9 ms·

Appeals court denies judicial immunity to judge who personally searched home

185 points by ww520 3y ago

ddoolin 3y ago
Most relevant bit: > During divorce proceedings between Matthew and his ex-wife, Raleigh County family-court judge Louise Goldston personally forced her way into Matthew’s home under threats of arrest to search for items that were in dispute. Accompanied by Matthew’s ex-wife, her attorney, and a bailiff (among others), Goldston walked barefoot through the house, ordering Matthew’s ex-wife to seize DVDs, yearbooks, and pictures off the wall. Some of the items didn’t even belong to Matthew’s ex-wife. And when Matthew tried to record the encounter, the judge threatened him with arrest. This sounds like the ex-wife was close friend with the judge and this was very personal. Pretty insane either way though.
- mock-possum 3y ago
  Wow that is batshit. What kind of oversight was missing here? How did this person possibly get to where she is without there being red flags?
  - true_religion 3y ago
    This is from West Virginia, where a state delegate was arrested and pulled from his house because he was one of the people who stormed the capital to 'help' Trump: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/former-west-virginia-lawmaker-derrick-evans-sentenced-storming-capitol-rcna34329 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/former-w... West VA is not known for its upstanding political system. I thought VA was better until 2021 when: 1. The governor had a scandal about his yearbook photo showing him (or best friend) in either a KKK hood or blackface 2. The vice-governor who wanted to replace him, immediately had a scandal about being a possible rapist 3. The attorney general, 2nd in line to replace the governor, admitted he wore blackface "as an innocent joke, seriously" So now, I'm of the notion that all east coast politicians are hiding skeletons in their closets.
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      What is with politicians and blackface? How hard is it to find someone to run for office who didn't wear blackface? I remember at my university we even had a student government leader embroiled in a scandal because he wore blackface at a Halloween party. People, stop with the blackface! How is this not obvious?
      - whatshisface 3y ago
        The problem is that it was apparently far less obvious 50 years ago... The sheer number of conservatives who have been caught doing it shows it's some kind of ex post facto social norm. For liberals supporting "traditional marriage" is the ex post facto norm but there is much more forgiveness available for people who spoke against gay marriage when Obama was against it. There should probably be some kind of accepted system of forgiveness... but the culture is run by its second most progressive so I only expect it to be available for those who merely failed to be the absolute most progressive. I have a good track record of being the absolute most progressive for what it's worth.
        ryandrake 3y ago
        Yea, I get it, there's history and attitudes changing. But, you'd think in 2021, someone thinking about running for public office might take a few minutes, sit down, and run through the checklist. You know, the basics: Did I ever rape anyone? Was I in the KKK? Did I ever wear blackface?
        whatshisface 3y ago
        That's an, "arson, murder and jaywalking" list if I have ever heard one. :-) And no, I think that when those teenagers were donning their offensive Halloween costumes, they did not think it was going to cause serious offense decades in the future.
        true_religion 3y ago
  - hotnfresh 3y ago
    There are a lot of judges in the US, very few voters pay any attention to them and just re-elect whoever, many aren't elected in the first place, and there are rarely any standards for who is or is not eligible to sit on the bench. Many counties and small towns are very corrupt (in a captured-by-a-family-or-two-and-their-pals kind of way) with the result that lots of local officials are at best terrible at their jobs, and at worst are actively breaking the law. All kinds of bad conduct happens at that level, most of it never making the news at all.
    - cogman10 3y ago
      One thing I'll add, this is also a symptom of the death of local journalism. Even for decently populated areas, there's simply very little access to journalism covering things like local candidates. All news has become national. Local news broadcasts have pretty much died, all purchased by the sinclair broadcasting group. Just try and get information on someone running for a city level offices. It's hard enough for officials with public meetings. But judges?
      - btilly 3y ago
        I have found that the League of Woman Voters often provides voter guides where you can read about every local candidate. Their positions, their website, answers to questions, and so on. For judges in California, that generally includes a review about how well qualified they are. I've found that very helpful in past elections for making decisions on local candidates. Which are the ones where my vote is most likely to make a difference. But which would otherwise be impossible for me to inform myself on.
      - lazide 3y ago
        Death of local news makes it worse, but this has always been an issue. Like literally since before the revolutionary war type ‘always’, and certainly long before that too. Means of control get hijacked by bad actors until they screw up bad enough they can’t be ignored, to be replaced by… someone. Who is not such an obvious bad actor. Sometimes they’re even good! For awhile, anyway.
    - 3y ago
  - vkou 3y ago
