Posted on 12/23/2006 10:36:15 AM PST by NormsRevenge
A judicial discipline council has voted overwhelmingly to impose sanctions on a veteran Los Angeles federal judge who improperly seized control of a bankruptcy case to protect a probationer he was supervising.
--snip--
On Nov. 16, the council ordered that U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real, 82, be publicly reprimanded for his intervention in the bankruptcy almost seven years ago, permitting Deborah M. Canter to live rent-free for three years in a Hancock Park house, costing her creditors $35,000 in rent and thousands more in legal costs, according to court documents.
Real's misconduct "warrants the corrective action of 'censuring or reprimanding' [him] by means of public announcement," because his "misconduct continued over a substantial period of time, was repeated and caused significant harm to a litigant," the council — led by the 9th Circuit's chief judge, Mary Schroeder of Phoenix — concluded. That decision ratified the findings of four judges, led by 9th Circuit Judge Susan Graber of Portland, Ore., who conducted an extensive investigation earlier this year.
--snip--
.. the council's order was inadvertently posted for more than a week on the Internet by Thomson/West, a legal publishing service.
Four legal scholars who reviewed the judicial council's opinion for The Times said the decision was well-grounded, and they expressed dismay that it had not been made public immediately.
The council's opinion said Real, a federal judge in Los Angeles since 1966, had engaged in misconduct by taking over the case and ordering a stay of Canter's eviction based on information he obtained from Canter alone. Consequently, the council said, Real violated one of the most fundamental tenets of how a federal jurist is obligated to behave: A judge may not exercise judicial power based on communications from one party to a dispute without the knowledge of the other party.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Lyndon Johnson nominee.
thanks, lyndon b johnson!
"...one of the most fundamental tenets of how a federal jurist is obligated to behave: A judge may not exercise judicial power based on communications from one party to a dispute without the knowledge of the other party."
Surely this "fundamental tenet" (or something similar) would apply to prosecutors e.g. NIFONG refusing to receive and consider communication from those accused while he was managing the details of the investigation and receiving communications of the alleged victim.
Wow! It's usually Carter or Clinton.
Censure? That's it? Corrupt conduct lasted over three years, a cost of at least $35,000, and that's just the stuff we know about. He's a guy, she's a female, he's taking "special" care of her, and the two are knowingly screwing...the creditors. At 82, I doubt censure has nowhere the meaning to him that her continued company did for all that time.
I see another case of dictators for life taking care of their own. Maybe we can get Alcee Hastings to conduct congressional hearings...
Man that was awhile ago....
Manny is well known in the trial lawyer community in Los Angeles and is frequently a judge sought out by the plaintiffs bar because he is a known democrat and a social friend of numerous politicians (all on the other side of the aisle). Manny was also favorably disposed towards the 'victims' perspective.
I guess the courts definition of a public reprimand and ours are two different things.
Why is this a big deal that it got out. We should want to acknowledge when judges are punished?
Yo judge ... don't piss off the 9th Circus ... y'know?
The judge in question's actions *should* also make him responsible for the monetary consequences of his interference. No punishment is complete without recompense commensurate with the wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.