Legal Juice

That depends. In this case, the offender had 2 previous drug offenses. He also had hidden over a pound of weed in a washing machine. But, and this was a big "but" for the Judge, the offender is a high-achieving environmental scientist, as reported by The Cairns Post (Australia). So, not only did Isha James Segboer, 34, get off with just 100 hours of community service ...

... Supreme Chief Justice Paul de Jersey took the unusual step of not recording a conviction, despite two previous drug offences, because he did not want to ruin the high-achieving environmental scientist’s career potential to help others.

What what what? [Funnier for South Park fans.] I almost forgot the "cake" defense.

Segboer’s lawyer Bebe Mellick said Segboer had been given the shopping bag of drugs by an associate and had intended to bake a cake out of it because of its poor quality, but had forgotten about it.

Huh? An interesting defense, to be sure. Here's the source.

You may recall the case involving Nevada Judge George Assad, who jailed a guy's girlfriend until he showed up in court. Problem was, she hadn't done anything! (This innocent nurse had just come to court to explain that her boyfriend just started a new job, so he couldn't make it.)

So, in June 2008, the Judge was ordered to apologize. But he didn't send the letter to the Judicial Discipline Commission until over a year later - on July 24, 2009! How was it received by the wrongfully imprisoned girlfriend? We may never know! Per The Las Vegas Sun:

[Ms.] Chrzanowski could not be reached for comment, but her lawyer, Cal Potter, said Wednesday that the apology, coming so many years later, is “hollow” and now “meaningless” to his client. He said he hasn’t been able to locate Chrzanowski, who may have left Las Vegas, to send her a copy of the letter.

You can read more (a fair amount) here.

Clifton Williams could tell you why yawning in Judge Rozak's courtroom is not a good idea. Per the Chicago Tribune:

As Circuit Judge Daniel Rozak handed down [Mr. Williams's] cousin's sentence -- 2 years' probation -- Williams, 33, stretched and let out a very ill-timed yawn.

Williams' sentence? Six months in jail -- the maximum penalty for criminal contempt without a jury trial. The Richton Park man was locked up July 23 and will serve at least 21 days.

Shazam!

"I really can't believe I'm in jail," Williams wrote his family in a letter. "I done set (sic) in this [expletive] a week so far for nothing."

... In the two-story brick home where Williams had been living with his aunt Cheryl Mayfield and caring for his 79-year-old grandmother, family members said they were in shock over the sentence but were unable to afford an attorney to appeal.

"This is ridiculous -- you've got all these people shooting up kids, and here this boy yawns in court [and gets 6 months]. It's crazy," she said. "This could happen to any one of us."

Of course there are 2 sides to every story.

Chuck Pelkie, a spokesman for the state's attorney's office, said the prosecutor in the courtroom that day told him that "it was not a simple yawn -- it was a loud and boisterous attempt to disrupt the proceedings."

... and ...

Observers describe Rozak as running the type of strict courtroom that was common a few decades ago. Defense attorneys say Rozak is "tough but fair" and runs particularly well-managed trials. Rozak has been elected in 2000 and 2006, both times with recommendations from the state bar association.

To read more (a lot), click here.

You're Benjamin J. Marchant, and you're just sitting in a courtroom in Dickson County, Tennessee. You haven't done anything, other than give a ride to a friend who does have some business before the court. And what did Judge Durwood G. Moore do to Mr. Marchant? From a decision by the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary:

While he sat in your court you observed him and ordered your bailiff or police officers in the courtroom to take Mr. Marchant into custody and to administer a drug test on his person. Mr. Marchant was neither a litigant, a defendant or a person who had business before the Court and was a citizen observer. Mr. Marchant at your direction was seized by police officials and required to provide a urine sample which was drug tested. When the drug test was revealed to be negative Mr. Marchant was released. The ordering of the seizure of Mr. Marchant and this testing were illegal and neither statutory nor constitutional basis existed for your conduct.

What the hell was he thinking? The judges in charge of the disciplinary process were pissed. They hammered Judge Moore for violating a slew of Mr. Marchant's rights. But was he booted from the bench?

This public censure represents the highest degree of judicial discipline authorized by law short of the Court seeking a judgment recommending your removal as a judge from office. In the future you are to accord all citizens who appear in your court their constitutional rights and they shall not be seized on your suspicion for unauthorized drug tests. Each individual who appears before you shall be afforded their due process rights and shall be properly charged and noticed before any adverse action is taken against them.

Here's the source. Oh, and he also got censured, the same day, for something else! How many public censures equal a removal in Tennessee? More than two ...

Oh no you didn't just drop the f-bomb in court, Lord Justice Nicholas Wall. He did, to make a point. As reported by the Sun:

Lord Justice Nicholas Wall used the words of English poet Philip Larkin to stress the devastating impact on children when couples keep warring after they split up.

The Appeal Court judge, dealing with a residence order, said he hoped he would give the mother and father a fright because they had both come “within a whisker” of losing their nine-year-old son.

As he ruled the boy could live with the mother, he said the parents had harmed him by their “ongoing mutual dislike and recriminations” for each other following the break-up.

The judge issued a statement overturning a decision by Luton County Court, Beds, at which custody of the boy had been given to his maternal grandparents.

So what about the f-bomb? "Quoting poet Larkin’s 1971 work This Be The Verse, he said:

“They f[uck] you up, your mum and dad. They may not mean to, but they do.

“They fill you with the faults they had, and add some extra, just for you.”

Why the f-bomb?

He said: “These four lines give a clear warning to parents.”

Let's hope so. They've certainly put Lord Wall on the map. Here's the source.

Nobody likes getting a speeding ticket. But how far would you go to beat it? If you are Australian Judge Marcus Enfield (former Judge, that is), you'd go pretty damn far. As reported at abc.net.au (and brought to The Juice's attention by John in Australia), Mr. Enfield got a speeding ticket in 2006. What was his defense?

[H]e claimed his car was being driven by a friend, Teresa Brennan.

Mind you, this was A JUDGE TESTIFYING UNDER OATH. The problem:

It later emerged that [Ms. Brennan] had died in 2003.

Newman! Mr. Brennan pleaded guilty to "making a false statement under oath and trying to pervert the course of justice." He is awaiting sentencing.

Judge Paul Cosgrove was already having a bad day. He was at a meeting of the full Canadian Judicial Council, trying to keep his job. (A panel of 5 judges had voted 4-1 to remove him.) And at that meeting (per the Globe and Mail) ...

Adding to Judge Cosgrove's woes, security was so lax at the Council meeting that a man who managed to plant himself in front of him at one point interrupted the hearing to angrily serve Judge Cosgrove with what he claimed were legal papers.

The man quickly slipped out of the room after calling Judge Cosgrove, “you mother-fucker.”

Think maybe the Judge was proving to be difficult to serve? You can read more (a fair amount) here.

Oh no you didn't just cite Ludacris, federal Judge Terence T. Evans. Okay, maybe "cite" is a little misleading, but still ... from footnote 1 in U.S. v. Murphy

The trial transcript quotes Ms. Hayden as saying Murphy called her a snitch bitch "hoe." A "hoe," of course, is a tool used for weeding and gardening. We think the court reporter, unfamiliar with rap music (perhaps thankfully so), misunderstood Hayden's response. We have taken the liberty of changing "hoe" to "ho," a staple of rap music vernacular as, for example, when Ludacris raps "You doin' ho activities with ho tendencies."

I like it. Here's the full cite (with a link to the case): U.S. v. Murphy, 406 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 2005).

Perhaps there is one such family. It involves something that has probably never happened before, nor is it likely to ever happen again. On the same day, the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct found that two brothers should be removed from the bench. The North Country Gazette identified the brothers as follows:

Joseph S. Alessandro, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, sits in Goshen and Francis M. Alessandro, a Judge of the New York City Civil Court,sits in Bronx County.

Both matters involve dishonesty. You can read the decision on Joseph Alessandro here, and Francis Alessandro here. Each man has 30 days to appeal.

A few days ago, I had a post on Ohio Judge James Heath. He essentially walked after a DUI and a refusal. After having seen the YouTube video of his arrest below, now I am really incensed. Judge Heath repeatedly tried to used his position as a judge to weasel out of the arrest. It's truly nauseating. He was seen weaving and running a red light. He begs, and he begs, and he begs. Then he begs some more. He threatens the officer, saying it will ruin his (the officer's) career. And the officer even reminded the Judge that the incident is being taped!

The Juice does not think a judge should lose his job for a first-time DUI with no injuries, if the judge accepts responsibility for the crime. Judges make mistakes, like everyone else. But when a judge repeatedly, unequivocally tries to use his position to subvert the law, we've left "I made a mistake" and entered "this person can't be trusted with judicial power." Hopefully the judicial disciplinary process will work better than the criminal process did.

How does a Judge who refused to take a Breathalyzer test, and gets arrested for DUI, and has his license suspended for one year, essentially walk? I don't know. But that's what happened to Warren County (Ohio) Common Pleas Judge James Heath.

And on top of that, apparently as recorded in the police video of the incident, Judge Heath tried to weasel out of the DUI. (Warren County Commission Mike Kilburn, who wants Judge Heath to resign, "called the judge girly at an open commissioners' meeting where he showed the police tape of Heath's traffic stop," as reported by The Western Star.)

Here's what happened to that DUI charge and one-year license suspension: the suspension was stayed, and then vacated when Judge Heath pleaded guilty to reckless driving. DUI? What DUI? Here's the source.

Connecticut Judge E. Curtissa Cofield said she had one beer and one mixed drink three hours before her blood alcohol level came in at .17, more than twice the legal limit. What do you think she would say if someone made the same claim in her courtroom?

As reported in The Courant, here's how Judge Cofield was caught:

On Oct. 9 about 10:45 p.m., Cofield sideswiped a parked state police car, occupied by a trooper, with her BMW in a construction zone ...

Instead of being contrite, here are a few things she had to say, as recorded by the police video:

Cofield asked [state police Sgt. Dwight] Washington: "Do you have a reading on my urine test, Negro trooper?"

She refused to sign a form and said: "I'm not signing anything, because when it comes down to the bottom line, who's smarter, me or you? We'll figure it out, won't we?"

"I'm sick of being treated like a freaking Negro from the 'hood," she said. Asked if she had an illness and needed medication, Cofield said, "Negro-itis" and "I need to take anti-Negro, ummm ..."

And this one, which was not in the video, but in the police report:

"Judge Cofield stated that she was the most intelligent person in the room and threatened our careers. ... While speaking on her cellphone, Judge Cofield referred to Sgt. Washington as the 'Head n----- in charge.'"

So what's next for Judge Cofield, Connecticut's first black female judge? The DUI and another charge will be dismissed if she successfully completes an alcohol education program. She's also awaiting word from the Judicial Review Council, which held a hearing on January 26 on misconduct charges against her. Here's the source.

In Italy, you can be a part-time Judge and a practicing attorney. So there were these identical twins, one of whom was a part-time Judge and a lawyer. The other sister had finished law school, but was not a practicing attorney, or so everyone thought.

Seems the Judge (Gabriela Odisio) was double-booked, and asked her sister to stand in for her! And it worked the other way too, with Patrizia sitting as a Judge for her sister. It worked for 3 years! How did they get busted? Slip of the lip. A client overheard them talking about it! For the full story from the Times Online, click here.

Beyond a reasonable doubt, this violates the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Seems that Colorado Judge Paul Sacco was tired of seeing the same rockers in his courtroom for noise violations. It was obvious to him that the fines were not a deterrent. So he came up with a new form of punishment, as reported by 9news.com:

"These people should have to listen to music they don't like."

What would that be? Barry Manilow! NOOOOOOOOO! And Barney the Purple Dinosuar! Uncle! I give! Please .... just ..... stop ....

Does it work?

