> During divorce proceedings between Matthew and his ex-wife, Raleigh County family-court judge Louise Goldston personally forced her way into Matthew’s home under threats of arrest to search for items that were in dispute. Accompanied by Matthew’s ex-wife, her attorney, and a bailiff (among others), Goldston walked barefoot through the house, ordering Matthew’s ex-wife to seize DVDs, yearbooks, and pictures off the wall. Some of the items didn’t even belong to Matthew’s ex-wife. And when Matthew tried to record the encounter, the judge threatened him with arrest.
This sounds like the ex-wife was close friend with the judge and this was very personal. Pretty insane either way though.
What I don't understand (from watching the video from outside the house) is why the cop helped the judge enter the house after the owner of the house pointed out she didn't have a warrant, and didn't prevent the ex from taking thiings from the house.
I would have expected- naively, of course- that once it was pointed out that the judge was trespassing, didn't have a warrant, and wasn't allowed to do this, the cop would have stopped her.
LOL. No officer wants to fight a contempt charge from an angry judge. A judge ordered me arrested without issuing a warrant and it cost me three years. Only yesterday did I try a FOIA to get a copy of the non-existent warrant, here was the reply:
"Please be advised that we conducted a diligent search based on the information you provided. However, no records were found in response to your request."
I was with many people in jail who were jailed for failure to pay child support when the judge thought they should be able to pay. These were people at the very bottom of the chain. They had already lost their driver's license as the state would take that away first as punishment for not paying, and therefore they had serious trouble finding a job.
You can't go to jail in the USA for debts, but the judge can convert a debt into a contempt charge and then jail you on that.
The dept of justice is intentionally one of the least funded and most important orgs in the U.S. if the system of laws and enforcement were efficient you would see powerful people in prison. Therefore, it is inefficient.
Have you ever dealt with a court? 3 months to get a court date, and the other party can find all manner of grounds to have the case put off until later on the day (so you need another 3 months).
There was an indictment. I was going to court regularly for the case, there just wasn't any warrant for my arrest or any bond set because I had never failed to attend a court appearance.
I saw a guy given 20 years for contempt, but it was later reduced to the six he had already served.
I don't know about other jurisdictions, but in Illinois contempt has no upper limit. I assume you can give someone the death penalty for contempt. The sheriff in Illinois certainly has the ability to give the death penalty for any infraction inside a jail, even if it is as petty as littering.
I was in court once during the Jason Van Dyke trial and a guy laughed at a joke the judge made. The judge gave him 30 days jail for contempt.
Yes. If you are in jail in Illinois the Sheriff (or his deputies) have absolute discretion to set any level of punishment for any infraction. I challenged it through the courts, appellate courts as being violative of my constitutional rights (essentially that the punishment was excessive in relation to the crime), but they ruled against me, and for the Sheriff.
"is why the cop helped the judge enter the house after the owner of the house pointed out she didn't have a warrant,"
Because judges can ruin cops lives too. There's virtually no oversight of judges. They granted themselves such secrecy that even if their disciplinary files have exculpatory evidence, you're not allowed to subpoena it. And the discipline is usually only related to egregious acts of misconduct. Stuff like incompetence or bending the rules or being inconsistent is basically ignored.
Plenty of videos online of judges being let out of reaffic stops and such while being assholes about it too.
Yes, but -- again, naively, this is not my area of expertise- I still would have expected a bailiff, when presented with a reasonable argument that the judge would be doing something illegal, to not escort the judge into the house unquestioningly. Already I think bailiffs are normally mostly limited to courthouse?
> Yes, but -- again, naively, this is not my area of expertise- I still would have expected a bailiff, when presented with a reasonable argument that the judge would be doing something illegal, to not escort the judge into the house unquestioningly.
Bailiffs' jobs are literally to provide immediate enforcement of the judges determinations of what is lawful. The normal expectation is that any legal arguments will be presented to and resolved (conclusively, for purposes of the bailiff, as any appeal will be after the execution of any orders) by the judge.
> Already I think bailiffs are normally mostly limited to courthouse?
Judges mostly work in the courthouse, but bailiffs aren't generally, that I know of, limited to it so much as that being normally where they are needed by virtue of where court work tends to happen.