    Many, many judges are elected, and like with any elected office, there is no shortage of people ready to vote in absolutely despicable/incompetent/despicable and incompetent candidates. Firing someone who was elected is also incredibly difficult. In West Virginia, the qualifications to become a county Magistrate Judge (Empowering you to issue arrest and search warrants, find people guilty of misdemeanors, conduct preliminary examinations in felony cases, and preside over small claims court)... Are a high school diploma. In fact, it's illegal in that state to require magistrates to have a law degree. This particular judge was a family court judge - one step up the food chain - which, at least requires them to be a lawyer...
    - lazide 3y ago
      Many judges are appointed (like all federal judges, and many state ones).
      - andylynch 3y ago
        In England you can volunteer as a magistrate for the lower courts. Training provided, no prior legal experience necessary. Legal advisers in the court; serious (indictable) offences get referred up to an appointed judge. If you’re a juror and say you found the experience worthwhile the users will encourage you to sign up.
    - qingcharles 3y ago
      Huh. I'm even surprised you need a high school diploma. As you say, a lot of jurisdictions do not require any legal training, which is total insanity. Though, in my experience, most state court judges do not apply the law very often to causes in front of the court, they mostly just apply emotion.
  - runlevel1 3y ago
    It's more difficult to hold elected judges accountable. An impeachment removing a judge put in place by a non-partisan vote is a bigger deal than impeachment of someone appointment by the governor. (Though, West Virginia did impeach their entire state Supreme Court for dodgy spending a few years ago.[^1]) This judge was elected 3 times. But most people will blindly reelect the existing judges. That's hardly surprising since in most states reviewing a judge's performance takes some effort. For example, here's Colorado's.[^2] A quick Google search didn't seem to turn up anything equivalent in West Virginia. But if you want to dive deeper into how judicial misconduct can go unchecked, you should read about the PA Cash for Kids Scandal.[^3] However, I don't want to give the impression that I think this is a common problem. Watch proceedings in any random Zoom/YouTube court proceeding and you'll find judges faithfully applying the law.[^4] But when misconduct does happen, it's really bad. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/all-west-virginia-s-supreme-court-justices-impeached-over-spending-n900461 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/all-west-virginia-s-sup... [2]: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/2022-judicial-performance-evaluations https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/2022-judicial-perfo... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal [4]: Many of Michigan and Georgia's courts are still broadcasting live on YouTube if you're actually curious.
    - dmoy 3y ago
      > But most people will blindly reelect the existing judges Shit, or not even have a second option. Many (half? more?) run unopposed
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Many (half? more?) run unopposed In some jurisdictions, judges aren't elected in the usual sense, but have retention elections, so there is an alternative (don't retain the judge), but not an opponent. Of course, that also means that the judge gets replaced by an appointee, so its a "Devil you know or...??" kind of choice.
- BenFeldman1930 3y ago
  Why barefoot?
  - hotnfresh 3y ago
    Didn't want to track bullshit all over the carpet?
  - kolanos 3y ago
    > Why barefoot? She was making herself at home. There's video of this on YouTube. [0] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVZFUiXkCEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVZFUiXkCEA
    - charles_f 3y ago
      This one doesn't show, but this one does: https://youtu.be/K7f6uevARno?t=375 https://youtu.be/K7f6uevARno?t=375 I'd put that more on following others who removed the shoes inside, including both the ex-wife and ex-husband. But that seems to have had an importance in the judgment, which talks about not wearing a robe and not wearing shoes, making it unusual.
  - jey 3y ago
    This fear of bare feet is uniquely American. In many other cultures it is considered much more disrespectful and disgusting to wear outdoor shoes inside a home.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      It's not some sort of footphobia (where does America even come into this? I am American and taking off shoes is the custom in any house that somebody makes a pretense of keeping clean. Do you think we all live in barns?) It's about the judge not having any of trappings of a judicial proceeding, she wasn't wearing a robe and was generally behaving very informally. Taking off her shoes was part of that. Taking off her shoes to protect the floor shouldn't have ever come up because she should never have been in the house in the first place. Since she wasn't acting like a judge, she wasn't entitled to judicial immunity.
- kolanos 3y ago
  > This sounds like the ex-wife was close friend with the judge and this was very personal. Pretty insane either way though. Actually this judge had a long track record of doing things like this. She ran into the wrong civil rights attorney.
  - plagiarist 3y ago
    What a profound failure of justice that it occurred even once, but wow, multiple times without sufficient consequences to stop it.
  - vhcr 3y ago
    The right civil rights attorney.
    - khazhoux 3y ago
      The civil right attorney
      - foobar1962 3y ago
        Right.
  - KirillPanov 3y ago
    > She ran into the wrong civil rights attorney. The Institute for Justice are legendary. They're what the ACLU used to be.