Judge Sacco says it has really cut down on "repeats."

Still, I'm left wondering, do the ends justify the means? Here's the source.

Having been charged with OUI (operating under the influence), Jorge Pinto appeared for a Hearing before Judge James McGovern of Bristol County, Massachusetts. The problem? Pinto was drunk - in court! The Judge was tipped off to this, so he ordered a breathalyzer test. It showed that Mr. Pinto's blood alcohol level was .08, over the limit. And how did Mr. Pinto get to court? He drove!

According to the report in the Taunton Daily Gazette, despite the fact that he knew Mr. Pinto drove to court, Judge McGovern let him go! And?

Minutes later, state police pulled Pinto’s car over and he was arrested for drunk driving after failing several field sobriety tests.

An assist to Assistant District Attorney Casey Smith "for pointing troopers in the direction of Pinto’s car after he left court." But that's not the end of it. There are allegations that Judge McGovern tried to sweep the whole thing under the rug.

Reports say [Assistant County Attorney] Smith told police that upon hearing the information, the judge told her, “Well I assume that [Pinto] will be brought back to this court today for arraignment... and I’m telling you right now I’m inclined to dismiss the entire thing.” ...

According to reports, [Sgt. Thomas] Higginbotham remarked that the interference from the court was “completely out of line and likely amounted to judicial misconduct.”

Is the Judge in the soup?

[District Attorney spokesman Gregg] Miliote said any allegations of wrongdoing by a state judge are handled by the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct. The agency’s Executive Director Jill Pearson would not say if there is a complaint regarding McGovern.

Click here for the source.

If you're out on bail for some serious crimes, how do you leave the country, without permission, and not get in trouble? Here's how: you're in the Army, and your unit gets called to Iraq (and nobody tells the Judge!) Per the Alabama Press-Register:

In May 2006 a grand jury indicted Sean Sebastian Lane, 33, for enticing a child younger than 16 via a computer, attempting to entice a child younger than 16, two counts of transmitting obscene material to a child younger than 16, and attempting to invite a child younger than 16 to enter a vehi cle, house, office or other place for the purpose of a sexual act.

After police arrested Lane in August 2007, he posted $25,000 bail and was released, according to court records. In May, Lane's attorneys asked Circuit Court Judge Lang Floyd to allow the defendant to leave the state.

"Mr. Lane is on temporary leave from Iraq and is scheduled to report back for duty July 1, 2008," the motion states. Lane, who is from Arizona, was stationed at Fort Rucker, according to one of his attorneys.

Well guess what happened before Judge Floyd could rule on the motion? Lane was deployed to Iraq! His lawyers then asked Judge Floyd to reconsider his denial of the motion. He was not pleased.

"I am shocked someone with the right authority didn't know this," Floyd said about the bond order and pending charges.

So what is the government's position in cases like this?

"We are a nation at war, but however no one is above the law," [Army spokesman Nathan] Banks said. "If it was something that was passed forward, I find it hard to believe that the Army didn't honor it."

What did Judge Floyd decide? (In other words, should Lane be allowed to leave the state?!#@)

Floyd, who didn't rule Thursday, said he planned to contact Army officials to discuss the situation.

And if he sticks to his original decision, refusing to allow Lane to leave the state? Here's the source.

What could a Judge do to please so many men? As reported by the AP:

It won't be last call for ladies' night. A New York federal judge has a tossed out a suit claiming that drink discounts for women discriminate against men. The case was filed by attorney Roy Den Hollander, who also recently sued a university over its women's studies program. The judge ruled that nightclubs are free to set whatever prices they like. Hollander calls the female judge a feminist and contends the dismissal of his suit is another example of anti-male discrimination.

Maybe it was just a coincidence, but the Juice remembers that there always seemed to be more women at the offending bars...

Several parents have accused Cameron County (Texas) Justice of the Peace Gustavo "Gus" Garza of ordering them to paddle or spank their kids in court. Per The Brownsville Herald:

This morning, [Judge] Limas will hear the request for a temporary restraining order against Garza first brought last week by Mary Vasquez and her husband Daniel Zurita, who filed a lawsuit against the justice of the peace, a former state district attorney and special prosecutor.

They allege that Garza compelled Zurita to spank his teen stepdaughter under threat that she would be found guilty of a criminal offense and fined $500 for not attending school unless spanked.

But wait, there's more. Attorney Mark Sossi first filed a petition against Garza on behalf of 2 other minors.

"I wouldn't hit a child with a paddle, particularly one with physical problems," plaintiffs' attorney Mark Sossi told The Brownsville Herald late Tuesday. Sossi was referring to one of the two children, who suffers from a muscular-development birth defect and allegedly was spanked in Garza's court.

The child with the disability is a 14-year-old boy who used profanity toward a school bus driver. The second is a 14-year-old girl who skipped class, Sossi said, shortly after filing his amended petition in district court. The respective parents are Leroy Garcia and Rosa Valdez.

In his original petition, attorney Sossi states that:

"(Garza) has long engaged in this kind of corporal punishment under the authority of his office. Ten years ago when the defendant was a district attorney in Willacy County, he used the color and authority of his office to threaten criminal prosecution unless the parents struck their children with a wooden paddle he owned."

Oh, and ...

The initial petition alleges Garza directed Zurita to repeatedly strike his stepdaughter on the buttocks with a large, heavy wooden paddle fashioned from a thick piece of lumber in open court and in the presence of other adults and juveniles.

Zurita stated in an affidavit that, "I did not feel that I had a choice but carry out the orders of the judge. When I was finished, Judge Garza told me that I had not struck (my stepdaughter) hard enough..."

As you might imagine, these folks are seeking Garza's removal. Click here to read more.

Las Vegas Municipal Judge George Assad got a little carried away. Seems he was upset that one Joshua Madera failed to appear in court to clear up some unpaid traffic tickets. Per the Las Vegas Sun:

When Madera called the court to seek a continuance because he was starting a new job that day, a clerk told him he could not obtain a continuance over the telephone.

So ...

[Ann] Chrzanowski, Madera’s girlfriend, then called the court and was told she could appear in his place.

Strange, but okay ... until she got there, anyway.

When Chrzanowski appeared, [Judge] Assad ordered her to call Madera to tell him to come to court.

“Tell him you’re going to jail if he doesn’t get his butt down here,” the judge said.

Handcuffed, Ms. Chrzanowski called Mr. Madera. Then she was put in a cell! For 2 hours, until Mr. Madera arrived "and arranged a payment plan." What happened to Judge Assad? He is going to have to apologize formally to Ms. Chrzanowski. He got off easy (with just the apology) because the Nevada Supreme Court thought the public censure recommended by the Judicial Discipline Commission was too strong. As for the effectiveness of his tactics:

Madera had not paid any tickets when the discipline commission met in November 2006, seven years after some of them had been issued.

Here's the source.

Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, is one of the most important judges in the United States. (The 9th Circuit includes California, Washington, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii.) As fate would have it, Judge Kozinski is presiding over the trial of Ira Isaacs, a filmmaker based in Los Angeles, who is accused of distributing criminally obscene sexual-fetish videos depicting bestiality and defecation. You will never guess what was on the Judge's website (which he thought was private - and is now down). Per the Los Angeles Times:

The sexually explicit material on Kozinski's site earlier this week was extensive, including images of masturbation, public sex and contortionist sex. There was a slide show striptease featuring a transsexual, and a folder that contained a series of photos of women's crotches as seen through snug fitting clothing or underwear. There were also themes of defecation and urination, though they are not presented in a sexual context.

Oops. The uninitiated might think that Judge Kozinski is some lefty. They would be wrong.

Kozinski, who was named chief judge of the 9th Circuit last year, is considered a judicial conservative on most issues. He was appointed to the federal bench by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1985.

Hmm. Most issues ...

He has a national reputation for a brilliant legal mind and has developed a reputation as a champion of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression.

Go on.

Several year ago, for example, after learning that appeals court administrators had placed filters on computers that denied access to pornography and other materials, Kozinski led a successful effort to have the filters removed.

Zam! Methinks a recusal is in order. Here is the Los Angeles Times article.

... every now and then, comes around. This is one of those times. Remember the New York judge who jailed 46 people because a cell phone went off in his courtroom? (If you don't, click here. It was outrageous.) Guess what happened to him (Niagra Falls City Court Judge Robert M. Restaino)? He's gone! Here's the article on his removal from the bench by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, whose decision was just upheld by the State Court of Appeals.

Yes, it's a wrongful death case. William H. Waggoner, age 88, died a month after he was hit by an automatic door at a Wal-Mart in Marble Falls, Texas. Is it me, or is a case like this an inappropriate forum to try to be funny? Judge James Nowlin tried ... and failed. The parties could not agree on where to hold the deposition of Wal-Mart's corporate representative. (Wal-Mart wanted it in Bentonville, Arkansas. The Waggoner family wanted it in San Antonio, Texas.) So this is where, in a case about a man's death, Judge Nowlin attempted to inject some humor. This is word-for-word from his May 3, 2008 Order (filed on June 3, 2008):

The Court is sympathetic with [Wal-Mart’s] argument. Surely [Wal-Mart's] corporate representative, a resident of Arkansas, would feel great humiliation by being forced to enter the home state of the University of Texas, where the legendary Texas Longhorns have wrought havoc on the Arkansas Razorbacks with an impressive 55-21 all-time series record.

For additional levity, the Judge threw in this footnote:

It is worth noting that the Razorbacks, who disgracefully retreated from the Southwest Conference to the gentler pastures of the Southeastern Conference, could have likely learned a lesson about stamina and perseverance in the face of battle by visiting the Alamo in San Antonio.

Hah hah hah! That is so not funny. But there's more.

On the other hand, the Court is sympathetic with Plaintiff's position. Plaintiffs might enter Arkansas with a bit of trepidation as many residents of Arkansas are still seeking retribution for the "Game of the Century" in which James Street and Darrell Royal stunned the Razorbacks by winning the 1969 National Championship.

Still not funny. Here's how Judge Nowlin resolved this dispute:

Because the Court is sympathetic to both parties' positions, it has found a neutral site, intended to avoid both humiliation and trepidation of retribution.

Accordingly, it is ordered that unless the parties agree otherwise, the deposition ... shall occur ... on the steps of the Texarkana Federal Building [on the Texas/Arkansas border].

I know you must be ROTFL, but here's the final blast of humor:

It is further ordered that each party is to remain on his or her respective side of the state line.

So very unfunny. So very unjudicial. Click here to read the Order.

Turkish barber Sabri Bogday has been sentenced to beheading for "using God's name in vain," as reported by the Los Angeles Times. It happened "during an argument with a neighbor, who later complained to police." Why is the judge you get so important?

The [Arab News Daily] quoted a lawyer as saying: "Some judges consider it heresy and infidelity, and say that the accused cannot repent and so faces the death penalty. Others consider the statement to be disbelief, thus allow the accused to retract what he has said and repent and then set him free."

Mr. Bogday has already been in jail for 13 months! The Turkish President is pleading his case with the Saudi King.

It would appear that Maryland District Court Judge Bruce S. Lamdin had a lot of bad days. The excerpts below are from the opinion released yesterday by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. As stated in the opinion, "... Judge Lamdin expressly admitted that he made each of the comments attributed to him and that those comments violated specific Canons of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct..."

As to State v. Crook, #C 00239557, Judge Lamdin, in a case in which defendant entered a guilty plea to possession of paraphernalia and driving without a license, admitted that he made the following comments during the case:

‘Why did you drive so poorly? Smoke a little weed before you got behind the wheel? . . . Smoke a little crack before you got behind the wheel? . . . Well, you’ve got the appropriate last name. . . . All right crack head, Crook. . . . You’ve got your money all tied up in the next shipment that’s coming in? Never mind. . . . My comment was, do you have all your money tied up in product?’

