#judicial misconduct | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tongue-like-a-razor · 2 years

Text

Less Talk | Part II

Jake Seresin x F!Reader

Summary: Jake can't stand Bradley's best friend. What's more, he's probably in love with her, which really pisses him off.

CW: mild angst, Hangman being a dick aka Hangman being himself, unresolved sexual tension, swearing, drinking

Part I | Masterlist

Jake watches you navigate your way back to the table with a scowl; it’s just like you to make an untimely entrance. He sets your fresh cocktail down beside your first, half-empty one, and takes his seat. You arrive in silence and sit down without looking at either Bradley or Jake.

“Everything alright?” Bradley asks, trying to mask the concern in his voice by clearing his throat a couple of times.

You place your hand on the stem of the new glass before you, twisting it between your fingers. “Thanks for the drink,” you say stoically.

Jake starts chewing on the inside of his lip, hoping that Bradley isn’t stupid enough to disclose who’d gotten it for you.

Bradley shoots Jake a furtive glance before looking back at you. “What’s going on, Y/N?”

“Uh,” you say. “I’m going to get going soon.”

Jake watches you carefully as your fingers slide up and down the stem. The disappointment he suffers at the thought of you leaving is downright distressing considering how displeased he’d been with your attendance in the first place. Moreover, he can’t decide if he’s angrier with himself or with you for the physical reaction that accompanies this unexpected flood of feelings. And so, before he can stop himself, Jake makes the following ridiculous bid for your attention: “Already? We’ve hardly scratched the surface of the environment disaster at the heart of international trade. Thought you could draw up a list of tropical fruit that I’m never to bring up in conversation again.”

Bradley glances over at him with elevated eyebrows and a barely concealed smirk for which Jake nearly kicks him under the table.

“And once we’ve thoroughly unpacked that dilemma,” Jake continues, “there’s a whole slew of domestic issues we could sink our teeth into. We haven’t even begun to discuss public sector corruption!”

You look at Jake sharply. “You want to talk about corruption in the public sector?” you say, your eyes igniting faster than fireworks. “Look no further than the military.”

“I was hoping we could stick to judicial misconduct or the like. You know, keep it from getting too personal,” Jake says with a slight smile that he fights to keep from spreading further.

To your right, he can see Bradley shaking his head with a widening grin that he doesn’t bother hiding.

You nod tauntingly. “Sure, sure,” you reply. “Ignore the blatant abuse of power happening right under your nose.”

Jake smiles smugly. “Ignorance is bliss, darlin’.”

You give him a sour look. “You’re despicable.”

“And you are intolerable,” he retorts, although he’s not truly annoyed; not anymore. Not by a long shot. He’d rather sit here and have you bad mouth him six ways from Sunday than watch you take your leave. “Drink your drink,” he says, almost hoping that his inappropriately commanding tone might spur you on.

You glare at him but bring the glass to your lips and take a sip which he finds exasperatingly sensual.

“Right,” Bradley says. “I’d say that’s my cue.” He lets out a sigh of feigned fatigue as he gets up and stretches his legs.

You eye him curiously while Jake gives him an ominous sort of look. “Where are you going?” you ask.

“Bar,” he says.

“You’re gonna miss our fistfight,” Jake says while you look pointedly at Bradley’s untouched beer.

“Shots,’ he says, answering your silent question. Then, he glances at Jake. “Honestly, my money’s on Y/N but you’ll have to hold off till I get back.”

“I won’t have any,” you say. “Shots.”

“Afraid the booze might make you more agreeable?” Jake quips.

You throw him a harsh glance. “Keep dreaming, cowboy,” you say.

“You’re right, that stick up your ass can’t be helped,” Jake says.

“Hangman!” Bradley shakes his head.

You roll your eyes at Jake and say, “You’ll be happy to know that I’m leaving after this round.”

Jake watches you levelly. “Why would that make me happy?” he asks. Bradley purses his lips and slowly starts to back away from the table.

“Because I’m intolerable?” you say, attempting to imitate Jake’s sarcastic drawl.

Jake laughs. “I meant that in the best way possible.”

“Such a gentleman,” you reply derisively, meeting his gaze across the table.

“I’m not even trying,” he responds with a broad smile.

“Perhaps it’s time to start.”

Jake leans into the table. “Would that make you hate me less?”

You shrug. “I doubt it.”

He laughs, watching you gulp down the rest of your second cocktail. You stand up, swaying slightly on the spot, so he gets out of his seat as well, holding his arm out in case you lose your balance. “You alright?” he asks.

You bring a hand to your head and shut your eyes briefly. “Just a little dizzy.”

Jake walks around the table so that he’s closer to you. “Why’re you leaving?” he asks, his hand hovering near your arm, ready to catch you if you fall. “Am I getting on your nerves?”

You glance up at him with a small chuckle. “You must think the world revolves around you or something.”

Jake grins. “Your world, maybe.”

You shake your head but you’re still wearing a faint smile. “You wish.”

Jake tries not to stare at you too much because the more he does, the less intolerable he seems to find you. In fact, he’s beginning to find you exceptionally tolerable. He could probably tolerate you all night long. Several times, even. He swallows uncomfortably as you take a hold of his forearm to step around him. “Why, then?” he asks, turning his hand palm-up so that he could grasp your fingers before you let go of him.

