Illegal separate emoluments or privileges for Judges and Lawyers
Courts Daily Violate the U.S. CONSTITUTION
The mere fact that the Journal acknowledges that a Public reprimand is rare
makes our Case
What is the violation, you ask?
The Constitution of Virginia 
Article 1 Bill of Rights.
Section 4. No exclusive emoluments or privileges; offices
not to be hereditary. —That no
man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or
privileges from the community, but in consideration of public
services; which not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate,
legislator, or judge to be hereditary.
When a judge or lawyer violates the promulgations that touch
and concern  their position under which they hold a position under the
government of this state or  a license/privilege granted by the state
the discipline/punishment they receive for such violations of the promulgations
should not be withheld from the people of this Commonwealth.
Yet we see where in-fact that is not the case. When we see that the
Legislature and the Courts of this Commonwealth have special privacy rules for
its members, in which the bad conduct or the failure to follow the rules, that touch
and concern judges and lawyers of the Commonwealth are not disclosed we in fact
have exclusive or separate emoluments
or privileges from the community. Is this not a violation of the
Constitution of Virginia?
Circuit Issues Rare Public Reprimand of Lawyer"These failings
were not a matter of mere oversight or poor law practice housekeeping,"
court says about attorney.
lawyer in Washington who showed “a palpable lack of respect for both this
court and the disciplinary process" received a rare public reprimand
Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
McCants, a solo practitioner in Washington, was disciplined for failing to take
action on behalf of his client and failing to communicate with the client. The
three-judge panel also chided him for demonstrating a “cavalier attitude”
toward the court’s orders during the disciplinary process. The case is sealed
except for the reprimand. Few other details are known.
it is also clear that these failings were not a matter of mere oversight or poor
law practice housekeeping,” Judges Judith Rogers, Patricia Millett and Robert
in the reprimand. “In addition, [McCants] has offered inconsistent
explanations for his conduct, suggesting a distinct lack of candor. This lack of
candor, among other factors, counsels against diversion and in favor of
a phone interview on Wednesday, McCants said he didn’t file pleadings because
he refused to represent the client, who had been difficult to work with. The
client, whom McCants declined to name, citing the confidentiality of the
disciplinary proceedings, “was looking for an ineffective [assistance of
counsel] claim from the start,” he said.
was just unfortunate," McCants said. “I’m prepared to move past
a suspension or disbarment, the reprimand doesn’t affect McCants’ ability to
practice in the court. He has no history of discipline in the D.C. Bar, which
he’s been a member of since 2005.
Office of Bar Counsel investigates hundreds of complaints each year against
members of the D.C. Bar, but they're much less common in the federal courts.
who practice in the federal trial and appeals courts typically belong to the
bars of those courts, separate from membership in the D.C. Bar. The federal
courts each have their own disciplinary system. The D.C. Circuit on average
handles about 20 discipline cases each year, according to court records.
disciplinary matters in the D.C Circuit involve lawyers who were already
disciplined elsewhere or lawyers convicted of a crime. Cases that arise from
allegations of misconduct before the D.C. Circuit, known as original discipline,
are in the minority, said Barry Cohen, chairman of the D.C. Circuit’s Advisory
Committee on Admissions and Grievances. The committee investigates disciplinary
cases and makes recommendations to the court, which ultimately decides whether
to sanction a lawyer.
a member of the committee since 2008, said he could only recall a handful of
original-discipline cases. He declined to comment on the McCants matter.
is the court of appeals, it’s not like a trial court. What happens in courts
of appeals? People file papers, they have oral arguments—there’s not a lot
of ways that bad things can happen there,” Cohen said.