> why the cop helped the judge enter the house after the owner of the house pointed out she didn't have a warrant
I can understand a non-lawyer deferring to the lawyer (and judge) in their midst. If I were with my (non-judge) lawyer and they started doing something surprising, my first instinct wouldn't be to restrain them.
Not restrain the judge. Again, I'm naive here- but I still would have expected the cop to say "Hey judge, can we talk for a second? If I underestand correctly, judges cannot perform law enforcement duty, and more importantly, there is no warrant permitting you to enter. How about we go back to the office and discuss this more widely with the police chief, as I don't feel comfortable possibly abetting you breaking the law. If it turns out it's OK, we can return later to obtain the items."
My guess is the cop was simply ignorant of the law and more than happy to help the judge, ignorantly. But I'm curious if we was sanctioned or if ther was any consequence to him at all.
No. A basic idea of any warrant is that you need two people to do something. If judges can write, sign and execute warrants, then we are into Judge Dred territory.
There is also a general principal that lawyers and judges should not turn themselves into witnesses. This judge just made herself a witness should any siezed material need be debated in court. Judges dont attend lineups or medical tests, nor should they attened searches.
But speaking just to the issue being asked here, why didn't anybody respond to a search being warrantless, the presence of the judge may have muddied that for the reason I suggested.
I read other reporting while trying to find biographical information about the judge, and the reporting is rather one-sided. The judge was certainly overstepped and was doing something wrong and illegal but it wasn’t quite as egregious as that.
In family law cases, she regularly entered the homes of and had meetings there with the involved parties, though typically she had one of the parties request the motion and in this case she did it herself. She usually required the consent of both parties legal representation before going through with it. The guy involved represented himself and didn’t realize he should have objected until it was too late and they were there. He’d been held in contempt for allegedly not turning over property she had ordered him to, which he said he didn’t have, and entering the house and searching it was her way of establishing that. Clearly out there, wacky, and illegal, but not quite so egregious as the article represents.
You can see how the judge probably thought she was being practical and fair minded, but nevertheless hugely overstepped.
Thanks for bringing much needed context. I can see a lot of merit to her methods while also realizing that it's probably not fit for anything larger than (very) small locale.
I do think that this is underselling the egregiousness a bit:
> He’d been held in contempt for allegedly not turning over property she had ordered him to, which he said he didn’t have, and entering the house and searching it was her way of establishing that.
Just because it sounds to me like she was a bit vindictive in having to enter and started telling them to seize things that may not have even been in question/contention. Dunno!
It seems like another detail supporting the idea that this “search” was highly irregular, casting it as far removed from a legitimate, professional exercise of official power.
We’re lucky as hacker types that we can sometimes do our jobs barefoot and in casual clothes, but I can’t think of any situation (other than this one) where an agent of the state executes their official duties unshod.
Fighter pilots. Search and rescue crews. I have personally seen more than a few at work in socks or bare feet. If your job requires you to quickly don survival kit or flightsuits, you hang around at work without shoes on. Also some military air traffic controllers and operations people on long shifts. I have done more than a few late nights at desks beside colored telephones, not always with my boots on.
And I know of some occassions where cops have taken off thier boots when entering certain religeous places.
It implies unprofessionality on behalf of the barefoot person. And possibly haste or even mental instability. Normally law enforcement wear substantial shoes or boots to avoid accidental or malicious injury. You never know if you're searching someone's house if they've left tacks out on the floor.
Why barefoot exactly? Something is missing here. When you execute a search it is not like you go around removing shoes. Then again usually that search and seizure is legal and not executed by the "judge..."
It's more difficult to hold elected judges accountable. An impeachment removing a judge put in place by a non-partisan vote is a bigger deal than impeachment of someone appointment by the governor. (Though, West Virginia did impeach their entire state Supreme Court for dodgy spending a few years ago.[^1])
This judge was elected 3 times. But most people will blindly reelect the existing judges. That's hardly surprising since in most states reviewing a judge's performance takes some effort. For example, here's Colorado's.[^2] A quick Google search didn't seem to turn up anything equivalent in West Virginia.
But if you want to dive deeper into how judicial misconduct can go unchecked, you should read about the PA Cash for Kids Scandal.[^3]
However, I don't want to give the impression that I think this is a common problem. Watch proceedings in any random Zoom/YouTube court proceeding and you'll find judges faithfully applying the law.[^4] But when misconduct does happen, it's really bad.
