Minnesota Legislators to discipline judges.
Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.
posted by Bob at Friday, February 27, 2009
Custom Search
Friday, February 27, 2009
A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL HOME
Do you have a topic you want to discuss at the Town Hall? Email your request to A_Democracy@yahoo.com
“A DEMOCRACY” Disclaimer- While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to this forum express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned
THE ROOF GUYS
Mickey's Diner 1950 7th Street West, St Paul, MN
(651) 698-8387
AX-MAN SURPLUS
1639 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Tel:(651)646-8653
LANDLORD.COM LINK HERE
SHHHH! While we listen to words of wisdom from a wise man.
Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our psychological heart. It is as real as life is. It raises the voice in protest whenever anything is thought of or done contrary to the righteousness. Conscience is a form of truth that has been transferred through our genetic stock in the form of the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong. A virtuous and courageous person can alone use the instrument of conscience. He or she can alone hear the inner voice of the soul clearly. In a wicked person this faculty is absent. The sensitive nature of his / her conscience has been destroyed by sin or corruption. Hence he or she is unable to discriminate right from wrong. Those who are leading organizations, business enterprises, institutions and governments should develop this virtue of the ability to use their own conscience. This wisdom of using the clean conscience will enable them to enjoy the freedom.
Dr APJ Kalam, President of India given during the inauguration of the seminar on “THE EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION ON GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Previous Posts
- The Gun Markets of Pakistan
- Seven RNC lawsuits filed against police
- U.S. Constitution 4th Amendment is Dead in America
- National ID Card Regulations Issued -- UPDATED
- Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
- FOLLOW UP letter to Legal aide.. Do landlords and ...
- Do landlords and tenants share equal rights?
- Fair Housing Lawsuits Against The City Of Saint Pa...
- RE: Steinhauser lawsuit depleting city attorneys ...
- St. Paul exempts itself from new housing ordinance...
53 Comments:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saint Paul Minnesota
February 27, 2009
Minnesota Legislators to Discipline Judges
In response to dozens of petitions by the citizens of the state of Minnesota, an Ad Hoc committee has been scheduled to hear the evidence of the corruption within the Minnesota Judicial Branch.
Spearheaded by minority whip Rep. Dan Severson, the bipartisan joint committee will convene on March 13th, 2009 at the State Office Building at 9:00AM in room 300N.
The ad hoc committee was formed because the chairs of the senate and house committees that oversee matters of the judiciary have refused to hear the citizen petitions concerning corruption in the Minnesota Judicial Branch.
The evidence to be presented to the ad hoc committee is massive and includes transcripts being altered, bribery, extortion, denial of access to the Grand Jury and numerous state and felonies by certain district and appellate court judges. Bills of impeachment against many judges will be brought.
Never before in the history of the state of Minnesota, and perhaps the nation, have the legislative committees charged with overseeing the matters in the judiciary refused to listen to the evidence of crimes being committed by judges.
Article Six Section Nine of the Minnesota Constitution clearly directs it is the intent of the people for the Legislature to discipline the Judicial Branch. The courageous legislators that have agreed to participate in the Ad Hoc committee number over a dozen and more are joining as citizens from across the state meet with their legislators and encourage participation.
Additionally, a press conference will be held the week of March 9th, 2009 to discuss the introduction of judicial reform bills and the agenda for the Ad Hoc committee.
Contact:
Rep. Dan Severson at 651-296-7808
Nancy Lazaryan at nancylazaryan@yahoo.com
Have to Google NancyLazaryan to keep up. Nancy Thanks a now Billion. You Go Girl we're your backup.........
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=wzOoSe7LLIzanQeY1oDcDw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Nancy+Lazaryan+Rep.Dan+Severson+mn&spell=1
Well Chuck and Eric, looks like judicial corruption does exists.
What does Ad Hoc stand for.
Sounds like a meal I ate at a German Restraunt one evening.
Can we go to this committe?
LMAO - good one 1:38
Ad Hoc - 1. Formed for or concerned with one specific purpose. 2. Improvised and often impromptu.
So in this case it means the Representative Steverson wasn't able to get (the civil justice committee) a real committee of the legislature to hear these concerns so he has "improvised" an Ad Hoc committee.
It will be interesting to see what leadership think of him "improvising" his own committee. Leadership in both parties tends to not like "improvising."
Nancy is Rep. Severson on Civil Justice?
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Nancy, it sounds like your getting a pacifier.
I doubt this fake committe will amount to anything other than a handful of people sitting around eating donuts and drinking coffee.
Repke LegallyAd Hoc Committee's are formed to investigate "Scandals" etc Its an Honor that any Legislators or Official is willing to expose Corrupt Judges or any Public Official
http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/adhoc.htm.
"So in this case it means the Representative Steverson wasn't able to get (the civil justice committee) a real committee of the legislature to hear these concerns so he has "improvised" an Ad Hoc committee."
This sounds like the committtee is corrupt too. If they were not, wouldn't they be interested?
Thanks for pointing this out Chuck.
Nancy has been gone so long that some have forgotten how to read her stuff- with extreme caution.
This release she sent out may be enough for Representative Severson to pull out as it is full of insinuations that do NOT reflect the spirit or purpose of the meeting.
Bob, why don't you post Representative Dan Severson's letter too? It will show how Nancy is still a nut.
First:
The title is misleading.
It indicates that there has been some findings. The ad hoc committee is set up to LISTEN to what Nancy and her friends have to say.
Severson spells that out clearly in his letter stating that he calls this ad hoc committee to "hear allegations and evidences of misconduct within the judicial branch."
Second:
The Legislature has no method or protocol for disciplining judges. They created the MN Bd on Judicial Standards to handle complaints and dole out discipline. That board does report to the legislature. Representative Severson also spells this out in his letter.
