US Judge Retires After Utah Woman Files Sex Abuse Lawsuit. She Was 16 at Time of Incident

This undated photo shows Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the Federal District of Washington. 

(U.S. District Court)
[From article]
A Utah woman alleges in a lawsuit filed Wednesday that a longtime federal judge sexually assaulted her when he was a prosecutor and she was a teenage witness in a high-profile case 35 years ago.
Lawyers for Richard W. Roberts acknowledged an intimate relationship, but they called the accusations "categorically false" and said Roberts will challenge them in court.
The lawsuit was filed the same day Roberts announced his retirement as chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, according to documents obtained by The National Law Journal. In a letter to the White House, Roberts said his retirement was effective Wednesday, based on medical advice for an unspecified disability.
The Utah Attorney General's Office announced after the lawsuit was filed that they have investigated the woman's allegations, but opted not to prosecute Roberts. Investigators found evidence of a sexual relationship, but they determined Roberts didn't break any laws, in part because the woman was old enough to consent to sexual relations under Utah laws in 1981.
Investigators did not interview Roberts about the allegations.
A lawyer for Terry Mitchell, now 51, says in the court filing that Roberts sexually abused her multiple times throughout the trial of white supremacist Joseph Paul Franklin, who killed two black joggers in Salt Lake City in 1980. Mitchell was with them and was wounded by shrapnel in the attack.
The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they were sexually assaulted, but Mitchell said she wants to make the allegations public. She told The Associated Press that she's coming forward because the allegations have been kept secret for too long.
[. . .]
Findings from the Utah attorney general's investigation were sent to several congressional committees. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that he chairs has looked at the documentation. "Our initial review of the allegations has caused alarm and distress over their serious nature," Chaffetz said.
The abuse began after Roberts arranged for Mitchell to meet with him about the case in person, then took her to dinner and lured her into his hotel room, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit says he had sex with her that night, even though she said she was not ready for it, and that he continued to abuse her over the next several weeks before and during the trial.
[. . .]
She was vulnerable from the shooting and other sexual assaults in her past when she met Roberts, and he exploited and coerced her, her attorney said.
The lawsuit says Roberts kept her quiet about the abuse by telling her multiple times before and after the trial that if anyone found out they had sex Franklin might not be convicted.
Utah prosecutors chose not to bring criminal charges based on the recommendation of Paul Cassell, a law professor and former federal judge who reviewed the findings.
The attorney general's office released a copy of Cassell's report on Wednesday. He wrote that then 16-year-old Mitchell was considered old enough under state laws at the time to consent to sex and the allegations she was coerced weren't strong enough to file charges.
Cassell concluded that Roberts may not have committed a crime but that he appears to have acted unethically and likely violated U.S. Department of Justice rules for attorney conduct, among other rule violations.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/17/federal-judge-retires-after-being-sued-by-utah-woman-over-alleged-sex-assault.html?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obinsite

Federal judge retires after being sued by Utah woman over alleged sex assault
Published March 17, 2016

Associated Press

US Judge Threatens to Hold IRS Attorneys and Commissioner, and Justice Department Attorneys in Contempt

U.S District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan today [July 29, 2015] threatened to hold the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department attorneys in contempt of court after the IRS failed to produce status reports and newly recovered emails of Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS, as he had ordered on July 1, 2015.

The way that the Obama-Holder doctrine works is that inconvenient laws may be ignored. It appears that this unaware US Court judge did not read the memo. In addition in Washington DC, as in Cambridge MA laws are optional. So in case the judge follows through with his threats and does detain the mendacious, deceptive abusive of power attorneys, the White House will have to act and issue pardons for all of his fellow elitist, morally superior lawyers. Then it is likely the Judge will be impeached by the civil rights division of the Department of Justice for discrimination against these attorneys who are unable to comply with the laws, due to their predisposition to commit crime. It is an ethnic problem which gives the lawyers standing to file with the Civil Rights Division.

[From article]
Judicial Watch announced that U.S District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan today threatened to hold the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department attorneys in contempt of court after the IRS failed to produce status reports and newly recovered emails of Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS, as he had ordered on July 1, 2015.
During the a status hearing today, Sullivan warned that the failure to follow his order was serious and the IRS and Justice Department’s excuses for not following his July 1 order were “indefensible, ridiculous, and absurd.” He asked the IRS’ Justice Department lawyer Geoffrey Klimas, “Why didn’t the IRS comply” with his court order and “why shouldn’t the Court hold the Commissioner of the IRS in contempt.” Judge Sullivan referenced his contempt findings against Justice Department prosecutors in the prosecution of late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) and reminded the Justice Department attorney he had the ability to detain him for contempt. Warning he would tolerate no further disregard of his orders, Judge Sullivan said, “I will haul into court the IRS Commissioner to hold him personally into contempt.”
[. . .]
“In a dramatic court hearing today, Judge Sullivan made it clear he would personally hold accountable the IRS Commissioner Koskinen and Justice Department attorneys for any further contempt of his court orders in Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The missing and-then-not missing Lois Lerner saga is a stark example of the Obama administration’s contempt for a federal court and the rule of law. That Obama administration officials would risk jail rather than disclose these Lerner documents shows that the IRS scandal has just gotten a whole lot worse.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/federal-judge-threatens-to-hold-irs-commissioner-doj-lawyers-in-contempt-of-court-over-lerner/

