[HN Gopher] Appeals court denies judicial immunity to judge who ...
___________________________________________________________________
Appeals court denies judicial immunity to judge who personally
searched home
Author : ww520
Score : 165 points
Date : 2023-11-03 18:54 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ij.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ij.org)
| ddoolin wrote:
| Most relevant bit:
|
| > During divorce proceedings between Matthew and his ex-wife,
| Raleigh County family-court judge Louise Goldston personally
| forced her way into Matthew's home under threats of arrest to
| search for items that were in dispute. Accompanied by Matthew's
| ex-wife, her attorney, and a bailiff (among others), Goldston
| walked barefoot through the house, ordering Matthew's ex-wife to
| seize DVDs, yearbooks, and pictures off the wall. Some of the
| items didn't even belong to Matthew's ex-wife. And when Matthew
| tried to record the encounter, the judge threatened him with
| arrest.
|
| This sounds like the ex-wife was close friend with the judge and
| this was very personal. Pretty insane either way though.
| mock-possum wrote:
| Wow that is batshit. What kind of oversight was missing here?
| How did this person possibly get to where she is without there
| being red flags?
| true_religion wrote:
| This is from West Virginia, where a state delegate was
| arrested and pulled from his house because he was one of the
| people who stormed the capital to 'help' Trump:
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-
| department/former-w...
|
| West VA is not known for its upstanding political system. I
| thought VA was better until 2021 when:
|
| 1. The governor had a scandal about his yearbook photo
| showing him (or best friend) in either a KKK hood or
| blackface
|
| 2. The vice-governor who wanted to replace him, immediately
| had a scandal about being a possible rapist
|
| 3. The attorney general, 2nd in line to replace the governor,
| admitted he wore blackface "as an innocent joke, seriously"
|
| So now, I'm of the notion that all east coast politicians are
| hiding skeletons in their closets.
| ryandrake wrote:
| What is with politicians and blackface? How hard is it to
| find someone to run for office who didn't wear blackface? I
| remember at my university we even had a student government
| leader embroiled in a scandal because he wore blackface at
| a Halloween party.
|
| People, stop with the blackface! How is this not obvious?
| whatshisface wrote:
| The problem is that it was apparently _far_ less obvious
| 50 years ago... The sheer number of conservatives who
| have been caught doing it shows it 's some kind of ex
| post facto social norm. For liberals supporting
| "traditional marriage" is the ex post facto norm but
| there is much more forgiveness available for people who
| spoke against gay marriage when Obama was against it.
| There should probably be some kind of accepted system of
| forgiveness... but the culture is run by its second most
| progressive so I only expect it to be available for those
| who merely failed to be the absolute most progressive _.
|
| _ I have a good track record of being the absolute most
| progressive for what it 's worth.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Yea, I get it, there's history and attitudes changing.
| But, you'd think in 2021, someone thinking about running
| for public office might take a few minutes, sit down, and
| run through the checklist. You know, the basics: Did I
| ever rape anyone? Was I in the KKK? Did I ever wear
| blackface?
| whatshisface wrote:
| That's an, "arson, murder and jaywalking" list if I have
| ever heard one. :-)
|
| And no, I think that when those teenagers were donning
| their offensive Halloween costumes, they did not think it
| was going to cause serious offense decades in the future.
| true_religion wrote:
| [delayed]
| csa wrote:
| > Did I ever rape anyone? Was I in the KKK? Did I ever
| wear blackface?
|
| I think this is a gross oversimplification. Let me
| modernize the questions for the current era (since the
| alleged infractions were decades ago):
|
| 1. Have I ever touch someone romantically in any way
| without asking for explicit permission and receiving
| explicit approval?
|
| This is the alleged "standard" these days, although I
| think that it is only strictly adhered to in one very
| narrow social group. Overall, "feeling safe" and
| "respect" seems to be more common than it was many
| decades ago, but those are still a far cry from explicit
| consent at every step that some folks use as a
| "standard".
|
| So if a potential politician cannot answer yes to this,
| then they leave themselves to being accused of being a
| rapist and/or sexual predator.
|
| 2. Am I in a social group that has a racial mix that does
| not approximate the local ratios (esp. if white)?
|
| California, where I live, is taking stances on equality
| that focus on outcomes more than opportunities.
|
| An unfortunate byproduct of this is that a group that is
| open to all groups, has members of at least all major
| groups, and has no policy or pattern of discrimination
| can still be called racist if their racial ratios are not
| at a certain level.
|
| This basically means that most private clubs are "racist"
| by this definition.
|
| Moose, Rotary, Chambers of Commerce, golf clubs,
| fraternities and sororities, American Legion branches,
| Masons (even Prince Hall), etc. are all organizations
| that have active members now that _could be_ deemed
| "racist" if "racism" is defined as equality of outcome
| (as it is currently in CA K-12 education).
|
| Any potential policitian who is a member of one of these
| groups runs the risk of being called a racist.
|
| 3. Have I ever worn a costume of a character that is not
| my race?
|
| Moana, Mulan, Tiana, Jasmine, Pocahontas, are some Disney
| characters that are potentially out of bounds.
|
| Luke Cage, Blue Marvel, Storm, Blade, Misty Knight, Black
| Panther, and Moon Girl are Marvel characters that are
| potentially out of bounds.
|
| Any potential politician has to make sure that they have
| not worn any of these sorts of costumes, since at some
| point they may be accused of being racist or engaging in
| cultural appropriation.