Third:
In Representative's letter he has only set aside 2 to 3 hours for hearings and discussion. I've seen judges impeached, it takes months.
Chuck, he is not on judiciary. However, this seems to be a hearing to please a group knowing that there is no action that will come out of it. ANYTHING that comes out of it will be sent to the legislature anyway. Again, Severson points this out in his letter.
1:38 - Yes. You can go to the meeting, its your money paying for it.
3:55 (Jeff M.),
The Judiciary Committee didn't hear this because they know they don't have the authority and with the real business facing the state, placating to the whims of the fringe is not a prudent use of time.
Nancy and her group will present her case and some half-assed judicial reform legislation and the legislature will never get around to hearing it.
Eric
Here come da judge!
Sock it to em! Sock it to em!
There maybe copy errors.
Dan Severson
State Representative
District 14A
Minnesota House of Representives
Benton and Stearns Counties
COMMITTEES: HOUSING POLICY AND FINANCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH FINANCE DIVISION
FINANCE HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORK FORCE DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND FINANCE DIVISION
TRANSPORTATION FINANCE DIVISION
VETERANS AFFAIRS DIVISION
JUDICIAL REFORM AD HOC COMMITTEE CALLED
February 2009
Dear Fellow Legislators,
A number of citizens from across the state have approached me with allegations of misconduct within the Minnesota Judicial Branch.
The level of these allegations rises to the seriousness of state and federal felonies.
Pursuant to our oaths of offices, we as legislators have sworn to uphold and defend the Minnesota and
Federal constitutions. Article Six Section Nine of the Minnesota Constitution sets forth that it is the will of the people that the Legislature disciplines the Judicial Branch for misconduct.
Currently, the Legislature has neither implemented nor does it control a method to discipline the Judicial Branch for misconduct. The Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards does not report to the Legislature and most complaints that are forwarded are handled internally, leaving the public unaware of any correctional action taken. The result is that it does not comply with the intent of the Constitution to have
the Legislature discipline the Judicial Branch.
It is our duty under the Constitution as duly elected representatives to form a system of checks and
balances that addresses the evidence of misconduct within the Judicial Branch and acts to correct
demonstrated misconduct.
Accordingly, I am calling an ad hoc bipartisan joint committee to hear allegations and evidences of
misconduct within the Judicial Branch. Additionally, we will consider suggestions and solutions brought
forward to oversee the integrity of the Judicial Branch.
I anticipate a 2-3 hour meeting, on a Friday in late February or early March. At the conclusion of the
meeting we will hear the proposed legislation from those present and prepare a report for the entire
•
Legislature.
1025 Water Ave., Sauk Rapids, Minnesota 56379
State Office Building, 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, Sl. Paul. Minnesota 55155-1298
FAX: (651) 296-3918 Email: rep.dan.severson@house.mn
(320) 230-2353
(651) 296-7808
(800) 920-9984
Nancy has more backbone then Chuck and Eric combined.
We all tried to get our cases heard, but Nancy doesn't take NO for a answer like most people would.
Nancy is one of the blessings that will make the government sorry that they messed with her.
Amen!
6:03
Chuck and I are not the bar to reach for proof of backbone. Wait, I take that back, we do come on a site and correct all of the factually challenged junk you folks throw up here. Two against the whole site.
Speaking of factually challenged, its not backbone Nancy posses, its deception.
She deceives herself with a twisted version of applied law, and then attempts to deceive others with it.
I pointed it out in my previous post and now Bob has posted the letter which Dan Severson explains what he's doing. Compare that with the first poorly written release at the top by Nancy talking about the same meeting.
From the title "Minnesota Legislature to Discipline Judges" to the power of the committee, its a farce.
There is one place this can pick up steam, right here.
We'll see if this meeting even happens. Once Nancy's release is circulated, we'll see what wants to be a part of this.
And Chuck is right, it doesn't make sense to form an ad hoc committee if you are not supported by leadership. If, I repeat, if that committee meets, nothing will come of it. It still has to go through leadership.
A good lobbyist would have made sure there was support before doing this. A publicity hound would misrepresent everything to the point of killing any potential life for this.
Eric
"From the title "Minnesota Legislature to Discipline Judges" to the power of the committee, its a farce"
I'd say it's a start Eric!
Great Going Bob, Nancy is the Great Communicator, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Nancy+Lazaryan+Rep..Dan+Severson+MN&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
I have to agree with Eric about Nancy. In my humble opinion, Nancy has a strange fetish for attention.
Alex Wendt
"East Side Pride"
You guys are a sexiest group, toooo lazy to get off the couch and do something for our country, at least Nancy Lazaryan has gone public with corruption
Are you even aware of the time it takes to make a video,upload,etc.
Nancy hasn't gone public with anything except her penchant for creating and sustaining victimization and attention.
She's a self serving phoney and exaggerator. A has a group of fools as followers.
If I would have had any evidence of judicial wrongdoing, I would have gone to the Minnesota Board on Judicial Review. Its an independent agency that has actually removed judges.
Their whole purpose is to act upon complaints about Minnesota judges for judicial misconduct or wrongdoing. They have forced retirements and disciplined in private as well.
Now, if I didn't really care about the wrong doing and just wanted to push my agenda, then I would do what Nancy is doing.
This is not the legislature hearing this. She went to an ad hoc committee because the legislative committee wouldn't hear it. Probably because she didn't exhaust the process.
It should give you corruption conspiracists a lot to get worked up over.
Eric
Thats an easy one. Eric, you haven't been before any judges to know what judicial corruption is.
Also, it's called the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards, not review. ( a minor clarification ).
What does your "agenda" have to do with judicial corruption anyways ?
