Hey, there! Log in / Register
Newton judge suspended following her indictment today
By adamg on Thu, 04/25/2019 - 5:57pm
The Supreme Judicial Court, which oversees all other courts in the state, said today it's suspended Newton District Court Judge Shelley Joseph without pay while she deals with her federal indictment for obstruction of justice.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey blasted what she called "a radical and politically-motivated attack on our state and the independence of our courts."
The SJC emphasized that in suspending Joseph, appointed by Gov. Baker as a judge in 2017, it is making no judgment on the validity of the charges against Joseph, under which she could face up to 20 years in federal prison for allegedly helping a man wanted by ICE escape an ICE agent in her courtroom last year:
This Order is based solely on the fact that a sitting judge has been indicted for alleged misconduct in the performance of her judicial duties. It in no way reflects any opinion on the merits of the pending criminal case. The Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits all judges from making "any statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any Massachusetts court." SJC Rule 3:09, Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 2.10.
Healey, though, very much made a judgment in her statement, saying that the Joseph matter could have been handled just fine through a state judicial-conduct commission and that it's pretty clear what's really going on here:
I am deeply disappointed by U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling’s misuse of prosecutorial resources and the chilling effect his actions will have.
Innocent, etc.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Our Attorney General
Seems to think this should have been an administrative decision not a Federal indictment.
Shocking ,I know.
If this was some kid brought here when he was little and facing deportation for a minor offence I could see trying to help him legally stay, but this case is the total opposite of that and if guilty the judge and court officer should do some time.
Our attorney general
seems to think a lot of thoughts that run counter to the letter and/or spirit of the law, and seems to have few qualms about acting on those impulses.
Just off the top of my head:
1. Bullying a digital ad company and threatening to prosecute them for the crime of geotargetting pro life ads.
2. Deciding all by her lonesome that the assault weapons ban outlaws anything that has any part dimensionally compatible with an explicitly outlawed firearm, regardless of the actual configuration of the weapon, which is you know, the actual standard in the 1994 federal awb and in the mgl. Except for the Ruger Mini 14, which she called out as being legal, despite the fact that you can buy a pistol grip and folding stock for it, thereby making the grandpa's hunting rifle looking one illegal by virtue of being dimensionally compatible with the illegal version. Maybe she owns Ruger stock. Who knows?
3. Phony hate crime reporting hotline.
4. Torpedoing that transfer of a handful of square feet of state house grounds so a new building under construction nearby could put in a vent shaft. Because reasons...but more importantly because publicity for her.
5. Using the state of Massachusetts as her own personal oppo research firm to harass oil and gas companies because the world is going to end in 12 years.
6. Suing health insurance companies into providing "free" contraception. Because free contrception is a natural right, on par with speech and religion and property, and only suckers pay for their own shit.
I'm sure I could dig up some more if I actually took some time to research the matter.
Contraception is a medical issue
Perhaps you believe that the combination of sex and not becoming pregnant is wrong. But you're in the minority. Responsible people don't go around birthing babies without considering the ramifications. But responsible people have as much right to have sex (without making babies) as Tony Scalia declared pretty much anyone has people have a right to own guns (which the language of the 2nd Amendment contradicts - but hey, what is the Constitution for people who make their own laws).
Just as GM shut down electric public transportation to create a market for the gas guzzling buses, the oil and gas companies worked to creation the lie that using the Earth's gas and oil has no impact. Just as the cigarette company executives knew they were killing people the oil and gas company executives knew they ARE killing people (still) by turning our air into trash. That is defending something called a right to life. Ironic that a person who sees abortion as killing people objects to legal work that is done to stop unnatural deaths (dying from polluted air is unnatural if you're wondering).
Phony hate crime reporting hotline. Could you explain what you mean by phony?
Clearly you don't like our Attorney General. That's sad. She is working to make sure you can enjoy a life better than what you would get in southern states where the government is master and the rest of us are the servants of the wealthy and/or powerful.
Is food a right someone else owes me
or do you think I'm responsible for paying for my own damn food. Just like I'm responsible for paying for my own damn condoms and birth control pills (on account of gender fluidity, better stock up on both, you know).
Phoney hate crimes. As in fake. Not real. As in the AG should not be inviting the Jussie Smolletts of Massachusetts to perform their theatrics here.
Blah blah blah. If we didn't have petrochemicals and internal combustion engines, we'd be dying of horse kicks and malnutrition from lack of fertilizers, lack of mechanized agriculture, and lack of inexpensive transportation. I'd much rather have lived in the 1950s than the 1850s. You?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "
You don't have to agree with the sentiment, but please dont insult my intelligence or your own by lying about the meaning of words written in plain English and available for all to see.
No defense of coming down on the ad company? At least that's something.
Biodiesel came first
The first diesel engine ran on peanut oil. So, despite your "all hail petrochemicals" snark, it could have been the same modern history based on a system that was carbon neutral, or very close to it.