Alrighty. Here's another.

As to State v. McClaughlin, #C 00240823, Judge Lamdin admitted, upon being informed by the Assistant State’s Attorney that the defendant had been asked to remain in the hallway with her baby until her case was called, that he stated:

‘Well, you know, I got in trouble because I told some lady we confiscate cell phones and we put the cell phones in plastic bags and send them down to Annapolis. I suggested maybe we ought to do the same thing with children except poke holes in the bag. She filed a complaint against me for that so that’s why they keep all of the children out of my courtroom now. . . We ordered some plastic bags about five foot tall but they haven’t been — they haven’t come in yet.’

More about kids ...

As to the complaint filed by Ronald Jacobson, Judge Lamdin admitted that during the course of his opening remarks for the afternoon docket, he made the following comment to the audience regarding a woman leaving the courtroom with her baby who was crying:

‘If she only knew how much I hate kids, she would not have brought that kid in here today.’

There's plenty more. Keep reading.

Continue reading "Wo. You Don't Want To Catch This Judge On A Bad Day" »

Philadelphia Traffic Court Judge Willie F. Singletary knows a thing or two, OR 55, about traffic tickets. That's because, a year ago, his driver's licenses was suspended through 2011 due to 55 traffic violations totalling $11,427, as reported by the Philadelphia Daily News. And he was elected Traffic Court Judge after he got busted!

Now, though, having been in office only since January 7, 2007, he's looking at a different kind of trouble.

The state Judicial Conduct Board issued a complaint yesterday charging Willie F. Singletary, 28, with five counts of misconduct for soliciting campaign donations from the Philadelphia First State Road Rattlers Motorcycle Club on April 22, 2007.

Here's what allegedly went down. How do people think this kind of thing won't come out?

Then, Singletary asked each biker to give him $20 for his campaign, in violation of state judicial conduct rules, according to the 11-page complaint.

"There's going to be a basket going around because I'm running for Traffic Court Judge, right, and I need some money," he said, according to the complaint.

"Now, you all want me to get there, you're all going to need my hook-up, right," he continued. "It costs money," he added. "I have to raise $15,000 by Friday. I just hope you have it."

I'll give the Judge this: He eliminated the need to read between the lines. And it's on YouTube, right here!

Shazam! Here's the article.

Hey, I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt, if it's a close call, and there's no history. You make the call on this one. Per the Palm Beach Post:

The Judicial Qualifications Commission filed formal charges against [Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge Howard] Berman in December 2000. Three women - two probation officers and a former public defender - accused him of groping, inquiring about their underwear and asking for sex. He threatened to "bury" one if she told. Three additional women stepped forward with similar stories.

Laura Johnson, now a county court judge, reported that when she and Berman were prosecutors, he invited her to his home to help with some cases. Johnson told investigators Berman disappeared into his bedroom, then returned carrying cocktails - and wearing only a maid's apron.

Wow. So what did Judge Berman do? He stepped down three days before the judicial commission hearing.

Fast forward a few years. In 2005, Berman was hired as an assistant state attorney, where he was apparently doing okay, until recently. According to recently released personnel records,

Berman ... was suspended without pay for 10 days after asking a secretary, "Wanna be naughty?"

Mr. Berman's defense?

In his written response to the allegations, he said he was merely admiring the woman's engagement ring and said, "It's not too gaudy."

So was it "gaudy" or "naughty?" Not a tough call. So on top of the 10-day suspension,

Berman was ordered to avoid contact with the woman, who was not identified. He was further warned that if any similar complaints were lodged, he would be fired, according to the disciplinary report signed by Chief Assistant State Attorney Paul Zacks.

Here's hoping the maid's apron doesn't make another surprise appearance. (And here's the source.)

I gotta say, I really like the way Springdale District Court Judge Stanley Ludwig handled this one. Here's what happened, as reported in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette:

The alleged victim had accused his wife of beating him, Ludwig said. Ludwig said he found the woman innocent, believing the man’s injuries to be self-inflicted.

“You’re a controlling asshole who went to Honduras to find a submissive Hispanic woman to marry,” Ludwig recalled telling the man. “I guess I can call him a liar, but not an asshole.”

Props to the judge. What did the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission do with this? They issued a letter of reprimand, the first he has received in his 25 years as a judge. How did he respond to the reprimand?

I’ve probably said more outrageous things over the years. I was probably due.

Nicely done, sir. Here's the source.

In October 2006, as reported in The Montgomery Advertiser:

[Then attorney Stuart] DuBose, pleaded guilty to violating the State Bar's rules and was suspended from the practice of law for 45 days. But the state Supreme Court ruled that the penalty wasn't sufficient.

The following month, "attorney Dubose" won the election, and became "Judge Dubose." So? Well ....

... DuBose took office Jan. 15, 2007, and the next month challenged the State Bar's disciplinary action, arguing, among other things, that the Bar was "divested of its jurisdiction" to discipline him once he became an incumbent circuit judge.

Ludicrous, right? Wrong!

The [Alabama] Supreme Court ruled that DuBose is entitled to have the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the State Bar stayed until he's no longer serving as a circuit judge.

Wacky. But it's not over for Judge Dubose because, while the attorney discipline action against him has been stayed,

The Judicial Inquiry Commission made 60 separate allegations against DuBose in January, covering his conduct on the bench and as a private lawyer before he took office in January 2007.

As a result, he is on leave with pay, and could be booted from the bench. And if that happens, here comes the Alabama Bar Association with its disciplinary proceeding.

For real. As reported in The Kansas City Star:

[Fulton Superior Court Judge Marvin] Arrington asked all white people to leave before he lowered the boom on the defendants, telling them that bad behavior in poor black neighborhoods drags down black advancement.

Why did the judge ask all the white folks to leave?

I wanted to have a fireside chat. And my grandmother said years ago that if you’re going to fuss at black people, you don’t need to do it in front of white people.

Zoinks!

Must have been "f-bomb the lawyer day." Mr. Aaron Wider is the owner and CEO of HTFC Corp. In a lawsuit brought by GMAC Bank against HTFC, Mr. Bodzin (GMAC's attorney) was attempting to take Mr. Wider's deposition. To say Mr. Wider was uncooperative would be an incredible understatement. Here are a few excerpts from the deposition:

Q. [By Atty. Bodzin] This is your loan file, what do Mr. and Mrs. Fitzgerald do for a living?
A. [By Mr. Wider] I don’t know. Open it up and find it.
Q. Look at your loan file and tell me.
A. Open it up and find it. I’m not your fucking bitch.
Q. Take a look at your loan application.
A. Do it yourself. Do it yourself. You want to do this in front of a judge. Would you prefer to
[do] this in front of a judge? Then, shut thefuck up.
Q. Sir, take a look--
A. I’m taking a break. Fuck him. You open up the document. You want me to look at something, you get the document out. Earn your fucking money asshole. Isn’t the law wonderful. Better get used to it. You’ll retire when I’m done.

Q. ... We’re going to adjourn this deposition if this happens again because you are offending every single person.
A. Don’t speak for anybody in here except yourself fuck face.
Q. I’m speaking for myself and I’m speaking for the Court Reporter.
A. If she had a problem with me she would say something. She knows it’s [not] directed toward
her. It’s directed to you because you’re a piece of shit and a piece of garbage and I’m the only
person in your life that is fucking up your world and I enjoy it. I enjoy it and when you sit there
and say I’m perpetrating a fraud I’m just better at the law than you are and you can’t get in the
fucking door and it’s pissing you off. Keep trying.

What what what? [Funnier for South Park fans.] Just how bad was the rest of the deposition? Per the court:

The above [which includes one more excerpt] are only a few examples of Wider’s hostile, uncivil, and vulgar conduct, which persisted throughout the nearly 12 hours of deposition testimony. In fact, Wider used the word “fuck” and variants thereof no less than 73 times. To put this in perspective--in this commercial case, where GMAC’s claim is for breach of contract and HTFC’s counterclaim is for tortious interference with contract--the word “contract” and variants thereof were used only 14 times.

So what did the court do with this? Click below to find out.

Continue reading "Witness Repeatedly F-Bombs Questioning Attorney - Hellish Deposition" »

Austin Texas attorney Adam Reposa, in court representing a man charged with DWI, was not pleased with a particular objection made by the prosecution. As reported by keyetv.com,

Travis County Court at Law #6 Judge Jan Breland put Adam Reposa into the lockup after he made what is described in court documents as "…a simulated masturbatory gesture with his hand while making eye contact with the Court…"

Mr. Reposa posted the $1,000 bail and was released. He's laying low now, right?

When Reposa's law office was contacted by phone, the person answering said she was instructed by Reposa to tell the media a vulgarity, which won't be printed here.

Damn you censors! Here's the source.

Reverend John Dear and 8 others "occupied the elevator of Sen. Pete Domenici's Santa Fe office for more than five hours" in 2006, per the The Albuquerque Tribune. They were protesting the Iraq War. They remained in the elevator because they were denied access to the Senator's third-floor office.

Keep in mind that Reverend Dear was recently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and the Gandhi Peace Prize. U.S. District Court Judge Don Svet was unimpressed. Said Dear to the court:

"This war is unjust, morally sinful and just downright impractical," he said.

Dear added that he had contemplated the words of Mohandas Gandhi, who Dear said advocated to reject a court's sanctions if the cause was just.

"I want to take my case to a higher court, to a higher judge ---------------- the God of peace," Dear said before uttering a prayer.

What did the judge have to say?

... Svet would have none of it, calling Dear a "renegade priest," "a coward" and "no Gandhi."

"Mr. Dear, you frankly are a phony," Svet said. "You preach nonviolence but you are the same man who took a hammer and a can of paint against a U.S. aircraft."

Huh? Technically taking a hammer to a plane is "violence," but really. The sentence? 40 hours of community service and $510 in fines and court costs. Will Dear appeal? Nope. You can read more here. And here is Reverend Dear's website.

As reported in The Star-Ledger,

The Advisory Committee on Judicial Misconduct charged that Superior Court Judge F. Michael Giles [Essex County, New Jersey] launched a tirade against Sebastian Bio when the attorney pressed him on a legal matter in 2006.

The tirade?

"I said get the [hell/fuck] out of my courtroom," Giles is accused of saying. "What the [hell/fuck] don't you understand? Shut the [hell/fuck] up and get the [hell/fuck] out of here. I have a meeting this afternoon." [expletives reinserted].

What the (expletive)! So what's next?

Under court rules, Giles has 20 days to answer the committee's charges, after which the committee may convene a formal hearing on whether to recommend discipline to the Supreme Court.

To read more (just a little bit) click here.

Parents get divorced. Dad converts to Judaism, and wants son circumsised - and Mom doesn't. Now if I were to to tell you that the son istwelve years old, who else do you think they should ask? Yes, junior, of course! You would think someone would have thought of this before the case worked its way up to the Oregon Supreme Court! Nope - not in the 3 years the parents have been litigating this issue. So the Court sent the case back with instructions to determine what junior wants. That shouldn't take long. You can read more (just a little bit) here.

Did you think I meant that figuratively? Nope - literally. Tyrone Clarke, of Trinidad & Tobago, came to court with two bags of "human feces" in his pockets! As reported in the Trinidad & Tobago Express:

On January 8, Maharajh-Brown, who was presiding in the Eleventh Court, screamed and fled the courtroom after Clarke dipped into his side pocket and pulled out a plastic bag which he threw.

The first bag missed Maharaj-Brown, but hit the wall behind her, causing the bag to burst and spill onto the wall and Maharaj-Brown.

As Clarke dipped his hand again into his pockets, [police prosecutor] Carty quickly rose from his seat and positioned himself in the middle of Maharaj-Brown and Clarke, in a bid to protect the magistrate.

You know the crime. The time? One year, six months and 28 days hard labor. Oh, and there are still those charges of arson and malicious damage that brought Mr. Clarke to court.

I'm not saying Florida Judge Jorge Labarga was wrong. I'm just saying that, if 18-year-old Alexandria Severino believes in a higher being, she should now call him "Labarga." The crimes? Ms. Severino pleaded guilty to 2 counts of trafficking in ecstasy, and one count of trafficking in hydrocodone. The mandatory minimum for each count is 3 years. Guess how much jail time she'll be doing? Squadoosh. Zippy. Nada.

Former Texas Justice of the Peace Thurman Bartie is running for Jefferson County Commissioner. Why "former" JP? Because he was kicked off the bench. Okay, he resigned, then he was removed. According to the Texas Judicial Conduct Commission, among other things, Bartie "punched a juvenile in the chest, and hit another juvenile on the head with his knuckles." Also, "on at least one occasion, [Bartie] brought juvenile twin brothers into his chambers and engaged in corporal punishment." There's much more. As reported in The Southeast Texas Record:

Bartie also had magistrate duties at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility and, according to the Tribunal Order, on several occasions told the inmates that he was planning to have sex with their wives while they were incarcerated.

In another incident referred to by the Tribunal, Bartie tried to intervene in a Port Arthur police investigation after his brother-in-law was stopped for driving while intoxicated. Records submitted to the Tribunal showed that Bartie asked officers to let him drive his brother-in-law's vehicle away, but changed his mind when the officers found crack cocaine in the vehicle. [Nevermind!] Bartie ordered that his brother-in-law be released on a personal recognizance bond, which he himself later signed.

When a local reporter attempted to investigate the allegations that Bartie was abusive to litigants, the JP had the reporter removed from court, used obscene language and called the reporter a racist.

The Review Tribunal stated that records presented to them indicated that while on the bench Bartie threatened to hit juveniles on the head with his gavel ... He also removed his belt and encouraged parents to whip or beat their children with the belt.

Just how offensive was Bartie's language? I don't know!

Justice Catherine Stone, who wrote for the Tribunal, found the language so offensive that it was omitted from the opinion and added that Bartie, "while sitting in his judicial capacity, used some of the most vulgar and offensive language imaginable."

"The nature and frequency of the extremely obscene language employed by respondent are, standing alone, sufficient to warrant his removal from office and the prohibition from holding judicial office in the future," Stone wrote.

To read the entire opinion of the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, click here. You can read the Southeast Texas Record article here.

Judge John P. Wulle, of the Clark County, Washington Superior Court, was attending a conference entitled "Planning Your Juvenile Drug Court in Los Angeles in July 2006. I know, skip the details - get to the dirt. Here's some of what he said, as set forth in the "Stipulation" entered into by the Judge and the Commission on Judicial Conduct:

During a breakout session, the team's facilitator wrote a star on an assignment the team completed and said jokingly, "Clark County gets a star." Respondent [Judge Wulle] replied, "I don't need a star, I'm not a Jew."

Later in the week, during a break in the conference, other faculty members asked [Judge Wulle] who Clark County's facilitator was, and he answered, "the black gay guy."

A team member asked [Judge Wulle] to lower his voice ... and he acknowledged the request by raising his middle finger at the team member.

During a breakout session ... [Judge Wulle] became frustrated with the pace or direction of discussion, and announced it was time for the group to move on to the next topic. A fellow team member spoke up, "No Judge, this is important, we need to work through this," or words to that effect. In response to this seemingly respectful entreaty, [Judge Wulle] angrily yelled, "F_ _ _ you" and threw his pen down on a table and left the room. [Regular Juice readers know that I don't delete expletives. The Commission does, though.]

Zoinks! Maybe it's me, but it seems like Judge Wulle wasn't real pleased about attending the conference. If you want to read the full "Stipulation, Agreement and Order of Censure," click here.

We're all guilty of forgetting things from time to time. But when you are a judge, YOU CAN'T FORGET TO RELEASE PRISONERS! That's just what Spanish judge Adelina Entrena did. As reported in Think Spain:

One of [the three men], a man cleared of a robbery charge, went on to spend 437 days behind bars as a result. Two others needlessly spent 35 and 38 locked up after similar blunders.

A little over a month is bad enough, but 437 days! The judge got off easy. He was canned. He should be doing 510 days. Here's the Think Spain article.

There's just no earthly explanation for the actions of New York Judge Robert Restaino on March 11, 2005. Judge Restaino was dealing with a group of domestic violence defendants who were there to report to the court, as they are required to do each week. Things were going okay ... until a cell phone rang. Per The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct: "At approximately 10:00 AM, a device that appeared to be a cell phone rang in the back of the courtroom. Addressing the defendants in the courtroom, respondent stated:"

Now, whoever owns the instrument that is ringing, bring it to me now or everybody could take a week in jail and please don’t tell me I’m the only one that heard that. Mr. Martinez, did you hear that ringing?...

Everyone is going to jail; every single person is going to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now. If anybody believes I’m kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going.

He was kidding, right? Wrong! He committed all 46 defendants into custody. (Oh, and "He did not question any of the prosecutors, defense attorneys, court personnel, program representatives or others who were present in the courtroom."!!!)

So what does committing the defendants involve? Per the Commission:

After being committed into custody, the 46 defendants were taken by police to the booking area in the City Jail, where they were searched and their property was confiscated. They were then placed in crowded “holding” cells or jail cells. Thereafter, 17 defendants were released from custody after it was determined that the court still held bail that had previously been posted on their behalf, and 15 defendants were released after posting the bail set by respondent. The remaining 14 defendants could not post bail and were committed to the custody of the Niagara County Sheriff.

And what about those 14 folks?

The 14 defendants who could not post bail were shackled; their wrists were handcuffed to a lock box attached to a waist chain; and they were transported by bus to the County Jail in Lockport, a ride that took about 30 minutes. The defendants arrived at the jail between 3:00 and 3:30 and were searched again and placed in cells.

Then the Judge was paged by his clerk, who told him the media was asking questions about the incident. Wouldn't you know it? The 14 remaining defendants were released about 2 hours later! Do you think Judge Restaino paid a price for his actions? He did. He's no longer a judge. Here's what the Commission concluded:

[Judge Restaino's] behavior was such a gross deviation from the proper role of a judge that it warrants the sanction of removal, notwithstanding his previously unblemished record on the bench and the testimony as to his character and reputation.

The Judge's conduct was much more outrageous than I have described above. (For example, "... one defendant said that he had a doctor’s appointment that day and might need surgery; another said that his mother was having surgery that day. One defendant, who had previously appeared four times as required, told respondent, “My little girl is coming home at 3:00. Can I be sanctioned next week so I can get my girl?” Respondent committed each of these defendants into custody.") If you want to read the full Commission opinion, click here.

You are Sheikh Khalid Ben Abdfullah Rashid Alfawaz, you're rich, and you're getting a divorce in an English court. During a Hearing, here are some of the judge's comments:

That the sheikh could choose “to depart on his flying carpet” to escape paying costs.

That the sheikh should be available to attend hearings “at this relatively fast-free time of the year.”

That he should be in court so that “every grain of sand is sifted.”

And the sheikh’s evidence was “a bit gelatinous . . . like Turkish Delight.”

What a card! The Sheikh was not amused. He asked the judge to recuse himself due to bias. When the judge refused, the Sheikh appealed and ... won. He was booted from the case, and had to apologize. Not to worry, though. Lord Justice Ward through him a bone.

No little part of my embarrassment comes from my belief that the injection of a little humour lightens the load of high emotion that so often attends litigation and I am the very last judge to criticise laughter in court. For my part I am totally convinced that [the judge's] jokes were not meant to be racist and I unreservedly acquit the judge of any suggestion they were so intended.

Shazam! Next time I do something stupid, I want Lord Ward speaking on my behalf! To read more (a little bit) click here.

If you're a judge, and the case is a really close call, what do you do? If you're Judge James Michael Shull of Virginia, you flip a coin! Really. As reported in The Washington Post:

According to the court, Shull admitted tossing a coin to determine which parent would have visitation with a child on Christmas. Shull said he was trying to encourage the parents to decide the issue themselves but later acknowledged that he was wrong.

Nice. But there's more.

And then there was that whole drop-your-pants incident: The court said they occurred when a woman was seeking a protective order against a partner who she said had stabbed her in the leg. Shull knew the woman had a history of mental problems and insisted on seeing the wound, the court said.

The woman dropped her pants once to display the wound, then dropped them a second time after Shull left the bench for a closer look to determine whether the woman had received stitches.

A court bailiff testified before the commission that after the hearing, he asked Shull, "Did you see what that lady had on?" According to the bailiff, Shull replied: "Yeah, a black lacy thing ... it looked good, didn't it?"

What did The Virginia Supreme Court have to say about Judge Shull's conduct? "See ya," they said, and removed him from the bench.

Here's what William P. Smith, Esq. said to the Judge in a Florida Bankruptcy proceeding:

Mr. Smith: I suggest to you with respect, Your Honor, that you're a few French fries short of a Happy Meal in terms of what's likely to take place.

Billy, Billy, Billy. You didn't just say that to a Judge? In a court where you were admitted solely for the purpose of that particular case? He did. The "Order to Show Cause Why William P. Smith, Esq. Should Not Be Suspended from Practice Before This Court Including Revocation of His Current Pro Hac Vice Status" was issued in In re South Beach Community Hospital, LLC, Case No. 06-10634-BKC-LMI. Whew. I'm out of breath.

Judges have to put up with a lot of crap, day in and day out, and deal with it, on the record. I'm not sure how long I would last. Judge Mark Chow of King County, Washington made it from 1991 until just recently. As reported in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Chow was presiding in a King County Jail courtroom Jan. 23, when a male defendant snapped at him with a vulgar sexual demand. Chow replied, "I would if you pulled it out, but you can't find it."

Snap? That's all you got? I'd be embarrassed to go before the Commission on Judicial Conduct because the retort was so lame. Here's incident number two:

While presiding in Mental Health Court that same day, Chow also asked a female defendant, "What flavor are you?" -- a question about her ethnic background. He told another, "I think I know what flavor you are, so I'm not even going to ask."

So what punishment did the Commission on Judicial Conduct deem appropriate? The weakest possible one available - an admonishment. Click here for the source of this tale of judicial woe.

One of Kansas Judge Rebecca Pilshaw's bad days came as she was trying to empanel a jury in a murder case. Loyal readers know the Juice hates jury weasels. But nobody hates folks who try to avoid jury duty more than judges. There was a little of that going on. As reported in The Kansan:

One prospective juror said she wouldn’t believe anything the police said. Pilshaw dismissed her from service, but ordered her to attend every day of the trial because, “You need an opportunity to be exposed more to our law enforcement personnel.”

Then Judge Pilshaw lost it (at least, for a judge, this is considered losing it) and said:

Anybody else want to mess with me?

Actually, Pilshaw thought another juror did.

Later, a juror said her religious beliefs made it uncomfortable for her to judge someone else and that anyone on trial must be guilty of something. Pilshaw said she thought the woman simply didn’t want to serve on a jury, but had “said the magic words” to be dismissed.

Judge Pilshaw apologized the next day. Ironically, her outburst opened up the door, literally, for two more jurors to be excused! How? Because the Judge said that anybody who felt inimidated could leave, and two opportunistic jurors did. The defendant in the case was convicted of murder, appealed, and ... lost. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the trial was not tainted by Judge Pilshaw's conduct. And what about Judge Pilshaw? Her disciplinary case is pending. Here's hoping she gets just a reprimand.

That's the allegation against Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Jim Gunter, and the evidence is pretty damn damning. As reported in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette,

Gunter’s sister, Janet Gibson, 62, of Dade City, Fla., told a Hempstead County sheriff’s deputy that her brother had back-handed her and pushed her down during a dispute at the home of their 88-year-old father, J. H. Gunter in Hope.

According to an incident report by Hempstead County Deputy Jerry Crider, Gibson suffered “minor injury.” She told the deputy that her brother had brought some genealogy papers to their father’s home on Aug. 31, and that she was supposed to look at the papers in preparation for a Sept. 2 family reunion in Hope.

Seems that Justice Gunter was ticked at his sister for "bothering his stuff." Sister Janet said it is "a private matter." Maybe she'll administer a sharp kick to his cojones "in private." On the public front, a special prosecutor has been appointed to investigate the case. For more on this, click here.

New Hampshire Federal Judge James R. Muirhead was not amused (okay, he was really amused) when prisoner Charles Wolff included a hard-boiled egg with his request for a better diet. Here is what the Judge had to say, in an Order issued about the filing of the egg:

No fan I am
Of the egg at hand.
Just like no ham
On the kosher plan.

This egg will rot
I kid you not.
And stink it can
This egg at hand.

There will be no eggs at court
To prove a clog in your aort.
There will be no eggs accepted.
Objections all will be rejected.

From this day forth
This court will ban
hard-boiled eggs of any brand.
And if you should not understand
The meaning of the ban at hand
Then you should contact either Dan,
the Deputy Clerk, or my clerk Jan.

I do not like eggs in the file.
I do not like them in any style.
I will not take them fried or boiled.
I will not take them poached or broiled.
I will not take them soft or scrambled
Despite an argument well-rambled.

No fan I am
Of the egg at hand.
Destroy that egg!
Today! today! Today I say! Without delay!

SO ORDERED (with apologies to Dr. Seuss).

Snap. And I was having a bad day. Here's a link to the Order.

So what did it say? I don't know! This dude appeared before McCracken (Kentucky) District Judge Chris Hollowell wearing an "inappropriate" t-shirt. (James Hinman was in court on a contempt charge for failing to pay a traffic fine.) Said hardcore criminal Hinman: "The shirt isn't really obscene, but it does imply something obscene." What did it say?!

Said the Judge about the incident: "I'm not trying to be the fashion police, but what he was wearing was extremely disrespectful and inappropriate." Damn it! AP reporter, what did it say?

"The T-shirt used an altered spelling of an expletive that implied an obscene phrase."

Shizzle. I give up. Oh, and what about turning the shirt inside out? Hinman offered, but the Judge refused. Don't go! I found it. Ridiculous self-censoring media makes you scour the net for a friggin' shirt! Here it is, really.

Former Colorado prosecutor Laurie Hurst knows this firsthand. She has admitted to having sex with Judge Grafton Biddle in his chambers, and to early morning hook-ups in the women's showers in the courthouse basement! Oh, and this happened when she was trying cases before Judge Biddle.

That's the crime. The time? A 3-year suspension of her law license, with 2 1/2 years stayed if she behaves herself. The judge? His case is still pending.

No offense to all of you prison guards, but wouldn't you prefer to be a judge, making twice as much, and being in charge? Allan C. Berkhimer was a Cambria County, Pennsylvania Judge from 1988 until he was canned in June 2005. Now he's a corrections officer trainee. What were the charges that led the Court of Judicial Discipline to can him? As reported in The Tribune Democrat:

The state Judicial Conduct Board, which prosecuted the misconduct charges, said Berkhimer routinely used vulgar and sexually suggestive language in conversations with women who worked for him.

On several occasions, he summoned them into his office to show them computer images of naked women, the board said.

The board also said Berkhimer improperly instructed his staff to mail congratulatory notes to constituents whose accomplishments were publicized by local newspapers at a time he was running for re-election.

I doubt he'll be using sexually suggestive language in his new environment. You can read more here.

Huh? What? Oh, sorry. I was sleeping, much like Rockingham County, New Hampshire Judge Patricia Coffey. She beat that rap, but won't be able to snooze her way through these latest allegations. See, her husband was disbarred in 2005, and the state has been trying to collect legal fees relating to his disbarment. The Judicial Conduct Committee filed a complaint against Judge Coffee alleging that she helped create a trust to put her husband's assets beyond the reach of creditors. Although she denied the charges, she did admit that the timing appears compromising. Really? There will be a hearing on the charges in late September. You can read more here.

To be fair, it's also clear that he dislikes gay men. Spanish Judge Fernando Ferrin was presiding over a custody case following a divorce. The divorced woman is a lesbian. After ruling that the mother lose custody of her daughters, Judge Ferrin then gave her this choice:

Choose between your daughters and your partner.

Damn! His justification? Said Judge Ferrin: "[a] homosexual environment is prejudicial to children, and notably increases the risk that they too become homosexual." Seems that Judge Ferrin forgot about the Spanish Constitution. The disciplinary board unanimously held that he had erred. He will be disciplined, and could lose his job. You can read more here and here.

So this reporter went to the courthouse where civil cases are heard in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Here are a few of his observations:

Though the court's hours are from 7:30 - 2:30, by 8:00, neither the president of the court, nor the administrative manager was present.

If a plaintiff is not in court by 8:00, the case will be thrown out.

At 8:15, of the 23 judges, not a single one was in his office!

By 10:00, 9 of the 23 judges were there. The rest of the judges did not show up at all.

The following day, 8 of the 23 judges showed up.

Per the reporter, Amr Al-Faisal, "What’s nice about all of this is that if a judge is late or absent it means that the case has to be delayed a month, months or perhaps years." Ouch.

I'll let Mr. Al-Faisal have the last word:

I conclude this article with a request to my dear brothers and sisters. You must visit the general court in Jeddah to see for yourselves the truth of what’s happening there. And I’m sure that will only increase your trust in the judicial system and induce you to join me in my prayers for them to live long and remain always alert, concerned about people’s rights and making sure they are not denied justice. Amen.

You can read his article in full here.

Even if you are a judge. And even if he is your friend. Judge Maynard Hamilton, Jr. of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania was not real happy when Sergeant Buser did not give him the paperwork he requested. A couple days later, they were at a party, when Sergeant Buser asked the Judge if he had received a check he dropped off for a golfing trip. Here's what happened, according to court documents (as reported by Brett Lovelace of the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal)

"Yes," but when Buser approached to shake hands, Hamilton said, "I have had enough of your (expletive). I am not going to take any more. Let's go downstairs and take care of this man to man. I'm gonna kick your ass."

Buser followed Hamilton, but he said he wanted to talk, not fight.

Hamilton demanded Buser remove his glasses and butted his chest against the sergeant's.

Before Buser could remove his glasses, Hamilton punched him in the face, knocking off the glasses. Buser picked up his glasses and told Hamilton he would have to pay to replace them. When Buser threatened to call police, Hamilton said, "This was a mutual fight, and it would not do any good to call the cops."

Hamilton then punched Buser again in the head.

Buser was knocked to the ground, and Hamilton walked away.

Hamilton returned to the party and told Buser's wife she could "go pick your piece of (expletive) husband up off the floor."

Are you surprised his nickname is "Maximum Maynard?" (I made that up.) So what do you think happened to the Judge?

Continue reading "Maynard, Maynard, Maynard. You Know You Can't Go Hitting A Police Officer In The Face!" »

If you missed it, check out yesterday's entry regarding some strange "justice" in Eutawville, South Carolina. Here's some more of that there strange justice. This is the side of the story of three fellas who were pulled over by the Eutawville police:

They had finished a day of fishing, and were driving through Eutawville, with a boat in tow. Big mistake - driving through Eutawville, that is.

The Eutawville police pulled them over, they were told, because of a broken taillight on the boat.

The officer said he smelled marijuana. (Good one!) The driver said "I don’t smoke marijuana.” Said the officer, "You’re lying.”

The police then searched the car for almost 2 hours, and told them they found a marijuana stem in the truck. (A twig?)

All three men were strip-searched.

Strip-searched? What about the cavity search? Wonder what they do to real alleged criminals? The driver got a ticket for the broken taillight, and one of the passengers got a ticket for marijuana possession (the police said they found a marijuana (sunflower?) seed in his pocket). What happened to the stem? Said Police Chief Russell Parker: “We don’t strip-search people, ma’am."

I guess we'll find out, because these three fellas are filing a civil suit. (You can read more - about 2/3's of the way down, here.)

Thomas Anderson, after working a 12-hour shift, was driving home in his elevated Ford Crown Victoria (not pictured at right), when he was stopped and ticketed. Seems the height of his car was illegal. Anderson didn't agree, so he requested a jury trial. And that is where the trouble began. On the day of trial, Anderson's was the only case (he'll tell you why he thinks so in a minute). Anderson made a huge mistake, as you'll soon see, in not having a lawyer. He was found guilty, which he does not now contest. The problem is, that for this violation, the maximum sentence is only a $50 fine - BUT JUDGE CONNOR SENTENCED ANDERSON TO 3 DAYS IN JAIL! Anderson was vindicated, but not after he served the 3 days in jail. And the reason for the jail time? According to Anderson (who was coming from his mother's house when he was stopped!):

I asked for a jury trial and the judge became very upset that I requested the same. The jury found me guilty. Judge Connor gave me 30 days in jail suspended to 3 days and payment of $175. I was given no right to appeal and was taken straight to jail and served 3 days. I ended up losing 2 days from work without pay. ... I do not contest being found guilty. I object to the judge sentencing me in excess of what the statute requires.

Said Judge Connor?

He came to court without an attorney. He asked for a jury trial. I had never met the man before the night of the trial. If he would have said he would correct the vehicle, the case probably would have been thrown out. The man showed no remorse, didn’t care, didn’t say ‘I will correct it’ or nothing.

Ninety percent of the traffic violations, the penalty is a certain fee, say $100 and assessment fees bring it up, and 30 days in jail or both. Most all of the traffic violations are that way. When they found him guilty, I mistakenly sentenced him to $175 because in my mind as a judge, he had no earthly intention to correct the problem with the vehicle. I sentenced him to three days in Orangeburg and that is where the rub is. That is my mistake. This law doesn’t give any time. This has gone into appeal and Attorney (Glenn) Walters won the appeal. Not the guilty part, but based on the sentence, they threw it out. He still got his vehicle like that.(emphasis added)

So watch out if you get a ticket for one of the ten percent of traffic offenses for which Judge Connor apparently doesn't know the sentence! (For more on this, click here.)

So British hero policeman Andrew Shovelar is on trial for attacking his former girlfriend, a trial which was only supposed to take 8 days, but had wrapped its third week. What's the problem, you're wondering. Well, you see, several of the jurors have to go on holiday. What's a judge to do? Not cancel the trial after 3 weeks, right? Wrong! HE DITCHED THE TRIAL SO A JUROR COULD GO ON HOLIDAY! Said Judge Heath:

It was made plain that she would be on the plane to Portugal.

It is the only realistic decision I can take in the circumstances.

No, my right honorable friend, it is not. It's asinine! Now you know how the juice feels about jury duty. This is insane. What an incredible waste of time and resources! And the new trial? It's set for 6 weeks in January 2008! (To read more, click here.)

I get pissed off when people whine about jury duty, or try to weasel out of it. Daniel Ellis of Cape Cod, Massachusetts has taken "attempted jury service avoidance" to a new level. Said Judge Gary Nickerson:

In 32 years of service in courtrooms, as a prosecutor, as a defense attorney and now as a judge, I have quite frankly never confronted such a brazen situation of an individual attempting to avoid juror service.

Snap! So what did Ellis do to evoke such a strong statement from Judge Nickerson? Check out this exchange:

Judge: You say on your form that you're not a fan of homosexuals.

Ellis: That I'm a racist. I'm frequently found to be a liar, too. I can't really help it.

Judge: I'm sorry?

Ellis: I said I'm frequently found to be a liar.

Judge: So, are you lying to me now?