Your agenda is helping yourself and your political party.
Seems contradictory that you would admit that this " Board of Judicial Standards " exists for the purpose of disiplining Judges for corruption and misconduct, but then you call Nancy a phoney for being a citizen complaining about a Judge ?
Just who, if not Nancy, should complain about Judicial corruption and misconduct ?
Nancy has actually spent enough time in the courts to know better than you Eric, and she is working on behalf of all of us.
You don't want to accept that, but then again, you envey Nancy because she can get things done where you cannot.
So if Nancy can do something to get even one judge disiplined, she has helped all of us.
We all know what side of the line your on Eric.
Your side.
Jeff Matiatos
Eric, do you know who the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was ?
Thats right, he stood up for all.
You stand up for yourself.
Admit it, Nancy could school you in the law and you know it.
You wouldn't even know where to begin.
Listen, I know you all can't stand me. It wouldn't be worth it if you it was any different but, I've laid out a pretty good case and all I get is personal attacks.
Jeff, long before you gave up looking for work, Nancy was on here and it became apparent that her agenda was to prop herself up.
What is her point here?
IF its to point out corruption, then why not go through the board that was set up for that and HAS removed judges and forced other to retire when the corruption evidence wasn't as clear?
If her point is steer the power of reviewing and removing judges back to the legislator, then why not work with the committee that would handle that? Even without talking about corruption, she, or someone could be persuasive to argue the pure intent of the state statute for the legislature to have this check on the judiciary.
I'll tell why she didn't go either way, because it would fade her out. She needs a soapbox. Any lobbyist that seeks the glory or the headlines is going to be piss-poor in their pursuit of legislation.
They way this is set up, a three-hour ad-hoc committee with allegations that haven't been investigated by the proper agency will lead to nothing but a possible press conference and zero action.
I've been on to Nancy for two years now and nothing has changed.
Me? last I checked, my party runs the legislature and having the power to remove judges appointed by governors over the last 20 years would benefit the DFL since we haven't had a governor make any appointments since 1990.
I'm still against it. The pendulum swings both ways and until we prove that the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards is not doing its job, I'm against this. That has removed judges and disciplined others.
Eric
Prop herself up Eric ?
Some would say, even Bob, that you have been proping yourself up by rubbing asses with the Coleman administration.
But good luck to you anyways !
The Minnesota Board of Judicial standards consists of one court of appeals judge,two lawyers with ten years of Minnesota experience,two
district court judges, four citizens who are neither lawyers or judges ( probably four citizens most likely biased ).
With the majority being Lawyers and Judges, seems like a stacked deck to me.
Ultimatley, the Supreme Court, NOT THE LEGISLATURE, is the faction of Government that hands down punishment.
More Judges taking care of Judges.
The Supreme Court should not be deciding punishment.
Judges should be impeached by the legislature like the governor could be.
I don't think you really understand, until now, why it is so important that the legislature do its job.
It may not be an issue of whether the board is not doing its job, but whether they should be doing it at all.
I enjoy sparring with you. You don't bother me in the least.
Jeff Matiatos
We all have our own opinions about Chuck and Eric.
I like how they are constantly kissing up about the fraud pulled off by some of the people that run as Democrats.
2002 when I ask Eric why the DFL was letting crooks run for office?
He said back, "His job was just to get them elected" if their cooks or not.
Then he went on to say, do you know how much money flows throw the two party system.
I have to admit I didn't.
Now we all know with this last election that money talks, and we the people out here don't have enough money to be heard.
The best thing ever printed about me was in 2002 when I had my foot in the door for governor.
"Mr.Dahn has his foot up every bodies hemorrhoids"!
I always wondered why I was always cleaning my shoes.
These judges stink more then the government, they are lawyers first and they know the law inside out and they bend it in the direction that helps the friends best.
I like Eric and Chuck Repke being the Democratic mouth on the blog, remember they were two that kissed up to the DFL St.Paul Mayor Norm Coleman.
NOW They are "kissing up" to DFL St.Paul Mayor Chris Coleman, and Al Franken. I'm sure you two men are nice people when they are not practicing being Democrats.
My thanks to Jeff Matiatos, now just throw a few nock-out punches to good ol boys.
Bill Dahn
Bill, you mus be sniffing your own insulation again.
1. When you got mad at me after YOU burned every bridge I tried to help you with, you tried to tell me my job, and I informed you what my job was. Elections. If you wold have brought that 'crooked' shit up, I would have thrown you out on your fucking head.
At that time, you were only concerned with getting Ventura, the sitting governor, back.
2. I don't know Norm Coleman. I wasn't living here when he was mayor. When he was a DFLer, I was a yonng gun still in rural Minnesota for the most part. I cant remember when he switched but, it was before my time.
3. Chris Coleman wouldn't say I was kissing his ass. I didn't support him for Congress (I didn't know him). I was a delegate for his opponent when he ran for mayor the first time.
I watched him worked hard and earn the endorsement and election. He's governed well-enough to earn national recognition for his innovation. He has put a lot of efforts in on the East Side. I respect him and will be doing what I can to see he's endorsed and elected.
You on the other are borderline. You repeat the same shit over and over and can't understand basic discussion. If there is such a thing, you are a waste of human space.
Like Nancy, its not a real solution you seek, but fame for being a victim of a big bad government.
The DFL tried to help you. You pissed it off. However, DFL programs keep you going day to day. Why don't you call the Republicans at 651-222-0022 and see what they'll do for you. Or, better yet, go on down to their headquarters, like you did the DFL and see which one will put everything down to help you. Here's the address:
525 Park Street, suite 250.
Report back to us.