If that were true
we'd all be using cheap and plentiful soy plastics and the 20% bio part of biodiesel wouldn't have to be paid for out of corn subsidies. There was no oil baron conspiracy. They could just pump and refine the stuff with less labor and cost of input than you could grow it. It still seems to be the case. Back when gas was $4/gallon, all the big oil companies were so flush with cash they were throwing billions with a b into ethanol and biodiesel and everything. Did anything come of it? If it did, it wasn't cheaper than drilling and refining. If it had been, you'd be ranting about the corn oil conspiracy and not the oil and gas conspiracy.
Is it intentional?
Do you miss the point intentionally so that you can provide a rant on a separate topic to continue to convince yourself of your genius?
The operative word I used was could.
That part of your little rant above is claiming that were it not for the amazing dino-juice we pulled out of the ground we never would have progressed beyond horse and steam power. Now, given that the first internal combustion engine ran on peanut oil it is very safe to say that we could have had the same sort of mechanization and advancement without it.
No it wasn't totally intentional
I read "could" as "if only there were unicorns"
Perhaps that was insufficiently charitable of me.
Yes. In principle, you could have transportation fuel derived entirely from plants.
However...we would have nowhere near the standard of living we enjoy if we were to do that. This is borne out by the fact that plant-based fuels cannot be produced at scale at in the same quantities as petrochemical fuels at a competitive rate. Attempts to subsidize corn ethanol, for example, do not actually lower the cost of production (since it only hides the true cost at the pump by paying the difference out of your taxes), and have the effect of raising food prices as arable land use is diverted to growing stuff for transportation fuel rather than food or cattle feed. This happened in the late 2000s and early 2010s when corn ethanol subsidies ended up ticking up the price of corn by enough for it to be noticeable in the third world.
"well regulated militia"
"well regulated militia"
So you do believe that there should be regulations regarding as arms? Good. Because many 2nd amendment types are against regulations..
I believe
the people's right to keep and bear any weapon suitable for use in a well regulated militia...that is to say not necessarily three firecrackers duct taped to the end of a copper pipe filled with gravel...is what is protected from infringement.
Edit: and I'll go you one further.
Militiamen...if they are regulated...are trained in the use of their weapons. I support mandatory firearms instruction in the schools for all able-bodied citizens as a means to that end.
Putting the horse in front of the carriage
Your statement
is not how the 2nd Amendment was written.
The 2nd Amendment states
It is not written as, The people have the right to keep and bear weapons suitable for use in a well regulated militia.
If you refuse to see the difference then that is because you choose to not see the difference. Your reverse reasoning reminds me of alcoholic parents who blame the problems in the family on their children. They reverse the roles in order to blame others instead of accepting responsibility for their own fears and hurts.
The natural law that helped to give rise to the Bill of Rights did not include the ownership of explosive violence. By the way, reversing the two phrases of the 2nd Amendment tells me that you recognize that your interpretation is just plain wrong.
A right that says you can own a weapon suitable for use by a militia. Even by that interpretation honey bunny you limit yourself to the definition of militia as of 200 years ago. Ball and musket babe.
The people
The people are not the militia. The militia is the militia. Some of the people are the militia.
Pay attention.
the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Militias are defined in the US Code and that militia part of the Code was edited as recently as 1993.
Regulate all you want
Just do not infringe on the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
The militia is necessary to a free state. The right of the PEOPLE (not just the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It does NOT say the right of the militia. It says the right of the people.
Bone up on US Code while you are at it.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim
Bone up on the Constitution and on grammar
The first phrase limits the meaning of the 2nd phrase.
The Amendment clearly states that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the benefit of a well regulated militia.
The Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights in no way was ever designed to limit the rights of the people.
It was designed to affirm rights of the people. It was designed to limit powers of govenrment.
Nope
The Bill of Rights was written to bring in the votes of southern states. The southern legislators were worried that a Federal government would do thing such as, OH MY GOD, ban slavery. The Bill of Rights was added to protect the monstrous and ultimate of sin, practice of slavery. Just as the Constitution prior to the Bill of Rights was a compromise giving greater power to the states supporting the horrid sin of slavery, the Bill of Rights was another compromise.
The irony is that the modern southern states would want the Bill of Rights revoked. The Bill of Rights is what stops the Evangelical political party, that is most powerful in the southern states, from committing genocide against Gay people.
And
Yeah.....How did that work out?
God almightly you are paranoid
For your own sake, get out of your bubble and make friends with people who do not think like you.
And for good measure
People have rights. Government has powers granted to it. Governments have no rights, only powers.
-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men --
Read the text boys and girls
Note the statement. The first part addresses a well regulated militia. Not the people, but a well regulated militia. Over 200 years ago militias were important because most people did not want a standing army.
We have a standing professional army today. The 2nd Amendment no longer applies because there is no need for a militia. No matter how you want to read it the amendment is clear. Reading it otherwise is to play failing Jedi mind tricks. The words are the words.