In some jurisdictions, judges aren't elected in the usual sense, but have retention elections, so there is an alternative (don't retain the judge), but not an opponent.
Of course, that also means that the judge gets replaced by an appointee, so its a "Devil you know or...??" kind of choice.
There are a lot of judges in the US, very few voters pay any attention to them and just re-elect whoever, many aren't elected in the first place, and there are rarely any standards for who is or is not eligible to sit on the bench. Many counties and small towns are very corrupt (in a captured-by-a-family-or-two-and-their-pals kind of way) with the result that lots of local officials are at best terrible at their jobs, and at worst are actively breaking the law. All kinds of bad conduct happens at that level, most of it never making the news at all.
One thing I'll add, this is also a symptom of the death of local journalism.
Even for decently populated areas, there's simply very little access to journalism covering things like local candidates. All news has become national. Local news broadcasts have pretty much died, all purchased by the sinclair broadcasting group.
Just try and get information on someone running for a city level offices. It's hard enough for officials with public meetings. But judges?
I have found that the League of Woman Voters often provides voter guides where you can read about every local candidate. Their positions, their website, answers to questions, and so on.
For judges in California, that generally includes a review about how well qualified they are.
I've found that very helpful in past elections for making decisions on local candidates. Which are the ones where my vote is most likely to make a difference. But which would otherwise be impossible for me to inform myself on.
Death of local news makes it worse, but this has always been an issue. Like literally since before the revolutionary war type ‘always’, and certainly long before that too.
Means of control get hijacked by bad actors until they screw up bad enough they can’t be ignored, to be replaced by… someone. Who is not such an obvious bad actor. Sometimes they’re even good! For awhile, anyway.
The fact that we're electing judges at all is insane. Elections are by definition partisan things, even when you don't list party. I've lived in states with "non-partisan" judge elections, and anyone remotely connected to a political party knows who is what and just votes that way. Yeah it prevents someone from just pulling a straight-ticket lever in the booth without doing any research but that's about it.
Your average voter has absolutely no business deciding the quality of someone's legal education, scholarship, etc. Hell one state I lived in most of the "judges" handling minor offenses like traffic tickets and small claims court had never been to law school, never served in any criminal justice role, they just ran for the seat and got it. It's a joke.
Appointing judges has its own host of problems but at least then you'll get people who are on the surface qualified to read, understand, and interpret the law.
No disagreement here about the failings of elected judges, but if partisanship is something to be avoided, then having appointed judges can often be just as bad. The politician doing the appointments will surely pick judges that align with their party's ideals.
In the best case, when the executive and the legislature are in opposition—and appointments must clear both branches—then you have opposing forces that hopefully weed out the most partisan of judges.
My proposal is to have candidate judges throw their name on a list. Whenever a spot needs filling, then each of 3 committees makes their selections from that list. Those 3 committees would be (1) current judges, (2) prosecutors, and (3) defense attorneys.
Only if a majority of each group blesses a candidate, would that candidate be eligible for appointment by the governor.
Electing judges does not preclude having legal requirements for running or holding the position. I’d wager more states have requirements like “must have practiced law in state x for y years” than not. Mine does.
Going into this judge’s background, she was originally appointed a Family Master before becoming a judge, so evidently the wisdom of appointments did not save people from her either.
Edit: are we sure this is an elected position in WV? I am looking at the county elections and don’t see judges listed on the results or ballot. Her replacement was appointed by the governor with no mention of it being interim u til an election.
Edit2: they are indeed elected, with eight year terms, which is why I did not see it. But the judge in question was again someone previously appointed to a family master position and then elected - and family master would definitely be prior qualification. Additionally these judges in WV must be a member on good standing with the bar and have a minimum of five years practicing law in WV.
Do you have a source for that? I took the totally unscientific method of sampling every southern border-ish state I could think of: California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Of those 10, 9 required 5-10 years experience as an attorney in that state. Only Arizona did not have that requirement. I couldn’t find a comprehensive list.
Appointed judges are just another form of patronage. The process is no less partisan than an election, and arguably more so because of the small coalition that actually needs to be onboard.
Still, an elected official with a track record of appointing manifestly unqualified judges will attract more news attention than a manifestly unqualified judge winning an election.
