9 ms·

Most relevant bit: > During divorce proceedings between Matthew and his ex-wife, Raleigh County family-court judge Louise Goldston personally forced her way in

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
        In this case, the governor wasn’t a teenager. He was a 27 year old medical school student when the yearbook photo was taken. To make matters worse, this was the same year his school had its first black student so many white students were using the yearbook as an excuse to protest.
        csa 3y ago
        > Did I ever rape anyone? Was I in the KKK? Did I ever wear blackface? I think this is a gross oversimplification. Let me modernize the questions for the current era (since the alleged infractions were decades ago): 1. Have I ever touch someone romantically in any way without asking for explicit permission and receiving explicit approval? This is the alleged “standard” these days, although I think that it is only strictly adhered to in one very narrow social group. Overall, “feeling safe” and “respect” seems to be more common than it was many decades ago, but those are still a far cry from explicit consent at every step that some folks use as a “standard”. So if a potential politician cannot answer yes to this, then they leave themselves to being accused of being a rapist and/or sexual predator. 2. Am I in a social group that has a racial mix that does not approximate the local ratios (esp. if white)? California, where I live, is taking stances on equality that focus on outcomes more than opportunities. An unfortunate byproduct of this is that a group that is open to all groups, has members of at least all major groups, and has no policy or pattern of discrimination can still be called racist if their racial ratios are not at a certain level. This basically means that most private clubs are “racist” by this definition. Moose, Rotary, Chambers of Commerce, golf clubs, fraternities and sororities, American Legion branches, Masons (even Prince Hall), etc. are all organizations that have active members now that could be deemed “racist” if “racism” is defined as equality of outcome (as it is currently in CA K-12 education). Any potential policitian who is a member of one of these groups runs the risk of being called a racist. 3. Have I ever worn a costume of a character that is not my race? Moana, Mulan, Tiana, Jasmine, Pocahontas, are some Disney characters that are potentially out of bounds. Luke Cage, Blue Marvel, Storm, Blade, Misty Knight, Black Panther, and Moon Girl are Marvel characters that are potentially out of bounds. Any potential politician has to make sure that they have not worn any of these sorts of costumes, since at some point they may be accused of being racist or engaging in cultural appropriation. Times change, people make mistakes, people grow… we need to allow space for this, especially when a questionable action was not done with malicious intent.
  - Gibbon1 3y ago
    Gov Newsom boinked his campaign managers wife. Gov Schwarzenegger knocked up his housekeeper. Not sure that impacted their day job but gives me some pause.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Only East coast ones? I think a closet full of skeletons is pretty much required for any political candidate!
    - samus 3y ago
      Makes it easier for the party or other handlers to keep them in line...
  - dekhn 3y ago
    I'm confused- if a state delegate stormed the capitol (breaking a law), why wouldn't they be arrested and pulled from their house? Or are you saying it's crazy that a person who was elected to be a state delegate would then storm the capitol (that only occurred to me after typing my first question)? Interesting- after being arrested, he resigned his delegate position and took full responsibility, plead guilty, went to jail, and then renounced his admission of guilt. What a quality fellow.
    - Amezarak 3y ago
      Entering the Capitol in a protest by itself is not unusual. Protests occur in the Capitol regularly. Without the retrospective view and full knowledge of January 6, “storming the Capitol” appears in a different light, if you concerned about the mens rea of the delegate. It is likely that the vast majority of people that day, the hardliner crazies excepted, had no idea or expectation they’d be facing charges.
      - dekhn 3y ago
        I agree, entering the capitol in a peaceful was is not unusual (we saw an occupation of the rotunda only a few days ago). But from the very first moments the aggresive crowd was gathering outside the capitol, it was pretty clear it was a lawless event (I watched the whole thing realtime on several different news sources). For example if the door to the capitol is locked and people start breaking windows to enter... that moves from "protest" to "storming" pretty much instantly. And he filmed himself with a helmet on, going through the broken-into doors.
