Man Can't Sue Judge Who Had Affair With His Wife During Child-Support Case

 

That's the ruling of the Sixth Circuit Appeals court in a case brought by a Detroit man against disgraced Wayne County former judge Wade McCree Jr.

McCree, the son of the first black Justice to sit on the Sixth Circuit was disrobed and lost his judgeship for cute tricks like propositioning bailiffs, having sex in his chambers, trading sex for judicial rulings, sending inappropriate selfies and other misconduct was being sued by a Detroit man who the former judge slapped with outrageously high child support payments - while Judge McCree was having an affair with the other litigant in the case, the man's former wife. Mccree was sexting her from the bench, having sex with her in his judicial chambers and actively enjoying an affair that ultimately ended in an abortion.

 

The Michigan Supreme Court removed him from the bench and he was subsequently suspended without pay for 6 years, something the Michigan Supreme Court imposed because they honestly thought McCree could easily win reelection on racial grounds in Wayne County regardless of his carrying on.

But the Sixth Circuit held that Judge McCree couldn’t be sued civilly for any harms he caused while on the bench, regardless of his record.

According to the strict letter of the law, they're correct. Judicial civil immunity was upheld in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 348 (1871):

If civil actions could be maintained… against the judge, because the losing party should see fit to allege in his complaint that the acts of the judge were done with partiality, or maliciously, or corruptly, the protection essential to judicial independence would be entirely swept away.

Since then, courts have consistently ruled against plaintiffs attempting to sue judges.

There have been a few successful cases (In 1996 in Tennessee, a juvenile court judge who was accused of violating the civil rights of three women by sexually assaulting them and threatening to take their kids away if they reported it was denied judicial immunity by the same 6th Circuit) but not many.

Detroit attorney Joel Sklar, who represented the plaintiff in this case wants to take it to the Supreme Court.

“This conduct is absurd,” Sklar said. “It’s so beyond description. A judge uses his chambers to have sex with a litigant? ... If this isn’t too far, what is too far?”

There has been a movement, albeit a small one to waive judicial immunity in cases where a judge's misconduct has caused him to be removed from th ebench. We'll see if the Supremes hear this one.
 

Sheldon Adelson Files $60M Libel Suit Against National Jewish Democratic Council

Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino owner who has emerged as one of the country’s biggest Republican donors is proving once again that he's no pushover.

You'll remember I wrote about the disgusting and false charges promulgated by The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (the DCCC) libeling Mr. Adelson as a pimp who made money from prostitution.

Well, Sheldon Adelson's attorneys wrote these creeps a very direct letter promising to sue them right down to their underwear if they didn't publicly apologize and issue a retraction.

Not being total idiots, they did.

But apparently that kind of wisdom doesn't extend to the minions of the NJDC, an organization of left wing and largely secular Jews noted for being outrageous Obamabots.

They made sure the bogus charges appeared on a number of media outlets, and when they were contacted by Adelson's attorneys, they decided to double down.

So they've been hit with a $60 million lawsuit:

Mr. Adelson’s lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, names the Jewish council as well as two of its officials, David A. Harris and Marc R. Stanley. It seeks $10 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages.

“Defendants’ goal was to advance their perceived political interests by assassinating Mr. Adelson’s character, punishing him for exercising his right to make monetary contributions to political causes and candidates of his choice, and demeaning him within the Jewish community,” the lawsuit alleges.

Their response is typically both ignorant and sleazy:

We will not be bullied into submission, and we will not be silenced by power. This is not Putin’s Russia, and in America, political speech regarding one of the most well-known public figures in our country is a fundamental right. One would think the person making greatest use of the Citizens United ruling would understand this. To be sure, referencing mainstream press accounts examining the conduct of a public figure and his business ventures—as we did—is wholly appropriate. Indeed, it is both an American and a Jewish obligation to ask hard questions of powerful individuals like Mr. Adelson, just as it is incumbent upon us to praise his wonderful philanthropic endeavors.

We know that we were well within our rights, and we will defend ourselves against this SLAPP suit as far and as long as necessary. We simply will not be bullied, and we will not be silenced.

I wouldn't expect the sort of people who populate the NJDC to know this, but there is actually a specific religious prohibition in Judaism against exactly this sort of thing. It's referred to as lashon hara or “evil tongue” and if anything provides a classic example, it's calling a political opponent a pimp. 'Jewish obligation' my eye!

This is also not even close to a SLAPP lawsuit. There's a big difference between merely criticizing a public figure and spreading allegations that he is a pimp. It's especially egregious given that one of Sheldon and Dr. Miriam Adelson's charities they fund is devoted to rescuing prostitutes from drug addiction, getting them off the streets and helping them build new lives.

This is not even close to legitimate, protected political speech. Saying that someone is profiting from prostitution is simply over the line, even in politics.