Ellis: Well, I don't know. I might be....

Judge: I have the distinct impression that you're intentionally trying to avoid jury service.

Ellis: That's true.

Then Judge Nickerson did what any judge in that position should do - he had Ellis carted away to a cell for the rest of the morning! He may yet be charged with perjury.

That's what Natasha Riley, not pleased with the way things were going for her client, said to Judge Mangano in the Brooklyn Family Court during a custody proceeding. But Judge Mangano would have the last laugh. Because most lawyers aren't dumb enough to address a judge that way [even if it is bullshit!], Judge Mangano became suspicious. Turns out Ms. Riley, who had at least 8 clients, and 4 court appearances, is not a lawyer! Her punishment? Five years probation and $3,267 in restitution. You can read more here.

So said Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the United States Supreme Court in a case that blew me away when I first encountered it in law school. The case is Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Virginia passed a law allowing the state to forcibly sterilize certain "mental defectives" to promote "the health of the patient and the welfare of society." Shockingly, not all of these folks wanted to be sterilized. Carrie Buck, a resident of the State Colony for Epilectics and Feeble Minded, was one such person. When you read how Justice Holmes sets forth the case, you can probably guess how it came down. (I guess the title of the post offers a small hint too.) Here's what he said:

Carrie Buck is a feeble minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony ... She is the daughter of a feeble minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble minded child.

Here is Justice Holmes' reasoning and conclusion:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for a crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. (emphasis added)

Almost 20 years after I first read the case, it still sends chills down my spine.

Posted by John Mesirow | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Here Comes the Judge

This will blow your mind. Alan Hogg, age 34, was convicted of drunk-driving - for the 13th time. He's also had 34 convictions for driving while disqualified. You may have guessed that this didn't happened in the United States. Dude would have been executed, at least. Mr. Hogg resides in New Zealand.

Surely the Judge wouldn't give Hogg another chance? Especially since he was also just convicted of possession of meth and three counts of possession of drug utensils? Wrong! The dude WALKED. No jail time (just 200 hours of community service). I'm not going to get into the mitigating factors because WHO CARES! Said the Judge: "In the long term, surely the courts must be in the business of avoiding offending." What about doling out some justice? Protecting innocent citizens? Beware, Kiwis - Hogg has now obtained a learner's permit.

Why else would the Honorable Gregory Todd (Montana Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County) issue a Sentencing Memorandum incorporating dozens of Beatles song titles? To read this silly thang in its entirety, click here.

Crazy as it sounds, that's exactly what Ontario Judge Marvin Catzman did almost 15 years ago. At the bail hearing for Guy Paul Morin, who had been convicted of first degree murder, Catzman said "I would have to be mad if I didn't see something wrong with this case." So he followed his instincts, and let Morin out on bail pending his appeal. His instincts were right. Two years later, DNA evidence cleared Morin.

Of the decision to let him out on bail, said Morin yesterday, "For the first time, there was a spark of hope. I thank him to this day."

Sadly, not many judges would have the guts to make that call. Judge Catzman died on June 14, 2007.

Well, well, well. It's SOOOO easy to be for "tort reform" - until you become a victim! Such is the case with former Judge Robert Bork, a vocal "tort reform" proponent. He filed suit against The Yale Club of New York City for "damages ... in excess of $1,000,000" PLUS "Punitive damages ..." So what happened? Bork was giving a speech at the club. Per the complaint (click here to view it), as he approached the dais, there were no stairs (as there normally are). As Bork "attempted to mount the dais" (nice choice of words, there), he fell and was injured.

Now I'll tell you exactly what Bork would say if this happened to someone else: What the hell was the guy thinking, trying to climb the dais without the stairs, the moron? It's his fault for being so stupid. He couldn't have asked for some stairs? People need to accept responsibility for their actions, instead of blaming others! Welcome, Judge Bork, to the ranks of victims of the negligence of others. Perhaps you'll revisit your "tort reform" position?

Do not trifle with Judge Reggie Walton, of the United States Court for the District of Columbia. He will let you have your say. Rest assured, though, that you're going to hear what he has to say too. When 12 of Scooter Libby's pals asked for the court's permission to file a brief supporting Scooter, it was granted, but with this little cherry on top:

It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.

Kapow! The 12 gents are: Robert Bork, Alan Dershowitz [!] Vikram Amar, Randy Barnett, Viet Dinh, Douglas Kmiec, Gary Lawson, Earl Maltz, Thomas Merrill, Robert Nagel, Richard Parker, and Robert Pushaw.

You can read the order here. Props to The Next Hurrah for this story.

Cook County, Illinois Judge Stanley Sacks, during the trial of a Chicago police officer convicted of reckless driving, said:

Pardon my language, but big fucking deal.

So... judicial. For this little doozy, Chief Judge Timothy Evans re-assigned Sacks to non-judicial duties for four months.

True enough. Former Iowa Judge James A. Weaver swore in an affidavitthat he was permanently disabled. He's been receiving disability benefits from Iowa for more than 2 years. Yet he is running a private law firm and doing court-appointed work (paid for by the state of Iowa!) for indigent defendants. Crazy.

Defendant Bruce Young (who was awaiting trial on federal drug charges) was pissed - twice! (blank-sucking little blank?). But he was not in court on the drug charges when the outbursts occurred. He was there on charges of attempted escape and conspiracy to commit escape. Per the court, "during proceedings conducted in open court on December 18, 2000, and July 20, 2001, the Defendant went berserk, to put it quite mildly... During the in-court proceeding conducted on December 18, 2000, the Court, counsel and the Defendant were discussing a trial date for [the escape charges] prosecution... When the Court asked Government's counsel about her availability for a possible trial in February, 2001, she responded that she had inadvertently left her calendar at home... At that point the Defendant went berserk:

Defendant: This is wrong, your Honor. This is wrong. This is wrong.

Court: Mr. Young?

Defendant: This is wrong. It's bull shit too.

Court: All right. Mr. Young, you have just earned yourself an extra six months.

Defendant: I've got 52 fucking years coming man. I mean, what does another fucking day mean?

Court: Get this man out of here, immediately.

Defendant: The bitch has me pinned in a five-by-seven box for nine fucking months. This is bull shit.

Court: We are in recess.

Defendant: Hateful bitch.

Courtroom Deputy Clerk: All rise.

Defendant: Fuck this court. Fuck this court. Fuck you and I won't be back, you bitch. You're playing goddamn games.

Marshal: Calm down.

Defendant: Fuck the constitution, you assholes. Fucking wipe on a mother fucker. That's what you can use it for -- (Defendant continued screaming "F" word comments as leaving courtroom and into the hall).

Okay, that didn't go so well. "[Seven months later] on July 17, 2001, the Court engaged in a colloquy with the Defendant, required by Faretta v. California ..., and permitted him to represent himself, despite his outrageous behavior during the proceedings of the previous December 18th... The Court explained that it did not want the Defendant to have the discovery materials in the jail, where he has been incarcerated prior to trial, lest those materials become circulated throughout the jail and compromise pending prosecutions." Oh shizzle - give him the discovery materials. Here it comes.

Defendant: Your Honor, can I go back to the jail? I am about to have an anxiety attack. I can't go on with this shit. Have the marshals take me back before I do something stupid. I'm being nice. Can I please go back.

Court: Well, I appreciate the advance warning.

Defendant: I'm telling, your Honor, I know myself.

Court: Marshals, if you would.

Defendant: I know myself. This is crazy. I can't have my fucking discovery packet. What kind of shit is that? Shit. God. You mother fuckers.

Court: Once again Mr. Young--

Defendant: You fucked-up asshole. You Jew bitch and bastard.

Court: You've earned yourself another six months.

Defendant: Fuck you. Kiss my dick. I'm not going to have my discovery packet. You've got me fucking bent, you bitch, mother fucker. Kiss my ass. You too, Chema. You dick sucking little faggot.

So what happened to Mr. Young?

Continue reading "Snap! Lookout Judge. Here Comes Mr. Young" »

Per the Alaska Supreme Court's decision, Judge David Landry:

made inappropriate sexual comments to female court employees in the workplace. These included a note to a female employee that her "Hillbilly thermometers are distracting", a note to a court clerk referring to a juror, stating, "I think Ms. _______ wants me," describing one court clerk as a "shameless hussy"...

Hillbilly thermometers?! Go ahead, google it. You'll get 6 hits. Where does a judge in Alaska come up with that? Judge Landry also routinely signed blank bail orders, leaving it to the prosecutors to decide "the particulars for out-of-custody defendants." Gee, think there's anything wrong with that? There are a few more findings (like 14 criminal cases that had to be dismissed in 2005 because Judge Landry failed to schedule the trials within the time required by law), but I think you get the idea. Partially because Judge Landry was defeated in November 2006, his punishment was only a "public censure." Oh, and "at no time in the future [may he] seek or hold a position as a judicial officer in the State of Alaska." Where's the accountability? I'm steamed.

Judges say the darndest things. Take the case of the Honorable Gary W. Velie, a Superior Court judge in Clallam County, Washington. Back in 1988, in response to a complaint, he admitted "the use of racist and sexist language and embarrassing jokes." Not only was he not reprimanded, the complaint was dismissed "based upon [his] willingness to take corrective action." But ... sometime the next year ... per The Commission on Judicial Conduct of the State of Washington,

[Judge Velie] made a remark to attorney John Doherty in open court and in front of court report Penny Wolfe and clerk Tammy Woolridge that he [Doherty] looked like he had been "jacking off a bobcat in a phone booth." [I'm trying to imagine that level of dishevelment.]

In 1990, during the armed conflict between the United States and Iraq, [Judge Velie] remarked: "Nuke the sand niggers" in reference to [his] solution to the Mid-East crisis. The comment was made in the presence of others in the clerk's office coffee room in the courthouse.

While viewing a property in the course of his duties, with two attorneys in his car, Judge Velie "stated that 'Johnny,' a defendant in an old case, "had gone crazy from sucking too many cocks."

And there were a few others, like the time where he said, in open court, that he knows there are not many starving people. It's just that "there's a lot of them too stupid to cook what they are given... In other words, if you don't give them a Kraft dinner with the instructions written on the box, you give them other normal food, they don't know how to cook it."

So, what do you think happened this time? Suspension?

Continue reading "Judge Said What?" »

You can probably guess where this one is going. Judge Biddle, of Douglas County, Colorado, and prosecutor Laurie Steinman admitted that they had sex in the courthouse, on multiple occasions, in multiple places. Though the affair was apparently the subject of courthouse gossip, it only appeared on the official radar when Judge Biddle's fourth wife reported it to the Chief Judge. (Honestly, when you marry the "Larry King" of the courts, could this surprise you? Yes, apparently it can. "I'm shocked and thoroughly disgusted," said wife #4, after reading the complaint.) Per the allegations set forth in the Complaint filed with the Colorado Supreme Court:

The relationship began last spring, with Biddle offering to mentor [!] Steinman in his chambers over morning cups of coffee.

Both admit they had sex a number of times in . . . Judge Biddle's judicial chamber during the summer of 2006 [including on July 4th @!*^&#!]

On a number of occasions, Judge Biddle would 'sneak' into the women's shower facility in the courthouse early in the morning to shower with Ms. Steinman.

Steinman prosecuted 2 cases before Judge Biddle without disclosing their relationship.

And the remainder of the diddle fallout?

[Thanks to Cindy Hill for steering Legal Juice to this story.]

Continue reading "Judge Biddle, Rhymes With ...." »

George and Maxine Maynard, Jehovah's witnesses, were going to find out. Obscuring the motto was a misdemeanor. Believing the "Live Free or Die" motto to be repugnant to their moral, religious and political beliefs

in May or June 1974 Mr. Maynard actually snipped the words "or Die" off the license plates, and then covered the resulting hole, as well as the words "Live Free," with tape. This was done, according to Mr. Maynard, because neighborhood children kept removing the tape.