|
| Times change, people make mistakes, people grow... we
| need to allow space for this, especially when a
| questionable action was not done with malicious intent.
| whatshisface wrote:
| The KKK was a violent organization 100 years ago, there
| is no surprise that it would disqualify you from office.
| Literally nobody in that group is surprised to find that
| outsiders think they are too racist...
| csa wrote:
| > The KKK was a violent organization 100 years ago, there
| is no surprise that it would disqualify you from office.
|
| 1. David Duke, a former _Grand Wizard of the KKK_ , held
| elected office in Louisiana from 1989 to 1992.
|
| Not only do I think that it did not disqualify him, I'm
| guessing his former office helped him get elected.
|
| 2. Strom Thurmond, who was a vocal critic of integration
| and was in the Senate until 2003 (he was over 100yo), was
| a known racist. He later supported desegregation, but his
| racist attitudes in his personal life (e.g., word usage)
| allegedly didn't change much.
|
| Despite being very regressive in many of his views, he
| continued to get elected to office for over four decades
| (until 20 years ago, mind you), and he wielded immense
| power in the Senate.
|
| 3. There are no shortage of current national-level
| politicians, like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tommy
| Tuberville, who make explicit racist comments and plenty
| of dog whistle racist comments. They seem to have no
| problem getting elected.
|
| Being racist or violent only very narrowly limits
| potential political positions one can run for, imho.
| whatshisface wrote:
| You're drawing conclusions from the most extreme
| politicians you can find in the deepest backwaters of
| this nation. The only reason we hear so much about them
| is that running news items on what they do is like
| running campaign ads for everyone else.
| flutas wrote:
| I don't think it's a partisan issue as you're trying to
| make it, "the sheer number of conservatives."
|
| Even Justin Trudeau has blackface pictures out there.
| whatshisface wrote:
| I think Trudeau is certainly not progressive by Canadian
| standards!
| true_religion wrote:
| [delayed]
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| Gov Newsom boinked his campaign managers wife. Gov
| Schwarzenegger knocked up his housekeeper. Not sure that
| impacted their day job but gives me some pause.
| lazide wrote:
| Only East coast ones?
|
| I think a closet full of skeletons is pretty much required
| for any political candidate!
| samus wrote:
| Makes it easier for the party or other handlers to keep
| them in line...
| dekhn wrote:
| I'm confused- if a state delegate stormed the capitol
| (breaking a law), why wouldn't they be arrested and pulled
| from their house? Or are you saying it's crazy that a
| person who was elected to be a state delegate would then
| storm the capitol (that only occurred to me after typing my
| first question)?
|
| Interesting- after being arrested, he resigned his delegate
| position and took full responsibility, plead guilty, went
| to jail, and then _renounced his admission of guilt_. What
| a quality fellow.
| Amezarak wrote:
| Entering the Capitol in a protest by itself is not
| unusual. Protests occur in the Capitol regularly. Without
| the retrospective view and full knowledge of January 6,
| "storming the Capitol" appears in a different light, if
| you concerned about the mens rea of the delegate. It is
| likely that the vast majority of people that day, the
| hardliner crazies excepted, had no idea or expectation
| they'd be facing charges.
| dekhn wrote:
| I agree, entering the capitol in a peaceful was is not
| unusual (we saw an occupation of the rotunda only a few
| days ago).
|
| But from the very first moments the aggresive crowd was
| gathering outside the capitol, it was pretty clear it was
| a lawless event (I watched the whole thing realtime on
| several different news sources). For example if the door
| to the capitol is locked and people start breaking
| windows to enter... that moves from "protest" to
| "storming" pretty much instantly. And he filmed himself
| with a helmet on, going through the broken-into doors.
| Amezarak wrote:
| Oh sure, it definitely devolved into a riot, and I can't
| say anything about this guy in particular because I don't
| know the details. My point is that just showing up to a
| protest in or at the Capitol is not really an unusual
| thing, and most of the people there, probably including
| the delegate, had no idea there'd be any consequences.
|
| Peaceful is sort of a spectrum too - it's not uncommon
| for Congressmen and their assistants to get shoved a
| little, screamed at in their faces, spit on, that sort of
| thing. Sort of an occupational hazard. Sometimes it makes
| for great photographs. Certainly what happened that day
| exceeded the norm, though, which meant a lot of people
| who showed up with legal motives got wrapped up in
| something else. Unfortunately it's become so politicized
| (in part thanks to very bad reporting the day of) it's
| rare to have a sensible discussion about it - thanks for
| your response - and clearly you know more about this
| particular situation than I do.
| csa wrote:
| > So now, I'm of the notion that all east coast politicians
| are hiding skeletons in their closets.
|
| Serious question...
|
| What percentage of people do you think have not done
| something in their youth (let's generously call that 22 and
| under) that would offend one or more groups of people?
|
| Of those, what percentage do you think want to become
| politicians?
|
| My guess is that the Venn diagram of these two groups
| rounds to 0%.
|
| People make mistakes, sometimes egregious, though sometimes
| (often times?) without malice.
|
| If we want a wider pool to select our public figures from,
| we need to find room to forgive folks for transgressions if
| we can reasonably conclude that they have grown from and/or
| beyond their more offensive mistakes, especially if they
| occurred when the person in question was younger.
|
| Just my 2 cents...
| michaelmrose wrote:
| To play devil's advocate
|
| > In 1980, when I was a 19-year-old undergraduate in
| college, some friends suggested we attend a party dressed
| like rappers we listened to at the time, like Kurtis Blow,
| and perform a song," Herring said in a statement. "It
| sounds ridiculous even now writing it. But because of our
| ignorance and glib attitudes - and because we did not have
| an appreciation for the experiences and perspectives of
| others - we dressed up and put on wigs and brown makeup.