Eric
Jeff, a lot of the Coleman administration I've known since we were all in our early 20's. Some have been friends outside of politics. So, some that would say that, including Bob, wouldn't know what they were talking about. Not a new thing for A-Democracy.
Try answering questions I laid out. I'm not interested in theories and angry people who didn't get the ruling they wanted.
If there are corrupt judges, why not go through the state agency that was set up to deal with them- AND has dealt pretty severely with them?
If, suddenly, that agency has gone bad, then go and get the legislature to react.
They board has been very good in taking every single complaint that's brought to them. The make-up of the board is not a concern as I notice a certain conservative douche bags who must have gotten appointed after we threw him out of the legislature. Regardless, that process works, well. They just got another judge 4 months ago.
Or, like dozens of us that lobby, if you want a change (legislature handling judicial discipline) have a legislator, like Severson, carry a bill to do so?
Either one of those options are the normal and effective way to get to an end.
If YOU understand the legislature, you'd know that's how its simply done.
She choose a different route, as usual, with more drama and little substance.
This set up will have the judiciary and legislature standing against it. Even though with it, the DFL majority could get rid of the worst Republican appointed judges and replace them. Like I said, since its been 20 years since we had a DFL governor, that's a lot of judges to bounce out.
Why not go through the proven method?
Why would I oppose this if I'm so political?
When you find yourself unable to answer those two questions, seriously, you won't admit it but, you'll see why this is an exercise in drama.
Eric
You can see a video "linked above" of Nancy speaking on this issue .
Bob
Eric
Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.
Give me "liberty" or
Give me "Death".
Eric, judges abuse their discretion so often it makes me wonder where they went to law school. Or did they ? Either that, or their law clerk is as uneducated as a first year law student.
But really, its not because of a judges ability to rule from the bench in most cases, but the corruption occurs as a result of personal distain for the other side, state interests, and what they believe is judicial economy.
Judicial immunity is also a judges best friend.
Were not talking about abuses of discretion here specifically, although it is an identifying factor that could be the root of the cause of the judges that need to be rooted out because they engage in "conspiracy" and corruptive behaviors, thats right, that word that doesn't exist in the judiciary as far as your concerned.
Ever wonder why there is a Minnesota Statute against collusion between attorneys ?
Well, judges are attorneys to and every now and then, a judge gets caught colluding with one side or the other.
Unfortunatly, no prosecutor is going to bring collusion charges against a judge. Its more of an internal issue that attorneys bring against each other .
The good thing about the collusion statute is that you don't need a convictionto get damages.
The collusion statute can be brought forward and prosecuted
on its face for civil damages without a criminal conviction.
When they issue orders of summary judgement disposing of the action, sometimes their memorandum and order is so one sided and contrary to law it becomes obvious.
They pull this shit on Pro-Se litigants, especially in Ramsey County.
Bottom line as far as I see it, the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards should not be in existence to an extent.
Maybe for abuse of discretion cases, but not full blown judicial corruption.
But, even the legislature may not be equipt to handle judicial corruption and misconduct because I would estimate that maybe 50% or less of the legislature are not learned in the laws of judicial canons and code of conduct. They need the help of a special prosecutor who is lets say, like the guy that prosecuted Nixon.
Was that Archibald Cox ?
Well I do realize that the make up of the Board of Judicial standards is made up of Judges so I guess who would be more qualified than that ?
Thats not the point, because the constitution says its the legislature that should disipline the judges and the constitution doesn't give the legislature the authority to pass those dutys back to the very judiciary the constitution intended the legislature to investigate and prosecute.
Jeff Matiatos
News from the East Coast concerning the Ad Hoc committee:
This is terrific news. I wish I was out there. I wish you all the luck.
You're giving me ideas, but you're light-years ahead of me. What
you're doing is exactly what needs to be done around here, specifically: CT,
Mass. and N.Y. I forwarded your Breaking News to each and every member of the CT
State Judiciary Committee. We'll see?!?
Bill Doriss
YarmouthCourt, MA
Bob Nancy just posted in PP topix
from Opinion Page Get your followe
http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_11784699
Nancy Lazaryan
Osakis, MN
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Adding |#6 8 min ago
One must read the Constitutional Debates of the state of Minnesota to fully understand the concept of a qualified impartial judiciary. The debate concerning the election of judges was extensive. Those opposed to election of judges argued appointment rs also to write
Eric, judges abuse their discretion so often it makes me wonder where they went to law school. Or did they ? Either that, or their law clerk is as uneducated as a first year law student.
OK. Let's say I believe you, how are going to prove that? That's a huge statement, one that could turn over thousands of cases. It would be one of the biggest cases of judicial misconduct history. So, you see why its hard to believe. You must be using hyperbole because you don't attempt to prove it, you just say it happens. Names, dates, cases please.
Also, Jeff, you're only setting a criminal court argument. You do know most court cases are civil right? So why all of the talk about judges and prosecutors?
Also, you haven't explained why the current agency and process is not working. You've been to the same site I have and see the list of judges that have been spanked.
Bill Doriss,
I don't know what powers the ad hoc committee has in your legislature but here in Minnesota- it has none. Anything that is found in the committee MUST be reported to legislature for any official action. If she was turned down by the legislature already, then you can bet nothing will come of this until she uses the proper channels. Even the Governor has to go through the right channels.
Her release is full of deception from the title to the end as the legislature has no desire or method of disciplining judges. The Legislator holding this ad hoc meeting says it in his release.
I'll be clear as possible. The governor makes appointments for the most part to judicial seats, because the judges usually retire before the election year. It happens 99% of the time.
The Senate, approves the governors appointments to those seats.
Our legislature is very partisan. The ones in control now, have not had the power to appoint judges in over 20 years. Putting the power in the partisan legislature on deciding which judges should 'retire' early or not, is a bad move.