        Amezarak 3y ago
        Oh sure, it definitely devolved into a riot, and I can’t say anything about this guy in particular because I don’t know the details. My point is that just showing up to a protest in or at the Capitol is not really an unusual thing, and most of the people there, probably including the delegate, had no idea there’d be any consequences. Peaceful is sort of a spectrum too - it’s not uncommon for Congressmen and their assistants to get shoved a little, screamed at in their faces, spit on, that sort of thing. Sort of an occupational hazard. Sometimes it makes for great photographs. Certainly what happened that day exceeded the norm, though, which meant a lot of people who showed up with legal motives got wrapped up in something else. Unfortunately it’s become so politicized (in part thanks to very bad reporting the day of) it’s rare to have a sensible discussion about it - thanks for your response - and clearly you know more about this particular situation than I do.
  - csa 3y ago
    > So now, I'm of the notion that all east coast politicians are hiding skeletons in their closets. Serious question… What percentage of people do you think have not done something in their youth (let’s generously call that 22 and under) that would offend one or more groups of people? Of those, what percentage do you think want to become politicians? My guess is that the Venn diagram of these two groups rounds to 0%. People make mistakes, sometimes egregious, though sometimes (often times?) without malice. If we want a wider pool to select our public figures from, we need to find room to forgive folks for transgressions if we can reasonably conclude that they have grown from and/or beyond their more offensive mistakes, especially if they occurred when the person in question was younger. Just my 2 cents…
    - true_religion 3y ago
      I think we all make mistakes. However when you are running for elected office, you need to admit your faults and not hide them. If you want to be private about rape allegations, and incidents of racism, sexism, or harassment of any protected minority group then you ought to simply be a private citizen. Otherwise the public deserves to know. How many people would have not voted for the governor if they knew his past was something he still denied, and had not come to terms with?
      - csa 3y ago
        > If you want to be private about rape allegations, and incidents of racism, sexism, or harassment of any protected minority group I think the problems with all of these is that they are not always clear and they change over time. I’ve mentioned some examples in another part of this thread, but to summarize: 1. If you have not asked explicit permission and received an affirmative response at every stage of a romantic endeavor ever, you can be accused of sexual assault or rape. The affirmative response can be deemed invalid if any alcohol was involved, and can be plausibly denied if there was no written agreement (these actually happen). 2. “Racism” can be something as simple as wearing a costume of a character that is not your race (think Moana or Blue Marvel), or being a member of a group that doesn’t have the right racial ratios (even if there are no discriminatory policies or practices). 3. You can be considered to be a harasser of a protected minority group for doing things like using the word “niggardly” (not etymologically a race-based word) or assigning the book To Kill a Mockingbird as a teacher. These may seem like extreme examples, but these are all things that are happening right now, and I think it’s safe to say that the vanilla forms of all of the actions mentioned above don’t warrant a confession from a potential politician. … yet there are people that will have no problems tarnishing a potential politician’s reputation via highly subjective allegations alone if they don’t agree with that person’s politics. For examples of each of the above, search for): 1. Harvard “rape” case in the 00s, and Duke lacrosse team. 2. Silicon Valley hiring practices. Also see most cases where the term “cultural appropriation” is weaponized. 3. WaPo article (today?) about TKM. “Water buffalo” case at UPenn in the 90s. People getting into trouble for playing the circle game, not realizing that the “OK” hand sign has become a racist dog whistle in some circles.
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    To play devil's advocate > In 1980, when I was a 19-year-old undergraduate in college, some friends suggested we attend a party dressed like rappers we listened to at the time, like Kurtis Blow, and perform a song,” Herring said in a statement. “It sounds ridiculous even now writing it. But because of our ignorance and glib attitudes – and because we did not have an appreciation for the experiences and perspectives of others – we dressed up and put on wigs and brown makeup. https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/virginia-attorney-general-blackface/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/virginia-attorney-ge... Seems more stupid and less evil than I would have thought.
    - true_religion 3y ago
      In retrospect I don’t really hold the act itself against him. However, it’s that as soon as the governor was in trouble, he became the foremost critic as if he had totally forgotten his own past.