You lift your gaze to look him in the eye and he nearly loses his own balance. “My boyfriend’s coming to get me,” you say, clearing your throat as you take your hand out of his.

Jake watches you steadily. “Heard he’s a peach.”

You scoff. “You’re one to talk.”

“I’ll walk you to the door,” he says when you veer trying to dodge your own chair.

“I’m fine,” you say.

Jake’s eyes slide up and down your figure as you walk ahead of him. “Not gonna argue with that,” he mutters under his breath.

You either don’t hear him or pretend not to because you continue toward the exit without turning around. He picks up his pace to get the door for you and you give him a disgruntled look in response.

He follows you outside, watching as you make your way toward a white Mustang whose driver he can’t quite make out. He trails after you, trying to curb his mounting distaste for a man he’s never even met.

You glance up at him in surprise when he catches up to you. “Are you still here?”

“It ain’t my fault your boyfriend can’t even be bothered to step out of his car to get your door,” Jake says, pulling on the handle of the passenger door. He bends down to peek into the vehicle. “Howdy,” he says with a broad grin.

Your boyfriend looks up at him with a mixture of confusion and suspicion which Jake finds amusing and oddly satisfying.

“Uber?” Jake asks, feeling rather bold.

“Uh,” your boyfriend starts, still puzzled.

“Seresin, move,” you growl, shoving him aside.

“Joking,” Jake says, ducking his head again once you’re inside the car. “Just delivering your crabby companion. Extra temper, hold the affection. Attitude on the side.”

You give him a sour look while your boyfriend furrows his eyebrows. “Jake, shut the fucking door,” you say crossly.

“There’s that extra temper I promised,” he says, winking before finally closing your door.

Jake straightens his back as the Mustang drives away, expelling a long, dramatic sigh. Now that you’ve left, he has an entire evening devoid of futile bickering ahead of him, for which he should be immensely grateful. He watches the car take a turn and disappear into a cloud of dust. Then he watches the dust cloud resentfully for a few moments, thinking that Bradley had been right after all, because your boyfriend does seem like the shithead type.

He sucks his cheeks in with a grimace after his jaw cramps from clenching too hard, and then he makes his way back into the Hard Deck. Bradley is back at the table but there are no shots in sight.

“Thought we were getting hammered,” Jake says, sitting across from his friend.

Bradley looks up at Jake as he takes his seat. “Y/N take off already?”

Jake nods. “Fucking finally.”

Bradley snorts. “Right.”

Jake gives him a bitter look. “You gonna tell me about the boyfriend, or what?”

Bradley squints his eyes at him with a smirk. “You’re dying to know, aren’t you?”

“You’re dying to tell me,” Jake bites back.

Bradley rolls his eyes with a sigh. “He’s just such a fucking dick, man. Goes out late, comes home drunk. Doesn’t tell her where he’s going half the time. She’s constantly calling me because it’s the middle of the night and he’s not home yet.”

Jake narrows his eyes. “Why’s she with this douchebag?”

Bradley shakes his head. “Apparently, she loves him.”

Jake stares at him. “Bullshit.”

But before Bradley can respond, his phone buzzes on the table. He looks down to read the message. “Payback and Fanboy are on their way. Are we going to the club?”

Jake takes a drink of his beer and hisses. “I think I’m gonna head home, actually.”

“What about guys’ night out?” Bradley asks in mild outrage.

Jake shrugs. “Another night. I’m about ready for bed, your girl really tired me out.”

Bradley chuckles. “It’s all that effort you put into pretending to hate her guts.”

Jake rises from his seat. “Look, I don’t hate her, alright?” he says. “I just find her extremely exasperating.”

Bradley grins. “I wonder why.”

“Rooster,” Jake says with a phony smile. “Can it, will ya?”

…

It’s past midnight when there’s a frantic banging on Jake’s door. He lifts himself off the couch, wondering how Bradley managed to get drunk enough to lose his keys. His roommate is many things, but irresponsible is not one of them.

“I’m coming, I’m coming,” he calls, shuffling to the door as the knocking intensifies. He pulls on the door with a tired sigh and freezes upon seeing you on his doorstep.

“Is Bradley here?” you ask, your voice strained. You’re blinking up at him with sparkling eyes.

Jake’s entire body reacts as if your arrival has triggered some sort of fight or flight response: his spine goes rigid; his muscles taut; his jaw set. He flicks on the corridor light and sees that your eyes are red and your cheeks are wet; you’ve been crying. “What happened?” he asks, the tone of his voice sounding much more aggressive than he intends.

You inhale abruptly, clamping your mouth shut to keep it from trembling.

Without waiting for a response, Jake reaches over the threshold to pull you inside. “Get in here,” he says roughly, his hand connecting with the back of your shoulder as he directs you into the house. He shuts the door behind you and then gives you an unyielding look. “Did he do something to you?” he asks sharply.

You shake your head. “Where’s Bradley?” you ask weakly, blinking away your tears as you wipe your face repeatedly with your hand.

“He’s not home,” Jake says, his brows knotted in alarm. “Can you tell me what happened, please?”

You glance up to meet his gaze and it takes every ounce of his self-control to keep from cupping your face in his hands and kissing away every last tear. He clenches his teeth to get a grip on himself, frustrated that you’re uncharacteristically silent at a time when he actually needs you to speak.