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/virginia-attorney-
| ge...
|
| Seems more stupid and less evil than I would have thought.
| hotnfresh wrote:
| There are _a lot_ of judges in the US, very few voters pay
| any attention to them and just re-elect whoever, many aren 't
| elected in the first place, and there are rarely any
| standards for who is or is not eligible to sit on the bench.
| Many counties and small towns are very corrupt (in a
| captured-by-a-family-or-two-and-their-pals kind of way) with
| the result that lots of local officials are at best terrible
| at their jobs, and at worst are actively breaking the law.
| All kinds of bad conduct happens at that level, most of it
| never making the news at all.
| cogman10 wrote:
| One thing I'll add, this is also a symptom of the death of
| local journalism.
|
| Even for decently populated areas, there's simply very
| little access to journalism covering things like local
| candidates. All news has become national. Local news
| broadcasts have pretty much died, all purchased by the
| sinclair broadcasting group.
|
| Just try and get information on someone running for a city
| level offices. It's hard enough for officials with public
| meetings. But judges?
| btilly wrote:
| I have found that the League of Woman Voters often
| provides voter guides where you can read about every
| local candidate. Their positions, their website, answers
| to questions, and so on.
|
| For judges in California, that generally includes a
| review about how well qualified they are.
|
| I've found that very helpful in past elections for making
| decisions on local candidates. Which are the ones where
| my vote is most likely to make a difference. But which
| would otherwise be impossible for me to inform myself on.
| lazide wrote:
| Death of local news makes it worse, but this has always
| been an issue. Like literally since before the
| revolutionary war type 'always', and certainly long
| before that too.
|
| Means of control get hijacked by bad actors until they
| screw up bad enough they can't be ignored, to be replaced
| by... someone. Who is not such an obvious bad actor.
| Sometimes they're even good! For awhile, anyway.
| neaden wrote:
| I live in Cook County Illinois and have to vote up and down
| on a fairly absurd number of judges, I think last time was
| around 60. My wife and I usually try to split it up and
| each research half, and it still takes a pretty decent
| chunk of time, definitely more then I spend on figuring out
| who I will vote for in all other elections combined.
| pc86 wrote:
| I got married in Cook County. My apologies.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| It isn't "many". The de-facto assumption should be a small
| government entity is corrupt. Anything else is an
| unreasonable assumption.
| pc86 wrote:
| The fact that we're electing judges at all is insane.
| Elections are by definition partisan things, even when you
| don't list party. I've lived in states with "non-partisan"
| judge elections, and anyone remotely connected to a
| political party knows who is what and just votes that way.
| Yeah it prevents someone from just pulling a straight-
| ticket lever in the booth without doing any research but
| that's about it.
|
| Your average voter has absolutely no business deciding the
| quality of someone's legal education, scholarship, etc.
| Hell one state I lived in most of the "judges" handling
| minor offenses like traffic tickets and small claims court
| had never been to law school, never served in any criminal
| justice role, they just ran for the seat and got it. It's a
| joke.
|
| Appointing judges has its own host of problems but at least
| then you'll get people who are on the surface qualified to
| read, understand, and interpret the law.
| function_seven wrote:
| No disagreement here about the failings of elected
| judges, but if partisanship is something to be avoided,
| then having appointed judges can often be just as bad.
| The politician doing the appointments will surely pick
| judges that align with their party's ideals.
|
| In the best case, when the executive and the legislature
| are in opposition--and appointments must clear both
| branches--then you have opposing forces that hopefully
| weed out the most partisan of judges.
|
| My proposal is to have candidate judges throw their name
| on a list. Whenever a spot needs filling, then each of 3
| committees makes their selections from that list. Those 3
| committees would be (1) current judges, (2) prosecutors,
| and (3) defense attorneys.
|
| Only if a majority of each group blesses a candidate,
| would that candidate be eligible for appointment by the
| governor.
| yndoendo wrote:
| I would argue the ability to elect judges by constitutes
| is the only means to work around gerrymandering. The
| people are then allowed to override the legislative
| branch.
| Amezarak wrote:
| Electing judges does not preclude having legal
| requirements for running or holding the position. I'd
| wager more states have requirements like "must have
| practiced law in state x for y years" than not. Mine
| does.
|
| Going into this judge's background, she was originally
| appointed a Family Master before becoming a judge, so
| evidently the wisdom of appointments did not save people
| from her either.
|
| Edit: are we sure this is an elected position in WV? I am
| looking at the county elections and don't see judges
| listed on the results or ballot. Her replacement was
| appointed by the governor with no mention of it being
| interim u til an election.
|
| Edit2: they are indeed elected, with eight year terms,
| which is why I did not see it. But the judge in question
| was again someone previously appointed to a family master
| position and then elected - and family master would
| definitely be prior qualification. Additionally these
| judges in WV must be a member on good standing with the
| bar and have a minimum of five years practicing law in
| WV.
| PLenz wrote:
| In most states there is no requirement for elected judges
| to have any experience in law
| Amezarak wrote:
| Do you have a source for that? I took the totally
| unscientific method of sampling every southern border-ish
| state I could think of: California, Nevada, Arizona, New
| Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia,
| and Florida. Of those 10, 9 required 5-10 years
| experience as an attorney in that state. Only Arizona did
| not have that requirement. I couldn't find a
| comprehensive list.
