Removing “Rogue Judges”

That’s the subject of this article. It’s basically a two stage process. Someone first complains to the Judicial Inquiry Commission. Then, if the commission thinks it’s meritorious, they file formal charges with the Court of the Judiciary. That’s where the “trial” would occur. The article discusses candidate’s views on these recent changes to the process:

Informing judges each time a complaint has been made, including who made it. Previously, the commission would dismiss frivolous complaints without the judge even learning about it. Only after the commission brought formal charges would judges be informed about the allegations, and even then, the identity of the original complainant would be kept secret.

Keeping judges informed about the details of an investigation as it progresses. The commission now is required to send the judge under scrutiny a copy of all documents in the investigative file every four weeks.

Requiring complaints to be sworn in front of a notary public. Previously, people could simply submit written complaints to the Judicial Inquiry Commission.

Requiring all nine members to be present in order to hold a vote to bring charges against a judge. The new rules also require the commission members to meet in order to decide whether to start an investigation, and they must do so within 42 days of the filing of the complaint. Previously, commission staff could perform preliminary work.

The high court also made changes to the Court of the Judiciary. The justices initially required a unanimous vote to sanction a judge. Four months later, the justices backed off that position, requiring a unanimous vote to remove a judge and six votes out of nine to impose lesser punishments. Originally, a simple majority was all that was needed to remove a judge from office.

As you might suppose, opinions vary about the merits of the changes. The affect has been to reduce the number of complaints and sanctions. Whether that’s because the new rules filter out frivolous complaints, or prevent meritorious complaints, is anyone’s guess.

Some of the new rules, I think, are definitely a good idea. For instance, setting a time limit on the beginning of an investigation. No-one benefits from delayed investigations.

On the other hand, I think this is a great point:

Randall Cole, a circuit judge for DeKalb and Cherokee counties in northeast Alabama who chairs the Judicial Inquiry Commission, said he continues to have concerns about the rule changes five years later. He said people routinely call the commission’s staff with complaints about judges but fail to follow through once they learn about the process.

Cole said that shortly after the new rules went into effect, he talked to an employee of the court system who had a fairly serious complaint against a judge. He said he does not recall the details of the allegation but added that the employee did not want to make a formal complaint for fear that the judge would retaliate.

Lawyers especially are reluctant to file complaints out of concern that it will impact their clients on other cases, Cole said.

Complaints rarely result in charges. Margaret Childers, the executive director of the Judicial Inquiry Commission, said the Court of the Judiciary disciplines about one judge per year. Earlier this year, Talladega County District Judge Tommy Dobson was suspended for two months without pay for letting an assistant decide hundreds of cases without his oversight.

Still, even nonmeritorious complaints serve a purpose, Cole said.

“I think one of the important functions of the commission is to offer people a forum to complain about a judge,” he said. “If that door is closed to them in any way and they’re not allowed to file a complaint, I think that’s damaging to the system generally.”

I agree with Judge Cole. Making people jump through a thousand hoops just to file a complaint may eliminate frivolous complaints, but it’s also going to hinder meritorious complaints and even in the case of frivolous ones will reinforce the complainant’s belief that the system is corrupt. That creates an audience for the real wackos: J.A.I.L For Judges and their kind.

So make it as easy as possible to file the complaint. Let the complainant remain anonymous, at least initially. The subsequent investigation can sort out the good from the bad. And if formal charges result, then reveal the complainant.

Explore posts in the same categories: Elections, Legal News

One Comment on “Removing “Rogue Judges””

  1. As long as there are Judges/Lawyers reviewing complaints on Rogue Judges they will never be removed. They are all members of the BAR. NOT one Lawyer has ever been licensed to practice in law by the State of Alabama. That is why we need “wackos’ like those wanting Judicial Accountability –……

    It is obvious that ATTORNEY WHEELER is NOT knowledgeable of this Country’s Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States of America and what these documents really stand for, i.e. a Government of the People, By the People and For the People. Just as important Wheeler thinks he is in a Democracy and abounds with rhetoric and casts “stones” calling us “crackpots” with obviously no real understanding of JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY INTEGRITY LEGISLATION (J.A.I.L.) ( which is what it is titled in the non-initiative states such as Alabama. In South Dakota, an initiative state, the Amendment (Amendment E) is titled “JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVE LAW” (J.A.I.L.). Wheeler cites to the website I recommend the reader read it thoroughly for the truth of the matter.

    First America is a REPUBLIC not a Democracy. NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW……..but not when it comes to Judges as they have been placed above the law with Judicial Immunity. Now when it comes that the Judicial Immunity of Judges is being challenged Lawyers, Attorneys and Judges start running scared and Amendment E in South Dakota just scares the “living b jiminy” out of them. A must read for an enlighten view of “The Doctrine of Judicial Immunity” by Attorney Gary L. Zerman posted at .

    Understanding J.A.I.L: (

    Who is it being applied to? “(b)(2) The term “judge” shall mean justice, judge, magistrate, commissioner, judge pro tem, private judge, judicial mediator, arbitrator and referee, and every person shielded by judicial immunity.

    No immunity to shield a judge from (c):

    Deliberate violation of law,

    Fraud or Conspiracy,

    Intentional violation of due process of law

    Deliberate disregard of material facts,

    Judicial acts without jurisdiction,

    Blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or

    Deliberate violation of the Constitutions of Alabama (South Dakota) or the United States.

    Not like you, Wheeler, this “crackpot” believes that anyone that commits any of the above acts should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Judiciary has no “checks” and historically has been unable to or just not wanting to police itself. The Declaration of Independence clearly states, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”. When people are subjected to absolute Despotism (“Abuse of Government where the sovereign power is not divided, but united and unlimited in the hands of a single man, whatever may be his official title. It is not, properly, a form of government.”), it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    Yours for Freedom and Justice in my life time,

    Major General Sorensen

    JIC – Alabama
    VOTING for the Lesser of 2 EVILS?
    YOU are still voting for EVIL!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: