A commentary on our judges and our courts
Note the enclosed article and link underneath this commentary.
I would disagree in part to your scenario or perhaps just expound on your commentary about judges. Absolutely our judiciary should be open and well lighted for all to see the activities of OUR judges. I absolutely agree with open judicial oversight or I wouldn't be doing what I am doing to create it here in Minnesota. I am hard pressed to accept, however, a public servant judge a free public tongue just as I am opposed to judges campaigning for their "office" with a political agenda whether with or without political party affiliation.
These men and women chose a path to become judges, they were appointed, approved by legislatures or voted in by the People or some variation. Their ONLY public functions should be contained within the function of the direct interpretation of the laws before them in a court (do they apply in the instant case?), to maintain a fair flow of pertinent and proper information/evidence throughout said case, to ban prosecutorial character assassination of defendants and witnesses, always remembering to assert and maintain the defendants and complainants rights (should the latter be a man or woman; the state has no rights). Ultimately, they then hand the facts AND THE LAW over to the jury for final adjudication WITHOUT the judge's "instructions" on how they should think.
I am never impressed or thrilled with the prospect of judges who legislate from the bench (their own prejudice) or who "flap their gums" about political topics while a sitting judge. I must remember that while in the "office" of judge they are OUR servants whose only job is as stated above. They are NOT to spill their personal, family or others views into their judgments, during the processing of a trial nor into the press or media at large. That is where the line must be drawn. Particularly in a case, final arbitration rests solely with the jury, the judge's personal biases notwithstanding.
When a judge decides it is time for him to speak out on political issues, it is also time for him to step down from his "office" of judge or in the alternative, quietly start writing his memoirs for publication AFTER he steps down as judge. Our courts MUST remain neutral and judges constrained through law from abdicating our rights and interjecting their personal biases in lieu of written, legislated and existing law. Judge Roy Moore comes to mind. I love the man for his personal conviction to God, his country, his family, himself. But I believe with convictions that strong, he should have stepped down and gotten active (privately, as he is now) in the political arena and not remain in a public venue while denouncing the removal of the Ten Commandments from the court. Quieting him while on the bench in this instance would have been proper. This it seems to me should be a step toward maintaining a rein on the power of this branch of government.
Even though I agree with Judge Moore 110% in his conviction to his faith and to God, it is up to the People to demand of the legislature, laws to change the country - not a judge nor the executive. It is up to a judge to interpret what the legislatures write and pass - not the executive. It is up to the judiciary to see that all law is in compliance with the federal and state constitutions and report back to the People and the legislature if not and to estop all actions falling out of the established organic law. It is up to the judge to stand mute on his personal slant, as unbiased as humanly possible and with disregard for personal benefit or potential hindrance in his interpretation of the written law. (A tall order and rare strength indeed and perhaps one we should all look for when a man/woman is being considered for judgeship. An unflappable quality of integrity.) Finally, it is up to the Jury of one's peers to deny existing law if they so choose, interpret the law as they so choose and convict or release accordingly - and not a branch of government.
If the judiciary is not maintained in a separate, constrained venue, with viable, effective, punitive oversight of the judges maintained By The People, our laws quickly become anemic and finally useless altogether as they now - daily. To close this commentary, I note with reticence here, yet with total disdain and reams of rants on this subject I have written elsewhere, the treatment of our men and women in income tax cases, in which the uselessness of our written law or effectiveness of an unwritten law as might be the case, we witness in our courts everyday now. Hence, the continued need for effective judicial oversight By The People such as J.A.I.L.. Stiff requirements of political restraint, the disallowance of tipping a judge by an attorney, the prohibition of commingling with attorneys privately who may practice before them, the prohibition of the requirement of a BAR card in order for attorneys to practice before them, the oversight of judges by the Citizens with punitive powers, these and other things must come to pass - and soon! Judges MUST be held in absolute check by the People and under the law. WE cannot allow judges to be tainted by attorneys, the "bar", politicians, moneyed elite any longer. We cannot allow unchecked criminal acts by judges in the courts and at the cost of the People any longer.
America is on her backside with the dark knight of the power elite standing over her ready to plunge the final sword of tyranny into her heart - the coup de grace. We MUST stay busy now, DEMAND back what is rightfully ours, DENY the power elite any more effect over us! This MUST include constraining our courts to the law. OUR law. Time is short now to save her!
J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California January 13, 2007
The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Government.
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend
Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.
What’s There To Hide?
In 1960 California was the first state to came up with the idea of creating a special commission just for judges. It was then called the Judicial Qualifications Commission, and later changed to the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP). Its supposed purpose was to oversee the discipline of judges. Since 1960 all other states has followed suit under various names.
In Los Angeles, complaints against judges tops all other complaints asked to be investigated by the County Grand Jury. Nonetheless, the Grand Jury has now been specifically precluded by statute from investigating judges. Since the creation of the CJP, all complaints against judges must now be directed to the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) where they are quickly sand-bagged and hidden forever from the light of day. The results is that the CJP has tons of indicting information on judges which are safely concealed away in secret files, and those offending judges can go on doing what they’ve always done as if nothing ever happened. If the heat gets too hot for any particular judge, the CJP will shuffle the judges around to another judicial district where they can start over.
As if a monkey wrench dropped in the judicial secrecy gearbox, an Arkansas Appellate Court Judge named Wendell Griffen has specifically waived his right to privacy and the protection of his identity during his disciplanary proceeding, and has demanded that his case be made public, and open to the light of day, rather than conducted in secret.
His demand for openness has caused quite a rift in the judicial system, which raises the question as to why the court should do things in secrecy when he has waived his right to privacy. This question is now before the Supreme Court of Arkansas with the State’s Judicial Commission arguing that despite the waiver of his privacy, they must keep the disiplinary proceeding secret in order to protect the integrity of the judicial system.
This raises the question as to whether the conduct of any public official should be kept secret and hidden from public view. It has been said that open sunlight is the best disenfectant. We are told in the Bible, “…men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest…” John 3:19-21. Varments such as rats, cockroaches and creaping things; as with judges, love darkness, and abhor the light of full disclosure.
“What’s there to hide?”
Click on the below URL and check out what is going on in the courts.
Griffen tells high court discipline hearing should be open
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.