Federal Judge Threatens To Hold IRS Commissioner, DOJ Lawyers in Contempt of Court over Lerner
JULY 29, 2015

Judicial Watch

Unconstitutional Supreme Court Activism, New Book

Book Review:
The Constitution: An Introduction 

by Michael Stokes Paulsen and Luke Paulsen

Basic Books 2015

[From review]

The Paulsens are at their best when critiquing the modern era of judicial activism. In their telling, the Warren Court (1953–69) produced “careless” decisions, because the justices were focused on achieving policy goals rather than upholding the law. The nadir of this results-oriented jurisprudence was, as the authors correctly point out, the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which invented a federal right to abortion on demand. The authors assail Roe as “the most extreme example of judicial activism in the twentieth century.” They even compare the decision—unfavorably—to Dred Scott, the notorious pro-slavery decision that helped provoke the Civil War. “Not even Dred Scott,” they argue, “so completely seemed to disregard the text as Roe did.”
Rather than citing the Constitution’s actual language, the Roe Court relied on the doctrine of “substantive due process,” the idea that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment empowers judges to strike down laws that they consider flawed, even if not strictly unconstitutional. That doctrine had been strongly endorsed by the Court eight years earlier inGriswold v. Connecticut, in which Justice William O. Douglas famously discovered a constitutional right to privacy hidden in “penumbras, formed by emanations” of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.
[. . .] 

The authors take aim at many other sacred cows of progressive jurisprudence. The famous police warnings mandated by Miranda v.Arizona (1966) reflected the Court’s “policy judgment” and not the text of the Fifth Amendment. The Court’s rejection of school prayer in Engel v.Vitale (1962) was based on a notion of the separation of church and state that is “found nowhere in the Constitution.” The Court’s 2013 decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act was “cryptic and meandering in its reasoning.” Lawrence v. Texas (2003)—which struck down state anti-sodomy laws—is portrayed as an abrupt reversal of an earlier precedent (Bowers v. Hardwick) driven by certain justices’ desire to legislate from the bench. On affirmative action, the authors take a hard line: the plain meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “renders nearly all forms of state affirmative action programs illegal”—notwithstanding the Court’s continued tolerance of certain forms of affirmative action.
[. . .]
The Constitution is a structural document—its purpose is to create a central government and simultaneously to limit that government’s scope. The document’s framers cared deeply about rights, but they believed that the best way to protect Americans’ rights was to limit the power of the federal government. The right to local self-government—ultimately enshrined in the Tenth Amendment—was the right that would safeguard all others.

http://www.city-journal.org/2015/bc0616af.html

ADAM FREEDMAN
Against Judicial Activism
Defending the Constitution from those who would rewrite it
June 16, 2015

FBI Obstruction of Justice, Congress and Inspector Generals

[From article]

In investigating the Fast and the Furious case, the Justice Department’s IG was told by the FBI that grand jury testimony could not be shared with the Inspector General. According to Mr. Grassley, the FBI claimed it had the right to refuse to provide the IG information in over a dozen other categories as well.
“Remember – the law says the Inspector General shall have access to all records, documents and other materials they deem necessary to conduct their investigations,” said Mr. Grassley, “And yet the FBI says its attorneys will review material first and decide what it would and would not release to the Inspector General.”
The FBI claimed the inspector general needed to get approval from the attorney general or the deputy attorney general to provide information to the Inspector General, an action Mr. Grassley called “exactly upside down!”



“Under the law, an inspector general must be independent. Agencies cannot be trusted to investigate themselves,” said Mr. Grassley. “If an inspector general had to ask for permission from senior leadership, he would not be truly independent.”
Other agencies who have avoided inspector general inquires through legal loopholes are the Environmental Protection Agency and the Peace Corps, Mr. Grassley said. Last year, a group of 47 inspector generals wrote a letter to Congress warning of these problems across the government.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/20/chuck-grassley-fbi-obstructing-fast-and-furious-ot/

