We previously discussed the bizarre screaming tirade of Putnam Circuit Judge William Watkins in a divorce case. While the husband, Rev. Arthur D. Hage, 63, charged Watkins with misconduct, Steve Canterbury, the administrator of the West Virginia Supreme Court has announced that he will not seek charges in the case. It leaves some confusion over what it would take to get a charge out of the high court.
Category: Lawyering
Rev. Arthur D. Hage, 63, has posted the video below as part of his complaint to the state Judicial Investigation Commission about Putnam County Circuit Court Family Law Judge William M. “Chip” Watkins III. It shows Watkins, 58, going ballistic in a divorce case where he screams at Hage, including to tell him to “Shut up” and accusing him of telling a “damn lie.”
Continue reading “West Virginia Judge Charged With Abusive Conduct Depicted in Courtroom Video”
There is a bizarre lawsuit shaping up in Manhattan. Lawyer Kenechukwu Okoli has filed a defamation and assault complaint against Paul Hastings partner Allan Bloom over an encounter at a 2011 deposition. During the deposition Okoli slapped Bloom and now claims that he was assaulted by accidental spittle and defamed when Bloom called him “uncivilized, ignorant and incompetent.” Remarkably, Bloom did not file for assault but in his Motion To Dismiss, Bloom (the accused spitter) says that there is no grounds for libel or assault by Okoli (the alleged spittee), who is seeking $1 million.
Michael Marin was the very image of a powerhouse lawyer: a Yale Law School graduate who went on to find success as a Wall Street trader who climbed Mount Everest, collected valuable art works and supported charities. The bon vivant seemed to be living the life of legend until he was charged with burning down his own Biltmore Estates mansion in Arizona. Shortly after being convicted of arson in court, Marin was seen putting something in his mouth. He promptly collapsed and died.
Continue reading “Lawyer Poisons Himself In Court After Being Found Guilty Of Arson”
Someone sent me this screen shot from yesterday’s coverage and asked how I was able to join Chief Justice John Roberts in discussing the health care ruling. Frankly, I thought arriving at the studio in his robe was a bit much but I appreciate his participation in the coverage. It is, however, a bit unfair to reply to analysis by your co-panelist with “well, that is not what I meant.” I think I have a slightly better handle on his own intentions, fears, and feelings after doing this type of work for a couple decades. Indeed, I have been known to go into a deep trance on television and channel the thoughts of James Madison (as well as Thomas Paine’s bartender).
Continue reading “Now Let’s Turn To Our Other Guest On What He Thinks Chief Justice Roberts Intended . . .”
In an important win for free speech, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit in striking down the Stolen Valor Act — legislation that I have previously criticized (here and here) as a threat to the first amendment. The nice thing is that it was not particularly close and Chief Justice Roberts again broke with his more conservative colleagues. In United States v. Alvarez, No. 11-210, the Court held 6-3 that it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies — in that case lying about receiving military decorations or medals. Ironically, Alvarez now has something to brag about but no one will believe him.
Continue reading “Supreme Court Strikes Down The Stolen Valor Act”
Below is my column in today’s Guardian newspaper — a further discussion of my proposal to expand the Supreme Court. While overlapping a bit with the column on Sunday in the Washington Post, the piece adds a few new details on the proposal that I first made over ten years ago.
