the U.S. Supreme Court - yet lawyers in this country are taught and federal courts continue to adhere to the "understanding" that the U.S. Supreme Court decisions are not only part of the Supremacy Clause, but are over and above what is actually in the Supremacy Clause and that U.S. Supreme Court decisions control - at least some of those decisions.
Judge Roy Moore is already openly stated that judicial decisions are not Supreme Court of the Land.
Nothing revolutionary about it, Judge Moore simply quoted the text of the U.S. Constitution, its Supremacy Clause and logically and reasonably asserted that, since the U.S. Supreme Court's - or any other federal court's - decisions are not part of the Supremacy Clause, such decisions are not the "Law of the Land" and are not binding on state courts, and that state court judges have their own individual right to interpret the U.S. Constitution and refuse to abide by federal court decisions they consider unconstitutional.
Yet, Judge Moore is on a disciplinary trial for that.
And I already noted the righteous ardor of the interview, New York State Governor's brother Chris Cuomo, as a reaction to that plain statement, asserting instead that the U.S. Supreme Court decisions ARE the law of the land - I wonder if Chris Cuomo ever read the U.S. Constitution he was sworn to uphold as an attorney 20 years ago.
It is wrong to jam somebody's personal religion down other people's throats.
Yet, it is no less wrong to impose upon the nation the non-existing authority and dominance of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions as "the Law of the Land" when
I would note that judicial discipline is not being imposed upon judges Roy Moore in Albama, Ruth Neely in Wyoming and Vance Day in Oregon for their discriminatory behavior, or for establishment of religion in the courtroom - but for their alleged defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court precedent, in other words, for insubordination based on personal interpretation by state judges of the U.S. Constitution and its Supremacy Clause that does not include U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
And, having been personally sanctioned in the decision by the former Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York for the correct reading of the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a sanction repeated by Judge Sharpe against my husband appearing pro se in another case and repeating the perfectly legal argument that the 11th Amendment does not bar the citizens of the State of New York from suing their own State (not to mention that New York waived sovereign immunity through the Court of Claims Act since the beginning of the 20th century), and followed by an anti-filing injunction upon my husband - I do have a problem with sanctions for the correct reading of the U.S. Constitution, of any part of it.
There are no grounds, in my belief, for the state or federal government to take any adverse action against public officials - or private attorneys who are required to take constitutional oath of office as a condition of getting a license and practicing law - for following their constitutional oath of office, the way they understand it based on the text of the U.S. Constitution.
Such prosecutions are prosecutions of those who can't read against those who can - and it is downright scary when the brazen illiteracy is promoted as the Supreme Law of the Land in such a powerful country as the U.S.
I will continue to follow this trend and report it on this blog.
Stay tuned.
Previously, I wrote on this blog about a Wyoming judge Ruth Neely who was taken off the bench for refusing to marry same sex couples.
The disciplinary case against judge Neely continues at this time.
Earlier, in September of 2015, an Oregon judge, Vance Day, also refused to perform same sex marriages.
In January of 2016, the Oregon judicial conduct panel recommended removal of Judge Day from the bench based on that conduct.
Yet, another state, the state of Texas, just refused to bring disciplinary charges against the State Attorney General Ken Paxton - for the same thing.
So, Oregon, Wyoming and Alabama consider behavior of a judge refusing to follow the U.S. Supreme Court a disciplinary violation (in Judge Moore's case - at least, to the point of bringing disciplinary charges and ordering a trial on them, there is no disciplinary decision yet), while in Texas the same conduct is not regarded by the state disciplinary authorities as a basis to bring disciplinary charges against an attorney.
Such a discrepancy must at some point reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The fight, as I noted in my previous blog on Roy Moore, is whether to consider the U.S. Supreme Court precedent binding upon state courts if state court judges - who are individually sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution - consider the decision legitimizing same state marriage an unconstitutional infringement on the state 10th Amendment privileges and a judicial re-writing of the Due Process and Equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not include judicial decisions, even those of the U.S. Supreme Court - yet lawyers in this country are taught and federal courts continue to adhere to the "understanding" that the U.S. Supreme Court decisions are not only part of the Supremacy Clause, but are over and above what is actually in the Supremacy Clause and that U.S. Supreme Court decisions control - at least some of those decisions.
Judge Roy Moore is already openly stated that judicial decisions are not Supreme Court of the Land.
Nothing revolutionary about it, Judge Moore simply quoted the text of the U.S. Constitution, its Supremacy Clause and logically and reasonably asserted that, since the U.S. Supreme Court's - or any other federal court's - decisions are not part of the Supremacy Clause, such decisions are not the "Law of the Land" and are not binding on state courts, and that state court judges have their own individual right to interpret the U.S. Constitution and refuse to abide by federal court decisions they consider unconstitutional.
