Jail for judges

[annemichellesdad]

I heard about this on National Public Radio this morning. Essentially, it is a state constitutuional amendment proposal which would remove judges' soveriegn immunity and allow them to be sued for unlawful decisions. I'm still undecided about it, but I believe the idea has its merits. I, for one, have had to endure incredible legal harships when a judge once told defiantly (quotes taken literally here) "I don't follow federal law!"  His statement, with the issue at hand, represented a civil rights violation, yet I was not only powerless to have my rights protected, but he enjoyed full freedom of immunity from prosecution. Clearly, a remedy was required which was not available.

http://www.jail4judges.org/

[mistoffolees]

In practice, this is going to be pretty tough to enforce. Judges have  a great deal of discretion (particularly in the case of child support / custody issues). In practice, they CAN do whatever they want.

What it WILL do is prevent judges from saying stupid things like "I don't follow federal law" but I don't expect it would have much real impact.

[Davy]

Consider researching the recusal process whereas a judge orders him/her/it self off the case for being "bias and prejudice against xxxxxxxx (the father) and his child(ren) namely child1, child2, ....".

Generally speaking, an attorney that is part of a particular "good ole boy" judical circle WILL NOT enter such a motion (and Order).  Should the situation border on the bizarre, the attorney may need to be prepared to enter a second motion the next day after the judge denies the first motion.  It may be necessary for the attorney to inform the judge  that his/her/it ass will be in front of the supreme court if the second motion is denied.  

Due to this judge's comments, it might be of interest to you that in my case a Federal court 'ordered' one state court to stop all proceedings and another to start.  Both courts were seriously pissed but who cares .... THE CHILDREN PREVAILED.

ALSO, while it is unfortunate judges are immune from civil reprisal, you may find  "the people" that placed such a jerk-off are not immune.

These possible remedys are demanded of a peaceful and dignified society.

[annemichellesdad]

>Consider researching the recusal process whereas a judge
>orders him/her/it self off the case for being "bias and
>prejudice against xxxxxxxx (the father) and his child(ren)
>namely child1, child2, ....".
>
>Generally speaking, an attorney that is part of a particular
>"good ole boy" judical circle WILL NOT enter such a motion
>(and Order).  Should the situation border on the bizarre, the
>attorney may need to be prepared to enter a second motion the
>next day after the judge denies the first motion.  It may be
>necessary for the attorney to inform the judge  that
>his/her/it ass will be in front of the supreme court if the
>second motion is denied.  
>


A friend of mine going through a divorce moved for the judge to recuse himself. Sometimes, motions are denied. In this case, a HEARING on the motion was denied.

A "good 'ol boy" network is exactly what the court system in question consists of.  In fact, my friend had one attorney who left the case for exactly that reason. They (the attorney) didn't regularly practice law in that particular county, and was simply overwhelmed with intimidation at the level of "society" that existed amongst judges and local attorneys.

Indeed, when my ex filed criminal charges against me (yes, they were false, I'm not a loser), I made certain that I got someone who knew the system itself very, very well. He not only was decent friends with the judge, but had also worked with the case's prosecutor when he was, himself, employed by the county. Since I wasn't guilty in the first place, I probably would still have prevailed. But when the charge was dropped altogether before even going to trial, I knew I picked the right person for the job.

I actually begged him to take my custody case, but he said he would NEVER get involved in domestic law. He once said to me: "I enjoy criminal law because I love being in the courtroom, and on the day of a criminal trial you get to see people on their best behavior. Not so with domoestic law. When people are going through a divorce, you have to see them at their WORST!"   You know, he's right.

[determined]

Particularly in places such as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (a.k.a. Planet Mommy) where judges are appointed by a secret cabal with no public review, much less an election, there is an obvious need for some kind of accountability.

Unfortunately, there have also been enough horror stories such as are currently playing out where millions of dollars are being invested into judicial elections to keep a fear of the power of big money.

I may not be smart enough to identify the "correct answer", but I am convinced that a lot more transparency and accountability is needed.

[annemichellesdad]

The concept of soveriegn immunity comes from English common law and the idea that "the king can do no wrong".  It's really antiquated for our times and needs to go. There are some who say that it will create chaos, but under the amendment, judges will still have the SAME protections as anyone else. A judge will only be subject to accountability when he actually deserves to be, at least to the same extent as an ordinary citizen.

In simplist terms, a judge is NOT a king. To provide him with soveriegn immunity is to invite corruption into the office. When my case appeared before the judge, he had never even bothered to read it prior to coming in. He only gave it a few minutes before he declared "I don't follow federal law!" While I naturally wanted to win my case, this wasn't a situation in which I was simply a "sore loser". This was irresponsibility. It never had a fair chance. It was the last case of the day, and it went before him before noon. I joked that he must have wanted to get out onto the golf course and tee off by lunchtime, but it turns out that he REALLY is an avid golfer and has been known to partake of the sport on weekdays.

Good. Play golf. But be accountable. People need the courts to protect them. They shouldn't become their victims!