Appeals court denies judicial immunity to judge who personally searched home
ij.org
ij.org
> During divorce proceedings between Matthew and his ex-wife, Raleigh County family-court judge Louise Goldston personally forced her way into Matthew’s home under threats of arrest to search for items that were in dispute. Accompanied by Matthew’s ex-wife, her attorney, and a bailiff (among others), Goldston walked barefoot through the house, ordering Matthew’s ex-wife to seize DVDs, yearbooks, and pictures off the wall. Some of the items didn’t even belong to Matthew’s ex-wife. And when Matthew tried to record the encounter, the judge threatened him with arrest.
This sounds like the ex-wife was close friend with the judge and this was very personal. Pretty insane either way though.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/former-w...
West VA is not known for its upstanding political system. I thought VA was better until 2021 when:
1. The governor had a scandal about his yearbook photo showing him (or best friend) in either a KKK hood or blackface
2. The vice-governor who wanted to replace him, immediately had a scandal about being a possible rapist
3. The attorney general, 2nd in line to replace the governor, admitted he wore blackface "as an innocent joke, seriously"
So now, I'm of the notion that all east coast politicians are hiding skeletons in their closets.
People, stop with the blackface! How is this not obvious?
I have a good track record of being the absolute most progressive for what it's worth.
And no, I think that when those teenagers were donning their offensive Halloween costumes, they did not think it was going to cause serious offense decades in the future.
To make matters worse, this was the same year his school had its first black student so many white students were using the yearbook as an excuse to protest.
I think this is a gross oversimplification. Let me modernize the questions for the current era (since the alleged infractions were decades ago):
1. Have I ever touch someone romantically in any way without asking for explicit permission and receiving explicit approval?
This is the alleged “standard” these days, although I think that it is only strictly adhered to in one very narrow social group. Overall, “feeling safe” and “respect” seems to be more common than it was many decades ago, but those are still a far cry from explicit consent at every step that some folks use as a “standard”.
So if a potential politician cannot answer yes to this, then they leave themselves to being accused of being a rapist and/or sexual predator.
2. Am I in a social group that has a racial mix that does not approximate the local ratios (esp. if white)?
California, where I live, is taking stances on equality that focus on outcomes more than opportunities.
An unfortunate byproduct of this is that a group that is open to all groups, has members of at least all major groups, and has no policy or pattern of discrimination can still be called racist if their racial ratios are not at a certain level.
This basically means that most private clubs are “racist” by this definition.
Moose, Rotary, Chambers of Commerce, golf clubs, fraternities and sororities, American Legion branches, Masons (even Prince Hall), etc. are all organizations that have active members now that could be deemed “racist” if “racism” is defined as equality of outcome (as it is currently in CA K-12 education).
Any potential policitian who is a member of one of these groups runs the risk of being called a racist.
3. Have I ever worn a costume of a character that is not my race?
Moana, Mulan, Tiana, Jasmine, Pocahontas, are some Disney characters that are potentially out of bounds.
Luke Cage, Blue Marvel, Storm, Blade, Misty Knight, Black Panther, and Moon Girl are Marvel characters that are potentially out of bounds.
Any potential politician has to make sure that they have not worn any of these sorts of costumes, since at some point they may be accused of being racist or engaging in cultural appropriation.
Times change, people make mistakes, people grow… we need to allow space for this, especially when a questionable action was not done with malicious intent.
1. David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the KKK, held elected office in Louisiana from 1989 to 1992.
Not only do I think that it did not disqualify him, I’m guessing his former office helped him get elected.
2. Strom Thurmond, who was a vocal critic of integration and was in the Senate until 2003 (he was over 100yo), was a known racist. He later supported desegregation, but his racist attitudes in his personal life (e.g., word usage) allegedly didn’t change much.
Despite being very regressive in many of his views, he continued to get elected to office for over four decades (until 20 years ago, mind you), and he wielded immense power in the Senate.
3. There are no shortage of current national-level politicians, like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tommy Tuberville, who make explicit racist comments and plenty of dog whistle racist comments. They seem to have no problem getting elected.
Being racist or violent only very narrowly limits potential political positions one can run for, imho.
He’s hardly the most extreme politician on race. He’s more like some people who are stereotype others but make exceptions for their family. True extremists would have nothing to do with their mixed children.
Even Justin Trudeau has blackface pictures out there.
If anyone were to confront me on my record on gay marriage, I’d apologize myself. I thought civil unions were the best option, because I come from a country where government marriage and traditional (e.g. tribal or church) marriage are totally separate systems governed by different laws. I can see now that in the USA, the distinction has never been so deep thus asking for civil unions over marriage is just insulting people with second class status. I was wrong.
We are all wrong about something, sometime.
If only politicians could admit fault, I could respect them.
I think a closet full of skeletons is pretty much required for any political candidate!
Interesting- after being arrested, he resigned his delegate position and took full responsibility, plead guilty, went to jail, and then renounced his admission of guilt. What a quality fellow.
