Thursday, September 30, 2010

The Forgotten Candidate...The Judge!!!

As November 2 looms closer, most voters are attending meetings to hear the candidates speak. I say most because there are still a vast number of people who don't have a clue who the person is or what they stand for. They just go in and vote for who ever either party puts on the ballot.

Of the number of educated voters, there is still only a small percentage that pay attention to Judges running. These are the people that have the greatest effect on your daily life.

Here's an article written by Oakland County Circuit Court judge Michael Warren is co-founder of Patriot Week (, and author of “America’s Survival Guide.”

Printed last Friday in the Oakland Press.

"This year, Michigan voters will have the opportunity to vote for two Supreme Court justices, as well as a slew of judges for the Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, and Probate Court. These elected officials have an extraordinary influence on the daily lives of citizens. After all, judges preside over criminal trials and sentence convicted defendants; interpret and uphold contracts; resolve property disputes; determine what is negligent conduct; preside over divorces, child custody, and child support matters; terminate the parental rights of neglectful and abusive parents; and adjudicate the estates of the deceased — just to name a few functions." FULL STORY

Well, I had the opportunity to meet and listen to Michigan Supreme Court Justice Bob Young this past Tuesday evening. I listened to Judge Young tell us all about how the rule of law is important, that a judges position it to "Interpret" the law. And while Judge Young admitted that Harvard Law School teaches a very loose and liberal "Interpretation" of law to it's students and almost nothing on the Constitution, Judge Young told us he took it upon himself to become educated in Constitutional Law.

Every thing that Judge Young had to say up to this point was all very pleasant and what one would expect from someone who sits on our Highest Court.

Then it happened. And before I tell you what happened, I have to also tell you that no one but Judge Young knew or recognized Justice Elizabeth Weaver or had any knowledge that she was planing to attend our small Tea Party meeting. After all, Leelanau is quite a drive to Muskegon.

Judge Young started talking about how some of the judges on the court are more liberal and even read a quote from President Obama about how we need epithetic judges. Then Judge Young preceded to openly attack Justice Weaver right their in front of us calling her one of these epithetic Judges. I have never seen such unprofessional behavior as Judge Young exhibited in front of us.

I commend Justice Weaver for maintaining her composure for she is a far better person than I. Justice Weaver just sat there and never said a word. When I spoke with her after, she told me that she didn't feel she had the right to speak up as she was not the invited guest.

Why would Judge Young feel the need to point out Justice Weaver to us and then attack her when it has been all over the news that she has resigned from the Supreme Court. Could this be the reason for her resignation?

Ok, lets move on to questions given to Judge Young. One business owner ask the judge about the smoking ban and of course the judge really couldn't answer because that would be forming an opinion on something that may come before the court. So I raised my hand and told Judge Young that I would take him of the hook on that question but I would put him on another hook with a question that would relate to the smoking question.

I informed Judge Young that there is such a case in litigation right now but I wasn't sure if this would be tried before a jury or not. I asked the Judge to give us his opinion on the Jurors Right to Nullify a bad law and sited this case to him.

The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138 (1920).

Before I could finish this case cite, Judge Young was talking over me and then he told us that while juries do sometimes nullify, HE wanted us to understand that would be "CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE"

When I posted this on Face Book, another person decided to ask Judge Young this question via his own web site. Here is her response from him.

Rose - Here was Justice Robert P. Young Jr.'s response to my question on Jury Nullification --

Justice Robert P. Young, Jr. . "I am aware that there are those who argue that juries have the "right" to nullify laws with which they disagree. I am not one of them. Juries are instructed to follow the law. We know that they sometimes don't but it is no more acceptable for juries to ignore the law than any one else. Those who support jury nullification are strangely outraged by "judicial nullification". I think both are acts of lawlessness."

This just blew me away. So I sent an email to Iloilo Marguerite Jones who is the Executive Director of Fully Informed Jury Association. Here's what she sent me back giving me permission to quote her.

"I think all you need to say is that Justice Young is willing to lie to keep his power.