Burger, who leads the professional-responsibility practice at Jackson &
Campbell in Washington, said that the smaller pool of high-caliber lawyers who
typically practice in the D.C. Circuit was one reason it was unusual to see the
court take disciplinary action against a lawyer.
court can refer disciplinary matters to the Office of Bar Counsel to investigate
rather than pursue them internally. The Office of Bar Counsel does not track how
many referrals it receives from the D.C. Circuit, Bar Counsel Wallace “Gene”
Shipp Jr. said.
have relationships with all of the courts to make referrals to us,” Shipp said
in an email. “Sometimes we work together on cases or they refer the matter us
to conduct the investigation.”
the D.C. Circuit does take up a case, it could be that the judges want to send a
message to the lawyers who practice in that court, Burger said.
may want to put down a marker for their expectations of the lawyers that appear
in the circuit,” Burger said. “This is a way for them to set that marker and
not necessarily be beholden to the priorities or the timing or the perspective
of bar counsel.”
Posted by editor on Tuesday, August 04 @ 07:52:19 MST (4041 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)
Are Ivy League Law Schools Anti-Christian
New Page 1
Leagues do not practice diversity and equal opportunity
you are White / Christian / and don't believe the world doesn't owe you a living
you oppose affirmative action and believe in equal opportunity
marriage can only occur between an man and a woman
League Schools don't want you
these standards Ivy League Schools should be awarding honorary degrees to all
member of the Libertarian Party
ideology contrary to the Ivy League's religious roots
Says Ivy League Stiffs Conservative Justices
the nation’s Ivy League schools giving short shrift to conservative U.S.
Supreme Court justices when they confer honorary degrees? A survey by one law
professor suggests the answer is yes, and that the reason is ideology.
the 14 honorary degrees bestowed by Ivy League institutions to living justices,
12 went to those on the high court’s left side, said conservative legal
scholar John McGinnis of Northwestern University School of Law. The two
exceptions, from Brown and Yale, went to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a
moderate conservative, he said.
degrees are the highest symbol of recognition that universities can bestow,”
in a recent poston the
Online Library of Law and Liberty. “And the Ivy League retains the greatest
reputation for excellence in American higher education. Thus, it is of more than
a little interest that these institutions find excellence overwhelmingly in
justices on the left of the judiciary.”
in an interview, said he is “generally interested in the question of the
influence of elites on the structure of law, and, of course, the Ivy League is
that.” That general interest became particular, he added, when he read that
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was to receive another honorary degree. He decided
to examine which justices were receiving Ivy League universities’ honorary
perhaps the court’s most liberal justice, is the record holder with honorary
degrees from every Ivy League university except Cornell, which doesn’t award
them, he said.
Sonia Sotomayor has one each from Princeton and Yale—her alma maters. Justice
Samuel Alito Jr., who graduated from both of those schools, has yet to be
Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David Souter—also viewed as left of
center—have one each from the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton and
how about the court’s main conservatives: Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.
(Harvard College and Harvard Law graduate), and justices Antonin Scalia (Harvard
Law), Anthony Kennedy (Harvard Law) and Clarence Thomas (Yale Law)? No Ivy
League honorary degrees.
makes this performance even more obviously ideologically driven is that these
academic institutions have neglected the one who has had the most academic
influence—Antonin Scalia,” McGinnis wrote. “Regardless of whether one
agrees with him, his textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in
constitutional interpretation have been driving the academic debate. And Chief
Justice John Roberts is widely regarded as a very able chief—the first among
equals—as well as perhaps the best oral advocate of his generation.”
the Ivy League schools tried to bestow honorary degrees on the court’s living
conservative justices but ran into practical problems—schedule conflicts,
etc.—or even a dislike of honorary degrees?
possible, of course,” McGinnis said. “Still, it’s interesting that the
only people with schedule conflicts or problems are the justices on one side of
the court. That’s not a very powerful reason.”
degrees, it is believed, began with European institutions in the late Middle
Ages. In America, George Washington received one of the first—in 1776 from
Harvard, the nation’s oldest university. Today, most universities that confer
honorary degrees do so upon recommendations by committees comprising faculty,
administrators, trustees or others.
his book, “Versions of Academic Freedom: From Professionalism to
Revolution,” literary theorist and legal scholar Stanley Fish rejected the
notion that an honorary degree award is a strong statement of a university’s
own values. He wrote: “By conferring an honorary degree, a university
recognizes the significance—in the sense of magnitude—of the recipient’s
labors; it does not endorse them.”
colleague, Andrew Koppelman, represents the law school on Northwestern
University’s honorary degree committee, and he rejects Fish’s view of those
is obviously wrong about the significance of honorary degrees,” he said.