Yet, Judge Moore is on a disciplinary trial for that.
And I already noted the righteous ardor of the interview, New York State Governor's brother Chris Cuomo, as a reaction to that plain statement, asserting instead that the U.S. Supreme Court decisions ARE the law of the land - I wonder if Chris Cuomo ever read the U.S. Constitution he was sworn to uphold as an attorney 20 years ago.
It is wrong to jam somebody's personal religion down other people's throats.
Yet, it is no less wrong to impose upon the nation the non-existing authority and dominance of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions as "the Law of the Land" when
- such decisions are not part of the Supremacy Clause, and when
- the right of judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court was established through not through the U.S. Constitution itself, but through a judicial decision, Marbury v Madison, fraught with irreconcilable conflicts of interest where the author of the decision, Chief Judge John Marshall, was the public official whose actions were challenged in the court case, so Marbury v Madison is not even a legitimate decision - and certainly cannot be used as a decision changing the text of the U.S. Constitution and having a grip on what is going on in this country for 213 years.
I would note that judicial discipline is not being imposed upon judges Roy Moore in Albama, Ruth Neely in Wyoming and Vance Day in Oregon for their discriminatory behavior, or for establishment of religion in the courtroom - but for their alleged defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court precedent, in other words, for insubordination based on personal interpretation by state judges of the U.S. Constitution and its Supremacy Clause that does not include U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
And, having been personally sanctioned in the decision by the former Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York for the correct reading of the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a sanction repeated by Judge Sharpe against my husband appearing pro se in another case and repeating the perfectly legal argument that the 11th Amendment does not bar the citizens of the State of New York from suing their own State (not to mention that New York waived sovereign immunity through the Court of Claims Act since the beginning of the 20th century), and followed by an anti-filing injunction upon my husband - I do have a problem with sanctions for the correct reading of the U.S. Constitution, of any part of it.
There are no grounds, in my belief, for the state or federal government to take any adverse action against public officials - or private attorneys who are required to take constitutional oath of office as a condition of getting a license and practicing law - for following their constitutional oath of office, the way they understand it based on the text of the U.S. Constitution.
Such prosecutions are prosecutions of those who can't read against those who can - and it is downright scary when the brazen illiteracy is promoted as the Supreme Law of the Land in such a powerful country as the U.S.
I will continue to follow this trend and report it on this blog.
Stay tuned.
Friday, August 12, 2016
An exception for "court corruption" was carved for the #Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional bar
There is a saying in the legal profession - "hard cases make bad law".
Yet, what the U.S. Court of Appeals did recently (even though for wrong reasons) was not bad law, it was good law.
While bending over backwards to save a corporate giant Chevron, successor in interest to Texaco, from a $9+ BILLION judgment affirmed by the Ecuadoran court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit actually paved the way to civil rights litigation and opened the door to civil rights plaintiffs formerly barred from access to the federal court with their lawsuits by the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
I have written many times about the Rooker-Feldman doctrine on this blog - you can read all blog posts dedicated to this subject by putting the words "Rooker-Feldman" in the search window on the right of the blog.
It is a judicially created doctrine barring jurisdiction of federal courts (the courts say) because the federal constitutional issues raised in a particular civil rights lawsuit were already raised (or COULD be raised, but were not, in a state court proceeding).
Never mind that the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983, does not mandate civil rights plaintiff to raise any issues in a state court proceedings, and thus not raising such issues in a state proceeding does not constitute a waiver of a federal statutory right to sue for civil rights violations.
Never mind that the doctrine leaves civil rights plaintiffs no chance to sue in federal courts at all and thus practically eliminates the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983, because, according to the doctrine, victims of civil rights violations either HAVE TO raise federal constitutional issues in the prior state court proceedings - and will be then barred from raising those issues in federal court, whether they did actually raise such issues in the state court proceedings or not.
Through the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal judges re-wrote the Civil Rights Act, in violation of their restricted authority under Article III and while usurping the exclusive power of the U.S. Congress to legislate under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
Federal courts in the U.S. so far religiously applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, tossing thousands of civil rights cases every year - because, in the federal courts' unanimous opinions, "losers" (the language of the federal court "test") in state court proceedings must not be allowed to complain about what state courts did to them - even what state courts did to them was biased, unconstitutional and corrupt.
Corrupt.
That's a key word now.
Because, just to save a corporation from a $9 billion dollar judgment, the 2nd Circuit carved out an exception to the Rooker-Feldman bar to its JURISDICTION and now claimed that it can impose an injunction on enforcement of that judgment because allegedly the proceedings in the Ecuadoran court were corrupt.
