Monday, September 04, 2006

Judges should also fear prison when they do wrong

.
or they feel they can do as they please, when they please. In Connecticut, judges do as they please. Who wants to live in a Police State where Judicial, Prosecutorial, Attorney, and Police Misconduct is the state sport.


POLITICS
Objection To Sullivan's Claim Filed Attorney Disputes Ex-Chief Justice's Stance That He Can't Be Disciplined
September 2, 2006 By LYNNE TUOHY, Courant Staff Writer

The Judicial Review Council's interim executive director Friday filed his objection to claims by attorneys for former Chief Justice William J. Sullivan that the council has no authority to discipline Sullivan for an act of "judicial discretion."

Attorney Peter A. Clark, who will prosecute five charges the council filed against Sullivan last month, stated that acts of judicial discretion can become judicial misconduct when undertaken for a corrupt purpose.

Sullivan faces a public disciplinary hearing on Wednesday in connection with his admission that he secretly withheld release of a controversial decision to enhance the prospects of his being succeeded as chief justice by his protege, Justice Peter Zarella.

"In the instant case, the otherwise lawful act of controlling the release of a decision of the court allegedly became misconduct because it was performed for a corrupt purpose, i.e. attempting surreptitiously to assist a colleague," Clark wrote in the filing to the council.Sullivan's motion to dismiss the charges claimed that "the ability to place a hold on a decision exists entirely as an act of judicial discretion."

"There are no written rules, procedures, policies or guidelines alleged in the charges that would pertain to the circumstances under which a justice of the Supreme Court can place a temporary hold on a decision," the motion states.

"Indeed, none exist."Clark counters that Sullivan's lawyers - Edward Maum Sheehy and Robert Cooney - cite no authority for their stance that Sullivan's actions are beyond the scope of disciplinary review.

"Simply because an act is discretionary, it does not therefore become automatically insulated from the disciplinary standards to which judges are held," Clark wrote.

"Misconduct during the quintessentially discretionary acts of signing an arrest warrant and setting bond has, in fact, resulted in the application of disciplinary rules in this jurisdiction because [a] judge wrongfully failed to recuse himself."

The latter reference was to the 15-day suspension meted out to Judge Howard F. Zoarski in 1993, after he signed an arrest warrant for littering against a man who opposed him in a property dispute and lawsuit. Zoarski also set bond for the man at four times the maximum fine he faced.

Sullivan's lawyers have yet to identify the expert witness they plan to have testify, and have not submitted an outline of that testimony.

Clark on Friday also filed his list of witnesses. They are Acting Chief Justice David M. Borden; Justice Richard N. Palmer; Kevin Loftus, the reporter of judicial decisions, whom Sullivan directed to hold up publication of the decision until further notice; Thomas Smith, deputy reporter of judicial decisions, and state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, chairman of the General Assembly's judiciary committee, which votes on judicial nominations.

Clark said McDonald is being called to testify about how the timely release of the decision would have furthered the committee's review of Zarella's nomination.

The case at the center of the controversy was a 4-3 ruling that the judicial branch's criminal and motor vehicle dockets are exempt from disclosure under the state's Freedom of Information Act. The judicial branch has been roiled by controversy in recent years revolving around secret cases and sealed documents.Sullivan, 67, could be suspended by the council for up to a year if he is found to have violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. He announced he was resigning as chief justice March 17, and assumed senior justice status effective April 15, barely a week before the controversy erupted.

Contact Lynne Tuohy at ltuohy@courant.com.




added Sept. 4, 2006, at 3:10 PM EST:

a link provided in the comments section of this post, comment #2 yield this:


05-1431
Kathreinlv.lMcGrath

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARITO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Filed May 8, 2006

WHY THIS CASE MATTERS SO MUCH - TO SO MANY
Imagine one day you or someone you love, find yourself wrapped up in some unexpected litigation, whether civil or criminal. (Statistically speaking, everyone in America will, at some time in their life, be a party in a lawsuit.)

A little background.
Until three years ago,RMichaelRKathreinrtruly believed courtrooms were places where judges listened to the facts carefully and decided cases honestly.

Then he got the lesson of his life.

The judge in his case could, and did, cheat. The lawyers could, and did, cheat. And once they coordinated their cheating, no fact, law or procedure could save him. He was set up to lose.

When you think of a “corrupt” judge, you may think of one who trades rulings for cash. As far as we know, that obvious sort of corruption is rare. You must appreciate however, that corruption may take subtle but equally destructive forms.

Among other things, a dishonest judge can ignore evidence, twist rules and procedure, obstruct the record, retaliate, manufacture facts or ignore others, allow infirm claims or dismiss valid ones, suborn perjury, mischaracterize pleadings, engage in ex parte communication and misapply the law.

When he does these things intentionally, (motivation is a separate issue) he commits a crime. Petty or grand, the acts are still crimes. It takes surprisingly little to “steer” a case.