| __derek__ wrote:
| Appointed judges are just another form of patronage. The
| process is no less partisan than an election, and
| arguably more so because of the small coalition that
| actually needs to be onboard.
| macintux wrote:
| Still, an elected official with a track record of
| appointing manifestly unqualified judges will attract
| more news attention than a manifestly unqualified judge
| winning an election.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Wait until you hear about places electing a coroner who
| may or may not be any sort of medical professional.
| vkou wrote:
| Many, many judges are elected, and like with any elected
| office, there is no shortage of people ready to vote in
| absolutely despicable/incompetent/despicable and incompetent
| candidates.
|
| Firing someone who was elected is also incredibly difficult.
|
| In West Virginia, the qualifications to become a county
| Magistrate Judge (Empowering you to issue arrest and search
| warrants, find people guilty of misdemeanors, conduct
| preliminary examinations in felony cases, and preside over
| small claims court)... Are a _high school diploma_.
|
| In fact, it's illegal in that state to _require_ magistrates
| to have a law degree.
|
| This particular judge was a family court judge - one step up
| the food chain - which, at least requires them to be a
| lawyer...
| lazide wrote:
| Many judges are appointed (like all federal judges, and
| many state ones).
| andylynch wrote:
| In England you can volunteer as a magistrate for the
| lower courts. Training provided, no prior legal
| experience necessary. Legal advisers in the court;
| serious (indictable) offences get referred up to an
| appointed judge. If you're a juror and say you found the
| experience worthwhile the users will encourage you to
| sign up.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Huh. I'm even surprised you need a high school diploma. As
| you say, a lot of jurisdictions do not require any legal
| training, which is total insanity.
|
| Though, in my experience, most state court judges do not
| apply the law very often to causes in front of the court,
| they mostly just apply emotion.
| runlevel1 wrote:
| It's more difficult to hold elected judges accountable. An
| impeachment removing a judge put in place by a non-partisan
| vote is a bigger deal than impeachment of someone appointment
| by the governor. (Though, West Virginia did impeach their
| entire state Supreme Court for dodgy spending a few years
| ago.[^1])
|
| This judge was elected 3 times. But most people will blindly
| reelect the existing judges. That's hardly surprising since
| in most states reviewing a judge's performance takes some
| effort. For example, here's Colorado's.[^2] A quick Google
| search didn't seem to turn up anything equivalent in West
| Virginia.
|
| But if you want to dive deeper into how judicial misconduct
| can go unchecked, you should read about the PA Cash for Kids
| Scandal.[^3]
|
| However, I don't want to give the impression that I think
| this is a common problem. Watch proceedings in any random
| Zoom/YouTube court proceeding and you'll find judges
| faithfully applying the law.[^4] But when misconduct does
| happen, it's _really_ bad.
|
| [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/all-west-virginia-
| s-sup... [2]:
| https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/2022-judicial-
| perfo... [3]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal [4]: Many
| of Michigan and Georgia's courts are still broadcasting live
| on YouTube if you're actually curious.
| BenFeldman1930 wrote:
| Why barefoot?
| hotnfresh wrote:
| Didn't want to track bullshit all over the carpet?
| kolanos wrote:
| > Why barefoot?
|
| She was making herself at home. There's video of this on
| YouTube. [0]
|
| [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVZFUiXkCEA
| charles_f wrote:
| This one doesn't show, but this one does:
| https://youtu.be/K7f6uevARno?t=375
|
| I'd put that more on following others who removed the shoes
| inside, including both the ex-wife and ex-husband.
|
| But that seems to have had an importance in the judgment,
| which talks about not wearing a robe and not wearing shoes,
| making it unusual.
| jey wrote:
| This fear of bare feet is uniquely American. In many other
| cultures it is considered much more disrespectful and
| disgusting to wear outdoor shoes inside a home.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| It's not some sort of footphobia (where does America even
| come into this? I am American and taking off shoes is the
| custom in any house that somebody makes a pretense of
| keeping clean. Do you think we all live in barns?) It's
| about the judge not having any of trappings of a judicial
| proceeding, she wasn't wearing a robe and was generally
| behaving very informally. Taking off her shoes was part of
| that. Taking off her shoes to protect the floor shouldn't
| have ever come up because she should never have been in the
| house in the first place. Since she wasn't acting like a
| judge, she wasn't entitled to judicial immunity.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > where does America even come into this?
|
| > I am American and taking off shoes is the custom in any
| house that somebody makes a pretense of keeping clean.
|
| I've watched way too many movies depicting americans
| wearing shoes not only inside their home but _in bed_.
| Always weirded me out and I always wondered if this was a
| normal thing.
|
| So... Is it true?
| vips7L wrote:
| ...is everything you watch on TV true?
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Most aren't but many things are.
|
| https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TruthInTelevi
| sio...
|
| https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnre
| ali...
| RoyalHenOil wrote:
| It is normal for Americans to wear shoes indoors, but it
| is also normal for Americans to have a no-shoes-indoors
| policy.
|
| To a large extent, it depends on the local environment.
| In places that are snowy, muddy, or sandy, people are
| more likely to expect guests to not wear shoes past the
| mud room. But in places where shoes stay reasonably
| clean, people are less likely to ask guests to remove
| shoes.
|
| I have never heard of anyone wearing shoes in bed. That's
| super weird. Which movies show that?
