“We found it very hard to believe that it was actually true, that so many judges were breaking the law. I mean, these are judges. They’re lawyers. Judges interpret the law. They enforce the law. They don’t break the law. But judges very rarely receive any kind of scrutiny, federal judges in particular. And they’re used to being sort of the king and queens of their own domain.” —- James V. Grimaldi, The Federal Law That 138 Judges Have Broken, WSJ, October 1, 2021

Hello and welcome back to How to Legal. As more people lose trust and confidence in the justice system, today, we will focus on another peaceful solution to help restore it.

This is a big deal.

The justice system is tasked with safeguarding America’s Constitution. If it is not independent, and judges aren’t acting with integrity, impartiality, and following their oaths, you can kiss democracy goodbye.

See for e.g.: Tanner Stening, “Federal judges financial conflicts add to mistrust of the judicial system,” Northeastern University, January 11, 2022; “The Supreme Court’s judicial activism will deepen cracks in America: The country needs to find a better way of resolving its thorniest issues,” The Economist, June 29, 2022; Allison Frankel, “StarKist to 9th Circuit: Trial judge’s stock ownership dooms class cert rulings,” Reuters, December 1, 2021; Michael Berens and John Shiffman, “Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws or oaths remained on the bench,” Reuters, June 30, 2020; and Charlie Savage, “‘Deeply Problematic’: Experts Question Judge’s Intervention in Trump Inquiry,” New York Times, September 6, 2022.

Here, like we saw in Are lawyers supposed to cover up judges and lawyers misconduct according to the rules? this is another peaceful solution that has been hiding in plain sight.

What is it?

Judges following their oath, the canons, and all the rules, not some of them, ALL of them, and that includes self-policing and reporting misconduct.

Thus, in today’s installment, we will:

1. Define “misconduct” in legal terms.
2. Review whether or not judges are supposed to cover up attorney misconduct with real world case demonstrations (Sandy Hook parents v Alex Jones and Facebook) according to the judicial canons.
3. Answer what’s Rule 11, sanctions, and state bars (disciplinary boards).
4. Review whether or not judges are supposed to leave a person in danger, and ignore conduct that threatens the integrity, and proper conduct of the judiciary.
5. Review whether or not judges are supposed to cover up fellow judges’ misconduct.
6. Review whether or not judges are supposed to cover up potential crimes with a real world case demonstration.
7. Review whether or not judges are supposed to withhold, destroy, alter and/or cover up evidence potentially relevant to Congressional hearings, with a real world case demonstration #AlexJonesTexts.
8. Provide peaceful solutions to assist the courts in rooting out misconduct within their courts in support of ethical judges who follow their oaths, and so true justice may be served whether the parties are rich or poor (pursuant to the judicial oath). #SaveDemocracy

Remember to pace yourself when you How to Legal. You can always scroll down to what initially interests you, bookmark How to Legal, and come back later and learn more.

Ready?

Okay, let’s do this.

Let’s start by looking at what misconduct means in legal terms. Here we turn to thelawdictionary.org where you can find the definition, and legal meaning with citations. It reads:

MISCONDUCT:

Any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the administration of justice which is prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right determination of the cause; as “misconduct of jurors,” “misconduct of an arbitrator.” The term is also used to express a dereliction from duty, injurious to another, on the part of one employed in a professional capacity, as an attorney at law, (Stage v. Stevens, 1 Denio [N. Y.] 267,) or a public officer, (State v. Leach, 60 Me. 58, 11 Am. Rep. 172.)

thelawdictionary.org

In layman terms, essentially a lawyer or judge who engages in misconduct is an officer of the court who broke and violated their oath, judicial canons, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the court’s rules, the judge’s own rules, or the like.

You can learn where to find all the rules and oaths in previous installments of How to Legal here and here.

Okay, now that you know what misconduct is, let’s keep this moving.

Are judges supposed to give lawyers a free pass to engage in misconduct according to the judicial canons?

Let’s explore the canons and the rules together.

Here we turn to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges to find out if judges are supposed to give lawyers free passes to break the rules. At Canon 3B (6) we learn:

Canon 3B(6). Public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary is promoted when judges take appropriate action based on reliable information of likely misconduct. Appropriate action depends on the circumstances, but the overarching goal of such action should be to prevent harm to those affected by the misconduct and to prevent recurrence.