- konstantinua00 3y ago
  > barefoot ...why was this detail added? i-is it even positive or negative? did the writer have foot fetish or shoes fetish? one word, but many more questions
  - eftychis 3y ago
    Why barefoot exactly? Something is missing here. When you execute a search it is not like you go around removing shoes. Then again usually that search and seizure is legal and not executed by the "judge..."
  - pjc50 3y ago
    It implies unprofessionality on behalf of the barefoot person. And possibly haste or even mental instability. Normally law enforcement wear substantial shoes or boots to avoid accidental or malicious injury. You never know if you're searching someone's house if they've left tacks out on the floor.
  - alwa 3y ago
    It seems like another detail supporting the idea that this “search” was highly irregular, casting it as far removed from a legitimate, professional exercise of official power. We’re lucky as hacker types that we can sometimes do our jobs barefoot and in casual clothes, but I can’t think of any situation (other than this one) where an agent of the state executes their official duties unshod.
    - bondarchuk 3y ago
      Lifeguards!
    - sandworm101 3y ago
      Fighter pilots. Search and rescue crews. I have personally seen more than a few at work in socks or bare feet. If your job requires you to quickly don survival kit or flightsuits, you hang around at work without shoes on. Also some military air traffic controllers and operations people on long shifts. I have done more than a few late nights at desks beside colored telephones, not always with my boots on. And I know of some occassions where cops have taken off thier boots when entering certain religeous places.
- dekhn 3y ago
  What I don't understand (from watching the video from outside the house) is why the cop helped the judge enter the house after the owner of the house pointed out she didn't have a warrant, and didn't prevent the ex from taking thiings from the house. I would have expected- naively, of course- that once it was pointed out that the judge was trespassing, didn't have a warrant, and wasn't allowed to do this, the cop would have stopped her.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > why the cop helped the judge enter the house after the owner of the house pointed out she didn't have a warrant I can understand a non-lawyer deferring to the lawyer (and judge) in their midst. If I were with my (non-judge) lawyer and they started doing something surprising, my first instinct wouldn't be to restrain them.
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      Especially since judges write warrants. It was a technicality from that point of view?
      - sandworm101 3y ago
        No. A basic idea of any warrant is that you need two people to do something. If judges can write, sign and execute warrants, then we are into Judge Dred territory. There is also a general principal that lawyers and judges should not turn themselves into witnesses. This judge just made herself a witness should any siezed material need be debated in court. Judges dont attend lineups or medical tests, nor should they attened searches.
        JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        All very true. But speaking just to the issue being asked here, why didn't anybody respond to a search being warrantless, the presence of the judge may have muddied that for the reason I suggested. Everything else was fucked up, as you say.
- mozman 3y ago
  Pretty standard in small southern towns. You’ll see this when you get a ticket. Good old boys club.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  I read other reporting while trying to find biographical information about the judge, and the reporting is rather one-sided. The judge was certainly overstepped and was doing something wrong and illegal but it wasn’t quite as egregious as that. In family law cases, she regularly entered the homes of and had meetings there with the involved parties, though typically she had one of the parties request the motion and in this case she did it herself. She usually required the consent of both parties legal representation before going through with it. The guy involved represented himself and didn’t realize he should have objected until it was too late and they were there. He’d been held in contempt for allegedly not turning over property she had ordered him to, which he said he didn’t have, and entering the house and searching it was her way of establishing that. Clearly out there, wacky, and illegal, but not quite so egregious as the article represents. You can see how the judge probably thought she was being practical and fair minded, but nevertheless hugely overstepped. https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge-who-searched-litigants-home-for-marital-property-gets-censure-and-fine/ https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge-who-searched-l...
  - ddoolin 3y ago
    Thanks for bringing much needed context. I can see a lot of merit to her methods while also realizing that it's probably not fit for anything larger than (very) small locale. I do think that this is underselling the egregiousness a bit: > He’d been held in contempt for allegedly not turning over property she had ordered him to, which he said he didn’t have, and entering the house and searching it was her way of establishing that. Just because it sounds to me like she was a bit vindictive in having to enter and started telling them to seize things that may not have even been in question/contention. Dunno!
rendall 3y ago
I've been following this case for awhile. The lawyer who argued the case, John Bryan, has a YouTube channel that I subscribe to. In this video, he discusses the victory. https://youtu.be/K7f6uevARno https://youtu.be/K7f6uevARno
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  This video is infuriating, she and the cops that helped her should all be criminally charged.
- alwaysrunning 3y ago
  He does great work.
ww520 3y ago
Is the judge criminally liable for the forced home entry? Or is this a civil suit?
- dmoy 3y ago
  It's a civil suit > Is the judge criminally liable for the forced home entry? This could also be true, but you'd need a prosecutor to take up the case
  - 77pt77 3y ago
    That will never happen because other judges would never allow that prosecutor to win anything ever again.
    - dmoy 3y ago
      Maybe? Probably not relevant? Family court and criminal court are pretty separated. There's not a lot of overlap in judges or lawyers, and afaik there aren't any state prosecutors going to family court to try cases.
      - 77pt77 3y ago
        This case already involved two judges caught trying to play backroom games. Those are the one that were caught. I stand by what I wrote. That prosecutor would get a reputation of going after judges and it would only bring obstacles into his professional or even personal life. Prosecutors know better than to mess with people with real power.
    - ksherlock 3y ago
      It's a family court judge so she's not dealing with criminal matters. And if for some reason that came up, the prosecutor can demand a recusal.
    - qingcharles 3y ago
      And most prosecutors are looking for a judgeship. Most judges are ex-prosecutors.
mcpackieh 3y ago
Totally insane. Think about how many other cases she had a part in, could somebody this nuts have been an impartial judge in any of those cases?
ultra_nick 3y ago
Judges and police shouldn't have legal immunities. Professionals doing jobs over $10k should have to buy malpractice insurance like doctors. There's a bill to end qualified immunity currently. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1470 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1470
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Judges and police shouldn't have legal immunities This is like saying employees should be personally liable for mistakes they make at work. Under egregious circumstances, yes. Otherwise, it’s their employer’s liability. So yes, some immunity is necessary. The problem is the current standards of police immunity don’t seem to make sense. (I see no issue with present standards of judicial immunity.) > Professionals doing jobs over $10k should have to buy malpractice insurance like doctors One, this would obviously be paid for by taxpayers. Nothing would change except some insurance brokers would make money. Two, you want a private company gating the courts? Who would you expect to impartially adjudicate their disputes?
  - PopAlongKid 3y ago
    >This is like saying employees should be personally liable for mistakes they make at work. No, it isn't--poor choice of a strawman. This judge's actions were not a "mistake", they were a deliberate abuse of power.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - pc86 3y ago
      Which is egregious. Which means they shouldn't have any immunity. Which appears to have been exactly what was decided in this case. I agree with you that seems to have been handled exactly as it should have been. It's a leap to go from that to "end all immunity in all circumstances."
      - 3y ago
post_break 3y ago
Been watching the case from the beginning. I wonder what the civil suit will bring. Will she be ordered to pay thousands? Lose her home? I bet he's going to be smiling when she's forced to write a check or sell some of her possessions to fund this ridiculous action.
- kbelder 3y ago
  Is the divorce finalized? If not the wife might get half the judgement. 5d chess on her part.
IronWolve 3y ago
Most lawyers know how the judges view cases, and judge shop if its possible. The only winning move is to stay out of court if possible. Federal courts is a different beast, but the outcome is normally known.
- qingcharles 3y ago
  Having spent thousands of hours in courtrooms, you are exactly right. Doesn't matter if it is civil or criminal, the only way to win is to stay out of court.
77pt77 3y ago
Imagine the resident just shot her since she didn't have a warrant. What would happen then?
- _jal 3y ago
  Assuming the resident survived the several minutes immediately following doing so, I expect they'd be approaching sentencing soon.
- reaperman 3y ago
  I’m assuming this wasn’t a no-knock warrant. The resident shouldn't have had a reasonable fear for their life or safety. Just because someone trespasses in your house illegally doesn't mean its legal to use force to remove them yourself.
  - 77pt77 3y ago
    That actually depends on jurisdiction.
    - reaperman 3y ago
      I'm unaware of any USA jurisdiction where it is legal for a private citizen to use force to remove a trespasser from their home in a situation where a reasonable person would not fear bodily harm.
tomohawk 3y ago
This is why the first amendment, which disallows government interference in speech, is so important. Judges and other officials already have enormous power, and allowing them to compel or censor eliminates any hope of transparency and future action to correct what they did.
flenserboy 3y ago
Disbarment & stripping of any state-related retirement would be a good start in this case. Far, far past egregious behavior.
nimbius 3y ago
I remember seeing this on YouTube a while back and thinking someone was about to blow an entire divorce proceeding. Glad to see some actions been taken.
op00to 3y ago
This story is wild, but bare feet is wiiiiiiild.
ccleve 3y ago
Here's pretty good website that tracks judicial abuse: https://abusivediscretion.com/ https://abusivediscretion.com/