I would argue the ability to elect judges by constitutes is the only means to work around gerrymandering. The people are then allowed to override the legislative branch.
I live in Cook County Illinois and have to vote up and down on a fairly absurd number of judges, I think last time was around 60. My wife and I usually try to split it up and each research half, and it still takes a pretty decent chunk of time, definitely more then I spend on figuring out who I will vote for in all other elections combined.
Many, many judges are elected, and like with any elected office, there is no shortage of people ready to vote in absolutely despicable/incompetent/despicable and incompetent candidates.
Firing someone who was elected is also incredibly difficult.
In West Virginia, the qualifications to become a county Magistrate Judge (Empowering you to issue arrest and search warrants, find people guilty of misdemeanors, conduct preliminary examinations in felony cases, and preside over small claims court)... Are a high school diploma.
In fact, it's illegal in that state to require magistrates to have a law degree.
This particular judge was a family court judge - one step up the food chain - which, at least requires them to be a lawyer...
In England you can volunteer as a magistrate for the lower courts. Training provided, no prior legal experience necessary. Legal advisers in the court; serious (indictable) offences get referred up to an appointed judge. If you’re a juror and say you found the experience worthwhile the users will encourage you to sign up.
This is from West Virginia, where a state delegate was arrested and pulled from his house because he was one of the people who stormed the capital to 'help' Trump:
What is with politicians and blackface? How hard is it to find someone to run for office who didn't wear blackface? I remember at my university we even had a student government leader embroiled in a scandal because he wore blackface at a Halloween party.
People, stop with the blackface! How is this not obvious?
The problem is that it was apparently far less obvious 50 years ago... The sheer number of conservatives who have been caught doing it shows it's some kind of ex post facto social norm. For liberals supporting "traditional marriage" is the ex post facto norm but there is much more forgiveness available for people who spoke against gay marriage when Obama was against it. There should probably be some kind of accepted system of forgiveness... but the culture is run by its second most progressive so I only expect it to be available for those who merely failed to be the absolute most progressive.
I have a good track record of being the absolute most progressive for what it's worth.
Yea, I get it, there's history and attitudes changing. But, you'd think in 2021, someone thinking about running for public office might take a few minutes, sit down, and run through the checklist. You know, the basics: Did I ever rape anyone? Was I in the KKK? Did I ever wear blackface?
That's an, "arson, murder and jaywalking" list if I have ever heard one. :-)
And no, I think that when those teenagers were donning their offensive Halloween costumes, they did not think it was going to cause serious offense decades in the future.
In this case, the governor wasn’t a teenager. He was a 27 year old medical school student when the yearbook photo was taken.
To make matters worse, this was the same year his school had its first black student so many white students were using the yearbook as an excuse to protest.
> Did I ever rape anyone? Was I in the KKK? Did I ever wear blackface?
I think this is a gross oversimplification. Let me modernize the questions for the current era (since the alleged infractions were decades ago):
1. Have I ever touch someone romantically in any way without asking for explicit permission and receiving explicit approval?
This is the alleged “standard” these days, although I think that it is only strictly adhered to in one very narrow social group. Overall, “feeling safe” and “respect” seems to be more common than it was many decades ago, but those are still a far cry from explicit consent at every step that some folks use as a “standard”.
So if a potential politician cannot answer yes to this, then they leave themselves to being accused of being a rapist and/or sexual predator.
2. Am I in a social group that has a racial mix that does not approximate the local ratios (esp. if white)?
California, where I live, is taking stances on equality that focus on outcomes more than opportunities.
An unfortunate byproduct of this is that a group that is open to all groups, has members of at least all major groups, and has no policy or pattern of discrimination can still be called racist if their racial ratios are not at a certain level.
This basically means that most private clubs are “racist” by this definition.
Moose, Rotary, Chambers of Commerce, golf clubs, fraternities and sororities, American Legion branches, Masons (even Prince Hall), etc. are all organizations that have active members now that could be deemed “racist” if “racism” is defined as equality of outcome (as it is currently in CA K-12 education).
Any potential policitian who is a member of one of these groups runs the risk of being called a racist.
3. Have I ever worn a costume of a character that is not my race?
Moana, Mulan, Tiana, Jasmine, Pocahontas, are some Disney characters that are potentially out of bounds.