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Indeed, judges are NOT supposed to give lawyers a free pass to engage in misconduct and/or potential misconduct. Judges are required to take action.

What does the canon mean by “appropriate action?” Well, that depends on the misconduct. At minimum, an ethical judge would call it out, so it does not reoccur. If they don’t, that judge is demonstrating they are rule-breakers according to this canon.

The only good thing about rule-breaking lawyers is they show you who the ethical and unethical judges are. Unethical judges give lawyers free passes to break the rules and violate their oath. Ethical judges do not. 

Ethical versus unethical judges

Let’s demonstrate, so you can see a judge following this canon.

Watch Judge Maya Guerra Gamble admonish, and reprimand Owen Shroyer, Alex Jones’s lawyer, F. Andino Reynal, and Alex Jones in the first Sandy Hook case.

Judge then turns to #AlexJones attorney and gives him an earful: “Mr. Reynal, on Tuesday when YOU invoked the rule..” She asked Reynal if he followed her instruction to notify the witnesses of the rule. He said, “Clearly, not the way your honor intended.” pic.twitter.com/2LABScbQZa

— Cathy Russon (@cathyrusson) July 28, 2022

Judge Maya Guerra Gamble: “Mr. Jones, you may not say to this jury that you complied with discovery. That is not true. You may not say it again.

You may not tell this jury that you are bankrupt. That is also not true. You may have filed for bankruptcy. I don’t know that, but I have heard that. That does not make a person or a company bankrupt.

You are already under oath to tell the truth. You’ve already violated that oath twice today in just those two examples. It seems absurd to instruct you again that you must tell the truth while you testify, yet here I am. You must tell the truth when you testify. This is not your show…

You believe everything you say is true, but it isn’t, your beliefs don’t make something true. That is what we’re doing here, just because you claim something is true, does not make it true.”

Judge Maya Guerra Gamble

Indeed.

Conversely, in a case with similar circumstances, an unethical judge would give the lawyer(s) and their client(s) a free pass to violate the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which includes filing/spreading falsehoods.

Unethical judges might also refuse to rule on a motion to compel in discovery. They might give a party a free pass to NOT produce docs that everyone knows exists (like asset docs, emails, texts, phone records, additional broadcasts, and the like).

Unethical judges might ignore, or misrepresent the other parties’ evidence, and/or do something out of the norm of proper discovery procedures.

Ultimately, the plaintiffs, the Sandy Hook parents, versus Alex Jones et al were awarded $45.2 million in punitive damages and over $4 million in compensatory damages by a jury.

So, as you can see, it is a big deal that judges hold rule-breaking lawyers and parties accountable in all cases.

When judges don’t enforce the rules, they give the appearance of a lack of impartiality, and of being in the tank with one side.

Does anyone believe that a judge who will not recuse when they are supposed to recuse, and breaks other rules would throw a high damage multimillion-dollar case for the fun of it?

See also: “Judge Adds $5M to [whistleblower] McQueary’s $7M Verdict Against Penn State: McQueary testified he reported that Jerry Sandusky sexually abused a boy in a shower. The judge found once it became public, Penn State humiliated him,” Associated Press, November 30, 2016.

Another way ethical judges hold rule-breaking lawyers accountable is via Rule 11 of civil procedure — sanctions.

What’s Rule 11?

Here we turn to upcounsel’s “Legal Definition of Sanctions Rule 11: What You Need to Know.” It reads in part:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that a district court may sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose or that contain frivolous arguments or arguments that have no evidentiary support.

Rule 11 in Full (a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer’s address and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party.

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,

1. It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

2. The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

3. The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

4. The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

Upcounsel

What are sanctions?

(c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.

Upcounsel

Sanctions are initiated in two ways, by motion or by the court. Keep reading.

UpCounsel is another legal resource and platform I recently learned about, which may be helpful for you and others depending on your specific situation.

All ethical judges hold rule-breaker lawyers accountable. Unethical judges don’t.