“Suppose that a university gave an honorary degree—while he was still
alive—to Osama bin Laden, in recognition of the fact that he managed to have
political effects of enormous magnitude. Would Fish support that?
even if you applied Fish’s standard, it would be odd that Sotomayor and not
Scalia gets honorary degrees,” Koppelman said. “Thus far, Scalia’s work on
the court has been far more significant.”
for McGinnis’ survey, Koppelman, who is to the left of McGinnis, said, “I
agree with John on this one. His evidence of political bias is pretty
Law School does not give out honorary degrees—the university does the
bestowing. Yale’s website lists its criteria for the awards: "Since the
commencement of 1702, the Yale Corp. has awarded honorary degrees to recognize
outstanding achievement. Currently, the honorary degrees awarded annually at the
university’s commencement are the highest honors conferred by Yale. From
Martin Luther King Jr. to Frank Lloyd Wright and Cole Porter, those who have
received honorary degrees represent collectively the aspirations of this
the political realm, honorary degree recipients have included Hillary Clinton
and presidents George W. Bush and Gerald Ford, according to the university.
to whether ideology is a factor, a university representative said, “We
wouldn’t have information for you on the work of the honorary degree committee
regarding the candidates they may consider. We only announce the names of degree
Princeton spokesman declined to discuss details about any individual considered
for an honorary degree, but said they are awarded only if 80 percent of a
committee comprising trustees, faculty and students approves. The full board of
trustees makes the final decision.
plays no role in making decisions about honorary degrees. Please note that we
awarded our honorary degree to Justice Sotomayor in 2001, long before she was
named to the Supreme Court,” the spokesman said.
what universities have awarded honorary degrees to the high court’s
conservative justices? Here is a sample:
College of the Holy Cross.
William & Mary, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Catholic University of
America Columbus School of Law, Marymount University, University of Notre Dame.
New York University, University of the Pacific.
College of the Holy Cross, The John Marshall Law School.
Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law; St. Mary’s College in
Notre Dame, Indiana, Seton Hall University School of Law.
believes the different treatment of justices on the right and left “offers
some indirect evidence” that professors on the right also suffer
discrimination at elite law schools.
all, the faculty and the administration of the law schools likely have some
influence on who gets honorary degrees,” he wrote. “And no doubt there is
likely to be a similar message in many classrooms about which justices are
worthy of emulation.”
Posted by editor on Thursday, February 06 @ 09:15:17 MST (8832 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)
Politics on the Bench — a Judge's View of Partisanship at Play
on the Bench — a Judge's View of Partisanship at Play
more state courts across the United States render difficult decisions about
same-sex marriage, the political firestorm that engulfed the Iowa Supreme
Court three years ago over its marriage ruling is receding in public memory.
Iowa episode has currency today, however, especially given soaring
special-interest spending in judicial elections that threatens to turn judges
into politicians-in-robes. My experience at the center of the Iowa storm,
meanwhile, has only strengthened my own belief in the importance of keeping
politics out of the courtroom.
2010, Iowa voters removed two colleagues and me from the court in a retention
(yes-or-no) election. Well-funded out-of-state groups and other critics fueled
the ouster drive, decrying a unanimous 2009 court ruling. That decision held
an Iowa statute denying civil marriage — and the benefits flowing from that
status — to same-sex couples violated their right to equal protection under
the Iowa Constitution. Following the ruling, the members of the court were
attacked as activist judges and members of a ruling class.
debate about the merits of court decisions is a healthy aspect of a democratic
society, yet the unprecedented Iowa ouster campaign delivered a message of
intimidation and retaliation. That message is utterly inconsistent with the
concept of a judiciary charged with the responsibility to uphold the
constitutional rights of all citizens, not just the constitutional rights of
this effort to politicize impartial courts is not receding. A report just
released by two nonpartisan groups, Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center
for Justice at New York University, finds that in the 2011-2012 judicial
election cycle nationwide, TV advertising rose to a record $33.7 million, and
special-interest groups and political parties spent a record $24.7 million
toward this advertising and other election materials.
OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
a result, a crisis of public confidence in the courts is brewing. Eighty-seven
percent of voters believe judicial campaign spending and independent
expenditures influence courtroom outcomes, according to a poll by the report's
these disturbing facts do not reflect is how politicization influences the way
our courts make decisions. On this issue, I'd like to give an inside view.
of last resort approach decision-making in two strikingly different ways, I've
concluded from my experience and from talking to judges in other states. This
difference separates impartial courts that deliberate collectively, and
politicized courts that approach decisions along philosophical or ideological
judges holding diverse perspectives pursue a collegial approach to
decision-making, we effectively hold each other accountable to the rule of
law. A collective wisdom is brought to bear when judges listen to, and find
value in, their colleagues' different perspectives.
collective approach delivers far better decision-making than that of courts
politicized through judicial elections. Politicized courts become
mini-legislatures composed of judges with preordained views who believe their
opinions must be represented. When judges are chosen because they represent a
philosophy or ideology, a collegial effort is no longer possible. Whoever has
a majority carries the day. In this setting, how can the rule of law be
applied impartially if the law shifts back and forth, depending upon the
presence of a Democratic or a Republican majority? And how, then, shall the
public keep its confidence in the integrity of courts?
I still believe the best judicial decisions are made when judges are insulated
from politics. And despite my experience in 2010, I continue to believe that
judicial merit selection systems like Iowa's, incorporating a nonpartisan
screening commission and gubernatorial appointment, offer the best defense
against politicized courts.
Posted by editor on Thursday, January 23 @ 04:21:19 MST (4272 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)
'West Memphis Three' member warns against a politicized justice system
'West Memphis Three' member warns against a politicized justice system
It's been 16 months since Damien Echols walked out of the prison where he
spent 18 years for his purported role in the murder of three 8-year-old boys in
West Memphis, Ark. Echols and his two co-defendants—Jason Baldwin and Jessie
Misskelley—became known as the "West Memphis Three," and they had
fought in the courts for nearly two decades to clear their names.
The three were teenagers in 1993 when the killings occurred, and Echols
found himself cast by authorities as the ringleader; police and prosecutors
argued, based on little more the suspects' taste for heavy metal music, their
perceived role as outsiders in the community and a questionable confession by
Misskelley, that they killed the boys during a satanic ritual. Echols was
sentenced to death and Baldwin and Misskelley to life in prison.
Click here to read more on Law.com
For full article
Posted by david on Sunday, December 16 @ 02:00:00 MST (3233 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)
Cake Walk is over for judicial appointments?
Moving on Stalled Judicial Nominees
freeze on federal judicial nominations appears to be thawing for the first
time since the presidential election, at least when it comes to district
Senate confirmed two more district court judges Thursday, both
unanimously, to add to two previous confirmations earlier this week. Mark
Walker was confirmed 94-0 to become a U.S. district judge for the Northern
District of Florida, and Terrence Berg was confirmed by voice vote for a
district judge slot in the Eastern District of Michigan.
nominees had waited five months for confirmation votes, in part because of
the election. Walker has been a Florida circuit judge in Tallahassee since
2009, while Berg has been an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern
District of Michigan since 1989, with the exception of several
assignments, including a detail at Department of Justice's professional
misconduct review unit.
votes come on the heels of Monday's 92-1 vote for Paul Grimm to become a
U.S. district judge in the District of Maryland on Monday, and Tuesday's
72-23 vote to confirm Michael Shea for a district judge slot in the
District of Connecticut. Shea has been a partner at Day Pitney in
Connecticut since 2003.
bigger question among nomination watchers now is when will the Senate
consider nominees to appellate courts, and if it will be during the lame
duck session. "I am cautiously optimistic that more nominees will
soon be considered on the floor," said Carl Tobias, a University of
Richmond School of Law professor.