I will analyze in separate blogs the 497-page (!) decision of the district court affirmed by the 127-page opinion of the 2nd Circuit - and especially the order denying judicial notice of certain documents, issued by the 2nd Circuit after the 127-page opinion.
Since there are over 2,000 pages of documents involved, I will certainly have to take my time to review all this extremely interesting case, to get to the bottom of what made the 2nd Circuit carve out an exception in its usually cemented-tight claim that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes losers in other courts to come in front of the 2nd Circuit complaining of that loss, for any reasons whatsoever.
The 2nd Circuit also disregarded the doctrine of comity, giving full faith and credit to judicial decisions of other countries - and it is especially interesting how the 2nd Circuit could exercise jurisdiction where the litigated events occurred in another country.
It is very interesting that the district court dedicated 497 pages to its opinion justifying the unjustifiable - denying legitimacy to a final judgment from another country.
Imagine what will be the long-ranging consequences to U.S. businesses outside of the United States after this decision - if American companies violate local laws and pollute local environments of foreign countries, and then American courts block court decisions of those foreign countries awarding judgments for recovery of victims of those environmental (or other) violations - why do business with American companies at all?
As to the 127-page opinion of the 2nd Circuit - the zeal of the 2nd Circuit is especially amazing since the same court is notorious for tossing civil rights appeals with 2-3 page "summary orders" of octogenarian judges, coughed up a nearly 100-page opinion to justify what has previously been unjustifiable for any other litigants in federal court - overcoming the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Well.
Now that the precedent has been created, in the agricultural terms, the horse has left the barn and what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Now civil rights plaintiffs, those whose cases are pending in federal courts, and those whose cases were tossed on Rooker-Feldman grounds, can make arguments to overcome the Rooker-Feldman bar based on the Chevron precedent of the 2nd Circuit, and raise corruptness of state courts as an exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
And again - I am not the author of that idea.
That authorship belongs entirely to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
Yet, what the U.S. Court of Appeals did recently (even though for wrong reasons) was not bad law, it was good law.
While bending over backwards to save a corporate giant Chevron, successor in interest to Texaco, from a $9+ BILLION judgment affirmed by the Ecuadoran court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit actually paved the way to civil rights litigation and opened the door to civil rights plaintiffs formerly barred from access to the federal court with their lawsuits by the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
I have written many times about the Rooker-Feldman doctrine on this blog - you can read all blog posts dedicated to this subject by putting the words "Rooker-Feldman" in the search window on the right of the blog.
It is a judicially created doctrine barring jurisdiction of federal courts (the courts say) because the federal constitutional issues raised in a particular civil rights lawsuit were already raised (or COULD be raised, but were not, in a state court proceeding).
Never mind that the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983, does not mandate civil rights plaintiff to raise any issues in a state court proceedings, and thus not raising such issues in a state proceeding does not constitute a waiver of a federal statutory right to sue for civil rights violations.
Never mind that the doctrine leaves civil rights plaintiffs no chance to sue in federal courts at all and thus practically eliminates the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983, because, according to the doctrine, victims of civil rights violations either HAVE TO raise federal constitutional issues in the prior state court proceedings - and will be then barred from raising those issues in federal court, whether they did actually raise such issues in the state court proceedings or not.
Through the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal judges re-wrote the Civil Rights Act, in violation of their restricted authority under Article III and while usurping the exclusive power of the U.S. Congress to legislate under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
Federal courts in the U.S. so far religiously applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, tossing thousands of civil rights cases every year - because, in the federal courts' unanimous opinions, "losers" (the language of the federal court "test") in state court proceedings must not be allowed to complain about what state courts did to them - even what state courts did to them was biased, unconstitutional and corrupt.
Corrupt.
That's a key word now.
Because, just to save a corporation from a $9 billion dollar judgment, the 2nd Circuit carved out an exception to the Rooker-Feldman bar to its JURISDICTION and now claimed that it can impose an injunction on enforcement of that judgment because allegedly the proceedings in the Ecuadoran court were corrupt.
I will analyze in separate blogs the 497-page (!) decision of the district court affirmed by the 127-page opinion of the 2nd Circuit - and especially the order denying judicial notice of certain documents, issued by the 2nd Circuit after the 127-page opinion.
Since there are over 2,000 pages of documents involved, I will certainly have to take my time to review all this extremely interesting case, to get to the bottom of what made the 2nd Circuit carve out an exception in its usually cemented-tight claim that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes losers in other courts to come in front of the 2nd Circuit complaining of that loss, for any reasons whatsoever.
The 2nd Circuit also disregarded the doctrine of comity, giving full faith and credit to judicial decisions of other countries - and it is especially interesting how the 2nd Circuit could exercise jurisdiction where the litigated events occurred in another country.