Mr. Maynard was found guilty on three separate charges and, upon refusing to pay the fines, was sentenced to, and served, 15 days in jail! He then filed suit in federal court, asking the judge to declare the statute unconstitutional. He won! (at least at the trial level.) The judge prohibited further enforcement of the law against Mr. Maynard. Of course, the state appealed, and the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. I'm sure you can guess who won.... Maynard! The Court framed the issue as follows:

whether the State may constitutionally require an individual to participate in the dissemination of an ideological message by displaying it on his private property in a manner and for the express purpose that it be observed and read by the public.

The Court's answer: "We hold that the State may not do so."

The juxtaposition of the slogan "Live Free or Die" with the act of trying to force someone to display it is just a little ironic, don't you think? (On another note, for a number of years, New Hampshire has been the only state that does not have a mandatory seat belt law [though that may change this year] despite the fact that, because of this, they forgo millions of dollars in federal funds.) By Chester, nobody's going to tell those New Hampshirites they have to buckle up. "Live Free or Die" baby!

The case is Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) and may be read in its entirety here.

So the police respond to a call regarding a gas station burglary. At the scene, they see old Bullock trying to hide. When told to halt, he runs - and crashes through a plate glass window. He was caught and taken to the hospital. When the cuffs were removed, and put on with his hands in front of him so he could be treated, he ran again! He was caught again, charged with unauthorized entry and simple escape, and convicted on both counts. As a multiple offender, Bullock was sentenced to 17 years at hard labor. (Shazam!) You can imagine this did not sit real well with him. Per the Court, "After the trial judge granted an oral motion for appeal and the appellate counsel was appointed, the following dialogue occurred between the trial judge and defendant:

THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you.

THE COURT: Back here.

THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you.

THE COURT: Back here, padner [sic]. Let the record reflect the defendant just told the Court twice "fuck you."

THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you, asshole.

THE COURT: No, you, Mr. Bullock.

THE COURT: Three counts in direct contempt of court consecutive, 18 months. Do you want to go for two years?

THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you.

THE COURT: Two years direct contempt.

THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you, asshole.

THE COURT: Two years, six months.

THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you.

THE COURT: Three years consecutive contempt.

THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you, asshole.

THE COURT: Three [**13] and a half years, Mr. Bullock. Three years, six months, direct contempt of court consecutive to the 17 years the Court just gave him.

MR. JOHNSON [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Just for the record, note an objection.

THE COURT: That will be noted also. Let's go on the record as to James Bullock, so the Court of Appeals [sic] will know what happened. Mr. Bullock twice screamed "fuck you" to the Court after the Court had sentenced him. The Court found both to be in direct contempt and told the sheriff to escort him out of the courtroom. Mr. Bullock continued the entire way being escorted out of the courtroom, even after he was out of the courtroom before the sheriff's [sic] could [*458] put him in a holding cell, continued to scream "fuck you" at the Court. The Court finds that each time he did this to be in direct contempt. It is six months on each one consecutive to the 17-year sentence the Court had just give [sic] him on the other charges.

Damn! Three and a half more years for that? Old Bullock appealed. What do you think the Supreme Court of Louisiana did?

Continue reading "Lots of F-Bombs to Judge; "No You" says Judge to Defendant! The Result?" »

Zoinks. Judge Kerry Evans was before the Ontario Judicial Council in 2004. The charges included:

patting the groins and buttocks of co-workers;

French-kissing co-workers;

force-feeding Jujubes to his co-workers; and

engaging in oral sex with a court worker in his office washroom.

In his defense to the "oral sex in the washroom" charge, Judge Evans submitted photographs of his shaved genital area, taken by his brother. Why, you might wonder? Because if the incident really happened, surely she would have mentioned this. Brilliant! The old "shaved balls" defense. (Actually, for a variety of reasons, probably not the photographs (!), he prevailed as to that allegation.)

Alas, Judge Evans resigned from the bench in 2004 before he was sanctioned for misconduct. He recently applied for reinstatement to the bar, and got it! He may return to the legal profession after spending 2 years working for another lawyer, which he is now doing. To read more about this, click here.

Sometimes a little effort goes a long way. Just ask one lawyer, Mr. Puricelli (who represented a man successfully in a civil rights case), who got upbraided for repeatedly failing to fix typos in his court filings. The judge described Mr. Puricelli’s written work as “careless, to the point of disrespectful,” and agreed with the defendants that it was “vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, verbose and repetitive.” What were some of the mistakes? Per the judge:

Throughout the litigation, Mr. Puricelli identified the court as “THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTER [sic] DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.” Considering the religious persuasion of the presiding officer, the “Passover” District would have been more appropriate.” [Judge Jacob Hart, presiding]

Mr. Puricelli, on the other hand, felt the court didn’t understand his side of the story. When the defendant asked the court to reduce Mr. Puricelli’s fees [that they were required by law to pay] due to his typos, Mr. Puricelli wrote this reply to the court:

Had the Defendants not tired [sic] to paper Plaintiff's counsel to death, some type [sic] would not have occurred. Furthermore, there have been omissions by the Defendants, thus they should not case [sic] stones.

Do you think the judge reduced Mr. Puricelli’s fees?

Continue reading "Sew Many Typos; So Little Thyme" »

Back by popular demand, (and subpoena by the Judge of Tigerton Dells), it’s the second installment of "The Adventures of Wickstrom.” (click here for Part One.)

We rejoin “Judge” Wickstrom at the conclusion of his second consecutive nine-month sentence for assuming to act as a public official (judge and clerk). And what, you ask, does Wickstrom do with his newfound freedom? He immediately sues a laundry list of Wisconsin state officials for putting him in prison, including two Attorneys General, the Shawano County District Attorney, several other public officials, witnesses in the criminal case, and “all spouses and kin and/or acquaintences [sic] of the [specifically named] Defendants.” When the state judges refused to grant Wickstrom motion for summary judgment, Wickstrom added the judges to the list of defendants too!

While Wickstrom’s “thirty-four-page, twenty-seven-count complaint lacked the descriptive clarity and precision typically characteristic of pleadings,” it was his filing of “numerous writs, notices, affidavits, and motions” that truly demonstrated his legal acumen. What Wickstrom didn’t understand, however, was that most real judicial orders neither have spelling errors such as “Realease” or “Premptory” in their titles nor are signed by the defendant in a case.

Continue reading "The "Judge" Of Tigerton Dells Is Out! “The Adventures of Wickstrom: Part Two”" »

Wisconsin Secession: “The Adventures Of ‘Judge’ Wickstrom: Part One”

Talk about a sore loser! What should you do if you were “overwhelmingly defeated” in an election for a town’s highest public office? If you are James Wickstrom of Fairbanks, WI, that’s an easy question: secession! And although “the history of secession in this country should have suggested to Wickstrom that his efforts would be futile,” Wickstrom “seceded” from Shawano County, Wisconsin.

He immediately “formed” his own municipality. He printed a public notice in the local newspaper announcing the creation of the “Constitutional Township of Tigerton Dells” and a meeting date to hold elections for officers. Not surprisingly, Wickstrom was “elected” both clerk and municipal judge of Tigerton Dells. But Wickstrom didn’t stop there. He issued liquor and cigarette licenses, filed documents with legitimate state and local offices indicating his judgeship, and even threatened to sue—in his “official capacity”—the Shawano County Clerk “if she did not cooperate with his demand for official printed ballots.”

So what happened to Wickstrom? Was he laughed out of Tigerton Dells? Sentenced to community service?

Continue reading "Wisconsin Secession: “The Adventures Of ‘Judge’ Wickstrom: Part One”" »

In almost every jurisdiction, male lawyers must wear a jacket and tie when they appear in court. The idea is to appear dignified and professional – we are, after all, officers of the court. Most attorneys would probably agree that the courtroom is not the place to make a fashion statement.

Tom Cherryhomes, a New Mexico family lawyer, felt otherwise. Per the court,

On September 13, 1991, Cherryhomes appeared in Judge Shuler's courtroom to represent a client in a child abuse/neglect proceeding. Cherryhomes was wearing a short-sleeved, conventional dress shirt with the neck unbuttoned. He had a light blue piece of cloth or bandanna tied around his neck, above his collar, and he was not wearing a jacket.

Judge Schuler reminded Mr. Cherryhomes that ties were required attire in his courtroom. Per the court:

[Cherryhomes] said he was wearing a tie, even if Judge Shuler did not like his choice, and referred to a book on nineteenth century western wear and a dictionary definition of “tie,” which he had brought with him. Judge Shuler disagreed with Cherryhomes's interpretation of the meaning of the local rules requirement of a tie, and found Cherryhomes in contempt, fining him $50.

Cherryhomes requested a hearing, and an opportunity to explain himself. The Judge agreed. Shockingly, the Judge agreed with himself! Based on what you know of this lawyer so far, do you think he appealed? He did. And who do you think won?

Continue reading "Judge And Lawyer Argue Over "Tie." Who Wins?" »

On January 30, 1974, a young woman, who shall remain nameless, was arrested for prostitution. Having solicited a police officer (doh!), she sought a sentence of probation. Magistrate Judge Richard J. Rome complied. Unfortunately, he also issued the following Memorandum Decision:

This is the saga of ___ ___ ___,
Whose ancient profession brings her before us.
On January 30th, 1974,
This lass agreed to work as a whore.

Her great mistake, as was to unfold,
Was the enticing of a cop named Harold.
Unknown to ___, this officer, surnamed Harris,
Was duty-bent on ___’s lot to embarrass.

At the Brass Rail they met,
And for twenty dollars the trick was all set.
In separate cars they did pursue,
To the sensuous apartment of ___ ___.

Bound for her bed she spared not a minute,
Followed by Harris with his heart not in it!
As she prepared to repose there in her bay,
She was arrested by Harris, to her great dismay!

Off to the jailhouse poor ___ was taken,
Printed and mugged, her confidence shaken.
Formally charged by this great State,
With offering to Harris to fornicate.
Her arraignment was formal, then back to jail,

And quick as a flash she was admitted to bail.
On February 26, 1974,
The State of Kansas tried this young whore.
A prosecutor named Brown,
Represented the Crown.

___ ___, her freedom in danger,
Was being defended by a chap named Granger.
Testimony was presented and arguments heard,
Poor ___ waited for the Judge's last word.

The finding was guilty, with no great alarm,
And ___ was sentenced to the Women’s State Farm.
An appeal was taken, to a higher court ___ went,
The thousand dollar fine was added to imprisonment.

Trial was set in this higher court,
But the route of appeal ___ chose to abort.
And back to Judge Rome, came this lady of the night,
To plead for her freedom and end this great fight.

So under advisement ___’s freedom was taken,
And in the bastille this lady did waken.
The judge showed mercy and ___ was free,
But back to the street she could not flee.

The fine she’d pay while out on parole,
But not from men she used to cajole.
From her ancient profession she'd been busted,
And to society's rules she must be adjusted.

If from all of this a moral doth unfurl,
It is that Pimps do not protect the working girl!

The matter was brought to the attention of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications to determine if Judge Rome violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. What do you think they decided?

Continue reading "Rhyming Judge Calls Woman "Whore." Me Thinks That He Will Rhyme No More." »

Mr. Smith (that's his name, really) was sentenced to 21 years for six drug offenses. He requested a new trial, fired his lawyer, and represented himself at the hearing on his request for a new trial. Mr. Smith's "first use of profanity occurred when he used the word 'fuck,' apparently for emphasis [Well I never!], in recalling an earlier conversation with his trial counsel who allegedly invited [Smith] to [appeal] based on ineffective assistance of counsel at trial." The Judge warned him, but damned if it didn't slip out again. Contempt #1. Six pages of trial transcript later, f-bomb number 2, and Contempt #2. And what do you think Mr. Smith said after the second contempt? "Shit." Really. The Judge let that one go.