The Constitution was wrong when it was written. The 3/5ths clause declaring that black people had the value of 3/5ths of a human being (where did they come up with that fraction) was wrong. The allowance of slavery was a moral wrong of the worst of all sins. Today we channel our desire for violence and death by turning the 2nd Amendment into a pretzel.
Read
Read the US Code on militias, both organized and unorganized. The unorganized militia entry was edited/amended as recently 1993.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
You are so flat out wrong. And seeing as how you only offered a simple opinion, that is pretty hard to do.
Brush up on your grammar
The first phrase leads to the second phrase. The 2nd Amendment is about a well regulated militia (as defined 200 years ago). It has nothing to do with a right by the average Joe or Jane to own a weapon.
At a time when pretty much anyone could be part of a militia this made sense. It made sense because militias were composed of farmers, farmhands and any other free white male who qualified to be part of a militia. Please note that the majority of people could not be part of a militia nor vote.
Now if you want to redefine militia then push for a new amendment.
10 U.S. Code § 246 was a 1983 (not 1783) definition. Scalia and his confederates in the Federalist Society insisted upon an orginalist definition. In other words the law passed in 1983 can not be used to interpret an 18th century Constitutional amendment. We have to rely upon what words meant at that time.
10 U.S. Code § 246 is a convenient way to circumvent the meaning of the word militia as used in 1791.
In other words,
a pretzel twist of logic and history, your twisted interpretation is pretty easy to do.
The 3/5ths clause declaring
Wrong.
That was strictly a census count mechanism for Congressional districts, not the value of the human. The census does NOT count tourists. Are tourists less valuable humans?
And it was repealed in 1868.
Militias are still defined in the US Code and the issue has been revisited as recently as 1993.
Life, liberty and happiness. Declaration of Independence
Life is something that ownership and use of guns ends.
Although the Bill of Rights was instituted as a compromise in fear of too great a federal government, it also arises from centuries of debate of the nature of human beings. Do human beings have inherent rights? Or are rights granted by governments? Listen to Trump and his supporters in the political party, Evangelical Christians, a person gets the impression that Trump believes he is King who tells everyone what their rights are.
Same for the political party Evangelical Christians. They tell us that only they know what are "rights." That anyone who is not obedient to their definitions is a sinner; which in religious terms means a criminal.
Preceding the Bill of Rights was the Declaration of Independence. If we are to take that document seriously then we have to look at the ways that we destroy each other. That includes includes the plague of guns.
President Donald Trump
Yuck no. People grant government powers.
A person. One. And even that I am skeptical of. If anyone is telling anyone what their rights are it is you. President Trump is executing his job quite nicely and my inherent rights make me feel all warm and snugly under his presidency. He is a great guy... not like these tards who are trying to take away rights with jibber jabber.
You're embarrasing yourself
By letting your bias that supports the ability to kill override your reason you are ignoring the first phrase of the 2nd Amendment.
With all due respect I am calling you a liar. It is sad that you can not see past your bias supporting the ability to cause death with an explosive device.
Ad company
I could not remember the situation so of course I had no comment. But you encouraged me to look it up. Healy may have overstepped her authority. But the conservative AGs overstep their authority and morality quite often. Lemming's attempt at intimidation being example 1.
However, the ads were specifically directed at people based on upon their location. That pushes the boundaries of privacy. In spite of the Supreme Court never acknowledging that there is a right to privacy there is ample case law that states that parts of our lives should be free from interference. Given the vulnerability of women in choosing whether the have an abortion this is one.
That is is the difference of black and white living versus recognizing that there are greys in life. It is important to recognize that the people who insist upon black and white views of the world are the same people who believe that they are superior to everyone else, whether it is Saudi Arabia, Russia, Communist China or those parts of the US where citizens (especially religious) believe they God's servants and that they know everything.
grey areas
coming from you, does that mean 'nuance' or does it mean 'grey is white and you're in the black'?
If you're broadcasting your location to google and co with the ad machine/tracking device in your pocket, you don't have any expectation of protection from ads being delivered to you based on location period.
Your invocation of vulnerability is a red herring. The notion of 'fragility' or 'vulnerability' is not compatible with the notion of freedom. Either everyone has the same rights and responsibilities or no one does.
The state is not there to insulate you from other people's opinions, especially when you choose to do or say things that raise the ire of your fellow citizens.
The state is only there to ensure, through the threat of physical force, that words and ideas stay words and ideas and do devolve into fists and sticks and stones and bike locks.
So many words, so little being said
Quite a screed, Roman. Basically worth ignoring, tho. But I will note that both the motives and the personal integrity of people who use the word "phony" in reference to hate crimes reporting is always a concern of mine. And the people I am talking about, in this instance, that would be you Roman, probably know why.
Flabby chest slapping
The flabby chest slapping going on here is impressive - kind of like Braveheart with wonderbread.