It is very interesting that the district court dedicated 497 pages to its opinion justifying the unjustifiable - denying legitimacy to a final judgment from another country.
Imagine what will be the long-ranging consequences to U.S. businesses outside of the United States after this decision - if American companies violate local laws and pollute local environments of foreign countries, and then American courts block court decisions of those foreign countries awarding judgments for recovery of victims of those environmental (or other) violations - why do business with American companies at all?
As to the 127-page opinion of the 2nd Circuit - the zeal of the 2nd Circuit is especially amazing since the same court is notorious for tossing civil rights appeals with 2-3 page "summary orders" of octogenarian judges, coughed up a nearly 100-page opinion to justify what has previously been unjustifiable for any other litigants in federal court - overcoming the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Well.
Now that the precedent has been created, in the agricultural terms, the horse has left the barn and what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Now civil rights plaintiffs, those whose cases are pending in federal courts, and those whose cases were tossed on Rooker-Feldman grounds, can make arguments to overcome the Rooker-Feldman bar based on the Chevron precedent of the 2nd Circuit, and raise corruptness of state courts as an exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
And again - I am not the author of that idea.
That authorship belongs entirely to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
Thursday, August 11, 2016
The #ChiefJudgeRoyMoore of the State of Alabama and his stance on the Supremacy Clause and civil disobedience to unlawful court orders
Judge Roy Moore of the State of Alabama is currently facing the possibility of being removed from office - for the 2nd time.
#ChiefJudgeRoyMoore is currently suspended with pay since May of 2016 and has just went through a preliminary disciplinary hearing where he asked to dismiss the disciplinary complaint against him.
Yet, the disciplinary authorities refused to do that and set a trial date for September of this year, on charges that Chief Judge Roy Moore "urged 68 probate justices to defy the federal courts on same-sex marriage".
The interesting wording in the charges is that Judge Moore did not defy his constitutional oath of office, or the "federal law" - but the federal "courts".
Judge Moore is well known for his assertion of "God's law" in the state courtrooms of the State of Alabama.
The first time Judge Moore was removed from the office of the Chief Judge of the State of Alabama in November of 2003 for defying a federal judge's order to remove the monument to 10 Commandments from the State Supreme Court's grounds.
At that time, in 2003, the disciplinary panel reportedly said that Judge Moore "put himself above the law by 'willfully and publicly' flouting the order to remove the 2.6-ton monument from the state judicial building's rotunda in August".
First of all, to put any religious monuments on state grounds is certainly unconstitutional, it is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
By putting the monument to 10 Commandments on the grounds of the State Supreme Court of the State of Alabama, Chief Judge Roy Moore established and promoted only one religion on the taxpayer-funded property - his own, while taxpayers who Judge Moore served and serves are both non-religious and religious and the religious taxpayers belong to multiple confessions. The Establishment Clause exists in the U.S. Constitution for a reason, and Judge Moore, in order to take his office, took an oath to be loyal to the U.S. Constitution, including the Establishment Clause.
The formulation of the removal though was problematic - it emphasized defying an order of the federal court, and not the violation of Judge Moore's constitutional oath of office, and there is a vast difference between the two since a federal court's order may well be unconstitutional (it wasn't in this case, but it certainly can be).
What landed Chief Judge Roy Moore in the disciplinary court now is his stance against same-sex marriage, where Chief Judge Roy Moore refused to obey to the U.S. Supreme Court decision handed in June of 2015 in Obergfell v Hodges where the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry as a constitutional right.
Chief Judge Moore allegedly urged 68 probate judges in the State of Alabama to refuse to follow Oberfell v Hodges and to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of Judge Moore's position that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Oberfell v Hodges is wrong and should not be followed.
Yet, I see that the press coverage simplifies Chief Judge Moore's position as an arrogant religious fanatic who defied the law.
As Chief Judge Moore explained in a very interesting interview clumsily handled by New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo's brother Chris Cuomo, it is not that simple.
And, Chief Judge Moore's arguments in support of his position were actually very sound legal arguments - while Chief Judge Moore wiped the floor with Chris Cuomo hands down and showed Chris Cuomo to be a conformist, a coward, a bully - and an attorney educated in a prestigious and expensive private law school who does not know the contents of the United States Constitution, 20 years after Chris Cuomo took an oath to uphold that Constitution.
In his interview of Chief Judge Moore, held before the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergfell v Hodges, in February of 2015, Chris Cuomo acts like a complete bully, sermonizes the judge, runs over him and does not allow him to put a word in edgewise.
Yet, when Chief Judge Moore does have an opportunity to get in a word, Judge Moore makes Chris Cuomo look very pale - intellectually.