Jake takes a step toward you and you lift your face to maintain eye contact. “Either you tell me what the hell happened,” he says dangerously. “Or I’m gonna go find Mustang and ask him myself. And something tells me that my conversation with him won’t be the talking kind.”

Read Part 3

Tag List:

@malindacath

@karleetakeenan

@wandering-wah

@callsign-sunshine

@ghost-heart34

@birdy-bat-writes

@matya4

@wkndwlff

@nyx2021

@bellamy1998

@oliviah-25

@alexxavicry

@army24--7

@thefandomimagines

@dracosluvbot

@smit41

@scenesofobx

@Criminalmindsandmarvel

@lunamoonbby

@malums-trash-can

@toothemoonanddback

@broketraveler87

@atarmychick007

@shanimallina87

@army24—7

@creativitybeware

@xoxabs88xox

@Yoyop7

@hallecarey1

@nik2blog

@rrocky0ah

@kpopgirlbtssvt

@lilianashomaresparza

@latetedslesetoiles

@Elenavampire21

@starberryhorse

@ginger-gabsq

@sarcastic-sourwolf

@risingtripletaurus

@untoldshortsofthefandoms

@dempy

@lanie-k

@clancycucumber230

@littlebookbengal

@zbeez-outlet

@the-winter-marvel33

@potato-girl99981

@phantomxoxo

@flashyourgreeneyesatme

@thenewdaysalreadyhere

@abaker74

3K notes · View notes

racefortheironthrone · 1 year

Note

What are your thoughts on Police Unions and calls to have them thrown out of the AFL CIO?

The last time that police unions actually acted like unions was the Boston police strike of 1919 (that unfortunately catapulted Cal Coolidge into national political prominence). After that, the basic labor relations between the state and police unions began to change in ways that are not recognizable as standard trade unionism.

The shift really began in the 1930s, when the rise of industrial unionism and attendant strike activity scared the shit out of the employers and their allies in government, because the usual Pinkertons and American Legion thugs were not enough to keep a lid on the situation. Hence the need to keep the police unions on the side of the employers rather than allow any possibility of siding with the strikers - thus you start to see police unions getting easily recognized, wage increases getting thrown around like candy, anything to keep the strikebreakers sweet.

However, it particularly morphed during the Second Great Migration (1940s through 1970), when the sudden emergence or at least rapid expansion of black populations in Northeastern, Midwestern, and Western cities scared the shit out of the municipal establishment in similar, yet distinct ways than the earlier union uprising had. In this period, an informal understanding was reached that the elected officials would block, slow-walk, or otherwise frustrate attempts by activists to impose accountability on police through civilian complaint review boards and other mechanisms, in exchange for police making upholding the racial hierarchy one of their enforcement priorities.

The expansion of grievance and arbitration procedures to include shootings and other acts of police brutality, written reprimands and other punishments from management, civilian complaints of abuse of power, officers' misconduct records and the extent to which they could be made public or even shared with future employers - the whole intricate mechanism by which police union contracts were turned into a bulwark against accountability - was part of this quid-pro-quo alliance between the state and police in the face of the emergent civil rights movement.

That's part of what slightly gives me pause about the left critique of police union contracts, because I think this alliance would have been constructed, maintained, and expanded over the decades whether or not police were unionized. The means would have been different, probably exercised through city charters, local ordinances, judicial precedents (even more so), but the ends would be the same. And if activists actually managed to eliminate a police union contract today, I'm absolutely confident that municipal government would rebuild it the next day, because they're absolutely scared of police slowdowns.

As to chucking them out of the AFL-CIO, it's not a bad thing per se, but I do want people to understand that it would be purely symbolic. The AFL-CIO is a union federation, it doesn't really have much in the way of direct authority over member unions, or exclusive access to resources that outpace what the member unions have. To give a historical example, the AFL-CIO expelled the Teamsters back in the 50s for being mobbed-up and it didn't change the Teamsters one bit - they kept on being mobbed-up until the Teamsters for a Democratic Union challenged the Hoffaites in the 70s and the Justice Department went after them with RICO charges in the 80s.

#history #labor history #police unions

425 notes · View notes

whitehotharlots · 2 months

Text

Tara Reade, Christine Blassey Ford, and the bleak limitations of pettiness feminism

For what it’s worth, I found the accusations made by Tara Reade and Christine Blassey Ford both imminently plausible. I’ve never met Joe Biden or Brett Kavanaugh, but I’ve spent more than enough time around entitled white collar pricks to realize that things like non-consensual workplace groping and wacky frat house sex pranks are a part of their worlds. There was nothing about either story that struck me as obviously false or otherwise disqualifying. Both very well may have happened.

But I also believe that there’s a wide chasm between plausibility and proof–especially in criminal matters, and extra especially in regards to the sort of accusations that could result in yearslong jail sentences. Sexual assault cases are notoriously hard to prosecute in their immediacy. If we’re talking about something that happened years or decades earlier, there’s no reasonable way to prove the accusations in a manner that would warrant a formal, judicial response.

By 2020, this belief of mine was considered hopelessly out of date, borderline sacrilegious. The Trump era ushered in a new diligence in regards to how the public was supposed to understand and react to accusations of sexual misconduct: women should be believed, full stop. Accused men should be punished, full stop. The crisis of the moment meant that all the old notions regarding due process and the fixed standards of what is or is not a crime had to be thrown out.