One day soon (next year), there will be a DFL governor, with a DFL legislature. Having to go to the governor's party to remove a judge he/she appointed may be an effort in frustration. Again, its bringing in more politics to a situation its not needed.
Right now, we have a Board of Judicial Standards that has disciplined and removed judges, as recently as four months ago. They are required to hear every single complaint.
Until that system is broken, I don't see a reason to move to another one.
Eric
How to sustain a qualified, impartial judiciary
Pioneer Press
Updated: 02/25/2009 06:32:16 PM CST
We have watched some impressive judges at work on an impossible task in the last few months. They have sifted through odd-looking ballots, listened to claims and counter-claims by attorneys and partisans and worked to try to find a winner of the Norm Coleman-Al Franken U.S. Senate race.
That job remains undone but it is not the fault of these diligent judges — those who served on the state Canvassing Board, those who now form a three-judge panel hearing the election contest, and those who have been called upon for rulings since the election ended in a statistical tie on Nov. 4.
We need good judges. A good judge, in our view, is knowledgeable, fair-minded, committed to the law and facts of the case, open to all arguments and respectful to all sides. Thanks to good governors and wise policies, this type of jurist dominates the benches of Minnesota courts.
So why should we consider making dramatic changes in the system?
That question will face supporters of an attempt to amend the Minnesota Constitution to ensure that the state continues to have the most qualified people serving as judges. Their bill, which gets an initial hearing today, stems from a concern that what we have now won't last.
The national trend is for judicial elections, such as Minnesota currently has, to become partisan, big-bucks, attack-ad campaigns. In Wisconsin and Michigan, races for the state Supreme Court were bitter and costly.
One attack ad in Michigan accused the sitting Supreme Court chief justice of "protecting wealthy corporations from suits by women who are sexually harassed and raped at work." The chief justice fired back with an ad that accused an opponent of once seeking a seat on the Appeals Court "so she could spend most of the winter in Florida."
"Regardless of who wins such contests, the exorbitant sums of money and misleading attacks inevitably undermine public confidence in the courts,'' the Brennan Center for Justice, which monitors judicial elections, said in a statement.
We agree. In Minnesota, judges generally reach the bench through a retirement and an appointment by the governor, who is guided in his district-court appointments by a merit selection process. The appointees then stand for election. Until recently, judicial rules in Minnesota prohibited overt campaigning and fundraising. Federal courts, responding to a suit by the Republican Party of Minnesota, threw those rules out (on good grounds, we might add). That opens up Minnesota's judicial elections to the kind of campaigning we have seen in Michigan and Wisconsin.
We cannot imagine how a judge who has just come off a bitter partisan race could be seen as qualified to sit in judgment of the Coleman-Franken recount, for example. Fairness, impartiality, merit, knowledge of the law and experience — these should be the goals of any judicial selection process.
An effort by Minnesotans for Impartial Courts, spearheaded by former Republican Gov. Al Quie and former DFL Senate Majority Leader Roger Moe, seeks to ensure that this continues to be the case. Their effort, if approved by the Legislature, would allow voters to decide whether to adopt a new system.
If they did, the judicial merit selection system would still guide the governor, who would have the authority to fill vacancies. An appointed commission would publicly evaluate sitting judges and declare them to be "well-qualified,'' "qualified" or "unqualified.'' Judges would not face opponents but would have to win "retention elections'' — up or down votes on whether the judge should stay in office. The evaluations would help guide voters.
This is a major change and it deserves to be poked and prodded for weaknesses. But the alternative is unacceptable. We love partisanship and politics in our elections — let Coleman and Franken duke it out — but that's not how we should select the judges who have to act as referees.
Response from people in the state of OHIO:
Dear Representative Severson,
I am writing to encourage you in this endeavor. I hope you set the kind of example that needs to be followed around the country. I can assure you that the problem is not unique to Minnesota.
Meanwhile, many legal reforms are needed to protect the public against legal abuse. I would like to share with you some of the most reasonable proposals with which I am familiar.
One proposal addresses the following problem
Under normal circumstances, witnessing the signature of a document like a Will is little more than a formality. But under some circumstances, such as when someone signs a Will while morphine is being dripped into their veins under a Do Not Resuscitate order, witnessing a document needs to be much more than a formality. Unfortunately, it isn’t, and that is a problem which our laws fail to realistically address.
Irene Masiello, author of Paradise Costs, states the problem this way
If a senior citizen cannot explain the need and ramifications of any document, whether it is a legal contract, a do not resuscitate order, a will, a power of attorney, a check, a bank transfer, stock sale, etc., the person that accepts the change may be an abuser or exploiter. A senior citizen who simply says, "yes," and agrees, stating they understand the document and/or the situation is NOT be considered to understand the situation or agreement unless they can explain what the paperwork, financial transaction, healthcare decision, etc., means, the reason for it, why it's needed in the way of actual effects now or the eventual outcome on their life. COACHING to obtain an answer from anyone in any form may be elder abuse.
In order to address this problem, it has been suggested that lawmakers begin by identifying the various circumstances under which existing law presumes a financial/legal document is not valid. The resulting list of circumstances would provide us a basis for identifying persons who are at greatest risk of being exploited. Having differentiated such circumstances, the next task would be to propose safeguards appropriate for each situation. If these safeguards require what Irene has recommended, namely that the person at risk explain, without coaching, the need and ramifications of the document they sign, then we need to provide direction as to whom should this explanation be given, how it should be solicited, and how it should be recorded.