But from the very first moments the aggresive crowd was gathering outside the capitol, it was pretty clear it was a lawless event (I watched the whole thing realtime on several different news sources). For example if the door to the capitol is locked and people start breaking windows to enter... that moves from "protest" to "storming" pretty much instantly. And he filmed himself with a helmet on, going through the broken-into doors.
Peaceful is sort of a spectrum too - it’s not uncommon for Congressmen and their assistants to get shoved a little, screamed at in their faces, spit on, that sort of thing. Sort of an occupational hazard. Sometimes it makes for great photographs. Certainly what happened that day exceeded the norm, though, which meant a lot of people who showed up with legal motives got wrapped up in something else. Unfortunately it’s become so politicized (in part thanks to very bad reporting the day of) it’s rare to have a sensible discussion about it - thanks for your response - and clearly you know more about this particular situation than I do.
You would think a newly elected politician would be more concerned with enacting their mandate, not revolutions. As far as I can see, he had no support from any of his constituents either. He just went to the rally alone.
Serious question…
What percentage of people do you think have not done something in their youth (let’s generously call that 22 and under) that would offend one or more groups of people?
Of those, what percentage do you think want to become politicians?
My guess is that the Venn diagram of these two groups rounds to 0%.
People make mistakes, sometimes egregious, though sometimes (often times?) without malice.
If we want a wider pool to select our public figures from, we need to find room to forgive folks for transgressions if we can reasonably conclude that they have grown from and/or beyond their more offensive mistakes, especially if they occurred when the person in question was younger.
Just my 2 cents…
If you want to be private about rape allegations, and incidents of racism, sexism, or harassment of any protected minority group then you ought to simply be a private citizen.
Otherwise the public deserves to know. How many people would have not voted for the governor if they knew his past was something he still denied, and had not come to terms with?
I think the problems with all of these is that they are not always clear and they change over time.
I’ve mentioned some examples in another part of this thread, but to summarize:
1. If you have not asked explicit permission and received an affirmative response at every stage of a romantic endeavor ever, you can be accused of sexual assault or rape. The affirmative response can be deemed invalid if any alcohol was involved, and can be plausibly denied if there was no written agreement (these actually happen).
2. “Racism” can be something as simple as wearing a costume of a character that is not your race (think Moana or Blue Marvel), or being a member of a group that doesn’t have the right racial ratios (even if there are no discriminatory policies or practices).
3. You can be considered to be a harasser of a protected minority group for doing things like using the word “niggardly” (not etymologically a race-based word) or assigning the book To Kill a Mockingbird as a teacher.
These may seem like extreme examples, but these are all things that are happening right now, and I think it’s safe to say that the vanilla forms of all of the actions mentioned above don’t warrant a confession from a potential politician.
… yet there are people that will have no problems tarnishing a potential politician’s reputation via highly subjective allegations alone if they don’t agree with that person’s politics.
For examples of each of the above, search for):
1. Harvard “rape” case in the 00s, and Duke lacrosse team.
2. Silicon Valley hiring practices. Also see most cases where the term “cultural appropriation” is weaponized.
3. WaPo article (today?) about TKM. “Water buffalo” case at UPenn in the 90s. People getting into trouble for playing the circle game, not realizing that the “OK” hand sign has become a racist dog whistle in some circles.
> In 1980, when I was a 19-year-old undergraduate in college, some friends suggested we attend a party dressed like rappers we listened to at the time, like Kurtis Blow, and perform a song,” Herring said in a statement. “It sounds ridiculous even now writing it. But because of our ignorance and glib attitudes – and because we did not have an appreciation for the experiences and perspectives of others – we dressed up and put on wigs and brown makeup.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/virginia-attorney-ge...
Seems more stupid and less evil than I would have thought.
Even for decently populated areas, there's simply very little access to journalism covering things like local candidates. All news has become national. Local news broadcasts have pretty much died, all purchased by the sinclair broadcasting group.
Just try and get information on someone running for a city level offices. It's hard enough for officials with public meetings. But judges?
For judges in California, that generally includes a review about how well qualified they are.
I've found that very helpful in past elections for making decisions on local candidates. Which are the ones where my vote is most likely to make a difference. But which would otherwise be impossible for me to inform myself on.
Means of control get hijacked by bad actors until they screw up bad enough they can’t be ignored, to be replaced by… someone. Who is not such an obvious bad actor. Sometimes they’re even good! For awhile, anyway.
Your average voter has absolutely no business deciding the quality of someone's legal education, scholarship, etc. Hell one state I lived in most of the "judges" handling minor offenses like traffic tickets and small claims court had never been to law school, never served in any criminal justice role, they just ran for the seat and got it. It's a joke.
Appointing judges has its own host of problems but at least then you'll get people who are on the surface qualified to read, understand, and interpret the law.