Remember that “Shitty Media Men” list from 2017? God, seems like forever ago. The list was a wholly anonymous Google Docs spreadsheet containing the names of several dozen men in media and a brief description of their alleged crimes. It was written about in glowing terms by publications big and small, heralded as a bold and exciting new chapter of social justice, and the list’s creator–Moria Donegan–was eventually granted status as a star commentator.

Did you read the list? I did. About one in every 15 or so entries contained a very severe accusation–something along the lines of “he raped me in the dumpster behind Arby’s” or “he keeps tricking me into getting stuck in a dryer.” But the vast, vast majority of entries alleged nothing more than minor interpersonal conflict: “he doesn’t respect my work,” “he raised his voice at me one time in 2012,” and other stuff along those lines. One entry really stuck out: the accuser admitted that she had never met the man. “But,” she said, “he must be a creep… just look at the stuff he writes!”

No doubt, at least some of these men were/are grade-A jerks. But the bulk of them appear to have just been disliked by a colleague or acquaintance who felt the need to take advantage of a social justice movement to exact revenge. This is how human interaction works. No one is beloved by everybody; everyone will experience some instances in which they treat others with less courtesy than they probably should; and, well, sometimes two people who are otherwise completely decent despise one another for reasons that are inscrutable to everyone but God.

The malignancy of the Shitty Media Men list is that it caused readers to conceptually associate minor interpersonal conflicts–some of which admittedly did not happen, most others of the sort that would cause no reasonable person to find one party entirely at fault, let alone worthy of expulsion from polite society–with major violations such as rape and assault. This was the new era: every accusation is proof of guilt, and all guilt is of the same severity. It’s too hard to definitively prove that a rape happened, ergo we needed to dismiss the usual evidentiary standards of criminal proceedings in regards to rape. And, also, mildly upsetting a female colleague is now the same thing as rape.

Wonderful stuff. Fantastic stuff.

A year passed. The Notorious RBG ascended to the great rap battle in the sky, and it was up to the dastard President Drumpf to appoint her successor. He settled upon a youth-pastor-cum-jurist who resembled a crude caricature from a late 1800’s anti-Irish political comic. The man had a rap sheet a mile long: lackey to Ken Starr (himself quite the defender of rape), Yalie, anti-abortion, corporate puppet, helped rig the Florida vote in 2000, Federalist Society member, blah blah blah all the horrible shit you expect from a GOP nominee to the Supreme Court.

None of these facts mattered much within the liberal imaginary, however, as they weren’t that far afield from the activities of the sort of justices liberals find inoffensive. No, the #Resistance had an ace up their sleeve: a lady said he had sexually assaulted her 30 years prior, and she was willing to say so in front of congress.

He must have been toast after that, right? Because everyone had spent the last few years hashtagging #BelieveWomen, right? They’re not gonna say they believe women and not believe them, right? It can’t be that this precedent we just set up would only be used to ruin the lives of low-level middle manager type guys who did inconsequential stuff, right? Right?

No. Of course not. Republicans never even pretended to care about that shit.

In the non-conservative press, Blassey Ford was treated as a hero. Her effort was brave, and her failure served to validate the premise upon which it was founded: women are not believed enough, and men can get away with anything.

Another few years passed. Due to a confluence of events of that ranged between skullduggery and outright rigging, the Democratic presidential primary narrowed down to a less-corrupt-than-average politician who was called a “socialist” because he was to the left of Grover Norquist, and a credit card lobbyist who was once accidentally appointed vice president.

The credit card lobbyist should have been considered especially ignominious, considering the degree to which the #BelieveWomen mantra was prevalent on the left. Decades earlier, in a situation quite similar to that faced by Blassey Ford, he led the charge in aggressively dismissing the accusations of a woman who had accused a SCOTUS nominee of sexual misconduct. Surely that was the sort of thing MeToo would not abide, right? Right?

Again, no. The semi-socialist was repeatedly smeared as a racist and sexist for reasons that no one could ever quite articulate. Social media figures openly solicited false allegations of sexual misconduct against him. In spite of being a leftist Jewish man, in spite studies showing that his supporters were actually far less aggressive and hateful than those of Hillary Clinton, he was still the most toxic and evil presence to ever enter into Democrat politics. #BelieveWomen and #MeToo precedents were very effectively invoked: there doesn’t need to be proof, and there doesn’t need even be an accusation. He’s evil because we say he’s evil. His name is on the spreadsheet.

But the guy who got Clarence Thomas onto the Supreme Court? That was regrettable, sure. But it was a youthful transgression! He’s apologized! It doesn’t matter.

Then we got a late-primary curveball: a woman who verifiably worked with Biden claimed he had jammed his hand down her pants. The allegation was decades old and therefore unprovable in a legal sense, and suddenly that was an issue where it hadn’t been just a few months before. The MeToo movement’s purveyors worked to clarify that she was a lying, mentally unstable, and possibly Russian slut.

A year earlier, we were told that due process was a misogynist construct, and that expressing skepticism toward politically opportune allegations was an expression of patriarchy and privilege. Now, faced with allegations that would force them to choose between a semi-leftist or Donald Trump, the progressive vanguard suddenly decided that these old principles of Enlightened Liberalism weren’t so evil after all.

