Articles Posted in Here Comes the Judge

Per the Alaska Supreme Court’s decision, Judge David Landry:

made inappropriate sexual comments to female court employees in the workplace. These included a note to a female employee that her “Hillbilly thermometers are distracting”, a note to a court clerk referring to a juror, stating, “I think Ms. _______ wants me,” describing one court clerk as a “shameless hussy”…

Hillbilly thermometers?! Go ahead, google it. You’ll get 6 hits. Where does a judge in Alaska come up with that? Judge Landry also routinely signed blank bail orders, leaving it to the prosecutors to decide “the particulars for out-of-custody defendants.” Gee, think there’s anything wrong with that? There are a few more findings (like 14 criminal cases that had to be dismissed in 2005 because Judge Landry failed to schedule the trials within the time required by law), but I think you get the idea. Partially because Judge Landry was defeated in November 2006, his punishment was only a “public censure.” Oh, and “at no time in the future [may he] seek or hold a position as a judicial officer in the State of Alaska.” Where’s the accountability? I’m steamed.

You can probably guess where this one is going. Judge Biddle, of Douglas County, Colorado, and prosecutor Laurie Steinman admitted that they had sex in the courthouse, on multiple occasions, in multiple places. Though the affair was apparently the subject of courthouse gossip, it only appeared on the official radar when Judge Biddle’s fourth wife reported it to the Chief Judge. (Honestly, when you marry the “Larry King” of the courts, could this surprise you? Yes, apparently it can. “I’m shocked and thoroughly disgusted,” said wife #4, after reading the complaint.) Per the allegations set forth in the Complaint filed with the Colorado Supreme Court:

The relationship began last spring, with Biddle offering to mentor [!] Steinman in his chambers over morning cups of coffee.

Both admit they had sex a number of times in . . . Judge Biddle’s judicial chamber during the summer of 2006 [including on July 4th @!*^&#!]

On a number of occasions, Judge Biddle would ‘sneak’ into the women’s shower facility in the courthouse early in the morning to shower with Ms. Steinman.

Steinman prosecuted 2 cases before Judge Biddle without disclosing their relationship.

And the remainder of the diddle fallout?

[Thanks to Cindy Hill for steering Legal Juice to this story.]

Continue reading →

George and Maxine Maynard, Jehovah’s witnesses, were going to find out. Obscuring the motto was a misdemeanor. Believing the “Live Free or Die” motto to be repugnant to their moral, religious and political beliefs

in May or June 1974 Mr. Maynard actually snipped the words “or Die” off the license plates, and then covered the resulting hole, as well as the words “Live Free,” with tape. This was done, according to Mr. Maynard, because neighborhood children kept removing the tape.

Mr. Maynard was found guilty on three separate charges and, upon refusing to pay the fines, was sentenced to, and served, 15 days in jail! He then filed suit in federal court, asking the judge to declare the statute unconstitutional. He won! (at least at the trial level.) The judge prohibited further enforcement of the law against Mr. Maynard. Of course, the state appealed, and the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. I’m sure you can guess who won…. Maynard! The Court framed the issue as follows:

whether the State may constitutionally require an individual to participate in the dissemination of an ideological message by displaying it on his private property in a manner and for the express purpose that it be observed and read by the public.

The Court’s answer: “We hold that the State may not do so.”

The juxtaposition of the slogan “Live Free or Die” with the act of trying to force someone to display it is just a little ironic, don’t you think? (On another note, for a number of years, New Hampshire has been the only state that does not have a mandatory seat belt law [though that may change this year] despite the fact that, because of this, they forgo millions of dollars in federal funds.) By Chester, nobody’s going to tell those New Hampshirites they have to buckle up. “Live Free or Die” baby!

The case is Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) and may be read in its entirety here.