185 points by ww520 3y ago

Most relevant bit: > During divorce proceedings between Matthew and his ex-wife, Raleigh County family-court judge Louise Goldston personally forced her way into Matthew’s home under threats of arrest to search for items that were in dispute. Accompanied by Matthew’s ex-wife, her attorney, and a bailiff (among others), Goldston walked barefoot through the house, ordering Matthew’s ex-wife to seize DVDs, yearbooks, and pictures off the wall. Some of the items didn’t even belong to Matthew’s ex-wife. And when Matthew tried to record the encounter, the judge threatened him with arrest. This sounds like the ex-wife was close friend with the judge and this was very personal. Pretty insane either way though.

mock-possum 3y ago
Wow that is batshit. What kind of oversight was missing here? How did this person possibly get to where she is without there being red flags?
- true_religion 3y ago
  This is from West Virginia, where a state delegate was arrested and pulled from his house because he was one of the people who stormed the capital to 'help' Trump: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/former-west-virginia-lawmaker-derrick-evans-sentenced-storming-capitol-rcna34329 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/former-w... West VA is not known for its upstanding political system. I thought VA was better until 2021 when: 1. The governor had a scandal about his yearbook photo showing him (or best friend) in either a KKK hood or blackface 2. The vice-governor who wanted to replace him, immediately had a scandal about being a possible rapist 3. The attorney general, 2nd in line to replace the governor, admitted he wore blackface "as an innocent joke, seriously" So now, I'm of the notion that all east coast politicians are hiding skeletons in their closets.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    What is with politicians and blackface? How hard is it to find someone to run for office who didn't wear blackface? I remember at my university we even had a student government leader embroiled in a scandal because he wore blackface at a Halloween party. People, stop with the blackface! How is this not obvious?
    - whatshisface 3y ago
      The problem is that it was apparently far less obvious 50 years ago... The sheer number of conservatives who have been caught doing it shows it's some kind of ex post facto social norm. For liberals supporting "traditional marriage" is the ex post facto norm but there is much more forgiveness available for people who spoke against gay marriage when Obama was against it. There should probably be some kind of accepted system of forgiveness... but the culture is run by its second most progressive so I only expect it to be available for those who merely failed to be the absolute most progressive. I have a good track record of being the absolute most progressive for what it's worth.
      - ryandrake 3y ago
        Yea, I get it, there's history and attitudes changing. But, you'd think in 2021, someone thinking about running for public office might take a few minutes, sit down, and run through the checklist. You know, the basics: Did I ever rape anyone? Was I in the KKK? Did I ever wear blackface?
        whatshisface 3y ago
        That's an, "arson, murder and jaywalking" list if I have ever heard one. :-) And no, I think that when those teenagers were donning their offensive Halloween costumes, they did not think it was going to cause serious offense decades in the future.
        true_religion 3y ago
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  There are a lot of judges in the US, very few voters pay any attention to them and just re-elect whoever, many aren't elected in the first place, and there are rarely any standards for who is or is not eligible to sit on the bench. Many counties and small towns are very corrupt (in a captured-by-a-family-or-two-and-their-pals kind of way) with the result that lots of local officials are at best terrible at their jobs, and at worst are actively breaking the law. All kinds of bad conduct happens at that level, most of it never making the news at all.
  - cogman10 3y ago
    One thing I'll add, this is also a symptom of the death of local journalism. Even for decently populated areas, there's simply very little access to journalism covering things like local candidates. All news has become national. Local news broadcasts have pretty much died, all purchased by the sinclair broadcasting group. Just try and get information on someone running for a city level offices. It's hard enough for officials with public meetings. But judges?
    - btilly 3y ago
      I have found that the League of Woman Voters often provides voter guides where you can read about every local candidate. Their positions, their website, answers to questions, and so on. For judges in California, that generally includes a review about how well qualified they are. I've found that very helpful in past elections for making decisions on local candidates. Which are the ones where my vote is most likely to make a difference. But which would otherwise be impossible for me to inform myself on.
    - lazide 3y ago
      Death of local news makes it worse, but this has always been an issue. Like literally since before the revolutionary war type ‘always’, and certainly long before that too. Means of control get hijacked by bad actors until they screw up bad enough they can’t be ignored, to be replaced by… someone. Who is not such an obvious bad actor. Sometimes they’re even good! For awhile, anyway.
  - 3y ago
- vkou 3y ago