The points of the debates on both sides, in short, are:
CHRIS CUOMO:
CHIEF JUDGE ROY MOORE:
Judge Moore, of course, undermined his position that decisions of federal courts are not the Supreme Law of the Land by referencing two U.S. Supreme Court decisions - Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885) and Loving v Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) in support of Judge Moore's own position that marriage is a holy union between one man and one woman only.
These two cases were also not a very good choice to support the argument about the Supreme Law of the Land because later on Judge Moore put Chris Cuomo on the spot by a question whether Chris Cuomo would feel bound, had he been a judge, with a clearly wrong, unfair and unconstitutional decision of a federal court, such as Dred Scott (an 1858 U.S. Supreme Court case declaring legality of deeming African-American slaves as property) and Plessy v Ferguson (an 1896 U.S. Supreme Court case legitimizing racial segregation).
In Murphy, the U.S. Supreme Court legitimized disenfranchisement of the Mormons of the State of Utah who practiced polygamy on religious grounds, and in Loving v Virginia the U.S. Supreme Court specifically stated that "[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men" - not by "one man and one woman", as Judge Moore presented.
Yet, Judge Moore's great victory in that interview is that he has gotten through badgering by Chris Cuomo by continually insisting that Chris Cuomo should answer the question whether he would personally find Dredd Scott and Plessy v Ferguson binding upon himself had he been judge at the time the decisions were made.
Chris Cuomo first resisted answering the question and then, very frustrated, did answer it - that "of course", he would HAVE to adhere to Dred Scot and Plessy Ferguson at the time the decisions were made, no matter how wrong they were, because they were "the Law of the Land".
Yet, as Judge Moore correctly pointed out, judicial decisions are not included into the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (I wrote about it on this blog many times), and thus are not binding on anybody, if such decisions are clearly wrong.
So, while I do believe that same sex couples do have a right to marry, as a matter of equal protection of laws, I also do see that Judge Moore has a point indicating that, if a judge deems a certain decision of a federal court as wrong, the judge is not bound by it because decisions of federal courts, including decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, are not part of the Supremacy Clause and are not the Law of the Land.
Thus, the disciplinary proceedings against Judge Moore is not simply because his stance is, once again, to jam his personal religious beliefs in secular state courts of the State of Alabama, and not simply because Judge Moore is promoting discrimination against same sex couples in his state - which is, of course, not a lawful behavior for a judge on both counts.
But, the jist of the disciplinary proceedings is that Judge Moore, by advancing the Christian religious dogma in State Courts, defied the newly emerged no-less-religious dogma created by the judiciary and the legal profession, that decisions of federal courts and of the U.S. Supreme Court are somehow the Law of the Land - which is contrary to the clear and unambiguous text of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Moreover, Judge Moore, a powerful intellectual well-versed in the law, is asserting the right of judges to engage in what constitutes nowadays acts of civil disobedience - and to disobey court decisions they consider to be wrong, on principled grounds.
That is a clear 1st Amendment issue.
Chief Judge Roy Moore did file a federal lawsuit, but did not seek a declaratory judgment that federal court decisions do not constitute the Supreme Law of the Land.
Instead, the only thing that was challenged in Judge Moore's federal lawsuit, was constitutionality of Section 159 of the Alabama State Constitution that automatically suspends a judge from office when either a federal criminal charge or a disciplinary complaints is filed against him by the judicial disciplinary authorities.
Here is Judge Moore's civil rights verified complaint in full.
Judge Moore's federal lawsuit was dismissed on August 4, 2016 on the so-called "Younger abstention" grounds, without prejudice, which means, after the state proceedings - and appeals from them - run through, Judge Moore can bring his federal lawsuit back.
Here is the order of dismissal.
So, we will see what happens this coming September at Judge Roy Moore's trial.
But, Judge Roy Moore did raise important points in public debate - whether judicial decisions are part of "Supreme Law of the Land" and whether wrong judicial decisions are binding upon state courts or can and should be disregarded.
I will follow the story of Judge Roy Moore's disciplinary proceedings with great interest and will report about it on this blog.
Stay tuned.
#ChiefJudgeRoyMoore is currently suspended with pay since May of 2016 and has just went through a preliminary disciplinary hearing where he asked to dismiss the disciplinary complaint against him.
Yet, the disciplinary authorities refused to do that and set a trial date for September of this year, on charges that Chief Judge Roy Moore "urged 68 probate justices to defy the federal courts on same-sex marriage".
The interesting wording in the charges is that Judge Moore did not defy his constitutional oath of office, or the "federal law" - but the federal "courts".
Judge Moore is well known for his assertion of "God's law" in the state courtrooms of the State of Alabama.
