Monday, October 23, 2006

Why have elections if Judges rule all branches of government with no accountability?

Chief Justice William Sullivan has challenged all that is American, and yes, the US Constitution, itself.

Let us send him a message. He has done more wrong and against the US then any common criminal, so let’s treat him like one. Sullivan should be hauled off in handcuffs in front of his friends and family, have his fingerprints taken, and then hear the bars slam with him inside.

It would be a wake up call nationally for all judges that think they are above the law and can rule like royalty and screw all whom they please.

Wrong, send Sullivan and other asshole judges a lesson!

Contact your legislators even if you live in a state other than Connecticut, it is a national issue and you, the reader, reading this, need to step up to the plate. Call, email, fax, write a letter, repeat.

find your officials' email addresses and more here:

* * * *

Witness: Sanctions `Illegal'

A former chairman of the Judicial Review Council and a noted expert on legal ethics both testified Friday that there is no precedent, nor authority vested in the council, to discipline former Chief Justice William J. Sullivan for secretly withholding release of a controversial Supreme Court ruling to benefit a colleague.

"You can't do it. It's not right to do it. It's illegal to do it," said Hugh Keefe, a prominent defense lawyer and former council chairman, of any sanction of Sullivan.

The council's ruling on Sullivan's fate won't come for nearly a month. The next session of the 12-member panel is set for Nov. 17, after which the council is expected to deliberate and vote on the five charges of ethics violations it leveled at Sullivan in July.

Both Keefe and Rutgers University School of Law professor John Leubsdorf, testifying on Sullivan's behalf, relied heavily on the absence of any rules prohibiting a delay in the release of rulings, and were steadfast in maintaining Sullivan's conduct was an act of judicial discretion beyond the scope of review by the council.

Sullivan, who resigned as chief justice effective April 15 to take senior justice status, has admitted he held up release of a ruling limiting public access to certain court documents to enhance the odds that his protégé and colleague - Justice Peter T. Zarella - would succeed him as chief justice. Sullivan has testified he considered the case a "hot button" issue, and did not want Zarella, who ruled with Sullivan in the majority, to be questioned on it during his confirmation hearings before the legislature's Judiciary Committee.

Friday marked the third full day of testimony in the case against Sullivan, and its witnesses and subject matter were the most eclectic to date. For example:

- Zarella, wrapping up his testimony, talked about his personal torment over the various turns his nomination had taken.

- Two priests and two lawmakers testified about Sullivan's integrity, humility, devotion and community involvement.

- Two review council members volunteered decidedly different opinions in comments to witnesses. One was critical of Senior Associate Justice David M. Borden for making the scandal public through letters to the judiciary committee co-chairman the day they were to vote on Zarella's nomination; the other said Sullivan and his supporters were "playing the same game" as many criminal defendants - blaming someone else for their conduct.

Leubsdorf told the council that he found "no statutes, no rules, no precedents" on withholding release of decisions.

"I don't think the facts charged warrant discipline," he said.

Attorney Raymond Hassett, the council chairman, confronted Leubsdorf with the hypothetical case of a judge who is about to issue a ruling in a complex civil case involving two major corporations, but learns a colleague is about to sell stock in the company that is about to lose the case, meaning the stock price would drop. The judge delays release of the decision until the colleague sells the stock.

"I certainly wouldn't recommend it," Leubsdorf said in response.

"And it might well be subject to discipline."

Even before disclosure of Sullivan's actions, Zarella's nomination appeared to be dead because the judiciary committee - whose co-chairmen were at war with Gov. M. Jodi Rell for trying to shoehorn such an important nomination into the close of a jam-packed short session of the General Assembly - had failed to hold a public hearing. Zarella said Sullivan's actions tended to validate their intransigence."I've been very upset. My family's been upset. The press has been brutal," Zarella said. Sullivan's own contrition only added to the weight, he said.

"He apologized on numerous occasions, to a point where I said, `Look. The nomination was dead anyway.' He was feeling so bad. He was feeling so low," Zarella said of Sullivan.

Council member G. Kenneth Bernhard asked rhetorically what Borden had to gain by making Sullivan's conduct public, rather than simply referring the matter for confidential review by the Judicial Review Council "and the media would not have a chance to go crazy over this.

"In many ways, we have a gun to our heads," Bernhard said.

Council member Carlos del Portal said he was "very troubled" that Sullivan had admitted to doing something wrong, yet the blame is being laid on others. He asked Zarella if he cared to comment.

"No," Zarella replied.The testimony offered on Sullivan's character and integrity was poignant. The priests said Sullivan, a devout Catholic, attends Mass daily and carries out his faith in quiet ways.

"One elderly woman in the parish would like to see him canonized," said Monsignor James G. Coleman.

"He's an extraordinary guy."

Contact Lynne Tuohy at

* * * *

I believe Governor M. Jodi Rell and most of Connecticut legislators want to deal with Sullivan, if at all, after the elections. Connecticut is about corruption and arrogance. Let those in and out of Connecticut cry foul and see these official criminal brought to justice. They have caused too much misery involving ordinary folk and are defrauding all US Federal Taxpayers.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is not just Connecticut who is about Corruption and Arrogance, it seems to be the New American Way. Have you read anything about the Military Commisions Act? Just curious. If you haven't you really should, seems we have now made the transition into a Dictatorship officially.

Mon Oct 23, 05:28:00 PM 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Hit Counter