  Many, many judges are elected, and like with any elected office, there is no shortage of people ready to vote in absolutely despicable/incompetent/despicable and incompetent candidates. Firing someone who was elected is also incredibly difficult. In West Virginia, the qualifications to become a county Magistrate Judge (Empowering you to issue arrest and search warrants, find people guilty of misdemeanors, conduct preliminary examinations in felony cases, and preside over small claims court)... Are a high school diploma. In fact, it's illegal in that state to require magistrates to have a law degree. This particular judge was a family court judge - one step up the food chain - which, at least requires them to be a lawyer...
  - lazide 3y ago
    Many judges are appointed (like all federal judges, and many state ones).
    - andylynch 3y ago
      In England you can volunteer as a magistrate for the lower courts. Training provided, no prior legal experience necessary. Legal advisers in the court; serious (indictable) offences get referred up to an appointed judge. If you’re a juror and say you found the experience worthwhile the users will encourage you to sign up.
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    Huh. I'm even surprised you need a high school diploma. As you say, a lot of jurisdictions do not require any legal training, which is total insanity. Though, in my experience, most state court judges do not apply the law very often to causes in front of the court, they mostly just apply emotion.
- runlevel1 3y ago
  It's more difficult to hold elected judges accountable. An impeachment removing a judge put in place by a non-partisan vote is a bigger deal than impeachment of someone appointment by the governor. (Though, West Virginia did impeach their entire state Supreme Court for dodgy spending a few years ago.[^1]) This judge was elected 3 times. But most people will blindly reelect the existing judges. That's hardly surprising since in most states reviewing a judge's performance takes some effort. For example, here's Colorado's.[^2] A quick Google search didn't seem to turn up anything equivalent in West Virginia. But if you want to dive deeper into how judicial misconduct can go unchecked, you should read about the PA Cash for Kids Scandal.[^3] However, I don't want to give the impression that I think this is a common problem. Watch proceedings in any random Zoom/YouTube court proceeding and you'll find judges faithfully applying the law.[^4] But when misconduct does happen, it's really bad. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/all-west-virginia-s-supreme-court-justices-impeached-over-spending-n900461 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/all-west-virginia-s-sup... [2]: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/2022-judicial-performance-evaluations https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/2022-judicial-perfo... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal [4]: Many of Michigan and Georgia's courts are still broadcasting live on YouTube if you're actually curious.
  - dmoy 3y ago
    > But most people will blindly reelect the existing judges Shit, or not even have a second option. Many (half? more?) run unopposed
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Many (half? more?) run unopposed In some jurisdictions, judges aren't elected in the usual sense, but have retention elections, so there is an alternative (don't retain the judge), but not an opponent. Of course, that also means that the judge gets replaced by an appointee, so its a "Devil you know or...??" kind of choice.
BenFeldman1930 3y ago
Why barefoot?
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  Didn't want to track bullshit all over the carpet?
- kolanos 3y ago
  > Why barefoot? She was making herself at home. There's video of this on YouTube. [0] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVZFUiXkCEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVZFUiXkCEA
  - charles_f 3y ago
    This one doesn't show, but this one does: https://youtu.be/K7f6uevARno?t=375 https://youtu.be/K7f6uevARno?t=375 I'd put that more on following others who removed the shoes inside, including both the ex-wife and ex-husband. But that seems to have had an importance in the judgment, which talks about not wearing a robe and not wearing shoes, making it unusual.
- jey 3y ago
  This fear of bare feet is uniquely American. In many other cultures it is considered much more disrespectful and disgusting to wear outdoor shoes inside a home.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    It's not some sort of footphobia (where does America even come into this? I am American and taking off shoes is the custom in any house that somebody makes a pretense of keeping clean. Do you think we all live in barns?) It's about the judge not having any of trappings of a judicial proceeding, she wasn't wearing a robe and was generally behaving very informally. Taking off her shoes was part of that. Taking off her shoes to protect the floor shouldn't have ever come up because she should never have been in the house in the first place. Since she wasn't acting like a judge, she wasn't entitled to judicial immunity.
kolanos 3y ago
> This sounds like the ex-wife was close friend with the judge and this was very personal. Pretty insane either way though. Actually this judge had a long track record of doing things like this. She ran into the wrong civil rights attorney.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  What a profound failure of justice that it occurred even once, but wow, multiple times without sufficient consequences to stop it.
- vhcr 3y ago
  The right civil rights attorney.
  - khazhoux 3y ago
    The civil right attorney