Luke Cage, Blue Marvel, Storm, Blade, Misty Knight, Black Panther, and Moon Girl are Marvel characters that are potentially out of bounds.
Any potential politician has to make sure that they have not worn any of these sorts of costumes, since at some point they may be accused of being racist or engaging in cultural appropriation.
Times change, people make mistakes, people grow… we need to allow space for this, especially when a questionable action was not done with malicious intent.
The KKK was a violent organization 100 years ago, there is no surprise that it would disqualify you from office. Literally nobody in that group is surprised to find that outsiders think they are too racist...
> The KKK was a violent organization 100 years ago, there is no surprise that it would disqualify you from office.
1. David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the KKK, held elected office in Louisiana from 1989 to 1992.
Not only do I think that it did not disqualify him, I’m guessing his former office helped him get elected.
2. Strom Thurmond, who was a vocal critic of integration and was in the Senate until 2003 (he was over 100yo), was a known racist. He later supported desegregation, but his racist attitudes in his personal life (e.g., word usage) allegedly didn’t change much.
Despite being very regressive in many of his views, he continued to get elected to office for over four decades (until 20 years ago, mind you), and he wielded immense power in the Senate.
3. There are no shortage of current national-level politicians, like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tommy Tuberville, who make explicit racist comments and plenty of dog whistle racist comments. They seem to have no problem getting elected.
Being racist or violent only very narrowly limits potential political positions one can run for, imho.
You're drawing conclusions from the most extreme politicians you can find in the deepest backwaters of this nation. The only reason we hear so much about them is that running news items on what they do is like running campaign ads for everyone else.
Storm Thermon has a black daughter whom he supported, and associated with. When she was around 30 or so, people even assumed she was his mistress until he reluctantly admitted the truth.
He’s hardly the most extreme politician on race. He’s more like some people who are stereotype others but make exceptions for their family. True extremists would have nothing to do with their mixed children.
I don’t think it’s a problem to accept that people have changed their ways, but pretty much in all cases of blackface people either deny it like the governor or pretend it’s not a big deal like the attorney general.
If anyone were to confront me on my record on gay marriage, I’d apologize myself. I thought civil unions were the best option, because I come from a country where government marriage and traditional (e.g. tribal or church) marriage are totally separate systems governed by different laws. I can see now that in the USA, the distinction has never been so deep thus asking for civil unions over marriage is just insulting people with second class status. I was wrong.
We are all wrong about something, sometime.
If only politicians could admit fault, I could respect them.
I'm confused- if a state delegate stormed the capitol (breaking a law), why wouldn't they be arrested and pulled from their house? Or are you saying it's crazy that a person who was elected to be a state delegate would then storm the capitol (that only occurred to me after typing my first question)?
Interesting- after being arrested, he resigned his delegate position and took full responsibility, plead guilty, went to jail, and then renounced his admission of guilt. What a quality fellow.
Entering the Capitol in a protest by itself is not unusual. Protests occur in the Capitol regularly. Without the retrospective view and full knowledge of January 6, “storming the Capitol” appears in a different light, if you concerned about the mens rea of the delegate. It is likely that the vast majority of people that day, the hardliner crazies excepted, had no idea or expectation they’d be facing charges.
I agree, entering the capitol in a peaceful was is not unusual (we saw an occupation of the rotunda only a few days ago).
But from the very first moments the aggresive crowd was gathering outside the capitol, it was pretty clear it was a lawless event (I watched the whole thing realtime on several different news sources). For example if the door to the capitol is locked and people start breaking windows to enter... that moves from "protest" to "storming" pretty much instantly. And he filmed himself with a helmet on, going through the broken-into doors.
Oh sure, it definitely devolved into a riot, and I can’t say anything about this guy in particular because I don’t know the details. My point is that just showing up to a protest in or at the Capitol is not really an unusual thing, and most of the people there, probably including the delegate, had no idea there’d be any consequences.
Peaceful is sort of a spectrum too - it’s not uncommon for Congressmen and their assistants to get shoved a little, screamed at in their faces, spit on, that sort of thing. Sort of an occupational hazard. Sometimes it makes for great photographs. Certainly what happened that day exceeded the norm, though, which meant a lot of people who showed up with legal motives got wrapped up in something else. Unfortunately it’s become so politicized (in part thanks to very bad reporting the day of) it’s rare to have a sensible discussion about it - thanks for your response - and clearly you know more about this particular situation than I do.
