|
Judicial Canons and Oath of Office - Judicial Impeachment Complaints The judicial system has deteriorated to the point of criminal incompetence in many areas, especially family law. As a government monopoly it has no market forces or incentives to improve. It has no proper feedback loop (as any good business would need to survive from its customers) to use for adjustment as the world changes around it. The result is that it is run based on the special interests and personal self-interests of the people inside. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is just human nature when there is no proper oversight, management and leadership. Chief Justices are not prepared to manage and lead, they are judges, specialists and are promoted based on their legal skills not management skills. The result is the "Peter principal" judges are promoted to the level where they are incompetent (one level above their competence). This gets worse each year and has gone on for several decades at least. Judicial oversight boards are "the foxes watching the hen house". Total immunity of judges has resulted in them doing whatever they want, including taking personal retribution against people with immunity. In fact it can literally be argued that judges are now the most prolific criminals possible as they can can break the law many times per day and never be caught or punished in any way. It is a Herculean task to sue a judge and win, though it does happen. In fact whenever a judge breaks the U.S. Constitution, prevents proper due process or acts out of jurisdiction (often the case with die process violations) they ARE PERSONALLY liable - but you need to go to federal court where the judge who handles the case does NOT know the judge you are suing. CHAPTER I. CODE OF CONDUCT FOR UNITED STATES
JUDGES(1) Elena Ruth Sassower, Coordinator February 18, 1999
P R E S S R E L E A S E House Judiciary Committee Ignores and Conceals Hundreds of Judicial Impeachment Complaints Impeachment is NOT over with last week’s Senate vote on the
impeachment articles against the President. The House Judiciary Committee has
other impeachment duties. Federal judges are also impeachable for “treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” under Article 2, Section 4 of
the Constitution. Unlike the President, who is elected for a term of years,
federal judges are appointed and serve for life, unless removed by impeachment.
Source: article8.org
Bill of Address - removing the four judges who unconstitutionally changed
the law
The cornerstone of taking back our government is removing activist judges
who illegally and fraudulently twist the law to impose their own social and
political agendas on the people. Our Constitution, written by John Adams,
was specifically designed with the "bill of address" to protect the people.
We must use it. So it's been re-filed.
Enacting the Bill of Address for this fraudulent ruling will be the official
declaration that the ruling was unconstitutional and is null and void, and
will keep a future court from repeating that ruling.
Bill # H652.
Sponsor: Rep. Emile Goguen. Co-sponsors: Rep. Edward Connolly, Rep. David Nangle, Rep. Marie Parente, Rep. Philip Travis.
Resolved, That both houses of the legislature hereby request the governor by
way of address, under the provisions of Article I Chapter III of Part the
Second of the Constitution, to remove Margaret H. Marshall, Chief Justice of
the Supreme Judicial Court, from her office, to remove Roderick L. Ireland,
Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, from his office, to remove
John M. Greaney, Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, from his
office, and to remove Judith A. Cowin, Associate Justice of the Supreme
Judicial Court, from her office.
History of the Bill of Address
The bill of address process to remove judges under the Massachusetts
Constitution has an interesting history. It has been successfully
used six times (twice for two judges at the same time). In addition,
three judges resigned after a bill of address process was begun against
them. Over the years, one Supreme Judicial Court justice has been
removed (1803) and an attempt was made against another (1922).
The last successful removal of a judge was in 1973. The most recent use
of the bill of address was in 2001, against Judge Maria I. Lopez. In the
Lopez case, a bill of address was filed and sent to the Judiciary
Committee but she resigned before hearings commenced.
The bill of address is a two-step process. The legislature (by a
majority vote in both houses) must ask the governor to remove the judge.
Then the governor and governor's council must officially concur, and the
judge is immediately removed.
Most of the bill of address actions are initiated by the legislature,
but in one case (1978) the governor initiated it by calling a special
session of the legislature. (The judge resigned after the process
began.)
During the 1850s the legislature successfully passed a bill of address
against the same judge three times. The first two times the governor
refused to remove him. So they waited for a new governor, and it was
successful the third time.
No reasons for the requested removal need be stated in a bill of
address. Research has uncovered the actual reasons to include not only
outrageous rulings and actions from the bench, but also extortion,
senility, participation in a rebellion, bribery, lying under oath, and
other offenses.
Bill of Address Actions in Massachusetts
1787
William Whiting, First Justice of the Court of Common Pleas and James Perry, a Bristol County Justice of the Peace (Both addressed and removed)
1803
Justice Theophilus Bradbury of the Supreme Judicial Court (Addressed and removed)
1803
Judge Paul Sargent of the Court of Sessions and Judge William Vinal of the Court of Common Pleas (Both judges were addressed and removed)
1855
Judge Edward G. Loring of the Suffolk County Probate Court (Addressed, but Governor refused to remove)
1856
Judge Edward G. Loring of the Suffolk County Probate Court (Addressed, but Governor refused to remove)
1858
Judge Edward G. Loring of the Suffolk County Probate Court (Addressed and removed by new Governor)
1881
Judge Joseph Day of the Barnstable County Probate Court (Proposed address rejected by legislative committee)
1882
Judge Joseph Day of the Barnstable County Probate Court (Addressed and removed)
1922
Judge Edward Pierce of the Supreme Judicial Court (Proposed address rejected by legislative committee)
1952
Judge Ruby (Resigned before commencement of removal hearings)
1965
Judge Richard K. Gordon of the Third District Court of Essex (Resigned after petition for address filed)
1972
Judge Vincent Brogna (Proposed address rejected by legislative committee)
1973
Judge Jerome P. Troy of the Dorchester Municipal Court (Addressed and removed**)
1978
Judge Robert Bonin, Chief Justice of the Superior Court (Governor convened special session of legislature to consider address; address approved by legislative committee and Senate; Bonin resigned before consideration by House)
2001
Judge Maria I. Lopez of the Superior Court (Resigned before commencement of removal hearings) **The Supreme Judicial Court had disbarred Justice Troy and had enjoined him from performing duties as a judge. But he refused to resign, claiming the court did not have the authority to remove him. So the legislature and governor subsequently removed him through a bill of address.
|