    - foobar1962 3y ago
      Right.
- KirillPanov 3y ago
  > She ran into the wrong civil rights attorney. The Institute for Justice are legendary. They're what the ACLU used to be.
konstantinua00 3y ago
> barefoot ...why was this detail added? i-is it even positive or negative? did the writer have foot fetish or shoes fetish? one word, but many more questions
- eftychis 3y ago
  Why barefoot exactly? Something is missing here. When you execute a search it is not like you go around removing shoes. Then again usually that search and seizure is legal and not executed by the "judge..."
- pjc50 3y ago
  It implies unprofessionality on behalf of the barefoot person. And possibly haste or even mental instability. Normally law enforcement wear substantial shoes or boots to avoid accidental or malicious injury. You never know if you're searching someone's house if they've left tacks out on the floor.
- alwa 3y ago
  It seems like another detail supporting the idea that this “search” was highly irregular, casting it as far removed from a legitimate, professional exercise of official power. We’re lucky as hacker types that we can sometimes do our jobs barefoot and in casual clothes, but I can’t think of any situation (other than this one) where an agent of the state executes their official duties unshod.
  - bondarchuk 3y ago
    Lifeguards!
  - sandworm101 3y ago
    Fighter pilots. Search and rescue crews. I have personally seen more than a few at work in socks or bare feet. If your job requires you to quickly don survival kit or flightsuits, you hang around at work without shoes on. Also some military air traffic controllers and operations people on long shifts. I have done more than a few late nights at desks beside colored telephones, not always with my boots on. And I know of some occassions where cops have taken off thier boots when entering certain religeous places.
dekhn 3y ago
What I don't understand (from watching the video from outside the house) is why the cop helped the judge enter the house after the owner of the house pointed out she didn't have a warrant, and didn't prevent the ex from taking thiings from the house. I would have expected- naively, of course- that once it was pointed out that the judge was trespassing, didn't have a warrant, and wasn't allowed to do this, the cop would have stopped her.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > why the cop helped the judge enter the house after the owner of the house pointed out she didn't have a warrant I can understand a non-lawyer deferring to the lawyer (and judge) in their midst. If I were with my (non-judge) lawyer and they started doing something surprising, my first instinct wouldn't be to restrain them.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    Especially since judges write warrants. It was a technicality from that point of view?
    - sandworm101 3y ago
      No. A basic idea of any warrant is that you need two people to do something. If judges can write, sign and execute warrants, then we are into Judge Dred territory. There is also a general principal that lawyers and judges should not turn themselves into witnesses. This judge just made herself a witness should any siezed material need be debated in court. Judges dont attend lineups or medical tests, nor should they attened searches.
      - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        All very true. But speaking just to the issue being asked here, why didn't anybody respond to a search being warrantless, the presence of the judge may have muddied that for the reason I suggested. Everything else was fucked up, as you say.
mozman 3y ago
Pretty standard in small southern towns. You’ll see this when you get a ticket. Good old boys club.
Amezarak 3y ago
I read other reporting while trying to find biographical information about the judge, and the reporting is rather one-sided. The judge was certainly overstepped and was doing something wrong and illegal but it wasn’t quite as egregious as that. In family law cases, she regularly entered the homes of and had meetings there with the involved parties, though typically she had one of the parties request the motion and in this case she did it herself. She usually required the consent of both parties legal representation before going through with it. The guy involved represented himself and didn’t realize he should have objected until it was too late and they were there. He’d been held in contempt for allegedly not turning over property she had ordered him to, which he said he didn’t have, and entering the house and searching it was her way of establishing that. Clearly out there, wacky, and illegal, but not quite so egregious as the article represents. You can see how the judge probably thought she was being practical and fair minded, but nevertheless hugely overstepped. https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge-who-searched-litigants-home-for-marital-property-gets-censure-and-fine/ https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge-who-searched-l...
- ddoolin 3y ago
  Thanks for bringing much needed context. I can see a lot of merit to her methods while also realizing that it's probably not fit for anything larger than (very) small locale. I do think that this is underselling the egregiousness a bit: > He’d been held in contempt for allegedly not turning over property she had ordered him to, which he said he didn’t have, and entering the house and searching it was her way of establishing that. Just because it sounds to me like she was a bit vindictive in having to enter and started telling them to seize things that may not have even been in question/contention. Dunno!