- 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!

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
        In this case, the governor wasn’t a teenager. He was a 27 year old medical school student when the yearbook photo was taken. To make matters worse, this was the same year his school had its first black student so many white students were using the yearbook as an excuse to protest.
      - csa 3y ago
        > Did I ever rape anyone? Was I in the KKK? Did I ever wear blackface? I think this is a gross oversimplification. Let me modernize the questions for the current era (since the alleged infractions were decades ago): 1. Have I ever touch someone romantically in any way without asking for explicit permission and receiving explicit approval? This is the alleged “standard” these days, although I think that it is only strictly adhered to in one very narrow social group. Overall, “feeling safe” and “respect” seems to be more common than it was many decades ago, but those are still a far cry from explicit consent at every step that some folks use as a “standard”. So if a potential politician cannot answer yes to this, then they leave themselves to being accused of being a rapist and/or sexual predator. 2. Am I in a social group that has a racial mix that does not approximate the local ratios (esp. if white)? California, where I live, is taking stances on equality that focus on outcomes more than opportunities. An unfortunate byproduct of this is that a group that is open to all groups, has members of at least all major groups, and has no policy or pattern of discrimination can still be called racist if their racial ratios are not at a certain level. This basically means that most private clubs are “racist” by this definition. Moose, Rotary, Chambers of Commerce, golf clubs, fraternities and sororities, American Legion branches, Masons (even Prince Hall), etc. are all organizations that have active members now that could be deemed “racist” if “racism” is defined as equality of outcome (as it is currently in CA K-12 education). Any potential policitian who is a member of one of these groups runs the risk of being called a racist. 3. Have I ever worn a costume of a character that is not my race? Moana, Mulan, Tiana, Jasmine, Pocahontas, are some Disney characters that are potentially out of bounds. Luke Cage, Blue Marvel, Storm, Blade, Misty Knight, Black Panther, and Moon Girl are Marvel characters that are potentially out of bounds. Any potential politician has to make sure that they have not worn any of these sorts of costumes, since at some point they may be accused of being racist or engaging in cultural appropriation. Times change, people make mistakes, people grow… we need to allow space for this, especially when a questionable action was not done with malicious intent.
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  Gov Newsom boinked his campaign managers wife. Gov Schwarzenegger knocked up his housekeeper. Not sure that impacted their day job but gives me some pause.
- lazide 3y ago
  Only East coast ones? I think a closet full of skeletons is pretty much required for any political candidate!
  - samus 3y ago
    Makes it easier for the party or other handlers to keep them in line...
- dekhn 3y ago
  I'm confused- if a state delegate stormed the capitol (breaking a law), why wouldn't they be arrested and pulled from their house? Or are you saying it's crazy that a person who was elected to be a state delegate would then storm the capitol (that only occurred to me after typing my first question)? Interesting- after being arrested, he resigned his delegate position and took full responsibility, plead guilty, went to jail, and then renounced his admission of guilt. What a quality fellow.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    Entering the Capitol in a protest by itself is not unusual. Protests occur in the Capitol regularly. Without the retrospective view and full knowledge of January 6, “storming the Capitol” appears in a different light, if you concerned about the mens rea of the delegate. It is likely that the vast majority of people that day, the hardliner crazies excepted, had no idea or expectation they’d be facing charges.
    - dekhn 3y ago
      I agree, entering the capitol in a peaceful was is not unusual (we saw an occupation of the rotunda only a few days ago). But from the very first moments the aggresive crowd was gathering outside the capitol, it was pretty clear it was a lawless event (I watched the whole thing realtime on several different news sources). For example if the door to the capitol is locked and people start breaking windows to enter... that moves from "protest" to "storming" pretty much instantly. And he filmed himself with a helmet on, going through the broken-into doors.