Next, to prevent any potential ugliness from Alex Jones supporters below is another example of an ethical judge holding lawyers accountable. These lawyers were also allegedly messing around (i.e., breaking rules) in discovery in a case unrelated to any of Alex Jones’ cases.

This judge, in Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation (3:18-md-02843) instructed a plaintiff to file for sanctions.

“Court strongly urged plaintiffs to file for sanctions against Facebook, Gibson Dunn’s lead partner and required Facebook to include a final decision-maker at all sessions. %^&! got real at that point.”

Conversely rule breaker judges give lawyers free pass to break rules.#vacate https://t.co/dhdmjBzOhM

— Marinka ReadCourtDocs Peschmann ⚖️ (@Marinkapm) July 20, 2022

Surely, it must be like day and night being in a court with a judge(s) who gives lawyer(s) free passes to break the rules, versus a court with a judge who follows the rules.

In a court with an ethical judge justice can be served, and/or a just settlement can be negotiated. Conversely, with an unethical judge who gives lawyers a free pass to break the rules, and never faithfully applies the laws, neither is possible.

So the obvious question is, if a judge does not enforce the rules, and faithfully apply the laws, what benefit did a judge(s) receive in exchange for violating their oath/rules?

To review additional case demonstrations of judges who DO NOT give lawyers free passes to break the rules, see:

1. Altered exhibits and pleadings—How to Legal;
2. Will a judge give a lawyer a free pass to break the rules?—How to Legal;
3. Lawyer submits inapplicable case law. Dirty Tricks? Oops?—How to Legal: (Will a Judge break his oath by citing defendant’s inapplicable case law as if applicable to thwart justice?)

Update: For people who missed any of the #SandyHook v #AlexJones, #Infowars trial coverage both in Texas and in Connecticut, Law & Crime has been preserving it.

It is worth watching as it is an opportunity for people to learn about the legal system and the damage caused by defamation, fake news, and people with fake credentials.

It is also an opportunity to identify the oath-breakers, the people in authority, and the officers of the court, who could have deterred if not prevented what happened to the Sandy Hook families from happening to others had they followed their oath and the rules.

They need to be held accountable to preserve the integrity of the justice system.

Please note that Law & Crime had to close the comment section of the live stream “due to threatening comments towards #SandyHook victims’ families.”

State Bars aka Disciplinary Boards

Lastly, a judge may refer a rule/oath breaker lawyer to state bars where their law license may be suspended or they could be disbarred. If a lawyer is disbarred they lose their law license.

Law.com’s legal dictionary defines “disbar” this way:

disbar
v. to remove an attorney from the list of practicing attorneys for improper conduct. This penalty is usually invoked by the State Bar Association (if so empowered) or the highest state court, and will automatically prohibit the attorney from practicing law before the courts in that state or from giving advice for a fee to clients. The causes of permanent disbarment include conviction of a felony involving “moral turpitude,” forgery, fraud, a history of dishonesty, consistent lack of attention to clients, abandoning several clients, alcoholism or drug abuse which affect the attorney’s ability to practice, theft of funds, or any pattern of violation of the professional code of ethics. Singular incidents (other than felony conviction) will generally result in reprimand, suspension and/or a requirement that the lawyer correct his/her conduct, show remorse and/or pass a test on legal ethics. (See moral turpitude (sic) (underline mine)

dictionary.law.com

For those who wish to know more about disbarment, you can go to Cornell’s Legal Information Institute.

However, a caveat regarding state bars is necessary. Referring unethical lawyers to state bars, or filing complaints, is only a solution IF it is a state bar where the lawyers also follow the rules.

Unfortunately, that’s not a given either, as scores of people have learned the hard way for years. There are state bar lawyers who also break the rules every time they give fellow lawyers a free pass to violate their oaths.

See for e.g.: Cheryl Miller, “[CA] State Bar Failed to Stop Repeated Attorney Misconduct, Audit Finds: The auditor blamed weak policies in the bar’s discipline system for allowing chronic signs of misbehavior by some lawyers to go unchecked,” ALM Law.com, April 14, 2022; and Teri Sforza, ‘Weak policies’ mean California Bar can’t protect people from bad lawyers,” SiliconVally.com, April 15, 2022.

Here again, is another example of why people should not be impressed by shiny bios.