Blassey Ford is about to embark on a book tour, receiving near-unanimous praise (and ample financial compensation) for her bravery. She might not be a household name, but among those who do remember her, she is revered as a hero.

Reade, meanwhile, is a permanent disgrace who had to defect to Russia.

In a sad way, the disparity between how these two women were treated demonstrates the conditions that spawned MeToo: a woman who makes an accusation against an unpopular or hated man will be, at least, believed. She will not suffer negative consequences. She may even be rewarded, even if the man himself isn’t punished. But a woman who goes against a man who is too important, too well-connected? She won’t even get a chance to testify. She’s actually even worse than the abusers. Every aspect of her account and character will be placed under a microscope, and anything she cannot prove with 100% fidelity will be held up as proof of how horrible she is. She’s also on the spreadsheet.

And in an even sadder way, this disparity demonstrates why the MeToo and BelieveWomen stuff was horribly misguided from the start. Removing the structures that allow society to function will not magically result in a more just society manifesting from the wreckage of the old. You might–might–remove some of the most malignant shitheads. But in the process you will ruin the lives of many who are either innocent or marginally guilty, and you will entrench the utter empowerment of those who are, only in some small ways, the lesser evils. There’s no path forward, here. There is no hope here.

19 notes · View notes

1americanconservative · 8 days

Text

@EliseStefanik

I just filed an official judicial complaint with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct against Acting Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan for his clear violation of the Rules of Judicial Conduct for the New York State Unified Court System due to his family directly enriching itself off this sham trial against President Trump. Acting Judge Merchan is in clear violation of section 100.3(E)(1)(d)(iii) of the Rules of Judicial Conduct for the New York State Unified Court System as his family has enriched itself through anti-Trump fundraising mentioning this case directly. His family’s wealth is directly tied to attacking President Trump. The idea that he is in a position to preside over this trial fairly would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. The naked corruption on display in Judge Merchan’s courtroom isn’t only a threat to President Trump, but a threat to our justice system and democracy. It is election interference for financial gain and cannot be tolerated. Judge Merchan should have recused himself, but since he’s refused, he must be held accountable for his judicial misconduct. Read my full judicial complaint below. Elise Stefanik Post Office Box 500 Glens Falls, New York 12801 (518) 336-5232 May 21, 2024

New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct 61 Broadway, Suite 1200 New York, New York 10006 Members of the Commission:

I am writing to alert you to the conflict of interest involving Acting Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan. Judge Merchan currently presides over the criminal case against President Donald J. Trump brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. If convicted, President Trump faces a maximum of 136 years’ imprisonment. Moreover, he is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party for this November’s presidential election. As such, not only are President Trump’s interests at stake, the interests of all Americans are at stake. The conflict issue pertains to Judge Merchan’s daughter. Judge Merchan’s daughter is president of Authentic Campaigns, a group that represents Democrat politicians and political action committees (PACs). When President Trump was indicted in April 2023, U.S. Representative Adam Schiff of California, one of Ms. Merchan’s clients who is running for the United States Senate, sent out a fundraising email requesting $10 donations that stated:

It is a somber moment, and unprecedented for a former president to be indicted, but his alleged offenses are unprecedented. Trump will respond as he always does— playing the victim and blaming others for having the temerity to investigate him in the first place.1 The Senate Majority PAC, a client of Judge Merchan’s daughter’s Authentic Campaigns that leads the efforts to elect Democrats to the Senate, fired off a similar fundraising email after the indictment. It stated, in part: BREAKING NEWS: Donald Trump indicted by Manhattan grand jury This is an important moment for our democracy, but our work isn’t over. We must continue protecting our Senate majority from GOP extremists. Please, rush in $10 (becomes $60) to help defend the Senate.2

Since the indictment, Congressman Schiff has raised approximately $20 million, and the Senate Majority PAC has raised approximately $73.6 million. In other words, the clients of Judge Merchan’s daughter have raked in nearly $100 million and have used President Trump’s indictment—a case over which her father presides—as fundraising fodder. It is common sense that, if these groups make no money, they cannot afford to pay for services provided by individuals such as Ms. Merchan. The more money raised, the more it can be spent on services. Section 100.3(E)(1)(d)(iii) of the Rules of Judicial Conduct for the New York State Unified Court System dictates that Judge Merchan should not preside over President Trump’s case. Under this section, a judge is disqualified from a case when the judge knows that a person known by the judge to be within the sixth degree of relationship to him “has an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.”

If President Trump is acquitted, such a verdict would benefit him politically and be detrimental to Democrats, including clients of Judge Merchan’s daughter, in their efforts to defeat him in the courts rather than at the ballot box. If, on the other hand, he is convicted, such a verdict would provide a fundraising windfall for Democrat clients of Judge Merchan’s daughter. Congressman Schiff’s fundraising email highlighted the unprecedented nature of the indictment. That is nothing compared to the unprecedented nature of a conviction. Even U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, a retired federal judge in New York City appointed by President Clinton, raised concerns about Judge Merchan’s refusal to recuse in Scheindlin’s April 5, 2024 CNN appearance: The main focus of this motion, as opposed to the previous one, a year ago, which the judge denied, is on the daughter's line of work.