The first time Judge Moore was removed from the office of the Chief Judge of the State of Alabama in November of 2003 for defying a federal judge's order to remove the monument to 10 Commandments from the State Supreme Court's grounds.
At that time, in 2003, the disciplinary panel reportedly said that Judge Moore "put himself above the law by 'willfully and publicly' flouting the order to remove the 2.6-ton monument from the state judicial building's rotunda in August".
First of all, to put any religious monuments on state grounds is certainly unconstitutional, it is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
By putting the monument to 10 Commandments on the grounds of the State Supreme Court of the State of Alabama, Chief Judge Roy Moore established and promoted only one religion on the taxpayer-funded property - his own, while taxpayers who Judge Moore served and serves are both non-religious and religious and the religious taxpayers belong to multiple confessions. The Establishment Clause exists in the U.S. Constitution for a reason, and Judge Moore, in order to take his office, took an oath to be loyal to the U.S. Constitution, including the Establishment Clause.
The formulation of the removal though was problematic - it emphasized defying an order of the federal court, and not the violation of Judge Moore's constitutional oath of office, and there is a vast difference between the two since a federal court's order may well be unconstitutional (it wasn't in this case, but it certainly can be).
What landed Chief Judge Roy Moore in the disciplinary court now is his stance against same-sex marriage, where Chief Judge Roy Moore refused to obey to the U.S. Supreme Court decision handed in June of 2015 in Obergfell v Hodges where the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry as a constitutional right.
Chief Judge Moore allegedly urged 68 probate judges in the State of Alabama to refuse to follow Oberfell v Hodges and to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of Judge Moore's position that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Oberfell v Hodges is wrong and should not be followed.
Yet, I see that the press coverage simplifies Chief Judge Moore's position as an arrogant religious fanatic who defied the law.
As Chief Judge Moore explained in a very interesting interview clumsily handled by New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo's brother Chris Cuomo, it is not that simple.
And, Chief Judge Moore's arguments in support of his position were actually very sound legal arguments - while Chief Judge Moore wiped the floor with Chris Cuomo hands down and showed Chris Cuomo to be a conformist, a coward, a bully - and an attorney educated in a prestigious and expensive private law school who does not know the contents of the United States Constitution, 20 years after Chris Cuomo took an oath to uphold that Constitution.
In his interview of Chief Judge Moore, held before the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergfell v Hodges, in February of 2015, Chris Cuomo acts like a complete bully, sermonizes the judge, runs over him and does not allow him to put a word in edgewise.
Yet, when Chief Judge Moore does have an opportunity to get in a word, Judge Moore makes Chris Cuomo look very pale - intellectually.
The points of the debates on both sides, in short, are:
CHRIS CUOMO:
- since a federal judge made a decision that same sex marriages are constitutional, it is now the Law of the Land, and you, as Chief Judge of a state court, are bound by that law; the stare decisis controls;
- we are not governed by the Biblical law, we are governed by secular laws which changes with times, and now the secular law changed to allow same sex couples to marry;
- not to allow same sex couples to marry is discrimination
CHIEF JUDGE ROY MOORE:
- there is no such thing as "federal law" in terms of judicial decisions,
- federal court orders are not part of the "Supreme Law of the Land",
- a judge is not bound by a wrong decision of a federal court, any state judge has a right to individually interpret the U.S. Constitution;
- Marriage is a holy union between one man and one woman,
- the people of the State of Alabama have ruled, through a Constitutional amendment to their State Constitution, as to what constitutes marriage in Alabama, and federal courts do not have authority, under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to interfere and change that definition;
- The U.S. Constitution means what it says in its text, and not what a federal judge invents that it says.
Judge Moore, of course, undermined his position that decisions of federal courts are not the Supreme Law of the Land by referencing two U.S. Supreme Court decisions - Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885) and Loving v Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) in support of Judge Moore's own position that marriage is a holy union between one man and one woman only.
These two cases were also not a very good choice to support the argument about the Supreme Law of the Land because later on Judge Moore put Chris Cuomo on the spot by a question whether Chris Cuomo would feel bound, had he been a judge, with a clearly wrong, unfair and unconstitutional decision of a federal court, such as Dred Scott (an 1858 U.S. Supreme Court case declaring legality of deeming African-American slaves as property) and Plessy v Ferguson (an 1896 U.S. Supreme Court case legitimizing racial segregation).
In Murphy, the U.S. Supreme Court legitimized disenfranchisement of the Mormons of the State of Utah who practiced polygamy on religious grounds, and in Loving v Virginia the U.S. Supreme Court specifically stated that "[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men" - not by "one man and one woman", as Judge Moore presented.