So the obvious question is, what do lawyers at state bars receive in exchange for not holding unethical colleagues accountable?

So, as demonstrated above, judges who don’t hold rule-breaking lawyers accountable in some meaningful way violate Canon 3B(6).

If you want a crash course on more ways to identify unethical lawyers, according to oaths and rules, watch this:

Okay, that was a lot of information and I need a music break. What about you? For me, my music pick is Depeche Mode’s “Get the balance right.” What’s yours?

Official website. RIP Andy. Thank you for the joy.

We are back. Next …

Are judges supposed to leave a person in danger, and ignore conduct that threatens the integrity and proper conduct of the judiciary?

Here again, the obvious answer is “no,” and Canon 3B (6) provides the answer. It reads in part:

A judge’s assurance of confidentiality must yield when there is reliable information of misconduct or disability that threatens the safety or security of any person or that is serious or egregious such that it threatens the integrity and proper functioning of the judiciary. A person reporting information of misconduct or disability must be informed at the outset of a judge’s responsibility to disclose such information to the relevant chief district judge or chief circuit judge.

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Thus, a judge who violates this canon is a judge who ignores and or coverups reliable information of misconduct, intimidation, improper contact outside of proceedings, and the like.

These judges leave parties seeking relief and redress in danger, while ostensibly jeopardizing the proper function of the judiciary and/or both. Evidence of this misconduct is likely on dockets, in court filings, and/or was produced in discovery.

Okay, moving forward.

Are judges supposed to cover up or report judicial misconduct?

Here again, obviously the answer is “no,” as Canon 3B (6) confirms.

Reliable information reasonably likely to constitute judicial misconduct or disability related to a chief circuit judge should be called to the attention of the next most-senior active circuit judge. Such information related to a chief district judge should be called to the attention of the chief circuit judge.”).

Here, a judge violates this section when they fail to notify a senior judge of likely judicial misconduct or disability. But here is the problem. If a judge(s) is hellbent on throwing a high-damage multimillion-dollar case for whatever unjust gain, they are not going to admit it, and report themselves to a senior judge, right?

Update: Everybody can learn from Ohio’s Judge Robert Ruehlman about some of the ways he tries to do it. According to court documents Judge Ruehlman thrusts himself on cases he should not be on, blocks assets to protect a disbarred attorney from paying damages, and bullies women.

There are ethical and unethical judges for sure.

See: “It’s time to retire Judge Ruehlman,” Cincinnati Enquirer, October 28, 2016.

Despite all this, Judge Ruehlman was re-elected and allowed to remain on the bench in a position to abuse his authority and potentially thwart other cases.

No one should be subjected to an oath/rule-breaking judge with power over their lives for one minute and that includes me.

Oathbreaker judges undermine the integrity of the justice system. They will harm you. They will give bad actors a free pass to keep doing whatever they were doing for whatever unjust gain. Unless anyone believes a judge violates their oath and the rules for the fun of it.

See more solutions further below to solve this very serious problem.

See also: “Robed in secrecy: How judges accused of misconduct can dodge public scrutiny: Erik Ortiz, “Thousands of complaints are filed against judges every year, but very few result in discipline. Ethics experts say the time for states to transform the judiciary is now.” NBC News, December 26, 2021.

Are judges supposed to cover up potential crimes?

Here again, we turn to Canon 3B (6). It reads in part:

Appropriate action may include direct communication with the judge or lawyer, other direct action if available, reporting the conduct to the appropriate authorities, or, when the judge believes that a judge’s or lawyer’s conduct is caused by drugs, alcohol, or a medical condition, making a confidential referral to an assistance program. Appropriate action may also include responding to a subpoena to testify or otherwise cooperating with or participating in judicial or lawyer disciplinary proceedings; a judge should be candid and honest with disciplinary authorities. (underline mine)

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Indeed, as it should be obvious, judges are supposed to report potential crimes. They are not supposed to help an unethical lawyer cover up potential crimes or commit some themselves.

To demonstrate, the following is an example of a Texas judge, U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack, referring potential crimes to the appropriate authorities as all ethical judges would do. See from Bob Garrett of the Dallas Morning News‘ Twitter feed.