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > Which movies show that?
|
| Home Alone (1990) immediately comes to mind.
|
| https://productplacementblog.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2018/12/...
| khazhoux wrote:
| > I've watched way too many movies depicting americans
| wearing shoes not only inside their home but in bed
|
| This indeed is how Hollywood popularly depicted
| Americans, as wearing shoes to bed, in the bathtub or
| shower, while swimming, and so on. There's the famous
| line the the Humphrey Bogart / Katherine Hepburn film "A
| Time To Stand" where the robbers tell Bogie they're going
| to clean him out, and he says "you can take anything you
| want, but you're not getting my shoes!"
|
| There was an episode of This American Life where they
| delved into Hollywood's preoccupation with people never
| (ever) taking off their shoes, and one of the things they
| go into is how Johnston & Murphy (old shoe company) was
| one of the biggest funders of the original Silver Age
| studios. It was maybe the first instance of product
| placement, right up there with cigarettes. Of course
| Congress eventually got involved in the late 50s and
| pushed the shoe industry out, paving the way for movies
| like George Pal's "The Time Machine" which scandalously
| showed Yvette Mimiuex's bare feet. The French were
| laughing at us, though, with directors life Truffaut and
| Godard already showing casual barefootedness in their
| experimental shorts ("La Pantoufle Perdue" being the
| best-known and most influential).
| michaelmrose wrote:
| It's perfectly normal in a lot of homes to wear shoes
| throughout the house but not in bed.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| I don't think it is a fear of bare feet exactly, its more
| like Americans often wear shoes in their houses. Taking off
| your shoes is a bit more casual so it implies a sort of
| familiarity.
|
| Americans also don't typically (you can't completely
| generalize) have rooms where you sit on the floor or a mat.
| In cultures where you do that it makes even more sense to
| take off your shoes. They also typically have really big
| houses compared to a lot of other places, with bigger lots
| that contain indoor or outdoor spaces. In my own house, you
| could walk in the front door, walk through the living room
| or dining room and just continue the conversation in the
| patio furniture in the back yard. I think its cleaner to
| take off your shoes, and people sometimes do when they come
| to visit, or ask if they should.
| crooked-v wrote:
| Wearing shoes in houses really depends on region. Do that
| in New England and somebody's going to (possibly
| literally) scream at you for tracking in the snow or mud.
| hotnfresh wrote:
| It's not fear of bare feet, it's this official coming by,
| backed by cops, to take your shit, but then doing something
| that either reads as very familiar or else quite respectful
| (but in a pretty minor way).
|
| It's like a burglar who takes your grandma's jewelry, and
| eats a sandwich out of the fridge while they're at it, but
| is careful to wipe up all the crumbs and load the plate in
| the dishwasher. WTF?
| kolanos wrote:
| > This sounds like the ex-wife was close friend with the judge
| and this was very personal. Pretty insane either way though.
|
| Actually this judge had a long track record of doing things
| like this. She ran into the wrong civil rights attorney.
| plagiarist wrote:
| What a profound failure of justice that it occurred even
| once, but wow, multiple times without sufficient consequences
| to stop it.
| vhcr wrote:
| The _right_ civil rights attorney.
| khazhoux wrote:
| The civil _right_ attorney
| foobar1962 wrote:
| Right.
| konstantinua00 wrote:
| > barefoot
|
| ...why was this detail added? i-is it even positive or
| negative? did the writer have foot fetish or shoes fetish?
|
| one word, but many more questions
| eftychis wrote:
| Why barefoot exactly? Something is missing here. When you
| execute a search it is not like you go around removing shoes.
| Then again usually that search and seizure is legal and not
| executed by the "judge..."
| pjc50 wrote:
| It implies unprofessionality on behalf of the barefoot
| person. And possibly haste or even mental instability.
| Normally law enforcement wear substantial shoes or boots to
| avoid accidental or malicious injury. You never know if
| you're searching someone's house if they've left tacks out on
| the floor.
| alwa wrote:
| It seems like another detail supporting the idea that this
| "search" was highly irregular, casting it as far removed from
| a legitimate, professional exercise of official power.
|
| We're lucky as hacker types that we can sometimes do our jobs
| barefoot and in casual clothes, but I can't think of any
| situation (other than this one) where an agent of the state
| executes their official duties unshod.
| bondarchuk wrote:
| Lifeguards!
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Fighter pilots. Search and rescue crews. I have personally
| seen more than a few at work in socks or bare feet. If your
| job requires you to quickly don survival kit or
| flightsuits, you hang around at work without shoes on. Also
| some military air traffic controllers and operations people
| on long shifts. I have done more than a few late nights at
| desks beside colored telephones, not always with my boots
| on.
|
| And I know of some occassions where cops have taken off
| thier boots when entering certain religeous places.
| op00to wrote:
| I would never execute a search barefoot. Only a mad person
| would consider that professional.
| dekhn wrote:
| What I don't understand (from watching the video from outside
| the house) is why the cop helped the judge enter the house
| after the owner of the house pointed out she didn't have a
| warrant, and didn't prevent the ex from taking thiings from the
| house.
|
| I would have expected- naively, of course- that once it was
| pointed out that the judge was trespassing, didn't have a
| warrant, and wasn't allowed to do this, the cop would have
| stopped her.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _why the cop helped the judge enter the house after the
| owner of the house pointed out she didn 't have a warrant_
|
| I can understand a non-lawyer deferring to the lawyer (and
| judge) in their midst. If I were with my (non-judge) lawyer
| and they started doing something surprising, my first
| instinct wouldn't be to restrain them.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Especially since judges write warrants. It was a
| technicality from that point of view?