Even the DCCC realized that, and groveled to keep from being bankrupted.

Personally, I hope the NJDC doesn't back off one iota. There's nothing that would be more fitting them to see them as bankrupt financially as they are ideologically.

They may call themselves Jews, but to my mind they're simply vicious anti-semites.

Zimmerman Trial Update

New information has surfaced. For one thing, the prosecution is contending now that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation with Trayvon Martin.

If their point is that he followed him after the 911 dispatcher told him not to, they have a point, albeit a small one. It's quite a jump to get from there to saying that Zimmerman provoked the violent confrontation unless they have clear evidence that he attacked Trayvon Martin first. If they do, under rules of disclosure they have to present it to the defense before the trial. If not,merely following someone and confronting him verbally is not sufficient evidence to show Zimmerman 'provoked the quarrel' - assuming the usual legal standards apply in this case, which they may not. One could just as easily say Martin 'provoked' the confrontation in the same fashion by somehow getting himself into a gated community. It all depends on the jury and how it sees things.

This also raises another question in my mind,one that occurred to me the minute I heard the charges were Murder Two rather than manslaughter. Murder two is usually used for crimes of passion...a husband or wife catching their spouse with someone else, family members having an argument that turns violent, that sort of thing. In order to prove Murder Two you usually have to prove that there was due cause for anger and/or hatred between the murderer and victim. In this case, they didn't even know each other and even Martin's mother has said that she thinks the killing was probably an accident: “I believe it was an accident. I believe that it just got out of control, and [Zimmerman] couldn’t turn the clock back.”

Needless to say, that didn't sit at all well with the grievance industry who has so much invested in this case or with her attorneys or the Seminole County DA, so she promptly retracted her statement after they got through yelling at her and explaining that characterizing what happened as an accident and a charge of Murder Two aren't compatible.

By going for Murder Two, the special prosecutor obviously pleased the local powers that be that want this quieted down and the Obama Department of Justice but the DA is somehow going to have to prove that there was intent or the aforementioned anger/and or hatred, not to mention convincing a jury of Zimmerman's state of mind. Involuntary manslaughter might have been a better call. We may find that this gets tossed because of an incorrect charge on the part of the special prosecutor.

No bail has been set for Zimmerman, who is in custody. His attorney's next step may be to ask for a bail hearing, arguing that Zimmerman is not a flight risk. The judge may set the bail low or high at their sole discretion. Although with ignorant, racist thugs like this demanding lynch mob justice, he might be better staying in jail.

Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, has said self-defense will be a strategy in the case. Zimmerman may well testify before an evidentiary hearing if he's claiming self defense. The judge in the trial will be before Seminole County Circuit Court Judge Jessica Recksiedler.

O'Mara could also file for a change of venue, claiming his client cannot get a fair trial in Seminole County.Actually, in view of the publicity surrounding this case,I doubt you're going to find any jury totally without bias one way or the other.

Supreme Court To Hear New Case On Race Based Affirmative Action

The Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider its earlier decision on race-based affirmative action. The new case, Fisher v. University of Texas, involves a white female student who was denied a slot at the flagship campus of the University of Texas because the university's race-conscious admission policy cost her a spot in the freshman class. The Court is going to hear the case during the term that begins in October, which means affirmative action could be an issue in the fall elections.

The Obama administration is supporting Texas in the case and has advised colleges and universities that under a SCOTUS 2003 decision, they may still make race-based decisions on admissions in pursuit of diversity.

The 2003 case, last time the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action was a 5 to 4 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, where Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote the majority opinion said that the University of Michigan law school could consider race in evaluating applicants, because government has "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

Since then, O'Connor has been replaced by Samuel Alito, and new Justice Elena Kagen has recused herself because she was active in supporting the case while she was President Obama's Solicitor General.

The case involves one Abigail Noel Fisher. According to the Texas system, all graduates in the top ten percent of their high school classes qualify fro UT admission. The rest are put into a second group that considers, test scores, community service, leadership qualities, extracurricular activities and yes, race. Fisher fell into the second group and is claiming she was denied a spot in favor of a less qualified student because of her race. Her lawyer is also arguing that UT’s policy of automatically admitting the top 10 percent already brings in percentages of minority students that go far beyond the numbers in question in Grutter v. Bollinger. Around 30 per cent of the students enrolling in the freshman class in question qualified as minority.

A three judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the University of Texas, but the ruling sparked a number of objections from other judges on the 5th Circuit Court to the point where the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

I have always found it ironic that the cure for bigotry in favor of one group was somehow thought to be bigotry and quotas in favor of other groups.Aside from being a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment,it is also a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which is still the law of the land.As Abraham Lincoln once famously said, I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored. And of course, what race it happens to be.