Nullification is NOT civil disobedience: it is the traditional role of the juror to veto bad government laws be refusing to enforce them, but if it were civil disobedience, then those practicing it would be following the grand tradition of such heroes of humans as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Quakers who refused to convict anyone under the Fugitive Slave Act, and countless other good people who followed their conscience and refused to enforce bad laws—often laws that violated the civil rights of innocent people. A bad law is no law at all in the eyes of every just person.

If Justice Young is truly ignorant of the role of the juror in the justice system of this nation, then he needs to recognize that he is NOT well-schooled in the law, resign his position, and return the money he has taken from the taxpayers under false pretenses while failing to hold up his end of the contract. If he does understand the role of the juror, and still makes such statements, then he is a liar, and should be removed from office at the earliest opportunity.

You might want to send Justice Young a FIJA information packet for his review, but he may be too far power-damaged to be able to open his mind to the truth about what the role of the juror has been at least as far back as the Magna Carta. Actually, you might want to send the information packet to both candidates."

So, not only is it important to meet and listen to candidates, and yes, a judge is nothing more than a candidate asking you to hire them, YOU have a responsibility to ask them the right questions. Your future Liberties as well as your children's are at stake.

I think you all know that Justice Bob Young will not be getting my vote.

Now here is another person who attended this same Tea Party meeting in Muskegon and asked Judge Young a question as well. Having been there, I can attest to the accuracy of his account as well.

But I really wanted to know something. So I asked a question. (Now, understand I did not have a recorder going so this cannot be guaranteed as a verbatim record. But as a former reporter and editor, I think it’s pretty darned close.) I started off by making sure I’d understood his definition of a Rogue Judge:

DBS (me): “‘Rogues do not find themselves bound by the law.’ Do I have that right?”

RPY (him) “They don’t feel themselves bound by the law,” he said.

DBS: “And it’s a serious matter when they don’t?”

RPY: “Very Serious.”

I went on to posit some of the bad things that judges could do and what the sanctions might be…when judges don’t rule according to the law they might be found…. And here I had to look for the right word. After all, I’m no lawyer. On the tip of my tongue. They might be found… in contempt? ”And would this be a serious matter, to be found in contempt?”
RPY: “It could be.”
DBS: “Just ‘could be’?”
And then the penny dropped:
RPY: “This is about Mary Beth Kelly, isn’t it?” FULL STORY


apackof2 said...

From an Attorney friend of mine, "Several years ago, Weaver wanted to be the chief justice. Her colleagues did not vote for her, and she felt betrayed by the other Republican-nominated justices, Corrigan, Markman, Taylor, and Young. So, she wigged out and began a campaign of disruption and childish behavior. She began voting with the liberals on the court and, when Taylor lost to Hathaway in 2008, the court was split 3 Democrats - 3 Republicans - 1 Weaver. This made her something of a swing vote, and she voted often with the liberals to overturn cases that had been decided during the 10 years the conservatives (whom she derisively called "the gang of four") were in control.

Her resignation is a way of sticking it to the Republicans. This is the last year of her term, and she announced she was running as an independent, but I think she realized that would be a hard way to get re-elected. So, she resigned after cutting a deal with Granholm that Granholm will name Alton Davis. This allows Davis to run as an incumbent. The Democrats were so happy with Weaver that they had not even planned to run anyone for that slot; they were just going to run someone against Bob Young.

Davis is singularly unremarkable. I don't think he will buck the three liberals on the court, Cavanaugh, Kelly, and Hathaway. He will be a reliable fourth liberal vote."

Since this blog appears to be about exposing so called warts on the most Conservative candidates of the MI Supreme about about a blog on it's most Liberal and Granholm's appointment Alton Davis?

Your choice, don't vote for either Kelly or Young but let's educate on their alternatives and see if the people of Michigan would like them better!

Wanna bet they won't?

Rose said...

You may have gotten this information from an attorney friend, but what research into the backgrounds of each candidate have you personally done.

I have been keeping an eye on Weaver since the 2003 campaign when the media tried to smear her because she had a carpenter working on her house who was indicted by the IRS for willful failure to file.

I saw the daggers in Bob Young's eye when I asked my question and the complete arrogance and disrespect he had for us "little people" when he wouldn't even let me finish my question. Instead, he rudely tried to talk over me.

We need judges who respect the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not judges who think they are above us and violate our most fundamental Rights.