Chuck Grassley: FBI obstructing Fast and Furious, other probes
By Kelly Riddell

The Washington Times

Monday, April 20, 2015

White House Claims Executive Privilege For Attorney General's Wife

[From article]
Judicial Watch announced today that it received from the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) a “Vaughn index” detailing records about the Operation Fast and Furious scandal. The index was forced out of the Obama administration thanks to JW’s June 2012 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and subsequent September 2012 FOIA lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No. 1:12-cv-01510)). A federal court had ordered the production over the objections of the Obama Justice Department.
The document details the Attorney General Holder’s personal involvement in managing the Justice Department’s strategy on media and Congressional investigations into the Fast and Furious scandal. Notably, the document discloses that emails between Attorney General Holder and his wife Sharon Malone – as well as his mother – are being withheld under an extraordinary claim of executive privilege as well as a dubious claim of deliberative process privilege under the Freedom of Information Act. The “First Lady of the Justice Department” is a physician and not a government employee.
[. . .]
Based on a preliminary review of the massive document, Judicial Watch can disclose that the Vaughn index reveals:
 Numerous emails that detail Attorney General Holder’s direct involvement in crafting talking points, the timing of public disclosures, and handling Congressional inquiries in the Fast and Furious matter.
President Obama has asserted executive privilege over nearly 20 email communications between Holder and his spouse Sharon Malone. The administration also claims that the records are also subject to withholding under the “deliberative process” exemption. This exemption ordinarily exempts from public disclosure records that could chill internal government deliberations.
Numerous entries detail DOJ’s communications (including those of Eric Holder) concerning the White House about Fast and Furious.
The scandal required the attention of virtually every top official of the DOJ and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Communications to and from the United States Ambassador to Mexico about the Fast and Furious matter are also described.
Many of the records are already publicly available such as letters from Congress, press clips, and typical agency communications. Ordinarily, these records would, in whole or part, be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Few of the records seem to even implicate presidential decision-making and advice that might be subject to President Obama’s broad and unprecedented executive privilege claim.
[ . . .]
On June 28, 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt by the House of Representatives over his refusal to turn over records explaining why the Obama administration may have lied to Congress and refused for months to disclose the truth about the gun running operation. It marked the first time in U.S. history that a sitting Attorney General was held in contempt of Congress.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/10/obama-asserts-fast-furious-executive-privilege-claim-holders-wife-2/

Obama Asserts Fast and Furious Executive Privilege Claim for Holder’s Wife
OCTOBER 23, 2014
Judicial Watch

Retrial For Murder Rape Of White Couple By Black Thugs

Murdered: Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were abducted, tortured, raped and killed in 2007


Trial: George Thomas, pictured, is being re-tried for their murders after a previous judge was disbarred

Killers: Lemaricus Davidson, found guilty of the murders


Letalvis Cobbins, found guilty of the murders


Convicted: Eric Dewayne Boyd was convicted of being an accessory to a fatal carjacking for the January 2007 crime


Convicted: Vanessa Coleman was also found guilty of murder, but on a lesser charge

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2299984/Families-couple-tortured-death-banned-wearing-photo-buttons-loved-ones-row-court-room-murderers-retrial.html

Families of young couple who were raped and tortured to death are banned from wearing photo buttons of the victims in the front row of courtroom during killer's retrial
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
PUBLISHED: 12:11 EST, 27 March 2013 | UPDATED: 12:11 EST, 27 March 2013

* * *

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/torture-slaying-retrial-declared-victim-free-zone/

WND
TORTURE-SLAYING RETRIAL DECLARED 'VICTIM-FREE' ZONE
Judge warns families of couple murdered during black-on-white carjacking, kidnapping
March 28, 2013

Judge Puts Rape Victim In Jail

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/after-jail-time-for-contempt%2C-alleged-rape-victim-returns-to-testify

After Jail Time for Contempt, Alleged Rape Victim Returns to Testify
Updated: Friday, 15 Jul 2011, 10:47 PM EDT
Published : Friday, 15 Jul 2011, 10:37 PM EDT
Taryn Asher,
Fox 2 News (Detroit MI)

MA Judicial Misconduct

Will electing judges change the character of the judicary? We elect governors, senators and representatives. Look where that got us. We need a DNA test for integrity and common sense, qualities which seldom appear among the elected criminal class. So Judge Ryan, can you hear me your honor, I'm over here? Would you be interested in a radio talk show?


http://bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1290084

Judge in order with all the rest

By Howie Carr
Boston Herald
Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Judge Acted Stupidly

Judge Ryan acted stupidly. Have another beer your honor. I hit him where? I was just trying to jack up the car not to car jack. That is my friend's car. I was helping him, not driving. Not even thinking of driving. It was my night to drink.

http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1289955

Ex-Mass. judge pleads not guilty to striking cop
By Associated Press
Boston Herald
Tuesday, October 19, 2010

MA State House Quote of The Week

Is this like Nancy Pelosi promoting the idea that "We have to pass the bill in order to learn what is in it?
Or like the Cambridge MA City Council. When confronted with notice that they are violating state laws, the response of the City Council is "Will you shut up?"

WEEKLY ROUNDUP: THE POWER LINES
Recap and analysis of the week in state government

By Jim O’Sullivan
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, SEPT. 3, 2010

QUOTE OF THE WEEK:

“We presume that the Legislature acts with full knowledge of existing laws.” – Justice Margot Botsford, writing for the majority in the Supreme Judicial Court ruling, a 4-2 split decision, to approve the permitting process behind Cape Wind. Whoa there, Judge. Her Honor might want to spend a little time in the House Gallery in the closing hours of formal sessions. Not only are lawmakers, most of them, acting without full knowledge of existing laws, they’re not even acting with half knowledge of the nascent laws in front of them. This is what happens when the three discrete branches of government do not sufficiently familiarize themselves with the other.

Saudi Judge Considers Paralyzing as Punishment

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_saudi_justice

Report: Saudi judge considers paralysis punishment
AP
August 19, 2010