I’m saying that it’s crazy he was elected into office, then thought it was a great idea to physically attack the federal legislature.
You would think a newly elected politician would be more concerned with enacting their mandate, not revolutions. As far as I can see, he had no support from any of his constituents either. He just went to the rally alone.
> In 1980, when I was a 19-year-old undergraduate in college, some friends suggested we attend a party dressed like rappers we listened to at the time, like Kurtis Blow, and perform a song,” Herring said in a statement. “It sounds ridiculous even now writing it. But because of our ignorance and glib attitudes – and because we did not have an appreciation for the experiences and perspectives of others – we dressed up and put on wigs and brown makeup.
In retrospect I don’t really hold the act itself against him. However, it’s that as soon as the governor was in trouble, he became the foremost critic as if he had totally forgotten his own past.
> So now, I'm of the notion that all east coast politicians are hiding skeletons in their closets.
Serious question…
What percentage of people do you think have not done something in their youth (let’s generously call that 22 and under) that would offend one or more groups of people?
Of those, what percentage do you think want to become politicians?
My guess is that the Venn diagram of these two groups rounds to 0%.
People make mistakes, sometimes egregious, though sometimes (often times?) without malice.
If we want a wider pool to select our public figures from, we need to find room to forgive folks for transgressions if we can reasonably conclude that they have grown from and/or beyond their more offensive mistakes, especially if they occurred when the person in question was younger.
I think we all make mistakes. However when you are running for elected office, you need to admit your faults and not hide them.
If you want to be private about rape allegations, and incidents of racism, sexism, or harassment of any protected minority group then you ought to simply be a private citizen.
Otherwise the public deserves to know. How many people would have not voted for the governor if they knew his past was something he still denied, and had not come to terms with?
> If you want to be private about rape allegations, and incidents of racism, sexism, or harassment of any protected minority group
I think the problems with all of these is that they are not always clear and they change over time.
I’ve mentioned some examples in another part of this thread, but to summarize:
1. If you have not asked explicit permission and received an affirmative response at every stage of a romantic endeavor ever, you can be accused of sexual assault or rape. The affirmative response can be deemed invalid if any alcohol was involved, and can be plausibly denied if there was no written agreement (these actually happen).
2. “Racism” can be something as simple as wearing a costume of a character that is not your race (think Moana or Blue Marvel), or being a member of a group that doesn’t have the right racial ratios (even if there are no discriminatory policies or practices).
3. You can be considered to be a harasser of a protected minority group for doing things like using the word “niggardly” (not etymologically a race-based word) or assigning the book To Kill a Mockingbird as a teacher.
These may seem like extreme examples, but these are all things that are happening right now, and I think it’s safe to say that the vanilla forms of all of the actions mentioned above don’t warrant a confession from a potential politician.
… yet there are people that will have no problems tarnishing a potential politician’s reputation via highly subjective allegations alone if they don’t agree with that person’s politics.
For examples of each of the above, search for):
1. Harvard “rape” case in the 00s, and Duke lacrosse team.
2. Silicon Valley hiring practices. Also see most cases where the term “cultural appropriation” is weaponized.
3. WaPo article (today?) about TKM. “Water buffalo” case at UPenn in the 90s. People getting into trouble for playing the circle game, not realizing that the “OK” hand sign has become a racist dog whistle in some circles.
Gov Newsom boinked his campaign managers wife. Gov Schwarzenegger knocked up his housekeeper. Not sure that impacted their day job but gives me some pause.
This fear of bare feet is uniquely American. In many other cultures it is considered much more disrespectful and disgusting to wear outdoor shoes inside a home.
It's not fear of bare feet, it's this official coming by, backed by cops, to take your shit, but then doing something that either reads as very familiar or else quite respectful (but in a pretty minor way).
It's like a burglar who takes your grandma's jewelry, and eats a sandwich out of the fridge while they're at it, but is careful to wipe up all the crumbs and load the plate in the dishwasher. WTF?