rendall 3y ago

I've been following this case for awhile. The lawyer who argued the case, John Bryan, has a YouTube channel that I subscribe to. In this video, he discusses the victory. https://youtu.be/K7f6uevARno https://youtu.be/K7f6uevARno

mcpackieh 3y ago
This video is infuriating, she and the cops that helped her should all be criminally charged.
alwaysrunning 3y ago
He does great work.

ww520 3y ago

Is the judge criminally liable for the forced home entry? Or is this a civil suit?

dmoy 3y ago
It's a civil suit > Is the judge criminally liable for the forced home entry? This could also be true, but you'd need a prosecutor to take up the case
- 77pt77 3y ago
  That will never happen because other judges would never allow that prosecutor to win anything ever again.
  - dmoy 3y ago
    Maybe? Probably not relevant? Family court and criminal court are pretty separated. There's not a lot of overlap in judges or lawyers, and afaik there aren't any state prosecutors going to family court to try cases.
    - 77pt77 3y ago
      This case already involved two judges caught trying to play backroom games. Those are the one that were caught. I stand by what I wrote. That prosecutor would get a reputation of going after judges and it would only bring obstacles into his professional or even personal life. Prosecutors know better than to mess with people with real power.
  - ksherlock 3y ago
    It's a family court judge so she's not dealing with criminal matters. And if for some reason that came up, the prosecutor can demand a recusal.
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    And most prosecutors are looking for a judgeship. Most judges are ex-prosecutors.

mcpackieh 3y ago

Totally insane. Think about how many other cases she had a part in, could somebody this nuts have been an impartial judge in any of those cases?

ultra_nick 3y ago

Judges and police shouldn't have legal immunities. Professionals doing jobs over $10k should have to buy malpractice insurance like doctors. There's a bill to end qualified immunity currently. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1470 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1470

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Judges and police shouldn't have legal immunities This is like saying employees should be personally liable for mistakes they make at work. Under egregious circumstances, yes. Otherwise, it’s their employer’s liability. So yes, some immunity is necessary. The problem is the current standards of police immunity don’t seem to make sense. (I see no issue with present standards of judicial immunity.) > Professionals doing jobs over $10k should have to buy malpractice insurance like doctors One, this would obviously be paid for by taxpayers. Nothing would change except some insurance brokers would make money. Two, you want a private company gating the courts? Who would you expect to impartially adjudicate their disputes?
- PopAlongKid 3y ago
  >This is like saying employees should be personally liable for mistakes they make at work. No, it isn't--poor choice of a strawman. This judge's actions were not a "mistake", they were a deliberate abuse of power.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - pc86 3y ago
    Which is egregious. Which means they shouldn't have any immunity. Which appears to have been exactly what was decided in this case. I agree with you that seems to have been handled exactly as it should have been. It's a leap to go from that to "end all immunity in all circumstances."
    - 3y ago

post_break 3y ago

Been watching the case from the beginning. I wonder what the civil suit will bring. Will she be ordered to pay thousands? Lose her home? I bet he's going to be smiling when she's forced to write a check or sell some of her possessions to fund this ridiculous action.

kbelder 3y ago
Is the divorce finalized? If not the wife might get half the judgement. 5d chess on her part.

IronWolve 3y ago

Most lawyers know how the judges view cases, and judge shop if its possible. The only winning move is to stay out of court if possible. Federal courts is a different beast, but the outcome is normally known.

qingcharles 3y ago
Having spent thousands of hours in courtrooms, you are exactly right. Doesn't matter if it is civil or criminal, the only way to win is to stay out of court.

77pt77 3y ago

Imagine the resident just shot her since she didn't have a warrant. What would happen then?

_jal 3y ago
Assuming the resident survived the several minutes immediately following doing so, I expect they'd be approaching sentencing soon.
reaperman 3y ago
I’m assuming this wasn’t a no-knock warrant. The resident shouldn't have had a reasonable fear for their life or safety. Just because someone trespasses in your house illegally doesn't mean its legal to use force to remove them yourself.
- 77pt77 3y ago
  That actually depends on jurisdiction.
  - reaperman 3y ago
    I'm unaware of any USA jurisdiction where it is legal for a private citizen to use force to remove a trespasser from their home in a situation where a reasonable person would not fear bodily harm.

tomohawk 3y ago

This is why the first amendment, which disallows government interference in speech, is so important. Judges and other officials already have enormous power, and allowing them to compel or censor eliminates any hope of transparency and future action to correct what they did.

flenserboy 3y ago

Disbarment & stripping of any state-related retirement would be a good start in this case. Far, far past egregious behavior.

nimbius 3y ago

I remember seeing this on YouTube a while back and thinking someone was about to blow an entire divorce proceeding. Glad to see some actions been taken.

op00to 3y ago

This story is wild, but bare feet is wiiiiiiild.

ccleve 3y ago

Here's pretty good website that tracks judicial abuse: https://abusivediscretion.com/ https://abusivediscretion.com/