The approach outlined above seems consistent with what was recommended nearly two decades ago by numerous experts in law and geriatric health, as reported on pages 5 and 6 of the Ohio Physicians Elder Abuse Prevention Project Report, much of which is copied online, beginning with the report's front cover, at http://home.roadrunner.com/~tvfields/OSMAReport/FramesetCoverA.htm
In summary, I am encouraging you to create a legislative committee to
(1) expressly identify/enumerate/list situations which give rise to a presumption of incapacity, negligence or wrongdoing, and then
(2) recommend the safeguards that are needed when these situations arise, long before they are brought before the court in what essentially amounts to a challenge of this presumption.
Sincerely,
Tom Fields
6860 Georgetown Drive
Mentor, Ohio 44060
I see nothing wrong with having judges run for their terms as judge.
It is not good public policy to have a partisan governor (whoever that is) putting judges on the bench.
Pawlenty and his wife are attorneys and Mrs.Pawlenty served as judge.
No doubt that a Governors decision to seat a judge is a biased one and not consistant with what the people in Minnesota could expect from a judge if the citizens can't judge the legitimacy of the candidate.
The people of Minnesota need to have these judges run for office so we can debate their talents and records as attorneys and citizens.
With the Governor doing the appointing from the onset, the people are denied.
So I hear some of these judges just retire 2-3 months before their terms are up and the people are again denied the fairness of an election because the governor will just fill the vacancy.
You won't see anyone put their proof on here Eric because there is nothing anyone can do until the Legislature starts doing its job.
Jeff Matiatos
Eric,
The Board on Judicial Standards is SECRET. The executive secretary for the board censors the complaints brought. NOT ALL complaints are even read by the board. We are unable to review the record of the Board because it is SECRET.
There was a Special Advisory Committee (of the Supreme Court) that tried to review the records of the Board and even they were denied access to see what complaints have been made.
NO..the Board on Judicial Standards CANNOT remove or even discipline a judge. It can only make a recommendation to the Supreme Court. And last year a major complaint was made against the Supreme Court justices, who then decided to not discipline themselves.
A bill has been introduced that would make the Board open to public scrutiny, and the Board would report to the Legislature, under the power of Article Six Section Eight of the state constitution.
Members of the NEW Board would be CITIZENS, chosen at random, just like a jury. NOTHING PARTISAN.
I see nothing wrong with having judges run for their terms as judge.
It is not good public policy to have a partisan governor (whoever that is) putting judges on the bench.
Can you take from someone who spent a career working on political elections when I say this would lead to corruption and a cheapening of the judiciary seen in Ohio, West Virginia, Wisconsin and New york. This is where we are actually now. Except we still accept the early retirement and then the mid-term appoint as normal.
That's the difference. This year we had a few spend some money, but its not to the partisan election point yet. When these elections start costing hundreds of thousands and even millions, who do you think will make those major contributions? Joe Blow? Or members of the firm Dewey, Cheatum and Howe?
This is supposed to be about disciplining judges, not electing them. I'll post some examples of how pure judicial elections can go bad and remove these justices even further from the people.
Eric
---------
In West Virginia, a coal mining company spent $3 million to help elect a Supreme Court judge who then cast a swing vote in overturning a $50 million verdict against the company.
Aromatic. In a big way. But it happens in small ways all the time in the states, like Arkansas, where judges run for election. In these races, the judges depend almost entirely on contributions from lawyers to pay the expenses.
The diffusion of support generally present in Arkansas certainly lessens the potential for cases such as occurred in West Virginia, but I could name a couple where concentrated support was present in some important appellate races. A key difference in West Virginia was that, as in Arkansas, direct financial support to a candidate is limited. But the coal company spent the millions on advertising trashing the opponent of the man they wanted elected. Such spending is unlimited, if it's not "direct advocacy." Such spending has occurred on a limited basis in Arkansas -- some newspaper ads of this sort appeared in one race for Pulaski circuit judge this year.
---------
MADISON, Wis. (AP) - Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson has accepted $11,500 in donations from lawyers who have a pending medical malpractice case in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Abrahamson has not disclosed the donations from members of the Cannon & Dunphy law firm to parties in the case or recused herself. Her campaign acknowledged she attended a Milwaukee fundraiser last month with the lawyers and other supporters.
Abrahamson campaign manager Heather Colburn says the justice accepts donations from lawyers with pending cases but not actual plaintiffs. She says Abrahamson "decides every case based on the law and the facts."
The entire campaign for her reelection will raise over $1,000,000.00.
In this instance the Chief Justice is Shirley Abrahamson who accepts donations from lawyers with pending cases but not actual plaintiffs. Not actual plaintiffs? What about litigants such as insurance companies and hospitals? Do you accept donations from them or are injured people simply the problem? Because if it’s just people that are injured that she has a problem with then all of Wisconsin should have a problem with it.
---------
Iowa doesn't elect judges and justices. In Iowa they are appointed which makes the Wisconsin system of electing judges seem out of step with modern ethics. Why would any judge or justice believe it proper to accept money from litigants or their attorneys? As officers of the Court Iowa rules of ethics require all to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
---------
Posted: 10-29-08
Judicial campaign committees around Albany are raising funds from law firms with business pending before the judge — and one firm is particularly generous.
Supreme Court Appellate Justice Anthony J. Carpinello’s re-election campaign accepted a $10,000 gift in May from an Albany law firm that had recently appeared before him in court to argue a medical malpractice appeal.
Three months after the contribution, which was disclosed in his campaign’s filings with the State Board of Elections, Carpinello cast a deciding vote in a 3-2 decision on the case, Caruso v. Northeast Emergency Medical Associates. He also wrote the majority opinion that could allow the firm, Powers & Santola, to collect as much as $200,000 in fees.
The judge claims he was unaware of the contribution. “I’ve never done anything unethical in my life,” said Carpinello. “I follow the law, and I’m not supposed to know who contributes to my campaign.”