| sandworm101 wrote:
| No. A basic idea of any warrant is that you need two
| people to do something. If judges can write, sign and
| execute warrants, then we are into Judge Dred territory.
|
| There is also a general principal that lawyers and judges
| should not turn themselves into witnesses. This judge
| just made herself a witness should any siezed material
| need be debated in court. Judges dont attend lineups or
| medical tests, nor should they attened searches.
| dekhn wrote:
| Not restrain the judge. Again, I'm naive here- but I still
| would have expected the cop to say "Hey judge, can we talk
| for a second? If I underestand correctly, judges cannot
| perform law enforcement duty, and more importantly, there
| is no warrant permitting you to enter. How about we go back
| to the office and discuss this more widely with the police
| chief, as I don't feel comfortable possibly abetting you
| breaking the law. If it turns out it's OK, we can return
| later to obtain the items."
|
| My guess is the cop was simply ignorant of the law and more
| than happy to help the judge, ignorantly. But I'm curious
| if we was sanctioned or if ther was any consequence to him
| at all.
| pjc50 wrote:
| lol
|
| All these people think hierarchy first, text second; if the
| judge is ordering it, that's sufficient for it to be legal.
| Especially in a small town.
| Crunchified wrote:
| Exactly. After all, who do the police go to in order to
| obtain a search warrant? A judge, of course!
|
| To the police (and bailiffs, too, I would think), the
| judiciary is the source of all their powers.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| From the description in the article, the cop was a bailiff--a
| law enforcement officer working for the court to enforce the
| orders of the judge.
| dekhn wrote:
| Yes, but -- again, naively, this is not my area of
| expertise- I still would have expected a bailiff, when
| presented with a reasonable argument that the judge would
| be doing something illegal, to not escort the judge into
| the house unquestioningly. Already I think bailiffs are
| normally mostly limited to courthouse?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Yes, but -- again, naively, this is not my area of
| expertise- I still would have expected a bailiff, when
| presented with a reasonable argument that the judge would
| be doing something illegal, to not escort the judge into
| the house unquestioningly.
|
| Bailiffs' jobs are literally to provide immediate
| enforcement of the judges determinations of what is
| lawful. The normal expectation is that any legal
| arguments will be presented to and resolved
| (conclusively, for purposes of the bailiff, as any appeal
| will be after the execution of any orders) by the judge.
|
| > Already I think bailiffs are normally mostly limited to
| courthouse?
|
| _Judges_ mostly work in the courthouse, but bailiffs
| aren 't generally, that I know of, limited to it so much
| as that being normally where they are needed by virtue of
| where court work tends to happen.
| 3c6bYDXLMj wrote:
| This not being your area of expertise does not alone
| justify your naivety. There's plenty laid in mainstream
| circles about US law enforcement overstepping when they
| feel like they're going to get away with it.
| qingcharles wrote:
| LOL. No officer wants to fight a contempt charge from an
| angry judge. A judge ordered me arrested without issuing a
| warrant and it cost me three years. Only yesterday did I try
| a FOIA to get a copy of the non-existent warrant, here was
| the reply:
|
| "Please be advised that we conducted a diligent search based
| on the information you provided. However, no records were
| found in response to your request."
| giantg2 wrote:
| How did it take 3 years?
| danielheath wrote:
| Have you ever dealt with a court? 3 months to get a court
| date, and the other party can find all manner of grounds
| to have the case put off until later on the day (so you
| need another 3 months).
| giantg2 wrote:
| Yes, I have dealt with courts. How exactly did they even
| get a court date without any documentation?
| devwastaken wrote:
| The dept of justice is intentionally one of the least
| funded and most important orgs in the U.S. if the system
| of laws and enforcement were efficient you would see
| powerful people in prison. Therefore, it is inefficient.
| qingcharles wrote:
| I was locked up during COVID. That stopped the courts for
| basically two years.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "is why the cop helped the judge enter the house after the
| owner of the house pointed out she didn't have a warrant,"
|
| Because judges can ruin cops lives too. There's virtually no
| oversight of judges. They granted themselves such secrecy
| that even if their disciplinary files have exculpatory
| evidence, you're not allowed to subpoena it. And the
| discipline is usually only related to egregious acts of
| misconduct. Stuff like incompetence or bending the rules or
| being inconsistent is basically ignored.
|
| Plenty of videos online of judges being let out of reaffic
| stops and such while being assholes about it too.
| __derek__ wrote:
| Yes, that's a naive view of American law enforcement.
| mozman wrote:
| Pretty standard in small southern towns. You'll see this when
| you get a ticket. Good old boys club.
| Amezarak wrote:
| I read other reporting while trying to find biographical
| information about the judge, and the reporting is rather one-
| sided. The judge was certainly overstepped and was doing
| something wrong and illegal but it wasn't quite as egregious as
| that.
|
| In family law cases, she regularly entered the homes of and had
| meetings there with the involved parties, though typically she
| had one of the parties request the motion and in this case she
| did it herself. She usually required the consent of both
| parties legal representation before going through with it. The
| guy involved represented himself and didn't realize he should
| have objected until it was too late and they were there. He'd
| been held in contempt for allegedly not turning over property
| she had ordered him to, which he said he didn't have, and
| entering the house and searching it was her way of establishing
| that. Clearly out there, wacky, and illegal, but not quite so
| egregious as the article represents.
