Misblog

Originally published March 27, 2008; Last Updated December 20, 2009; Last Republished December 20, 2009:

In a move likely to further increase distrust and disdain for the West Virginia Supreme Court and the "justice" it provides, the court has refused to publicly disclose the records of its Chief Justice Elliott E. Maynard, who is suspected of official or criminal corruption¹.

Fortunately, Associated Press has declined to accept the court's refusal to disclose Chief Justice Elliott E. Maynard records (e-mails, visitor logs, telephone records, trips etc.) and has sued the West Virginia Supreme Court seeking their disclosure.

Chief Justice Elliott E. Maynard should not wait for a determination that West Virginia's FOIA statute requires disclosure of the requested records—he should be standing on the courthouse step handing them out! Better yet, have court administrator, Steve Canterbury, post the requested records to the internet.

Web:

• Judicial Election Reform In Other States:
  

  • UPDATED 12/20/2009 CSM, Wisconsin lawsuit tests a pioneering campaign finance law.

    Wisconsin's approach does not treat content differently as asserted by Wisconsin Right to Life Political Action Committee. It only limits the amount of money a judge can spend if accepting public finance and scales upward that ceiling in proportion to the spending by an opponent not accepting public finance.

    It does not regulate any content of any judicial candidate.

• UPDATED 06/14/2009 LAT Op-Ed, A court battle California doesn't need. Thoughtful editorial by LA Times contrasting the California and West Virginia Supreme Courts with respect to judicial independence.

• UPDATED 06/08/2009 NYT, Justices Tell Judges Not to Rule on Major Backers (includes opinion).

  Large contributions to elect judges implicate the due process clause of the United States Constitution requiring recusal of a judge.

  Any Judges having to be told this should not be a judges—voters should specifically ask all candidate judges to discuss this issue during the election campaign².

  Caution: Be sure the candidate judges are asked about a scenario where large sums of monies are strategically contributed for the specific purpose of ensuring a judge's recusal?

  Remembering that rules, regulations, and judicial decisions cannot substitute for judicial rectitude.

  • UPDATED 03/03/2009 U.S. Supreme Court, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (pdf). Transcript of today's oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court on the question of whether:

    "Justice Brent Benjamin of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia refused to recuse himself from the appeal of the $50 million jury verdict in this case, even though the CEO of the lead defendant spent $3 million supporting his campaign for a seat on the court—more than 60% of the total amount spent to support Justice Benjamin's campaign—while preparing to appeal the verdict against his company. After winning election to the court, Justice Benjamin cast the deciding vote in the court's 3-2 decision overturning that verdict. The question presented is whether Justice Benjamin's failure to recuse himself from participation in his principal financial supporter's case violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

    The very fact that we require our Supreme Court to decide a case like this is a very strong indication our system, if not our nation, has seriously systemic problems!

    Not only should Justice Benjamin have recused himself the fact that he did not do so implicates his judicial temperament and ability to impartially judge—our Supreme Court will let us know if it also implicates our Constitution's Due Process Clause.

• UPDATED 05/14/2008 AP, Vacation photos doom W.Va. top judge in primary. Former Chief Justice of West Virginia's Supreme Court must be investigated, notwithstanding his recent removal from the bench by West Virginia's voters.
• 4/15/2008 NYT, The Selling of the Judiciary: Campaign Cash ‘in the Courtroom’

• UPDATED 03/31/2008 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Lawyers cite poll in effort to get W.Va. judge off case. Lawyers want West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin to disqualify himself from the Massey Energy case, too.

  They cite the more than $3.5 million in campaign contributions by Massey, CEO Don Blankenship.

  Justice Brent Benjamin, and all other judges taking money from any litigants, directly or indirectly, must recuse themselves from any involvement in deciding that case—... so, then don't take the money and reform the system (see ABA report below)!

  It should be pointed out that West Virginia is not the only state suffering from the perception that justice is being bought and sold. Texas makes West Virginia's pay-to-play justice appear honest!

• West Virginia Gazette->AP, AP to sue Supreme Court over Maynard records

Res:

• UPDATED 05/28/2009 California Court Administration, Commission for Impartial Courts.

  "The Commission for Impartial Courts was formed in September 2007 with the responsibility to recommend actions that should be taken by the Judicial Council of California in order to safeguard the quality, impartiality, and accountability of the California judiciary for the benefit of all its citizens."

  And recommend they did—the report Commission for Impartial Courts Final Report (PDF) is out for public comment. Comments must be received by July 10, 2009—email, fax, or mail comments to: Ms. Susan Reeves; Judicial Council, 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102; impartialcourts@jud.ca.gov ; Fax: (415) 865-8795

• ABA, Standing Committee on Judicial Independence

  • Justice in Jeopardy, ABA Standing Committee on Judicial Independence (5.5M pdf)

Blog: UPDATED 05/01/2008 AP sues for papers on W. Va. chief justice

-----notes-----

1. Chief Justice Elliott E. Maynard came under suspicion for official or criminal corruption when he failed to disclose his 2006 Monaco rendezvous with Don L. Blankenship, a longtime friend, Maynard campaign financer, and CEO of Massey Energy Inc. before participating in the decision reversing Massey’s $76 million dollar liability.

2. Fortunately our federal judiciary, where judges are appointed for life seems to understand and accept that judging involves a certain degree of social and intellectual insulation and isolation.

Unfortunately many (most?) of our state judiciaries have not develop such an understanding, turning them into little more than perceived or real corrupt carnival barkers.