Yet, Judge Moore's great victory in that interview is that he has gotten through badgering by Chris Cuomo by continually insisting that Chris Cuomo should answer the question whether he would personally find Dredd Scott and Plessy v Ferguson binding upon himself had he been judge at the time the decisions were made.
Chris Cuomo first resisted answering the question and then, very frustrated, did answer it - that "of course", he would HAVE to adhere to Dred Scot and Plessy Ferguson at the time the decisions were made, no matter how wrong they were, because they were "the Law of the Land".
Yet, as Judge Moore correctly pointed out, judicial decisions are not included into the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (I wrote about it on this blog many times), and thus are not binding on anybody, if such decisions are clearly wrong.
So, while I do believe that same sex couples do have a right to marry, as a matter of equal protection of laws, I also do see that Judge Moore has a point indicating that, if a judge deems a certain decision of a federal court as wrong, the judge is not bound by it because decisions of federal courts, including decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, are not part of the Supremacy Clause and are not the Law of the Land.
Thus, the disciplinary proceedings against Judge Moore is not simply because his stance is, once again, to jam his personal religious beliefs in secular state courts of the State of Alabama, and not simply because Judge Moore is promoting discrimination against same sex couples in his state - which is, of course, not a lawful behavior for a judge on both counts.
But, the jist of the disciplinary proceedings is that Judge Moore, by advancing the Christian religious dogma in State Courts, defied the newly emerged no-less-religious dogma created by the judiciary and the legal profession, that decisions of federal courts and of the U.S. Supreme Court are somehow the Law of the Land - which is contrary to the clear and unambiguous text of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Moreover, Judge Moore, a powerful intellectual well-versed in the law, is asserting the right of judges to engage in what constitutes nowadays acts of civil disobedience - and to disobey court decisions they consider to be wrong, on principled grounds.
That is a clear 1st Amendment issue.
Chief Judge Roy Moore did file a federal lawsuit, but did not seek a declaratory judgment that federal court decisions do not constitute the Supreme Law of the Land.
Instead, the only thing that was challenged in Judge Moore's federal lawsuit, was constitutionality of Section 159 of the Alabama State Constitution that automatically suspends a judge from office when either a federal criminal charge or a disciplinary complaints is filed against him by the judicial disciplinary authorities.
Here is Judge Moore's civil rights verified complaint in full.
Judge Moore's federal lawsuit was dismissed on August 4, 2016 on the so-called "Younger abstention" grounds, without prejudice, which means, after the state proceedings - and appeals from them - run through, Judge Moore can bring his federal lawsuit back.
Here is the order of dismissal.
So, we will see what happens this coming September at Judge Roy Moore's trial.
But, Judge Roy Moore did raise important points in public debate - whether judicial decisions are part of "Supreme Law of the Land" and whether wrong judicial decisions are binding upon state courts or can and should be disregarded.
I will follow the story of Judge Roy Moore's disciplinary proceedings with great interest and will report about it on this blog.
Stay tuned.
An update on the Kentucky #JudgeOluStevens' case - unfortunately, Judge Stevens chose to sell his constitutional rights in order to keep his livelihood. Judge Stevens won (his job back), the constitutients, voters and litigants lost.
I wrote on this blog in several posts, here, here, here, and here, about an African-American judge's plight in the State of Kentucky where #JudgeOluStevens fought racism in his courtroom, striking the all-white jury in an African-American criminal defendant's case (in compliance with a U.S. Supreme Court Batson v Kentucky), the jury picked by a white prosecutor.
Judge Stevens also made comments about the case and racism of the prosecutor after the case was already concluded - and nothing prevented the judge from making such comments after the case concluded, the judge's comments were fully protected by the 1st Amendment.
Yet, Judge Stevens was targeted by a racist judicially disciplinary process in the State of Kentucky where, as in other states, judges are forgiven for anything short of screaming murder, with the exception of going against the old white male establishment.
Judge Stevens had a choice - as all of us do - as to how to handle the situation, whether to go all the way and fight the unconstitutional investigation and disciplinary proceeding, or to cave in and save his highly paid position on the bench and his law license, because nowadays in America it is either - or.
I regret to state that Judge Stevens chose to save himself, his job, his salary, his career and his law license.
At first, Judge Stevens was vigorously prosecuting his constitutional rights, and even filed a federal lawsuit against the possible disciplinary action against him.
That was at the beginning of April of 2016.
Then, concessions to pressure started.
By mid-April of 2016, Judge Stevens voluntarily agreed (I do not know what kind of pressure was put on him to do that) to a temporary disciplinary suspension - a paid suspension.