|
| You can see how the judge probably thought she was being
| practical and fair minded, but nevertheless hugely overstepped.
|
| https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge-who-searched-l...
| rendall wrote:
| I've been following this case for awhile. The lawyer who argued
| the case, John Bryan, has a YouTube channel that I subscribe to.
| In this video, he discusses the victory.
|
| https://youtu.be/K7f6uevARno
| mcpackieh wrote:
| This video is infuriating, she and the cops that helped her
| should all be criminally charged.
| alwaysrunning wrote:
| He does great work.
| ww520 wrote:
| Is the judge criminally liable for the forced home entry? Or is
| this a civil suit?
| dmoy wrote:
| It's a civil suit
|
| > Is the judge criminally liable for the forced home entry?
|
| This could also be true, but you'd need a prosecutor to take up
| the case
| 77pt77 wrote:
| That will never happen because other judges would never allow
| that prosecutor to win anything ever again.
| dmoy wrote:
| Maybe? Probably not relevant? Family court and criminal
| court are pretty separated. There's not a lot of overlap in
| judges or lawyers, and afaik there aren't any state
| prosecutors going to family court to try cases.
| ksherlock wrote:
| It's a family court judge so she's not dealing with
| criminal matters. And if for some reason that came up, the
| prosecutor can demand a recusal.
| qingcharles wrote:
| And most prosecutors are looking for a judgeship. Most
| judges are ex-prosecutors.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Even if it was, the judge will elect a bench trial and get
| one of his friends to decide the verdict. I saw that done on
| a high-profile case recently.
| duxup wrote:
| > When Matthew sued the judge for these egregious violations of
| constitutional rights
|
| In this case it is a civil suit.
| LegitShady wrote:
| she was first censured and fined $1000 by the Supreme Court of
| Appeals of West Virginia, but still said (under oath) she
| thought she didn't do anything wrong and would re-run for
| election. A delegate in the house of delegates said that since
| she thought she didn't do anything wrong, she was at risk of
| committing similar violations so introduced a resolution to
| have her impeached. She resigned and retired before it could go
| through. Two additional judges were charged with violations of
| the Judicial code for trying to interfere - one
| resigned/retired and the other was removed for the rest of her
| term.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyxkQXCr5tA
| ww520 wrote:
| > Two additional judges were charged with violations of the
| Judicial code for trying to interfere
|
| So these judges formed a clique and covered each other? You
| heard of police covering up each other's wrong doing. You
| rarely heard of judges doing it.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| Of course they did.
|
| How do you think they get to those positions?
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| Direct election, for many judges in the US. You don't
| need other judges to support you for that.
| qingcharles wrote:
| A judge here recently committed a crime, and then elected
| to proceed on a bench trial so he was tried by his friend,
| instead of a jury, and the judge found him not guilty
| pretty quickly :)
| mccrory wrote:
| I love how police and judges can simply retire if they've
| been breaking the law long enough. Why should these criminals
| get to retire? Why should they get to collect a pension?
| mcpackieh wrote:
| Totally insane. Think about how many other cases she had a part
| in, could somebody this nuts have been an impartial judge in any
| of those cases?
| ultra_nick wrote:
| Judges and police shouldn't have legal immunities.
|
| Professionals doing jobs over $10k should have to buy malpractice
| insurance like doctors.
|
| There's a bill to end qualified immunity currently.
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1470
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Judges and police shouldn 't have legal immunities_
|
| This is like saying employees should be personally liable for
| mistakes they make at work. Under egregious circumstances, yes.
| Otherwise, it's their employer's liability.
|
| So yes, _some_ immunity is necessary. The problem is the
| current standards of police immunity don't seem to make sense.
| (I see no issue with present standards of judicial immunity.)
|
| > _Professionals doing jobs over $10k should have to buy
| malpractice insurance like doctors_
|
| One, this would obviously be paid for by taxpayers. Nothing
| would change except some insurance brokers would make money.
| Two, you want a private company gating the courts? Who would
| you expect to impartially adjudicate _their_ disputes?
| PopAlongKid wrote:
| >This is like saying employees should be personally liable
| for mistakes they make at work.
|
| No, it isn't--poor choice of a strawman. This judge's actions
| were not a "mistake", they were a deliberate abuse of power.
| pc86 wrote:
| Which is egregious. Which means they shouldn't have any
| immunity. Which appears to have been exactly what was
| decided in this case. I agree with you that seems to have
| been handled exactly as it should have been.
|
| It's a leap to go from that to "end all immunity in all
| circumstances."
| nwiswell wrote:
| What about ending the _presumption_ of immunity? It was
| an uphill battle in this case to strip the judge 's
| immunity.
|
| Almost certainly this judge abused individuals who did
| not have the resources to defend their rights. Perhaps
| the burden of proof should not be so onerous.
|
| Maybe the solution is that the employer (in this case the
| WV judiciary) has the option to accept liability. If they
| do so, immunity is presumed. If the employer _rejects_
| the liability, then the individual must prove that they
| are entitled to immunity.
|
| Obviously there's a financial incentive for an employer
| to deny liability, but doing so would be extremely
| unpopular with employees. So presumably they would be
| judicious depending on the circumstances.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > This judge's actions were not a "mistake", they were a
| deliberate abuse of power.
|
| They also weren't within the coverage of judicial immunity,
| so that's irrelevant.