BREAKING: Judge asks feds to probe possible child porn production at Bastrop home for sexually abused girls.

Also, @dallasnews has learned The Refuge has enjoyed high-level support from state government, including by @GregAbbott_TX and his wife.#txlegehttps://t.co/FWFkt3k5sO

— Bob Garrett (@RobertTGarrett) March 30, 2022

Are judges supposed to withhold, destroy, alter, and/or cover up evidence that’s potentially relevant to Congressional hearings?

Ah…. no. This was recently demonstrated by Judge Maya Guerra Gamble’s conduct in Scarlett Lewis, Neil Heslin [Sandy Hook parents] v Alex Jones et al, when she would not block, withhold, alter, or destroy Alex Jones’ texts.

#AlexJonesTexts August 2019-mid 2020

See: Oliver Darcy, “First on CNN: Alex Jones’ texts have been turned over to the January 6 committee, source says,” CNN, August 8, 2022.

During the trial, [Plaintiff attorney Mark] Bankston revealed that one of Jones’ lawyers had “messed up” and inadvertently sent him the two years of text messages. Bankston also said during the trial that the January 6 committee had expressed interest in the material.

Jones’ attorney Federico Andino Reynal asked the judge in the case to order Bankston to destroy the material and not transmit it to the House committee, but the judge declined.

“I’m not standing between you and Congress,” Judge Maya Guerra Gamble told Bankston when asked about sending Jones’ texts to the committee. “That is not my job. I’m not going to do that.”

First on CNN: Alex Jones’ texts have been turned over to the January 6 committee, source says, CNN, August 8, 2022

Please note the Alex Jones texts timeline has been clarified. See: “Alex Jones Defense Files Emergency Motion” (Timestamp: 15:41).

Alex Jones’ attorney, F. Andino Reynal claims they started in August 2019 and cover the first quarter of 2020.

Here, Attorney Mark Bankston, who represented the Sandy Hook parents, confirmed (Timestamp 35:34 ) the texts’ date range ends at about mid-2020. He also confirmed that he turned over Alex Jones’ text messages to the January 6, Committee, and has received requests from other law enforcement agencies who also want them.

August 2019-mid 2020?

Cool. That means there may be other cases involving Alex Jones, which could be affected by #alexjonestexts.

Thus, it should be reasonable to assume that no ethical judge or lawyer would block, alter, destroy, ignore or withhold potential relevant evidence from another case from the January 6 Committee, right?

It should be reasonable to assume that no ethical judge or lawyer would block, alter, destroy, ignore or withhold evidence of fraud, fake news, threats, defamation, and the like, right? Evidence that played a role in fueling domestic terrorism that culminated in the attack on the U.S. Capital, yes?

It should be reasonable to assume that no judge, no court, no lawyer, or law firm would cover up for any officers of the court who knowingly aided and abetted the spread of fake news that was fuelling domestic terrorism, and would report the culprits, right?

… support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…

See: Mike Levine, “How a standoff in Nevada years ago [2014] set the militia movement on a crash course with the US Capitol,” ABC News, January 5, 2022.

“… as the nation still struggles to process what pushed the crowd toward such violence a year ago, counterterrorism experts and former U.S. officials underscore how much many of the attackers had been primed, over many years, to believe that the country is collapsing and that one day armed conflict may be the only way to save it.”

Indeed. What happened on January 6, 2021, what many call an insurrection, was years in the making.

See: Capitol Insurrection Updates: NPR.

So what have we learned today?

Judges are required to self-police and report misconduct

Judges who violate their oath, break the rules, and/or fail to report misconduct, are not promoting justice. Oath/rule-breaking judges do not support or defend the Constitution or the laws of the United States according to their oath. Instead, they make a mockery of the rule of law, harm innocents, undermine the legal system, and chip away at democracy.

Judges know the rules. They know to break them, and they know how to try to cover up misconduct. 

#Unbecoming. When judges & lawyers try to cover up misconduct they can and should be arrested

See for e.g.: Todd Bookman, “N.H. Circuit Court Judge Arrested on Felony Evidence Tampering Charges,” New Hampshire Public Radio, February 11, 2021.

“She’s facing two felony counts of falsifying evidence, as well as two counts of tampering with public records. 

Introcaso was scheduled to begin a multi-day hearing before the Judicial Conduct Committee next week that could ultimately result in her dismissal from the bench.”

This is why, unfortunately, litigants must preserve originals and copies of dockets, court filings, everything. There is no bottom with judges who throw cases. Altering and manufacturing evidence to try to cover up their misconduct would be par for the course.

Oath/rule breakers can’t alter everything, but no doubt some will try.

At the end of the day, the truth always comes out.

Update: “A former N.H. judge pleads guilty to tampering with case files; given a suspended sentence,” New Hampshire Public Radio, November 15, 2021.

“My confidence in the judiciary is pretty low at this point,” Partello told the court. “And I have a hard time trusting any court official, at this moment, and that’s unfortunate. But that’s the work of Julie Introcaso.”

Victim and SURVIVOR of judicial misconduct

"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything." -Einstein

Tragically, when it comes to unethical judges hellbent on unjustly enriching themselves, there is no bottom. They will harm anyone in exchange for cash, some unjust gain–including children.

See: “‘Kids-for-cash’ scandal [Pennsylvania] judges ordered to pay more than $288 million to nearly 300 victims,” Associated Press, August 17, 2022,

“Ciavarella and Conahan abandoned their oath and breached the public trust,” [Judge] Conner wrote Tuesday in his explanation of the judgment. “Their cruel and despicable actions victimized a vulnerable population of young people, many of whom were suffering from emotional issues and mental health concerns.”

Associated Press

#Oathbreakers

Judges who violate Canon 3B(6), any of the canons, and the rules, diminish the sanctity of their oath.

This is a big deal.

As Quinta Jurecic, Tyler McBrien, and Natalie K. Orpett of Lawfare recently explained:

Just as the law lacks legitimacy unless those who make, enforce, and interpret it share a genuine commitment to treat it seriously, so too does an oath lack sanctity unless those who violate it are held to account.

The Jan. 6th Committee on Why Oaths Matter, Lawfare, June 17, 2022.

Peaceful solutions to expose and remedy judicial misconduct

While people who appear in U.S. courts should have a reasonable expectation that they are appearing with oath following officers of the court, we know that’s not always the case.

But the good news is there are several peaceful ways to expose judicial misconduct, so accountability and stolen justice may ultimately prevail. Following are some of them:

1. Judges who should have recused, finding a conscience, and recusing now. Remorse is a thing.
2. Courts, which include Senior and Chief judges, self-policing. Judges know the rules. They can identify oath/rule-breaking judges in their courts by reviewing dockets and court filings. Such cases are being vacated to preserve the integrity of the justice system thanks to the Wall Street Journal’s reporting exposing judicial misconduct. They also know all the dirty tricks and should be able to suss out evidence tampering, right? *This is only a viable option if the senior/chief judges aren’t corrupt and unethical too.
3. Court personnel and clerks also need to follow their oaths and report misconduct. Complicity is complicity.
4. Attorney Generals, FBI lawyers, and the like, who also know the rules, and what it looks like when judges and lawyers break them, can review dockets, and hold bad actors accountable.
5. Retired judges and lawyers can step up and review dockets as well for the good of the country and help #SaveDemocracy.
6. Journalists, and groups dedicated to judicial reform, shining light and reporting likely judicial misconduct.
7. More lawyers follow the Model Rules as opposed to being complicit in likely judicial misconduct and report it. It should be reasonable to assume that partners and associates know what’s going on with their colleagues and their cases. See: Are lawyers supposed to cover up judges and lawyers’ misconduct—How to Legal.
8. State bars/grievance boards need to self-police and root out any corruption within, as opposed to rejecting complaints filed about lawyers who engaged in similar conduct that has led to sanctions, and possible disbarment for attorneys Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani. Playing politics with the legal profession, and being selective, undermines it.
9. Create law student programs and curriculum dedicated to rooting out potential corruption in the courts.
10. Create a whistleblower program that protects the whistleblowers, not with empty words but deeds.
11. Address and remedy the fallout from Citizens United and the creation of super PACs. Democracy cannot survive with bought and paid-for politicians, judges, rulings, and/or elections. See Tim Lau, “Citizens United Explained,” Brennan Center for Justice, December 12, 2019.
12. Update: CREW — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit that “targets government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests and personal gain,” recently made history. Take a look. In part:

SANTA FE — A New Mexico judge ordered Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin be removed from office, effective immediately, ruling that the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection and that Griffin’s participation in it disqualified him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This decision marks the first time since 1869 that a court has disqualified a public official under Section 3, and the first time that any court has ruled the events of January 6, 2021 an insurrection.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the Disqualification Clause, bars any person from holding federal or state office who took an “oath…to support the Constitution of the United States” as an “officer of any State” and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or gave “aid or comfort” to insurrectionists. Griffin, as an Otero County Commissioner since January 2019, took an oath to “support and uphold the Constitution and laws of the State of New Mexico, and the Constitution of the United States.”

“This is a historic win for accountability for the January 6th insurrection and the efforts to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power in the United States. Protecting American democracy means ensuring those who violate their oaths to the Constitution are held responsible,” said CREW President Noah Bookbinder. “This decision makes clear that any current or former public officials who took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and then participated in the January 6th insurrection can and will be removed and barred from government service for their actions.”

CREW

Shouldn’t all officers of the court who gave aid and comfort to domestic terrorists, according to the FBI, be held to the same standard?

If more judges self-police and follow Canon 3B (6), or its similar counterpart in their jurisdiction,* the harder it becomes for dark money, and political gamesmanship to maintain any hold on the justice system.

*In California, for example, Canon 3(B)can be found in California’s Code of Judicial Ethics at Canon 3D.

So it’s a win, win for everyone except for the oath-breakers who undermine the justice system for whatever unjust gain.

Oath-breakers versus Oath-followers

As political violence accelerates, and the divide between Americans widens, the solutions cited above are win-wins for everyone.

What court(s) and which law firm(s) want to be associated with, and complicit in misconduct involving oath/rule-breaking judges and lawyers?

Oath/rule breakers make a mockery out of the rule of law, harm innocents. Their misconduct undermines the integrity of the justice system and democracy.

They may knowingly give free passes to people fuelling domestic terrorism.

Oath/rule-breaker judges and lawyers are beyond ruthless. Their misconduct may also arguably contribute to putting their colleagues, fellow judges, in danger.

 [S]upport and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…

The courts’ names, and the law firms‘ names, are on the dockets involving potential misconduct, too.

Okay, let’s wrap this up.

I hope you have found this information to be helpful, encouraging, and empowering. Democracy can be saved peacefully, and trust restored to the justice system.

The more you learn about the United States justice system the more you will appreciate, and respect the oath-following officers of the court who stand firm against corruption; The judges who cannot be bought off or unduly influenced. The judges who vacate oathbreaker rulings before more people, including judges, are harmed, threatened, and/or killed.

It’s time for me to sign off now, get up, stretch, and move around.

That means it’s time for a music break. For me, my music pick is Simple Mind’s Sanctify Yourself. What’s your music pick?

Official website.

Thank you for spending time at How to Legal.  Stay hopeful and informed.

Stay tuned for the next installment for more peaceful solutions.

Updated to include a Law & Crime link to the Sandy Hook v Alex Jones, Infowars, et al trial(s).

Updated to include Ohio’s Judge Robert Ruehlman misconduct –“It’s time to retire Judge Ruehlman,” Cincinnati Enquirer, October 28, 2016.

Update to include CREW’S landmark case where a public official was held accountable under the 14th Amendment.

Update to include “A former N.H. judge pleads guilty to tampering with case files; given a suspended sentence,” New Hampshire Public Radio, November 15, 2021.

Legal Disclaimer

None of the information on this website is legal advice.  While I have litigated as a pro se plaintiff when Reuters and Wall Street Journal’s reporting exposed judicial misconduct, I’m not a lawyer. This information is for educational purposes. If you need legal advice, please consult with a licensed professional in your area.

If you appreciate my efforts in trying to prevent more people from acting on fake news please send donations here. Thanks!

If you are stressed out by fake news, real news, or for any reason, you check out Stuff for Stress. Also, here’s some merch.

If you see any typos or mistakes, kindly send me an email which is the best way to reach me so I can fix them. No text messages please. Thank you.