It's not some sort of footphobia (where does America even come into this? I am American and taking off shoes is the custom in any house that somebody makes a pretense of keeping clean. Do you think we all live in barns?) It's about the judge not having any of trappings of a judicial proceeding, she wasn't wearing a robe and was generally behaving very informally. Taking off her shoes was part of that. Taking off her shoes to protect the floor shouldn't have ever come up because she should never have been in the house in the first place. Since she wasn't acting like a judge, she wasn't entitled to judicial immunity.
> I am American and taking off shoes is the custom in any house that somebody makes a pretense of keeping clean.
I've watched way too many movies depicting americans wearing shoes not only inside their home but in bed. Always weirded me out and I always wondered if this was a normal thing.
> I've watched way too many movies depicting americans wearing shoes not only inside their home but in bed
This indeed is how Hollywood popularly depicted Americans, as wearing shoes to bed, in the bathtub or shower, while swimming, and so on. There's the famous line the the Humphrey Bogart / Katherine Hepburn film "A Time To Stand" where the robbers tell Bogie they're going to clean him out, and he says "you can take anything you want, but you're not getting my shoes!"
There was an episode of This American Life where they delved into Hollywood's preoccupation with people never (ever) taking off their shoes, and one of the things they go into is how Johnston & Murphy (old shoe company) was one of the biggest funders of the original Silver Age studios. It was maybe the first instance of product placement, right up there with cigarettes. Of course Congress eventually got involved in the late 50s and pushed the shoe industry out, paving the way for movies like George Pal's "The Time Machine" which scandalously showed Yvette Mimiuex's bare feet. The French were laughing at us, though, with directors life Truffaut and Godard already showing casual barefootedness in their experimental shorts ("La Pantoufle Perdue" being the best-known and most influential).
It is normal for Americans to wear shoes indoors, but it is also normal for Americans to have a no-shoes-indoors policy.
To a large extent, it depends on the local environment. In places that are snowy, muddy, or sandy, people are more likely to expect guests to not wear shoes past the mud room. But in places where shoes stay reasonably clean, people are less likely to ask guests to remove shoes.
I have never heard of anyone wearing shoes in bed. That's super weird. Which movies show that?
I don't think it is a fear of bare feet exactly, its more like Americans often wear shoes in their houses. Taking off your shoes is a bit more casual so it implies a sort of familiarity.
Americans also don't typically (you can't completely generalize) have rooms where you sit on the floor or a mat. In cultures where you do that it makes even more sense to take off your shoes. They also typically have really big houses compared to a lot of other places, with bigger lots that contain indoor or outdoor spaces. In my own house, you could walk in the front door, walk through the living room or dining room and just continue the conversation in the patio furniture in the back yard. I think its cleaner to take off your shoes, and people sometimes do when they come to visit, or ask if they should.
Wearing shoes in houses really depends on region. Do that in New England and somebody's going to (possibly literally) scream at you for tracking in the snow or mud.
> Judges and police shouldn't have legal immunities
This is like saying employees should be personally liable for mistakes they make at work. Under egregious circumstances, yes. Otherwise, it’s their employer’s liability.
So yes, some immunity is necessary. The problem is the current standards of police immunity don’t seem to make sense. (I see no issue with present standards of judicial immunity.)
> Professionals doing jobs over $10k should have to buy malpractice insurance like doctors
One, this would obviously be paid for by taxpayers. Nothing would change except some insurance brokers would make money. Two, you want a private company gating the courts? Who would you expect to impartially adjudicate their disputes?
Which is egregious. Which means they shouldn't have any immunity. Which appears to have been exactly what was decided in this case. I agree with you that seems to have been handled exactly as it should have been.
It's a leap to go from that to "end all immunity in all circumstances."
What about ending the presumption of immunity? It was an uphill battle in this case to strip the judge's immunity.
Almost certainly this judge abused individuals who did not have the resources to defend their rights. Perhaps the burden of proof should not be so onerous.
Maybe the solution is that the employer (in this case the WV judiciary) has the option to accept liability. If they do so, immunity is presumed. If the employer rejects the liability, then the individual must prove that they are entitled to immunity.
Obviously there's a financial incentive for an employer to deny liability, but doing so would be extremely unpopular with employees. So presumably they would be judicious depending on the circumstances.
I'll reply more carefully since this is just so evil.