Sometimes a little effort goes a long way. Just ask one lawyer, Mr. Puricelli (who represented a man successfully in a civil rights case), who got upbraided for repeatedly failing to fix typos in his court filings. The judge described Mr. Puricelli’s written work as “careless, to the point of disrespectful,” and agreed with the defendants that it was “vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, verbose and repetitive.” What were some of the mistakes? Per the judge:

Throughout the litigation, Mr. Puricelli identified the court as “THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTER [sic] DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.” Considering the religious persuasion of the presiding officer, the “Passover” District would have been more appropriate.” [Judge Jacob Hart, presiding]

Mr. Puricelli, on the other hand, felt the court didn’t understand his side of the story. When the defendant asked the court to reduce Mr. Puricelli’s fees [that they were required by law to pay] due to his typos, Mr. Puricelli wrote this reply to the court:

Had the Defendants not tired [sic] to paper Plaintiff’s counsel to death, some type [sic] would not have occurred. Furthermore, there have been omissions by the Defendants, thus they should not case [sic] stones.

Do you think the judge reduced Mr. Puricelli’s fees?

Continue reading →

Back by popular demand, (and subpoena by the Judge of Tigerton Dells), it’s the second installment of “The Adventures of Wickstrom.” (click here for Part One.)

We rejoin “Judge” Wickstrom at the conclusion of his second consecutive nine-month sentence for assuming to act as a public official (judge and clerk). And what, you ask, does Wickstrom do with his newfound freedom? He immediately sues a laundry list of Wisconsin state officials for putting him in prison, including two Attorneys General, the Shawano County District Attorney, several other public officials, witnesses in the criminal case, and “all spouses and kin and/or acquaintences [sic] of the [specifically named] Defendants.” When the state judges refused to grant Wickstrom motion for summary judgment, Wickstrom added the judges to the list of defendants too!

While Wickstrom’s “thirty-four-page, twenty-seven-count complaint lacked the descriptive clarity and precision typically characteristic of pleadings,” it was his filing of “numerous writs, notices, affidavits, and motions” that truly demonstrated his legal acumen. What Wickstrom didn’t understand, however, was that most real judicial orders neither have spelling errors such as “Realease” or “Premptory” in their titles nor are signed by the defendant in a case.

Continue reading →

Wisconsin Secession: “The Adventures Of ‘Judge’ Wickstrom: Part One”
Talk about a sore loser! What should you do if you were “overwhelmingly defeated” in an election for a town’s highest public office? If you are James Wickstrom of Fairbanks, WI, that’s an easy question: secession! And although “the history of secession in this country should have suggested to Wickstrom that his efforts would be futile,” Wickstrom “seceded” from Shawano County, Wisconsin.

He immediately “formed” his own municipality. He printed a public notice in the local newspaper announcing the creation of the “Constitutional Township of Tigerton Dells” and a meeting date to hold elections for officers. Not surprisingly, Wickstrom was “elected” both clerk and municipal judge of Tigerton Dells. But Wickstrom didn’t stop there. He issued liquor and cigarette licenses, filed documents with legitimate state and local offices indicating his judgeship, and even threatened to sue—in his “official capacity”—the Shawano County Clerk “if she did not cooperate with his demand for official printed ballots.”
So what happened to Wickstrom? Was he laughed out of Tigerton Dells? Sentenced to community service?

Continue reading →

In almost every jurisdiction, male lawyers must wear a jacket and tie when they appear in court. The idea is to appear dignified and professional – we are, after all, officers of the court. Most attorneys would probably agree that the courtroom is not the place to make a fashion statement.

Tom Cherryhomes, a New Mexico family lawyer, felt otherwise. Per the court,

On September 13, 1991, Cherryhomes appeared in Judge Shuler’s courtroom to represent a client in a child abuse/neglect proceeding. Cherryhomes was wearing a short-sleeved, conventional dress shirt with the neck unbuttoned. He had a light blue piece of cloth or bandanna tied around his neck, above his collar, and he was not wearing a jacket.

Judge Schuler reminded Mr. Cherryhomes that ties were required attire in his courtroom. Per the court:

[Cherryhomes] said he was wearing a tie, even if Judge Shuler did not like his choice, and referred to a book on nineteenth century western wear and a dictionary definition of “tie,” which he had brought with him. Judge Shuler disagreed with Cherryhomes’s interpretation of the meaning of the local rules requirement of a tie, and found Cherryhomes in contempt, fining him $50.

Cherryhomes requested a hearing, and an opportunity to explain himself. The Judge agreed. Shockingly, the Judge agreed with himself! Based on what you know of this lawyer so far, do you think he appealed? He did. And who do you think won?

Continue reading →