As you already said, the daughter does work with many, many high- profile Democratic candidates. She works on their social media. They put out a post. They get contributions. She, as an owner, gets a percentage of those contributions. So, there is a statute, in New York, which says a judge must disqualify himself, if a person known by the judge, be within the sixth degree of relationship, and a daughter is the first degree, has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. So, the question here is, is this daughter likely to profit, to benefit, from the outcome of this proceeding? And you have to understand, it’s not actual conduct that’s worrisome. It’s the appearance, the appearance to a reasonable person, that this judge cannot be fair and impartial, given that relationship.

So ordinarily, I would think that a benefit, financially, would be to a spouse, because they share the income. This is an independent adult daughter. They don't share income. But according to this -- according to this statute, according to this statute, the judge must recuse if she would substantially benefit from the outcome. So that’s one thing that concerns me.3 This is part of a troubling pattern of judicial misconduct by Judge Merchan. Indeed, just last Friday, we learned your office privately cautioned him in July over his illegal political donations to Biden and other Democrats in 2020.4 This private caution has not deterred Judge Merchan’s judicial misconduct, as evidenced by this current complaint. Judge Merchan appears driven by Democrat partisanship and financial gain for his daughter. This caution, as reported by the New York Times, “can be considered in any future cases reviewed by the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct.”5

It is imperative that New Yorkers and all Americans have confidence that justice is being dispensed fairly in New York. This is especially true in politically sensitive cases where bias is most likely to rear its ugly head. Here, we are in the middle of a presidential election campaign. The circumstances are unprecedented: President Trump, a former president and the likely nominee of a major party for the presidency, is on trial. These proceedings are under a microscope. Judge Merchan’s clear conflict of interest, based upon his adult daughter’s financial state in this unprecedented criminal trial, has badly damaged the court’s appearance of impartiality. Given Judge Merchan’s daughter’s clientele—and the vast sums of money that these individuals have raised and will continue to raise off of President Trump’s charges— Judge Merchan’s daughter stands to benefit the more legally imperiled President Trump is. She is well within the sixth degree of relation to Judge Merchan; indeed, as his daughter, she falls within the first degree. A straightforward application of Section 100.3(e)(1)(D)(iii) requires recusal. As Judge Merchan has declined to do so, I request that you investigate his conduct and impose whatever discipline is required. Sincerely, Elise M. Stefanik

13 notes · View notes

trickricksblog09 · 3 days

Text

🚨🚨🚨 I just filed an official misconduct complaint with the New York State Unified Court System related to the “random” assignment of Acting Manhattan Justice Juan Merchan, a Biden donor whose daughter is fundraising millions off his unprecedented work, to criminal cases against President Donald J. Trump, his companies, and his allies.

Read my full judicial complaint below.

Elise Stefanik

Post Office Box 500

Glens Falls, New York 12801

(518) 336-5232

May 28, 2024

Kay-Ann Porter Campbell

Inspector General, New York State Unified Court System Office of Court Administration

25 Beaver Street

New York, NY 10004

Members of the Commission, and Madam Inspector General,

I am writing to alert you to potential misconduct by Justices and employees of the Supreme Court, Criminal Term, New York County.

The potential misconduct pertains to the repeated assignment of Acting Justice Juan Merchan, a Democrat Party donor, to criminal cases related to President Donald J. Trump and his allies. Acting Justice Merchan currently presides over the criminal case against President Trump brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Acting Justice Merchan also presided over the criminal trial against the Trump Organization and will be presiding over the criminal trial of Steve Bannon, a senior advisor in President Trump’s White House and a prominent advocate for President Trump.1

The website for the Supreme Court, Criminal Term, New York County does not provide a comprehensive list of every justice and acting justice sitting in the courthouse, but based on the courtroom directory there are at least 24 sitting justices on the court.2 Acting Justice Merchan is not even listed among them, one assumes, because of his status as https://x.com/elisestefanik/status/1795585619223081302?s=46

10 notes · View notes

kp777 · 3 days

Text

By Julia Conley

Common Dreams

May 29, 2024

"It's hard to read this comically bad letter as anything other than a challenge to Congress to either assert its constitutional authority or admit fecklessness," said one group.

Despite his family's display of two flags associated with the "Stop the Steal" movement that baselessly claims the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald Trump, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said Wednesday that he will not recuse himself from two cases that pertain to the election and Trump supporters' effort to stop the results from being certified.

The justice wrote to the House of Representatives and the Senate to tell lawmakers that his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, was solely responsible for flying the two flags on the family's properties in Virginia in 2021 and New Jersey last year.

Justice advocates and Democrats in Congress have called on Alito to recuse from a case regarding Trump's claim that he has immunity from federal election interference charges and one in which the court is deliberating whether defendants who participated in the January 6, 2021 attempted insurrection should be charged with obstructing an official proceeding.

The demands for recusal—not the first to target Alito—came in recent weeks after The New York Times reported that an upside down flag had flown at his family home in Virginia just after January 6, and that a flag reading, "Appeal to Heaven" had been displayed last year at his New Jersey beach house, right around the time that one of the cases arrived at the Supreme Court.

Both flags were carried by some rioters on January 6 and have been embraced by the Stop the Steal movement.

The display of the flags, said Alito, "do not meet the conditions for recusal set out" by the court's ethics code, which was introduced last year and does not include an enforcement mechanism.

In his letters, Alito suggested that the push for accountability for the flag displays represents a violation of his wife's rights, noting that "she has the legal right to use the property as she sees fit."