The current interpretation of prosecutorial immunity allows:
- initiating prosecution entirely for political or racial reasons
- falsifying evidence
- coercing false testimony
- hiding evidence
Technically, they can face the bar, or even criminal prosecution. But professional courtesy keeps them safe from criminal prosecution unless ugly facts are made public. Since the invention of immunity in 1978, those ugly facts are rarely discovered. These two forces combine to yield effective criminal immunity.
> Indemnification against civil liability is very different from immunity from criminal prosecution.
Qualified, judicial, and absolute immunities are (among others) immunities from civil, not criminal, liability that apply to public officials in different conditions.
You think what this judge did wasn't egregious? She invaded this man's home with armed men and robbed him; I'm comparing felonies to felonies. It sure as hell wasn't a mistake, so why are you talking about mistakes?
"Oops I tripped and accidentally fell onto his property and through his door.""Oops my tongue stumbled and I accidentally threatened to have the man arrested if he tried to film what I was doing."
Yeah right. She knew she was breaking the law, that's why she freaked out about being filmed. None of this was a mistake.
From Latin grex/gregoris (flock) and ex- (out of). egregious comes from a root which means "stands out from the flock" -- it's exceptional. Centuries ago, it had a positive meaning but not it is reserved for describing outstandingly bad events or people, etc.
FYI: that bill is from the previous Congress, but it's been reintroduced in the current one[1] and in the Senate.[2] But Republicans control the House, so it's not going anywhere. Meanwhile, it looks like a Republican introduced an opposing bill to codify qualified immunity for police.[3]
Of course, people with no consequences will do horrible things. Looks like its dead in the water though, it was introduced on 03/01/2021 and then nothing. Congress understands without cops that are immune, they cannot do terrible things with impunity. Immune cops are the foundation of an authoritarian government.
I've been following this case for awhile. The lawyer who argued the case, John Bryan, has a YouTube channel that I subscribe to. In this video, he discusses the victory.
Been watching the case from the beginning. I wonder what the civil suit will bring. Will she be ordered to pay thousands? Lose her home? I bet he's going to be smiling when she's forced to write a check or sell some of her possessions to fund this ridiculous action.
she was first censured and fined $1000 by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, but still said (under oath) she thought she didn't do anything wrong and would re-run for election. A delegate in the house of delegates said that since she thought she didn't do anything wrong, she was at risk of committing similar violations so introduced a resolution to have her impeached. She resigned and retired before it could go through. Two additional judges were charged with violations of the Judicial code for trying to interfere - one resigned/retired and the other was removed for the rest of her term.
A judge here recently committed a crime, and then elected to proceed on a bench trial so he was tried by his friend, instead of a jury, and the judge found him not guilty pretty quickly :)
I love how police and judges can simply retire if they’ve been breaking the law long enough. Why should these criminals get to retire? Why should they get to collect a pension?
Maybe? Probably not relevant? Family court and criminal court are pretty separated. There's not a lot of overlap in judges or lawyers, and afaik there aren't any state prosecutors going to family court to try cases.
This case already involved two judges caught trying to play backroom games.
Those are the one that were caught.
I stand by what I wrote. That prosecutor would get a reputation of going after judges and it would only bring obstacles into his professional or even personal life.
Prosecutors know better than to mess with people with real power.
This is why the first amendment, which disallows government interference in speech, is so important. Judges and other officials already have enormous power, and allowing them to compel or censor eliminates any hope of transparency and future action to correct what they did.
I’m assuming this wasn’t a no-knock warrant. The resident shouldn't have had a reasonable fear for their life or safety. Just because someone trespasses in your house illegally doesn't mean its legal to use force to remove them yourself.
I'm unaware of any USA jurisdiction where it is legal for a private citizen to use force to remove a trespasser from their home in a situation where a reasonable person would not fear bodily harm.
> During divorce proceedings between Matthew and his ex-wife, Raleigh County family-court judge Louise Goldston personally forced her way into Matthew’s home under threats of arrest to search for items that were in dispute. Accompanied by Matthew’s ex-wife, her attorney, and a bailiff (among others), Goldston walked barefoot through the house, ordering Matthew’s ex-wife to seize DVDs, yearbooks, and pictures off the wall. Some of the items didn’t even belong to Matthew’s ex-wife. And when Matthew tried to record the encounter, the judge threatened him with arrest.
This sounds like the ex-wife was close friend with the judge and this was very personal. Pretty insane either way though.