| michael1999 wrote:
| Indemnification against civil liability is very different
| from immunity from criminal prosecution.
|
| Any employer can provide liability insurance, but only the
| Supreme Count can grant carte-blanche to commit crimes.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Indemnification against civil liability is very
| different from immunity from criminal prosecution_
|
| Neither qualified nor judicial immunity provide for
| immunity from criminal prosecution.
| thorncorona wrote:
| Isn't the president the only one who can technically do
| that through pardon?
|
| Supreme court can only rule they are legal under current
| laws.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Isn't the president the only one who can technically do
| that through pardon?
|
| No, so can individual prosecutors and Congress, through
| immunity grants.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Indemnification against civil liability is very different
| from immunity from criminal prosecution.
|
| Qualified, judicial, and absolute immunities are (among
| others) immunities from civil, not criminal, liability that
| apply to public officials in different conditions.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| > _This is like saying employees should be personally liable
| for mistakes they make at work._
|
| This is like saying a dentist shouldn't be personally liable
| for the "mistake" of raping somebody under his care. Of
| course he should be!
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _like saying a dentist shouldn 't be personally liable
| for the "mistake" of raping somebody_
|
| The only way you can read what was written this way is if
| you don't consider rape egregious.
| konstantinua00 wrote:
| as a non-native speaker, may I ask what egregious even
| mean? intentional?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _may I ask what egregious even mean? intentional?_
|
| Outrageously bad. Even if unintentional, it's behaviour
| that obviously isn't acceptable or part of the job. Like
| this lady.
| samus wrote:
| Intentional is the crucial shade of meaning here.
| Excessive in a way that attracts (or at least should
| attract) attention.
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/egregious
| hughdbrown wrote:
| From Latin grex/gregoris (flock) and ex- (out of).
| egregious comes from a root which means "stands out from
| the flock" -- it's exceptional. Centuries ago, it had a
| positive meaning but not it is reserved for describing
| outstandingly bad events or people, etc.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| You think what this judge did wasn't egregious? She
| invaded this man's home with armed men and robbed him;
| I'm comparing felonies to felonies. It sure as hell
| wasn't a mistake, so why are you talking about mistakes?
|
| _" Oops I tripped and accidentally fell onto his
| property and through his door."_ _" Oops my tongue
| stumbled and I accidentally threatened to have the man
| arrested if he tried to film what I was doing."_
|
| Yeah right. She knew she was breaking the law, that's why
| she freaked out about being filmed. None of this was a
| mistake.
| Reptur wrote:
| Of course, people with no consequences will do horrible things.
| Looks like its dead in the water though, it was introduced on
| 03/01/2021 and then nothing. Congress understands without cops
| that are immune, they cannot do terrible things with impunity.
| Immune cops are the foundation of an authoritarian government.
| williamcotton wrote:
| Judicial immunity is a _very_ different kind of privilege.
|
| Chesterton's thousand mile long fence!
| 77pt77 wrote:
| It seems like that fence always runs in the same direction...
| 77pt77 wrote:
| You forgot about prosecutorial immunity.
| __derek__ wrote:
| FYI: that bill is from the previous Congress, but it's been
| reintroduced in the current one[1] and in the Senate.[2] But
| Republicans control the House, so it's not going anywhere.
| Meanwhile, it looks like a Republican introduced an opposing
| bill to codify qualified immunity for police.[3]
|
| [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-
| bill/2847
|
| [2]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-
| bill/119...
|
| [3]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-
| bill/233
| post_break wrote:
| Been watching the case from the beginning. I wonder what the
| civil suit will bring. Will she be ordered to pay thousands? Lose
| her home? I bet he's going to be smiling when she's forced to
| write a check or sell some of her possessions to fund this
| ridiculous action.
| kbelder wrote:
| Is the divorce finalized? If not the wife might get half the
| judgement. 5d chess on her part.
| IronWolve wrote:
| Most lawyers know how the judges view cases, and judge shop if
| its possible.
|
| The only winning move is to stay out of court if possible.
|
| Federal courts is a different beast, but the outcome is normally
| known.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Having spent thousands of hours in courtrooms, you are exactly
| right.
|
| Doesn't matter if it is civil or criminal, the only way to win
| is to stay out of court.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| Imagine the resident just shot her since she didn't have a
| warrant.
|
| What would happen then?
| _jal wrote:
| Assuming the resident survived the several minutes immediately
| following doing so, I expect they'd be approaching sentencing
| soon.
| reaperman wrote:
| I'm assuming this wasn't a no-knock warrant. The resident
| shouldn't have had a reasonable fear for their life or safety.
| Just because someone trespasses in your house illegally doesn't
| mean its legal to use force to remove them yourself.
| tomohawk wrote:
| This is why the first amendment, which disallows government
| interference in speech, is so important. Judges and other
| officials already have enormous power, and allowing them to
| compel or censor eliminates any hope of transparency and future
| action to correct what they did.
| flenserboy wrote:
| Disbarment & stripping of any state-related retirement would be a
| good start in this case. Far, far past egregious behavior.
| nimbius wrote:
| I remember seeing this on YouTube a while back and thinking
| someone was about to blow an entire divorce proceeding.
|
| Glad to see some actions been taken.
| op00to wrote:
| This story is wild, but bare feet is wiiiiiiild.
| ccleve wrote:
| Here's pretty good website that tracks judicial abuse:
|
| https://abusivediscretion.com/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-03 23:02 UTC)