      - Amezarak 3y ago
        Oh sure, it definitely devolved into a riot, and I can’t say anything about this guy in particular because I don’t know the details. My point is that just showing up to a protest in or at the Capitol is not really an unusual thing, and most of the people there, probably including the delegate, had no idea there’d be any consequences. Peaceful is sort of a spectrum too - it’s not uncommon for Congressmen and their assistants to get shoved a little, screamed at in their faces, spit on, that sort of thing. Sort of an occupational hazard. Sometimes it makes for great photographs. Certainly what happened that day exceeded the norm, though, which meant a lot of people who showed up with legal motives got wrapped up in something else. Unfortunately it’s become so politicized (in part thanks to very bad reporting the day of) it’s rare to have a sensible discussion about it - thanks for your response - and clearly you know more about this particular situation than I do.
- csa 3y ago
  > So now, I'm of the notion that all east coast politicians are hiding skeletons in their closets. Serious question… What percentage of people do you think have not done something in their youth (let’s generously call that 22 and under) that would offend one or more groups of people? Of those, what percentage do you think want to become politicians? My guess is that the Venn diagram of these two groups rounds to 0%. People make mistakes, sometimes egregious, though sometimes (often times?) without malice. If we want a wider pool to select our public figures from, we need to find room to forgive folks for transgressions if we can reasonably conclude that they have grown from and/or beyond their more offensive mistakes, especially if they occurred when the person in question was younger. Just my 2 cents…
  - true_religion 3y ago
    I think we all make mistakes. However when you are running for elected office, you need to admit your faults and not hide them. If you want to be private about rape allegations, and incidents of racism, sexism, or harassment of any protected minority group then you ought to simply be a private citizen. Otherwise the public deserves to know. How many people would have not voted for the governor if they knew his past was something he still denied, and had not come to terms with?
    - csa 3y ago
      > If you want to be private about rape allegations, and incidents of racism, sexism, or harassment of any protected minority group I think the problems with all of these is that they are not always clear and they change over time. I’ve mentioned some examples in another part of this thread, but to summarize: 1. If you have not asked explicit permission and received an affirmative response at every stage of a romantic endeavor ever, you can be accused of sexual assault or rape. The affirmative response can be deemed invalid if any alcohol was involved, and can be plausibly denied if there was no written agreement (these actually happen). 2. “Racism” can be something as simple as wearing a costume of a character that is not your race (think Moana or Blue Marvel), or being a member of a group that doesn’t have the right racial ratios (even if there are no discriminatory policies or practices). 3. You can be considered to be a harasser of a protected minority group for doing things like using the word “niggardly” (not etymologically a race-based word) or assigning the book To Kill a Mockingbird as a teacher. These may seem like extreme examples, but these are all things that are happening right now, and I think it’s safe to say that the vanilla forms of all of the actions mentioned above don’t warrant a confession from a potential politician. … yet there are people that will have no problems tarnishing a potential politician’s reputation via highly subjective allegations alone if they don’t agree with that person’s politics. For examples of each of the above, search for): 1. Harvard “rape” case in the 00s, and Duke lacrosse team. 2. Silicon Valley hiring practices. Also see most cases where the term “cultural appropriation” is weaponized. 3. WaPo article (today?) about TKM. “Water buffalo” case at UPenn in the 90s. People getting into trouble for playing the circle game, not realizing that the “OK” hand sign has become a racist dog whistle in some circles.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  To play devil's advocate > In 1980, when I was a 19-year-old undergraduate in college, some friends suggested we attend a party dressed like rappers we listened to at the time, like Kurtis Blow, and perform a song,” Herring said in a statement. “It sounds ridiculous even now writing it. But because of our ignorance and glib attitudes – and because we did not have an appreciation for the experiences and perspectives of others – we dressed up and put on wigs and brown makeup. https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/virginia-attorney-general-blackface/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/virginia-attorney-ge... Seems more stupid and less evil than I would have thought.
  - true_religion 3y ago
    In retrospect I don’t really hold the act itself against him. However, it’s that as soon as the governor was in trouble, he became the foremost critic as if he had totally forgotten his own past.
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!