"She makes her own decisions, and I have always respected her right to do so," wrote Alito, leading one progressive strategist to point out that the justice wrote the majority opinion in the Supreme Court ruling that revoked the constitutional right to obtain abortion care.

Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs for Stand Up America, called on the Senate to take "immediate action" to stop Alito's "bald-faced display of judicial misconduct."

"Justice Alito's refusal to recuse himself from cases related to January 6th is unacceptable," said Edkins. "By dismissing concerns about potential bias and conflicts of interest and placing the blame on his wife, he is making a mockery of the fundamental principles of impartiality and fairness upon which the Supreme Court was founded."

Edkins called on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to "schedule a floor vote on a binding code of conduct for justices" and urged Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) to "fulfill his duty as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee by launching a thorough investigation into Justice Alito's actions and corruption on the court."

Durbin sent a letter last week to Chief Justice John Roberts asking him to support the call for Alito's recusal and requesting a meeting with him, but progressives have said the senator should go further to ensure accountability for Alito's actions.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said last week that the Senate Judiciary Committee should subpoena Alito and open a formal investigation into his family's display of the flags.

Sarah Lipton-Lubet, president of Take Back the Court Action Fund, said Wednesday that it was tempting to "make fun of Alito for scribbling off the judicial equivalent of a 'my wife ate my homework' note."

"But the joke will be on all of us if Congress lets this be the last word on his recusal from election-related cases," said Lipton-Lubet. "It's hard to read this comically bad letter as anything other than a challenge to Congress to either assert its constitutional authority or admit fecklessness."

The court is expected to rule on the two Trump-related cases in late June.

Advocates have previously called on Alito to recuse from certain cases after it was revealed that he benefited from luxury travel paid for by a billionaire who had had business before the court.

#samuel alito #u.s. supreme court #dick durbin #u.s. senate judiciary committee #democarcy #2020 presidential election #jan 6 insurrection #take back the court #stand up america

7 notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 1 month

Text

MICHAEL R. SISAK and DAVE COLLINS at AP, via NewsNation:

NEW YORK (AP) — New York’s highest court on Thursday overturned Harvey Weinstein ’s 2020 rape conviction, finding the judge at the landmark #MeToo trial prejudiced the ex-movie mogul with “egregious” improper rulings, including a decision to let women testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case. “We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes,” the court’s 4-3 decision said. “The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.” The state Court of Appeals ruling reopens a painful chapter in America’s reckoning with sexual misconduct by powerful figures — an era that began in 2017 with a flood of allegations against Weinstein. His accusers could again be forced to retell their stories on the witness stand.

The court’s majority said “it is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant’s character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.” In a stinging dissent, Judge Madeline Singas wrote that the majority was “whitewashing the facts to conform to a he-said/she-said narrative,” and said the Court of Appeals was continuing a “disturbing trend of overturning juries’ guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual violence.” “The majority’s determination perpetuates outdated notions of sexual violence and allows predators to escape accountability,” Singas wrote. Weinstein, 72, has been serving a 23-year sentence in a New York prison following his conviction on charges of criminal sex act for forcibly performing oral sex on a TV and film production assistant in 2006 and rape in the third degree for an attack on an aspiring actress in 2013.

The New York Court of Appeals overturns the 2020 NY rape conviction of serial rapist Harvey Weinstein.

#Harvey Weinstein #MeToo #Rape #Harvey Weinstein Rape Scandal #New York #New York Court of Appeals

8 notes · View notes

if-you-fan-a-fire · 1 year

Photo

“First Round Lost By Judge Stubbs,” Montreal Star. January 12, 1933. Page 1 & 2. --- Commissioner Refuses To Quash Hearing of 16 Charges ---- WINNIPEG, Jan. 12 (C' P— Mr. Justice Frank Ford today decline to accept the motion of Judge Lewis St. G. Stubbs to quash a hearing of 16 charges of alleged judicial misconduct read against him by the Attorney-General of Manitoba.

“Even If I were sitting here as a Judge with jurisdiction to hear and quash such a motion, I would refuse because I see no legal or unconstitutional use made of the Judges’ Act as claimed by Judge Stubbs," the commissioner said.

The Minister of Justice is taking the course he did by appointing the accepted precedents as pointed out by Arthur Sullivan, K.C., counsel for the commission. If the Minister of Justice satisfied himself that the charge against Judge Stubbs constituted a prima facie, “it is not for me" said the commissioner “to opine whether the case is fair or not.”

INTENTION DECLARED He said that he was not here with authority to prohibit himself from conducting the commission and intended to do so within the limits of the order-in-council. Anything that may not come within that power will be seriously considered at the time of its submission.

Mr. Justice Ford said it must be apparent that the final decision in the removing of Judge Stubbs rests with the Governor-ln-Council and not with this commission.

E. J. McMurray, counsel for Judge Stubbs objected to remarks of Mr. Sullivan, who yesterday said that Judge Stubbs could be removed by the Governor-ln-Council even if Mr. Justice Ford's report was in the Judge's favor. Mr. Sullivan replied that his remarks expressed his own view. They were not made to influence matters before the commission.

PROTEST TO LAPOINTE Among exhibits entered by counsel, one was dated February 26, 1930, consisting of the complaint of the Judges of the Courts of Appeal and King's Bench to the then Minister of Justice Hon. Ernest Lapointe.