Sugameli, who follows judicial nominations for Judging the Environment and
Defenders of Wildlife, said there is still plenty of time for votes on all
remaining district and circuit court nominees. "It is hard to believe
that Senator [Mitch] McConnell can continue to ignore pleas for votes by
both home-state Republican senators from Oklahoma and both from Maine, as
well as from Senators Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.),”
Sugameli said in an email.
Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved four
district court nominees, making them ready for confirmation votes before
the full Senate. Those nominees are Katherine Failla for the Southern
District of New York; Troy Nunley for the Eastern District of California;
Sheri Chappell for the Middle District of Florida; and Pamela Chen for the
Eastern District of New York.
Posted by david on Sunday, December 09 @ 18:40:04 MST (3390 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)
State election board votes for AG investigation into voter registration dumping
New Page 1
of the Attorney General
T. Cuccinelli, II
East Main Street
Brian Gottstein, Director of Communication
election board votes for AG investigation into
voter registration dumping
(October 24, 2012) -- Statement from Attorney
General Ken Cuccinelli:
State Board of Elections held a special
meeting today and requested that my office
look into the allegations of voter
registration dumping in Rockingham County.
This office will perform a thorough
investigation of these very serious
allegations. Violations of election laws will
not be tolerated in the commonwealth. Citizens
must feel confident that one of our most
precious rights-the right to vote-is protected
and that the electoral process is a secure and
democratic one. We will do everything we can
to ensure that.
performing our duties in this matter, we look
forward to working with local authorities and
the state police to root out any and all
violations of law that may have
current Virginia law, the attorney general's
office could not open an investigation until
today's unanimous request from the State Board
of Elections, or a request from a local
commonwealth's attorney or a local electoral
board was made.
attorney general is the only official in the
commonwealth who has statewide prosecutorial
authority. For this reason, Attorney General
Cuccinelli supports legislation that would
give the office concurrent authority with
local commonwealth's attorneys to investigate
and prosecute election law violations without
awaiting a formal request from any other
entity. This would allow the Office of the
Attorney General to work across all
jurisdictions with law enforcement and local
prosecutors to investigate and punish
of the Attorney General of Virginia |
900 East Main St | Richmond
| VA | 23219
Posted by DAVID on Thursday, October 25 @ 05:31:51 MST (14690 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)
State Police, others investigating reports of criminal actions by officials in t
Police, others investigating reports of criminal actions by officials in town of
(January 19, 2008)- -
Officials of this tiny Eastern Shore town are under investigation by more than
one agency for government corruption, relating to destruction of documents,
abuse of authority, and other unspecified potentialcrimes,
sources tell the Virginia News Source.
to sources close to the investigation, State Police investigators on Tuesday
went to the privateworkplace
of town clerk Angela Taylor demanding town council records.
source said she told them she was keeping them in her home and accompanied
police there to retrieve them. One key tape recording is missing.
Michelle Cotton, a spokesperson for the State Police said, "We can't
comment on ongoing investigations."
investigations were launched after Hallwood Town Councilman James Dean reported
to the Virginia Beach-based Unalienable Rights Foundation (UARF) numerous
government irregularities, including that he was unable to get copies of minutes
or tapes of town council meetings.
launched an investigation and filed several unsuccessful Freedom of Information
Act requests for documents. UARF President David Lindsey said the town's clerk,
mayor and others stonewalled attempts to get documents.
was then thatcriminalinvestigators
said that after being elected to council, a citizen by the name of John Smith, a
Baltimore resident, who has a second hand salesbusinessin
Hallwood, was told that the town had changed the zoning laws and his business
was no longer legal.
one council meeting a member of the council said it was their intent to 'run
Smith out of town,' Dean said. The tape on which that statement was recorded
appears to be the only one missing from Ms. Taylor's possession, Dean said.
started looking into the case because I believed Smith had been done wrong and
public officials were harassing him," Dean said.
said, "My understanding is that the town council changed the zoning and
they are now telling Smith because of the new zoning, his ongoing business can't
continue there and they have denied him a renewal of hisbusiness
pointed out that in an April 20, 2007 case of Alexandria City Council v Mirant
Potomac River LLC, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled "that once a business
is operating and legal, even if the law is changed, the business can continue to
operate as before. In other words the business has a vested right under Sec.
