Posted on 03/11/2009 3:45:07 PM PDT by george76
Sanders should have recused himself from case, ethics experts say.
Justice Richard Sanders, who sued the state to get documents about himself, could be awarded much more money because of a ruling he wrote recently for the state Supreme Court.
Sanders' lawyers say new legal guidelines -- ones the justice himself created -- mean he should get far more than the $18,112 he was already awarded in his lawsuit...
Legal-ethics experts say Sanders probably should not have participated in the high court case because of its similarity to his own.
"You shouldn't act as a judge if you stand to benefit from your own ruling," ...
Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at New York University School of Law, said Sanders should have recused himself because the case allowed him to indirectly influence his own.
He filed his lawsuit in 2005, after he'd gotten into ethical trouble for talking with residents at a state facility for sexually violent predators while some had pending court cases.
Sanders, a justice for 13 years, is known for his frequent and fiery dissents, and for sometimes controversial actions. He was admonished for his 2003 visit to the sexually violent predators facility.
Years earlier, the Commission on Judicial Conduct voted to reprimand him for joining an anti-abortion rally at the state Capitol, but a panel of judges later concluded he was within his free-speech rights.
Just last November, his actions grabbed headlines when he stood at a black-tie dinner and shouted "Tyrant!" at the keynote speaker, then-U.S. Attorney Michael Mukasey.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattlepi.nwsource.com ...
.
Justice Richard Sanders
Maybe he threatened them with a "Yellow s**t storm".
Wash. Supreme Court Justice May Benefit From Own Ruling
Justice Richard B. Sanders says he will not benefit because he has agreed to pay his lawyer any money he’s awarded
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428964400&rss=newswire
He’s been controversial alright. I believe he tried to play dumb when accused of the “tyrant” remark at the black tie dinner but finally admitted it when pinned down.
Justice acknowledges yelling “tyrant” at U.S. attorney general
http://www.theolympian.com/breakingnews/story/674677.html
...expecting Justices to act with Justice, who would have thunk it?
Kind of like expecting Justice from the Department of Justice...
Rush this story to the Ministry of Truth.
As someone who has argued several cases to the Washington Supreme Court, I would definitely say he is one of the smartest judges on the court. And, he “gets” the idea that judges are supposed to make prinicipled, as opposed to political, decisions. In other words, in making decisions, he acts pretty much like a conservative would want a judge to act.
Unfortunately, he also is apparently one of the more abrasive judges on the court. Which means that although he is usually on the legally correct side of a case, he is also very frequently on the dissenting side.
I think that abrasiveness has also led to some of his ethical problems.
*nod* - I think I see what you are saying... and I think I forgot my “[/cynic]” tag.
Ridicule and derision
I remember looking him up after the “tyrant” remark. Notice that he also got into trouble for attending an “anti-abortion” (i.e., pro-life) rally.
I suspect that he is unpopular with the press and fellow judges because he is a CONSERVATIVE, who doesn’t suffer fools gladly.
WA Attorney here,
I think he is a great Justice. I loved his dissent in the Mariner’s ballpark case. CLEAN v. STATE, 130 Wn.2d 782 (1996)
Though I am truly sorry he had to write it.
http://www.mrsc.org/mc/supreme/archive/130wn2d/130wn2d0782.htm
Sanders should have recused himself from case, ethics experts say... Sanders, who sued the state to get documents about himself, could be awarded much more money because of a ruling he wrote recently for the state Supreme Court. Sanders' lawyers say new legal guidelines -- ones the justice himself created -- mean he should get far more than the $18,112 he was already awarded in his lawsuit... Legal-ethics experts say Sanders probably should not have participated in the high court case because of its similarity to his own... He filed his lawsuit in 2005, after he'd gotten into ethical trouble for talking with residents at a state facility for sexually violent predators while some had pending court cases... justice for 13 years, is known for his frequent and fiery dissents, and for sometimes controversial actions... Years earlier, the Commission on Judicial Conduct voted to reprimand him for joining an anti-abortion rally at the state Capitol, but a panel of judges later concluded he was within his free-speech rights. Just last November, his actions grabbed headlines when he stood at a black-tie dinner and shouted "Tyrant!" at the keynote speaker, then-U.S. Attorney Michael Mukasey.Thanks geo.
What about his decision that defendants in criminal trials have no right to be present at their trial, cross examine the state’s witnesses, call witnesses, testify in their own defense, be present to hear the verdict, and also have justices who were on the witness list decide an appeal?
In case you think this could not possibly happen, you would be wrong. It happened to me, but my petition for Cert to the USSC is going in the mail this Friday.
Based on past decisions of the WASC concerning public records, Sanders is being truthful. If a WA SC ethics expert said he did not need to recuse, it's a hard case to make that he violated any CJC provision.
Thanks.
Based on my personal knowledge of the corruption within the government of Washington, I believe that once Sanders gets the documents, he is going to have a huge civil rights case against a lot of people within that government. If that was nopt the case, he’d have the documents already.
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.