After the American Revolution, our Constitution was conceived and adopted as the mechanical foundation of our government. For ordinary citizens, the independent grand jury was the only tool of salvation from judicial corruption. Without this critical tool of redress, American civil rights exist only at the will of a judge. That tool (unfettered access to a grand jury) has been taken away.

More:
http://www.judgesabovethelaw.com/



Exposing corrupt official criminals

Is a lame attorney angry with me for what I posted about him?

Open Letter to Chief Justice William J. Sullivan of Connecticut
If the above judge is notified of felonies and judicial misconduct, should he be arrested for not passing the information to the proper investigating authorities?

2 Comments:

Blogger Rogers Park Taxpayer said...

Judges are above the law.

05-1431
Kathrien v. McGrath
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Filed May 8, 2006

When you think of a “corrupt” judge, you may think of one who trades rulings for cash. As far as we know, that obvious sort of corruption is rare. You must appreciate however, that corruption take many subtle but equally destructive forms. A dishonest judge can ignore evidence, twist procedure, obstruct the record, retaliate, manufacture facts and ignore others, dismiss valid claims, suborn perjury, mischaracterize pleadings, engage in ex parte communication and misapply the law.

When he does these things intentionally, (motivation is a separate issue) he commits a crime. Petty or grand, the acts are still crimes. It takes surprisingly little to “throw” a case.

After the American Revolution, our Constitution was conceived and adopted as the mechanical foundation of our government. For ordinary citizens, the independent grand jury was the only tool of salvation from judicial corruption. Without this critical tool of redress, American civil rights exist only at the will of a judge. That tool has been taken away.

Judges simply snatched it from us. They did it by enacting “judicial legislation,” i.e., by “ruling” to block public access to the grand jury.

Who decided, “What will be the law?” Judges did.

Who is supposed to decide, “What will be the law?” Congress is.

Behind Congress' back, the entire judicial branch of our government placed itself out of reach. They eliminated all means to be held accountable to the public for their actions.

Judges are now, above the law.

Title 18 U. S. C. § 242 provides that judges are liable for criminal acts committed under “color of law” meaning that judges may be immune from prosecution for civil misbehavior, but they are NOT immune from prosecution for criminal behavior.

The only way to make a judge answer for his criminal behavior is to bring criminal charges against him. The ultimate problem here is that the only way to bring criminal charges against a bad judge is to ask another judge for permission to sue the bad judge. As noted above, that will never happen.

As long as the subjects of the investigation (judges) are the gatekeepers of the investigation, there will be no investigation. Therefore, judges have rendered Title 18 U. S. C. § 242 meaningless.

If Kathrien cannot win his fight to bring evidence of judicial misbehavior directly to a grand jury, then all Americans who are victims of § 242 crimes are denied their civil rights. It will be forever impossible to get a complaint against a judge, past a judge.

Go to judgesabovethelaw.com

Monday, September 04, 2006 1:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Michael Lee said...

Judges are above the law.

05-1431
Kathrien v. McGrath
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Filed May 8, 2006

When you think of a “corrupt” judge, you may think of one who trades rulings for cash. As far as we know, that obvious sort of corruption is rare. You must appreciate however, that corruption take many subtle but equally destructive forms. A dishonest judge can ignore evidence, twist procedure, obstruct the record, retaliate, manufacture facts and ignore others, dismiss valid claims, suborn perjury, mischaracterize pleadings, engage in ex parte communication and misapply the law.

When he does these things intentionally, (motivation is a separate issue) he commits a crime. Petty or grand, the acts are still crimes. It takes surprisingly little to “throw” a case.

After the American Revolution, our Constitution was conceived and adopted as the mechanical foundation of our government. For ordinary citizens, the independent grand jury was the only tool of salvation from judicial corruption. Without this critical tool of redress, American civil rights exist only at the will of a judge. That tool has been taken away.

Judges simply snatched it from us. They did it by enacting “judicial legislation,” i.e., by “ruling” to block public access to the grand jury.

Who decided, “What will be the law?” Judges did.

Who is supposed to decide, “What will be the law?” Congress is.

Behind Congress' back, the entire judicial branch of our government placed itself out of reach. They eliminated all means to be held accountable to the public for their actions.

Judges are now, above the law.

Title 18 U. S. C. § 242 provides that judges are liable for criminal acts committed under “color of law” meaning that judges may be immune from prosecution for civil misbehavior, but they are NOT immune from prosecution for criminal behavior.

The only way to make a judge answer for his criminal behavior is to bring criminal charges against him. The ultimate problem here is that the only way to bring criminal charges against a bad judge is to ask another judge for permission to sue the bad judge. As noted above, that will never happen.

As long as the subjects of the investigation (judges) are the gatekeepers of the investigation, there will be no investigation. Therefore, judges have rendered Title 18 U. S. C. § 242 meaningless.

If Kathrien cannot win his fight to bring evidence of judicial misbehavior directly to a grand jury, then all Americans who are victims of § 242 crimes are denied their civil rights. It will be forever impossible to get a complaint against a judge, past a judge.

Go to judgesabovethelaw.com

Monday, September 04, 2006 1:46:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


View My Stats