15.2-2307 of the Virginia Code."
told Dean that council member and Hallwood Vice Mayor Alma Poulson was upset
with him because he had outbid her son for the property on which he had his
business and that was why the town was trying to force him out of business.
said the police chief was used to cite Smith for zoning violations and he was
prosecuted by Eastern Shore State Del. Lynwood Lewis, who wrote UARF in July,
" "This is to advise that I am responding on behalf of the Town of
Hallwood as the Town'sattorney..."
documents UARF found that "The Code of Virginia section 15.2-1542.d says:
town attorneys can prosecute criminal misdemeanor cases with the concurrence of
the commonwealth's attorney and authorization of the town.." UARF found no
documentation of that authority being given Lewis."
County Commonwealth's Attorney Gary R. Agar, tried to be cute in responding to
Lindsey by putting parenthesises around (UN) in Unalienable Rights Foundation as
though it was spelled incorrectly, and said he hadn't authorized Lewis to
prosecute for the county of town.
irritated by stupidity of legal professionals, sent him a copy of the
Declaration of Independence where the word is written 'Unalienable' and
suggested Agar get his own copy out and read it.
said that all of the criminal cases prosecuted by Lewis for the town are illegal
and all convictions, obtained by Lewis, therefore are subject to being
V. Chisum, clerk of the Accomack County General District Court, in a letter to
Lindsey said, "As a practical matter, it is extremely rare for a county of
town attorney to prosecute a criminal or traffic case in this court. We cannot
recall any such cases in the year 2007."
said, "We know that's a lie. Lewis prosecuted 4 cases against John
this finding by UARF, Lewis revised his previous statement of being the town's
attorney, writing, "While I from time to time represent the Town of Hallood
in legal matters as requested by them, I am not on permanent retainer as the
town atrtorney. I have a separate office and a completely independent practice
of which they (the town) are but one of many."
had requested a $5 FOIA fee from Lindsey, but when Lindsey sent it to him and
after deciding he wasn't the town's attorney really, Lewis returned Lindsey's $5
bill saying, "I do not collect bills outstanding for any of my
said he had to file FOIA requests to get copies of town meeting records and was
unable to get the tape about running Smith out of town. "Taylor
acknowledged making the tape, but said she subsequently destroyed it," he
approached by the state police this week, Taylor said she wasn't aware that all
records of cities, counties, and towns are governed by the state's public
records law - which not only requires they be maintained by such governments,
but copies must be filed with the Virginia State Librarian in Richmond for
heard she turned white as a sheet when the police showed her that law,"
Dean said, "saying she really didn't know she had to do that."
said the investigations are far from over and there could be criminal
Posted by DAVID on Wednesday, October 17 @ 19:39:04 MST (3550 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 1)
Economic Theory, Civic Virtue, and the Meaning of the Constitution
National Student Symposium
National Office will provide travel reimbursement to
registered members of the Federalist Society's
national organization. Information on becoming a
member is available by clickinghere.
travel reimburment will cover 50% of air, bus,
train, gas, and rental car travel expenses. If
students choose to drive and carpool with at least
two other students, the national organization will
cover as close to 100% of travel expenses as their
budget permits. Solo drivers will be
reimbursed 50% of their gas expenses. Please
note, this travel reimbursement is applicable for
travel only, and not for hotel accomodations.
For more information, clickhere.
The Federalist Society
1015 18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
JOIN US AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA THIS