No more bombs for 37 pages of trial transcript. But when it became clear that Mr. Smith was SOL, he interrupted the Judge with "That's bullshit. That's bullshit." The Judge ignored the BS-bombs. Mr. Smith later dropped the B-bomb (bitch), also ignored. But when it came time to sentence Mr. Smith for Contempts 1 & 2, things heated up a little bit.

THE DEFENDANT: What is the maximum on contempt, sir?
THE COURT: What is the maximum on contempt? If I am going to give you in excess of six months, I believe I have to give you a jury trial, is that correct ...?
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Yes.
..........
THE DEFENDANT: ... from day one, you have been prejudiced to the defense .... I am not asking you to believe me. I am only asking to bring forth witnesses in this case who could testify --
THE COURT: I asked you if you had anything you want to say as to what sentence the Court should impose --
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. You know what? You can give me six more months, motherfucker, for sucking my dick, you punk ass bitch. You should have a white robe on, motherfucker, instead of a black. Fuck you.
THE COURT: I find you in contempt again.
THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you in contempt again.
THE COURT: I find you three times in contempt --
THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you. And fuck.
THE COURT: On each charge, the Court will impose a sentence of five months to run consecutive to each other and consecutive to any sentence you are now serving or obligated to serve.
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. You better leave now, you, Ku Klux Klan.
THE COURT: The Court will adjourn. [Not so fast, there.]
THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, and fuck you, you, Ku Klux Klan --
(Whereupon, the Proceedings were concluded.)

So what do you think the Maryland Court of Appeals decided - three contempts or one?

Continue reading "S-Bombs, F-Bombs, BS-Bombs. What's A Judge To Do?" »

Certainly a Judge must control the courtroom. How a Judge may do this, not surprisingly, is determined by the law. One tool is the power to hold someone in contempt. [Hint: It's a power used, a lot, below.] According to the Supreme Court, if the sentence imposed for contempt is less than 6 months, there is no right to a jury trial. Now, to our man in Maryland.

In 1990, Mr. Johnson was convicted of malicious destruction of personal property, placed on probation, and given a 3-year suspended sentence. He had to stay out of trouble for 3 years. Unfortunately, in 1991 he was convicted of burglary, and sentenced to 10 years. So Mr. Johnson is in jail for a couple years, when he is called to court for violating his 1990 probation - with just 10 days remaining on the 3-year suspended sentence.

Althought the prospect of serving an additional 3 years - on top of the 10 years he was already serving - did not sit well with him, his probation agent told him that the State would not seek to tack on the additional 3 years for violating his probation. WRONG! The Judge added on the 3 years, and a lively, lengthy, colorful conversation ensued. And just when you think it might be over ...

THE COURT: Call the next case please. [PROSECUTOR]: State calls Eugene Wright ...

MR. JOHNSON: -- at the same time. Don't make no motherfucking sense.

THE COURT: Bring him back. Take him back.

MR. JOHNSON: No motherfucking sense.

THE COURT: Pull him back.

MR. JOHNSON: Yo, man, stop yanking on my motherfucking arms. Motherfucking --

THE COURT: Sit him back over there in front of the table. [Uh-oh]

THE CLERK: Give me the file back. He might be under contempt of court.

THE COURT: Now, stand up there. Come back to that table there. Step on up now. What's wrong with you?

MR. JOHNSON: What the fuck you think wrong with me, man? Goddamn, I'm trying to tell you I ain't have no motherfucking option in this shit, man.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. JOHNSON: What the fuck? You think everybody just want to go sit in prison for the rest of their life because you ain't got nothing better to do than to sit up there and crack jokes. This ain't no motherfucking joke, man. This is about my goddamn life.

THE COURT: That cost you five months and twenty-nine days in addition to the three years I've just given you [#1, and suspiciously shy of the 6 months that would require a jury trial]

MR. JOHNSON: Fuck this shit, man.

Continue reading "Judge Gets F-Bombed, And More. The Penalty?" »

Attorneys are ethically bound to zealously represent their clients. Clients hire lawyers to do just that. And judges apply the laws as written, except those darned activist judges (which is all of them, depending, of course, on who you ask.)

Down in Florida, William Grisham found himself charged with assault. The State asked that he be committed to a mental hospital. During that time, the 180 days within which a trial is required to take place expired. His attorney told the judge that, according to a recent Florida law, his client must be released because his right to a speedy trial was violated. The attorney pointed out that the law specifically states that people committed to mental hospitals don't lose their right to a speedy trial. So what do you think the judge had to say to that?

That may be the law but ...

Continue reading "Judge Says Law Is "Dumb." Florida Court of Appeals Says ...?" »

And some folks say civility no longer exists in the legal profession. In the case of Avista Management, Inc. v. Wausau Underwriters Insurance Co., Judge Presnell (United States District Court - Florida - Orlando Division) would no doubt agree. The attorneys in the case, whose offices are in the same building, could not agree on where to hold a deposition. Judges HATE to be pulled into such minor disputes. So, when Avista's attorney filed a "Motion to Designate Location of a Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition," Judge Presnell denied it, and issued a novel ruling, paving the way for the first RPS Showdown.

"Instead, the Court will fashion a new form of alternative dispute resolution, to wit ..." Enough legal jargon. The Judge ordered that the attorneys, each with a paralegal as a witness, play "one (1) game of 'rock, paper, scissors'" [the RPS Showdown] on the front steps of the Courthouse on June 30, 2006. Of course, the Judge chose the Courthouse steps only "if counsel cannot agree on a neutral site." Well, their offices are in the same building ... (Click here to read the two page Order.)

So, with the big game just days away, due to either pre-game jitters, or the thought of scores of TV cameras focused on the event, the attorneys agreed on a location for the deposition. (I'm guessing that the game did take place - behind closed doors.) Noting that "with civility restored (at least for now)," Judge Presnell vacated his widely hailed "rock, papaer, scissors" Order. The RPS Showdown was not to be. (Click here to see the Order.)

Civility was short-lived. In the next few months, the case docket reflects more than 70 entries, the vast majority of which dealt with discovery disputes which, as you now know, judges HATE to be bothered with. But alas, all good things must come to an end. And so it was that on November 17, 2006, the parties put the "civil" back in "civil litigation" with the filing of a "Notice of Settlement" and an Order dismissing the case.

You be the judge. Over a period of years, Florida Judge Sheldon Schapiro engaged in the following conduct [which he admitted to in a Stipulation submitted to the Court] which is set forth in the Florida Supreme Court's opinion.

A motorcyclist killed a child and fled the scene. At the bond hearing for the motorcyclist [to determine if he could post bond and leave jail pending trial], the child's mother was present. The assistant state's attorney told the Judge that the mother of the victim wanted to address the court. The Judge responded by saying "What do I need to hear from the mother of a [dead] kid for? All she will tell me is to keep the guy in custody and never let him out." (The Judge says he used the word "deceased," not "dead." Sure.)

An assistant state's attorney, who was 8 months pregnant, was hospitalized due to pregnancy complication on the third day of a trial before Judge Schapiro. Due to the hospitalization, she requested a continuance. HE DENIED IT! Against doctor's orders, the attorney returned to court to finish trying the case.

That same attorney was arguing a motion to revoke bond [to force someone charged with a crime to post bond or go to jail pending his/her trial] before Judge Schapiro. He "summoned [her] to the backroom behind [his] bench and told her that she needed to emulate the style of male attorneys when addressing the court because male attorneys did not get as emotional about their cases as the female attorneys did."

As a criminal defense attorney was making an argument in a sexual battery case, you cut him off and said, 'Do you know what I think of your argument' ..., at which time you pushed a button on a device that simulated the sound of a commode flushing.

When the Judge thought an attorney was talking, he said "Why do I always have to treat you like a school child?" The attorney responded that the Judge routinely treated everyone in his courtroom like a school child. He was ordered out of the courtroom.

Not finally- but you get the idea - the Florida Supreme Court found that

In violation of Canon 1, Canon 2A, and Canon 3B(4), you have fallen into a general pattern of rude and intemperate behavior by needlessly interjecting yourself into counsel's examinations of witnesses; embarrassing and belittling counsel in court; and questioning the competence of counsel by making remarks such as, 'What, are you stupid?"

So what was the Judge's punishment? Lose his job as a judge?

Continue reading "Justice for Nasty, Belittling, Heartless Florida Judge?" »

OUCH! is a very mild reaction to the words "Lorena Bobbit." (If you're too young to know who she is, click here.) Things were not going well for our featured couple. As the court described it:

Terry Bach and Carol Crawford were in a relationship for over ten years and lived together for a period of time. In December of 1999, Mr. Bach claims that Ms. Crawford mentioned Lorena Bobbitt to him, which he interpreted as threatening, and shortly thereafter, he decided to break up.

This would appear to have been a wise move. ...

Ms. Crawford also placed cut up pictures of Mr. Bach in a box of belongings he was supposed to pick up...Additionally, Ms. Crawford called Mr. Bach's mother and stopped by her residence, often asking about the new women in Mr. Bach's life.... Also, in the spring of 2000, Ms. Crawford was arrested for criminal trespassing on mr. Bach's property and convicted. As a result of the conviction, Ms. Crawford's brother hired a private investigator, Ms. Thacker... Ms. Thacker and Ms. Crawford appeared at a restaurant where Mr. Bach was eating and photographed him with another woman and the woman's vehicle... Mr. Bach also alleges that Ms. Crawford drove behind him ... and videotaped him... Also, in December of 2000, Mr. Bach found a man in the parking lot of a Sears store who was videotaping him. Mr. Bach approached him and took the videotape from the man, but he was unable to get the man's name or license plate number. Mr. Bach has no evidence connecting this incident to Ms. Crawford [Yeah, probably just a coincidence!!!!!]

Setting aside the Lorena Bobbit threat (and the cut-up pictures - I see a theme evolving), of the few women I broke up with before they beat me to it (I can count them on one finger), I think I would be flattered if someone was so obsessed with me. Well, Mr. Bach was not flattered. He sought a domestic violence protective order. Do you think he got it?

Continue reading "Girlfriend Invokes "Lorena Bobbit," Boyfriend Seeks Protective Order" »

Ms. Lowe [cue the villain music] was driving Mr. Moffet's car (insured by State Farm) when [warning: tree violence] it struck and damaged Mr. Fisher's "beautiful oak tree." Naturally, the tree [okay Mr. Fisher] filed suit. Losing at the trial level, the tree appealed. Read the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals to find out who won.

Syllabus (summary)

A wayward Chevy struck a tree Whose owner sued defendants three. He sued car’s owner, driver two, And insurer for what was due For his oak tree that now may bear A lasting need for tender care.

The Oakland County Circuit Court, John N. O’Brien, J., set forth The judgment that defendants sought And quickly an appeal was brought.

Court of Appeals, J.H. Gillis, J., Gave thought and then had this to say: 1) There is no liability Since No-Fault grants immunity; 2) No jurisdiction can be found Where process service is unsound; And thus the judgment, as it’s termed, Is due to be, and is, Affirmed.

Opinion, Before Bronson, P.J., V.J. Brennan, and J.H. Gillis, JJ.

J.H. GILLIS, Judge.

We thought that we would never see A suit to compensate a tree.

A suit whose claim in tort is prest
Upon a mangled tree’s behest;

A tree whose battered trunk was prest
Against a Chevy’s crumpled crest;

A tree that faces each new day
With bark and limb in disarray;

A tree that may forever bear
A lasting need for tender care.

Flora lovers though we three,
We must uphold the court’s decree.

Affirmed.

Fisher v. Lowe, Moffet and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Docket No. 60732.
Court of Appeals of Michigan.