McMurray opposed entering this exhibit first because he declared that the complaint had been disposed of by by Hon. Mr. Lapointe; secondly, because it was outside the jurisdiction of the commission since it was purely a provincial matter; and. thirdly because he declared the commissioner could not in fairness present a combined judgment of these two courts as a complaint

Sullivan replied that the complaint in question is res judicata, since he had never heard of Its having been disposed of and therefore it is a part of the complaint on which Commissioner Ford must act.

Commissioner Ford agreed with Mr. Sullivan.

With the complaint sent to Ottawa regarding the MacDonald case, Mr. Sullivan filed a pamphlet called the MacDonald Will Case, written by Judge Stubbs, also copies of newspapers and numerous newspaper clippings dated February 1930.

Counsel also produced a hand-bill announcing a meeting in a theatre at which Judge Stubbs was to speak on the case. Counsel read: “Two million dollars is at stake, are you Interested? If you are, come and hear Judge Stubbs get your ears opened. You will be astounded, shocked and horrified!"

#winnipeg #royal commission #minister of justice #judicial apppointments #canadian judiciary #independent judiciary #public inquiry #misconduct #professional misconduct #red on the bench #judge stubbs #canadian criminal justice system #county police court #great depression in canada #crime and punishment in canada #history of crime and punishment in canada

0 notes

beardedmrbean · 1 month

Text

The rape conviction of movie producer Harvey Weinstein has been overturned by New York's highest court.

The New York Court of Appeals, in a scathing 4-3 opinion, overturned Weinstein's conviction on sex crimes against three women, finding the trial judge "erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes."

The court said that testimony "served no material non-propensity purpose" and "portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light."

Weinstein spokesperson Juda Engelmayer told ABC News, "We are happily surprised and we are studying the ruling."

The Weinstein team, which was eagerly awaiting a ruling, was not expecting it to be in Weinstein's favor after a succession of rulings in different courts all went against Weinstein.

Weinstein was also convicted of sex offenses in Los Angeles and sentenced to 16 years in prison there.

Because Weinstein is already convicted in California, he will not be released, but instead transferred to the custody of prison authorities in California.

Weinstein, 72, was a well-known, powerful man within the entertainment industry and prosecutors said he abused his power to take advantage of aspiring female actors, like the alleged victims, to coerce them into unwanted sexual encounters. According to the prosecution, the quid pro quo of assisting them with their careers in exchange for sexual favors on demand was both common behavior and a well-known secret throughout the film industry.

An explosive New York Times article in October 2017 reported Weinstein had reached at least eight settlements with women who accused him of sexual misconduct over decades. The story, which featured actress Ashley Judd publicly accusing Weinstein of propositioning her in 1997, sparked an avalanche of accusations from women who came forward with similar accounts and largely kicked off the #MeToo movement, targeting prominent celebrities for sexual misconduct.

Weinstein was arrested on May 25, 2018, and charged with first- and third-degree rape for one victim, and first-degree criminal sex act for another woman. He was found guilty in February 2020 of two felonies -- criminal sexual assault and third-degree rape -- but acquitted of the two most serious charges -- predatory sexual assault. He was also acquitted of first-degree rape.

Prosecutors said the testimony of women other than those whose claims formed the basis of the criminal charges spoke to Weinstein's state of mind to use forcible compulsion. The majority opinion, however, said that eviscerated the time-tested rule against propensity evidence, "which, in criminal cases, serves as a judicial bulwark against a guilty verdict based on supposition rather than proof."

The Manhattan district attorney's office said it will retry Weinstein should the alleged victims be willing to come forward again.

"We will do everything in our power to retry this case, and remain steadfast in our commitment to survivors of sexual assault," a spokeswoman for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said in a statement.

Attorney Douglas H. Wigdor, who has represented eight alleged Weinstein victims, including two of the Molineux witnesses -- those not pertaining to the crimes charged -- at the New York criminal trial, said in a statement: "Today’s decision is a major step back in holding those accountable for acts of sexual violence. Courts routinely admit evidence of other uncharged acts where they assist juries in understanding issues concerning the intent, modus operandi or scheme of the defendant."

He continued, "The jury was instructed on the relevance of this testimony and overturning the verdict is tragic in that it will require the victims to endure yet another trial."

Lindsay Goldbrum, who represents six Weinstein accusers, including Taralê Wulff, one of the Molineux witnesses to testify about being sexually assaulted by Weinstein during his criminal trial in New York, said in a statement: "This ruling is a leap backward for the rule of law. In New York, Molineux witnesses play a critical role in establishing a defendant’s common scheme or plan to commit alleged crimes. When a defendant is accused of being a sexual predator, especially one as powerful as Weinstein, the testimony of Molineux witnesses is crucial to disproving the defense that sexual encounters were consensual."

The Court of Appeals decided the evidence of uncharged crimes allowed at trial "was unnecessary" to establish Weinstein's intent and "served only to establish defendant's propensity to commit the crimes charged."

The opinion also said the trial judge, James Burke, abused his discretion when he allowed Weinstein to be cross-examined about the uncharged conduct, ruling it "served no purpose other than to display for the jury defendant's loathsome character."

#nunyas news #still in jail at least

8 notes · View notes