As many on this blog know, I rarely respond to criticism of columns that I run in USA Today or other newspapers. As a columnist, I feel that I am given a rare opportunity to express my views and criticism comes with the territory. However, I was taken aback by many of the comments in response to my Sunday column in The Washington Post discussing my proposal for the expansion of the United States Supreme Court. Though the proposal was given serious and supportive reviews by some sites like Forbes, some conservatives immediately assumed that I was a liberal simply upset with the anticipated ruling striking down the individual mandate provision of the health care law. When another law professor and blogger (Ann Althouse) joined this ill-informed and uncivil chorus, I thought I would respond. This blog has always strived to maintain a strict civility rule — distinguishing it from many other blogs by discouraging and sometimes eliminating ad hominem and personal attacks. Yet, I am still surprised by the lack of civility and responsibility by many — particularly fellow lawyers and academics — in responding to such proposals. [Update: Professor Ann Althouse has responded to my call for greater civility with a new blog entitled “Jonathan Turley’s civility bullshit about my calling ‘bullshit’ on his Court-packing plan.” Notably, Professor Althouse does not address the fact that she was completely wrong in claiming that I was motivated by dislike for the anticipated ruling striking down the individual mandate in the health care case. (Apparently both civility and factual accuracy fall into the same “BS” category for Professor Althouse).]
Below is today’s column in The Washington Post Sunday Outlook. Due to the normal space restraints, the original article had to be cut down. Given the high number of comments and questions about the proposal (which I first made years ago) for the expansion of the Supreme Court, I have posted the longer, original piece. That longer version addresses some of the questions raised by readers.
Continue reading “The Nineteen Member Court: The Case For Expanding The United States Supreme Court”
By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
The NFL is facing a daunting number of lawsuits contending it knew of the dangers of traumatic brain injury resulting from concussions but hid that information from its players. Those suits have been consolidated and a local Richmond, VA resident is the lead plaintiff. The widow of former Atlanta Falcon Ray Easterling, Mary Ann, has continued a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the NFL following her husband’s suicide in April. The former all-pro free safety suffered from depression and insomnia following his playing days on the famous “Grits Blitz” defense during the 1970s. Nineteen Hall of fame players have joined the roughly 2400 other plaintiffs in the suits. Among them are legendary tough-guys Eric Dickerson,Tony Dorsett (and his son, Anthony), Rickey Jackson, John Hannah, Bill Bergey, Bob Lilly, John Randle, the late Lee Roy Selmon and Randy White.
Two California lawyers have been arrested in a bizarre alleged conspiracy to plant drugs in the car of the PTA president of their child’s school. Lawyers Kent Wycliffe Easter, 38, and Jill Bjorkholm Easter, 38, targeted Kelli Peters because they felt she treated her son poorly by locking him outside of the school for 20 minutes. They are accused of putting Vicodin, Percocet, marijuana, and a used marijuana pipe behind the front seat of her car to frame her.
Associate Circuit Judge Barbara T. Peebles is under investigation for allegedly allowing her clerks to handle litigation matters as she vacationed in China last year. To make matters worse, there is a criminal investigation into the disappearance of a document related to the vacation. In the meantime, another judge, Margaret J. Walsh resigned after allegations that she ordered the handcuffing of an assistant city counselor and used inappropriate or abusive language as well as allegedly attempting to influence city officials when her son was rejected for a job.
Kenneth Kratz, a former Wisconsin district attorney, has pleaded guilty in a legal ethics case for his alleged sexual harassment of multiple women. The allegations included text messages to a domestic abuse victim. In text messages, he told a woman that she might be “hot” but, due to his large house and salary, “I am the prize.” If so, the Office of Lawyer Regulation won the prize with pleas on three counts.
-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
“Criteria for selection for this list include the quality of the tweets, the number of followers and the most active users. ” Source:
14. Jonathan Turley, @JonathanTurley, George Washington Law School. Snappy headlines link to Turley’s blog posts, offering perspectives on politics, world and legal news.
The Justice Department announced Wednesday that it will not retry John Edwards. That ends a prosecution that seemed driven more by political than legal considerations. After spending years and millions of dollars, the Public Integrity Section accomplished nothing except to raise questions about its own priorities and function. It is not uncommon for prosecutors to yield to the temptation of bringing charges against high-profile defendants. However, the Justice Department stretched the campaign finance laws to the breaking point on this case. It seems intent on satisfying the public anger toward Edwards for his adultery and betrayal.
Continue reading “Justice Department Drops Remaining Counts Against John Edwards”