The law firm, meanwhile, contends it would never give a campaign gift to a judge who could be influenced by it.
“If this is somebody we think we can curry favor with by making a contribution, we won’t make the contribution,” said senior partner John K. Powers. “Because if we can curry favor, so can someone else. And that’s not somebody we want sitting on the bench.”
SERIAL SHILLING
If there is a guilty party, it is arguably the controversial process of electing judges throughout New York State.
Lawyers are allowed to fork over campaign cash to judges running for re-election — even while they have cases pending before those judges. Gifts from attorneys account for roughly half of money raised by Supreme Court candidates, incumbents and challengers, for the coming election.
Judges claim they are not influenced because court rules forbid them from learning who contributes to their campaigns or how much. However, details on donors are part of a public record readily available to anyone with an Internet connection.
“They’re not supposed to know who contributes money to them, but they’re also not idiots,” said Powers. “Now that it’s online, somebody’s going to mention to you, at some point, who contributed money.”
For next Tuesday’s election, Justice Carpinello’s campaign has raised in excess of $238,000, more than any of the other 51 candidates running for Supreme Court seats across the State, according to its disclosures to the Board of Elections.
“I am fighting for my professional career,” said Carpinello. “I’ve worked so hard to schedule my fundraisers – and I do attend because I’m permitted to be there.”
A Judicial Reports investigation found that lawyers have handed out more than $116,000 to Carpinello, nearly half of the money raised by his campaign. His political committee has accepted 142 contributions from individual attorneys and 89 from law firms or partnerships, according to disclosures to State Board of Elections. Thirty-eight of the gifts from lawyers were for $1,000 or more.
-------------
Eric
So basically Eric your concerned with the unfair amounts of cash some judges are getting from special interests ?
The answer is simple. Implement campain contributions and spending limits.
Now, every Judge is on a level playing field as far as money is concerned.
The only thing that matters now is whether a judges record will stand on its own and is it good enough to win.
Now as far as judicial corruption is concerned, you say you want proof that these judges are corrupt ?
Believing that a Judge has acted corruptedly and actually proving it can be very difficult.
Corruption comes in all forms.
Some examples are :
Taking gifts and money in trade for rulings favorable to the giver.
Colluding with prosecutors or state officials (telephone conversations, letters, overhearing colluding conversations etc.) affecting the outcome of cases where the government wants conviction or dismissal. This can occur where the judge makes many adverse evidentiary rulings disguised as abuses of discretion.
I think about 2 years ago, Mike Hatch was barking at Ramsey District Court ( not surprised )because of some shit like that.
What we need is accountability.
Judges who abuse their discretion to many times should be punished.
The poor man doesn't have the financial resources to appeal judges who are constantly abusing their discretion that force the poor guy to appeal his rulings.
I have read so many cases where a judge has said if you don't like my ruling, appeal it.
So what, the court of appeals will just reverse his ruling but its going to cost one side or the other.
No scratch off the judges balls.
Jeff Matiatos
The answer is simple. Implement campain contributions and spending limits.
So what? Again, I know the profession because its how I made living. The only- I repeat the ONLY way to get meaningful campaign finance reform is to ban ALL gifts and make campaigns 100% public funded.
Your so-called solution is what we have now. Under freedom of speech and a conservative court ruling that money is speech, 527's and PAC's have become million dollar campaign machines immune to campaign finance laws.
So a candidate can raise only 1000 dollars and still be the beneficiary of a 527 spending 5 million kicking the crap out of hsi opponent through tv, mail and internet.
That's the lesson of West Virginia, Wisconsin and Mississippi.
Saying it will hold judges accountable sounds good but we have the reality and that's that it leads to corruption.
Politicizing the judiciary even is a big mistake. The framers had it right by separating them from the electorate, their constituency is and should only be the constitution. Put them on trail and pretty soon their promising this and that. Its a short sighted partisan move.
There's plenty of material out there to support electing judges. Put it up, as I have for not electing judges and make this discussion even. Right now, you're just giving your perspective and unsupported opinion.
Eric
Nancy's "press release" states:
Article Six Section Nine of the Minnesota Constitution clearly directs it is the intent of the people for the Legislature to discipline the Judicial Branch.
It does not. Nancy once again, has interpreted something that every year, 201 legislators of both parties and 100 judges seem to miss or misinterpret.
Here's Article VI sec 9:
The legislature may provide by law for retirement of all judges and for the extension of the term of any judge who becomes eligible for retirement within three years after expiration of the term for which he is selected. The legislature may also provide for the retirement, removal or other discipline of any judge who is disabled, incompetent or guilty of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Jeff, you know enough about the law to understand the difference between 'may' and 'shall', correct?
'May' is optional in the law.
'Shall' is obligatory in the law.
The legislature decided in the 1971(Chapter 909) that a commission/agency shall hear complaints and decide on action or recommendation of action to the Supreme Court.
It Constitutional (Minn. Statute 490A) and therefore the law.
Since its the law, Nancy position that the legislature is not doing its job or refusing to hear matters of corruption is not true- as they set up a commission/agency to do so 40 years ago.
Like I said, Nancy is twisting things in a dramatic fashion to suit some personal need for attention.
(Again, Jeff when you defend her, please cite something other than an opinion. I'm not arguing corruption here, just pointing out the mis statements and lies in her release.)
Eric
Reading article VI section 9, if indeed the intent of the constitution was to confer "Discretion" upon the legislature to penalize judges for prejudicial misconduct etc, and establish a commision so this be done, I would agree that the current commission of the Board of Judicial Standards is legal.
So then the issue turns on whether or not the commision is made up of the right people.
Surely, the judges on the panel would sound like an intelligent group of individuals qualified in areas of the code of conduct and canons.
The attorneys on the board are presumably as competant as judges because you need to be in order to be a judge.
So, the Board consists of five persons with judges qualifications
and four civillians. Add the Supreme Court Justices and you have a biased majority.
But,they are in my view,a biased jury of the sorts when issues of corruption are alleged.
A special prosecutor, who by definition, is the legal party responcible for presenting the case
against an individual breaking the law, should be the one performing this function instead of the Board of Judicial Standards.
I think this is where Nancy is headed, but she doesn't explain it like I do.
Until she proposes her action in the light that i see it, things as they stand are legal and i would have to take your point on it.
I would have it my way.
Jeff Matiatos
I think the legislature forgot to require that Grand Jurys be part of the process. Matter of fact, Grand Jurys should be what the legislature required in 1971.
To hell with the Board of Biased Standards.
Jeff Matiatos
You two (Jeff and Eric) are making my head hurt.
Its like listening to two lawyers fight out a case. Both are making good points. Eric finally did a good job of listing proof and it seem to take a stand against his politics. Jeff has a position that judges do need to be watched and them not doing their job is more prevelent than we know. He didn't make a strong case for it but did show he understands the law and seem willing to work within the law as written to expose the judges.
So what is Nancy up to for real?
6:46,
I know from personal experience, of why judges need to be watched and brought to high scrutiny / prosecuted.
Just surf the net and type judicial corruption.
Surf the Minnesota Court of Appeals case Opinions site and read all the abuse of discretion cases. Hundereds of cases there.
Jeff Matiatos
Better go back to the drawing board nancy.
What happens if the Supreme Court Justices engage in misconduct ?
Who is watching them ? The U.S. Supreme Court ?
It is the INTENT of the people that there be CHECKS and BALANCES.
It is the INTENT of the people that the Legislature discipline the judges. This intent is shown in both Article Six Section Nine, as well as the legislature having the power to impeach the judges.
It clearly is NOT the intent of the people for the judges to discipline the judges. The current Board on Judicial Standards is controlled by the judicial branch. And, the Board has no power to discipline, only make recommendations to the Supreme Court.
The chairs of the legislative committees charged with overseeing matters of the judiciary are ATTORNEYS and have sworn an oath to never go against a judge. They are "officers of the court". So we have the officers of the court controlling the committees that are supposed to listen to the problems in the judicial branch. Huge violation of the state constitution, as no person can hold the office in two branches of government at the same time.
The members of the legislature that are participating in the ad hoc committee are fulfilling their duty to the people under the state constitution.
I wonder which judges will have bills of impeachment brought against them.
Nancy,( alias 8:56 ) why don't you just post with your name ?
Eric
Sorry, my name isn't Eric.
I don't have one so i thought i would use Erics.
At least I'am honest.
No, 9:11 is not me but, its exactly what I would have asked.
Nancy, your and ability to confuse is evident in that 8:56 post. Step up and use your name.
The intent of the people is clear Nancy. You telling us the MNBdJS is not legal, when in fact it is the MNSC that actually removes Justices. Why? Because its the highest court in the state and part of their duties is to be the administrator over the states' courts.
You purposely misrepresent the Constitution. Article VI clearly states the legislature "MAY" discipline judges, which they still can but, decided to allow the judiciary to handle most of that (the complaints, hearings, evidence and action).
You're forgetting your basics of American government. Three separate but equal branches. Each (executive, legislative and judicial) has the power to administer and discipline itself- and the people have the power to remove any of them with recall elections.
Giving the legislature too much power over either one of the branches is crazy as hell. The legislature is the most partisan and the partisanship swings with whomever is in control.
But, to give those comfort who buy what Nancy is selling:
Minnesota judges may be, and have been removed the following ways:
* After a public hearing and on the recommendation of the Board on Judicial Standards, the supreme court may censure, retire, or remove a judge.
* Judges may be impeached by a majority vote of the house of representatives and convicted by a two-thirds vote of the senate.
* Judges are subject to recall election.
Speaking to more than one member of the Judiciary Committee, its apparent that Nancy is spinning here. They have oversight over the Board of Judicial Standards and all legislation dealing with the Courts. The process would have to go through that branch (judicial) through the procedures set up by the legislature and written into state statute, if there then is a failure of justice, then the legislature can step in.
She has no point except to grand stand.
Eric
Sharon is posting US Supreme Court is hearing Case Justice for Sale
http://allianceminnesota.org/page/community/blog/sharonanderson
Judicial corruption in Minnesota is rampant. In 2001 citizens in SE Minnesota took over 200 citizen complaints about police/judicial corruption by Mower County Sheriff's Department and District Court Judge Fred Wellman forward - with plenty of evidence to substantiate the claims. Lawyers Board declined. State declined. Judges Board declined. (Too messy) There is evidence of data mining, destruction of evidence, data privacy, police harassment, unlawful prosecution, perjury....and on and on. Citizens DID get a tiny federal agency to do an investigation of the criminal operation being protected by the dirty cops and county officials, and lo and behold, there were over 55 indictments with prosecutions. A multi-jurisdictional task force was formed in the office of the US Attorney, but because this would have gotten extremely messy and embarrassing, and potentially emptied out the Mower County courthouse, good old Uncle Sam shut the task force down.
There is a systemic problem with corruption in this state, much of which dates back to the days when Burton Joseph funded Robert Vesco's looting and pilfering for the CIA. It's time to clean house and bring some accountability back so the people have some real recourse when dirty cops, judges, and the crooks they are covering for abuse their authority to continue their criminal misconduct.
So, no follow-up?
Too bad its not a surprised.
Eric
So, no follow-up?
Too bad its not a surprised.
Eric
Post a Comment
<< Home