Then, in rapid succession, with the disciplinary proceedings still pending against him, Judge Stevens first dropped his federal lawsuit on August 4, 2016 - I was immediately on the alert of some kind of plea bargain in the disciplinary case - and then, Judge Stevens agreed to a relatively light discipline of suspension without pay for 90 days until October 30, 2016, 4 days after Judge Stevens' dropped his federal lawsuit against the State of Kentucky.
What can I say.
Of course, everybody has a right to protect his own livelihood - and that of his family.
Yet, what a terrible example Judge Stevens has set and what a terrible message Judge Stevens has sent to his constituents, voters, litigants and attorneys - and to other judges, of course:
1) that free speech may be chilled;
2) that judicial independence is a fake concept, and may be easily chilled by discipline - when the judge, in doing his job, stepped on the toes of the ol' white boys' club;
3) that the government may be allowed to punish an individual, as high-ranking as a judge, for doing his job and for constitutionally protected conduct;
4) that an individual has no protection from courts, and has to cave in and agree to a clearly unconstitutional discipline in exchange for keeping his livelihood.
This deal does not portray the legal profession as honorable.
This deal does not portray the judiciary as honorable, independent or courageous.
This deal is cowardly.
This deal is showing to ordinary people without status in American courts that, if a judge had to sell his constitutional rights in order to keep his livelihood, ordinary Americans have no chance to get protections of their rights in American courts.
And, in the future, after the suspension runs its course, what are criminal defendants to expect of Judge Stevens in the courtroom - that he will be timid now, look around his shoulder and not dare to take on racism in his courtroom?
So, what is the point of keeping this judge on the bench then?
Judge Stevens did not commit anything wrong - save selling his constitutional rights in exchange for keeping his position, status, job, salary and law license.
But, this nation already has enough of judges bowing to establishment and putting the rule of law in disrepute.
We do not need another one just like that.
Judge Stevens also made comments about the case and racism of the prosecutor after the case was already concluded - and nothing prevented the judge from making such comments after the case concluded, the judge's comments were fully protected by the 1st Amendment.
Yet, Judge Stevens was targeted by a racist judicially disciplinary process in the State of Kentucky where, as in other states, judges are forgiven for anything short of screaming murder, with the exception of going against the old white male establishment.
Judge Stevens had a choice - as all of us do - as to how to handle the situation, whether to go all the way and fight the unconstitutional investigation and disciplinary proceeding, or to cave in and save his highly paid position on the bench and his law license, because nowadays in America it is either - or.
I regret to state that Judge Stevens chose to save himself, his job, his salary, his career and his law license.
At first, Judge Stevens was vigorously prosecuting his constitutional rights, and even filed a federal lawsuit against the possible disciplinary action against him.
That was at the beginning of April of 2016.
Then, concessions to pressure started.
By mid-April of 2016, Judge Stevens voluntarily agreed (I do not know what kind of pressure was put on him to do that) to a temporary disciplinary suspension - a paid suspension.
Then, in rapid succession, with the disciplinary proceedings still pending against him, Judge Stevens first dropped his federal lawsuit on August 4, 2016 - I was immediately on the alert of some kind of plea bargain in the disciplinary case - and then, Judge Stevens agreed to a relatively light discipline of suspension without pay for 90 days until October 30, 2016, 4 days after Judge Stevens' dropped his federal lawsuit against the State of Kentucky.
What can I say.
Of course, everybody has a right to protect his own livelihood - and that of his family.
Yet, what a terrible example Judge Stevens has set and what a terrible message Judge Stevens has sent to his constituents, voters, litigants and attorneys - and to other judges, of course:
1) that free speech may be chilled;
2) that judicial independence is a fake concept, and may be easily chilled by discipline - when the judge, in doing his job, stepped on the toes of the ol' white boys' club;
3) that the government may be allowed to punish an individual, as high-ranking as a judge, for doing his job and for constitutionally protected conduct;
4) that an individual has no protection from courts, and has to cave in and agree to a clearly unconstitutional discipline in exchange for keeping his livelihood.
This deal does not portray the legal profession as honorable.
This deal does not portray the judiciary as honorable, independent or courageous.
This deal is cowardly.
This deal is showing to ordinary people without status in American courts that, if a judge had to sell his constitutional rights in order to keep his livelihood, ordinary Americans have no chance to get protections of their rights in American courts.
And, in the future, after the suspension runs its course, what are criminal defendants to expect of Judge Stevens in the courtroom - that he will be timid now, look around his shoulder and not dare to take on racism in his courtroom?
So, what is the point of keeping this judge on the bench then?
Judge Stevens did not commit anything wrong - save selling his constitutional rights in exchange for keeping his position, status, job, salary and law license.
But, this nation already has enough of judges bowing to establishment and putting the rule of law in disrepute.
We do not need another one just like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)