In the best case, when the executive and the legislature are in opposition—and appointments must clear both branches—then you have opposing forces that hopefully weed out the most partisan of judges.
My proposal is to have candidate judges throw their name on a list. Whenever a spot needs filling, then each of 3 committees makes their selections from that list. Those 3 committees would be (1) current judges, (2) prosecutors, and (3) defense attorneys.
Only if a majority of each group blesses a candidate, would that candidate be eligible for appointment by the governor.
Going into this judge’s background, she was originally appointed a Family Master before becoming a judge, so evidently the wisdom of appointments did not save people from her either.
Edit: are we sure this is an elected position in WV? I am looking at the county elections and don’t see judges listed on the results or ballot. Her replacement was appointed by the governor with no mention of it being interim u til an election.
Edit2: they are indeed elected, with eight year terms, which is why I did not see it. But the judge in question was again someone previously appointed to a family master position and then elected - and family master would definitely be prior qualification. Additionally these judges in WV must be a member on good standing with the bar and have a minimum of five years practicing law in WV.
Firing someone who was elected is also incredibly difficult.
In West Virginia, the qualifications to become a county Magistrate Judge (Empowering you to issue arrest and search warrants, find people guilty of misdemeanors, conduct preliminary examinations in felony cases, and preside over small claims court)... Are a high school diploma.
In fact, it's illegal in that state to require magistrates to have a law degree.
This particular judge was a family court judge - one step up the food chain - which, at least requires them to be a lawyer...
Though, in my experience, most state court judges do not apply the law very often to causes in front of the court, they mostly just apply emotion.
This judge was elected 3 times. But most people will blindly reelect the existing judges. That's hardly surprising since in most states reviewing a judge's performance takes some effort. For example, here's Colorado's.[^2] A quick Google search didn't seem to turn up anything equivalent in West Virginia.
But if you want to dive deeper into how judicial misconduct can go unchecked, you should read about the PA Cash for Kids Scandal.[^3]
However, I don't want to give the impression that I think this is a common problem. Watch proceedings in any random Zoom/YouTube court proceeding and you'll find judges faithfully applying the law.[^4] But when misconduct does happen, it's really bad.
[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/all-west-virginia-s-sup... [2]: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/2022-judicial-perfo... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal [4]: Many of Michigan and Georgia's courts are still broadcasting live on YouTube if you're actually curious.
Shit, or not even have a second option. Many (half? more?) run unopposed
In some jurisdictions, judges aren't elected in the usual sense, but have retention elections, so there is an alternative (don't retain the judge), but not an opponent.
Of course, that also means that the judge gets replaced by an appointee, so its a "Devil you know or...??" kind of choice.
She was making herself at home. There's video of this on YouTube. [0]
I'd put that more on following others who removed the shoes inside, including both the ex-wife and ex-husband.
But that seems to have had an importance in the judgment, which talks about not wearing a robe and not wearing shoes, making it unusual.
> I am American and taking off shoes is the custom in any house that somebody makes a pretense of keeping clean.
I've watched way too many movies depicting americans wearing shoes not only inside their home but in bed. Always weirded me out and I always wondered if this was a normal thing.
So... Is it true?
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TruthInTelevisio...
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnreali...
To a large extent, it depends on the local environment. In places that are snowy, muddy, or sandy, people are more likely to expect guests to not wear shoes past the mud room. But in places where shoes stay reasonably clean, people are less likely to ask guests to remove shoes.
I have never heard of anyone wearing shoes in bed. That's super weird. Which movies show that?
Home Alone (1990) immediately comes to mind.
https://productplacementblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/...
This indeed is how Hollywood popularly depicted Americans, as wearing shoes to bed, in the bathtub or shower, while swimming, and so on. There's the famous line the the Humphrey Bogart / Katherine Hepburn film "A Time To Stand" where the robbers tell Bogie they're going to clean him out, and he says "you can take anything you want, but you're not getting my shoes!"
There was an episode of This American Life where they delved into Hollywood's preoccupation with people never (ever) taking off their shoes, and one of the things they go into is how Johnston & Murphy (old shoe company) was one of the biggest funders of the original Silver Age studios. It was maybe the first instance of product placement, right up there with cigarettes. Of course Congress eventually got involved in the late 50s and pushed the shoe industry out, paving the way for movies like George Pal's "The Time Machine" which scandalously showed Yvette Mimiuex's bare feet. The French were laughing at us, though, with directors life Truffaut and Godard already showing casual barefootedness in their experimental shorts ("La Pantoufle Perdue" being the best-known and most influential).
Americans also don't typically (you can't completely generalize) have rooms where you sit on the floor or a mat. In cultures where you do that it makes even more sense to take off your shoes. They also typically have really big houses compared to a lot of other places, with bigger lots that contain indoor or outdoor spaces. In my own house, you could walk in the front door, walk through the living room or dining room and just continue the conversation in the patio furniture in the back yard. I think its cleaner to take off your shoes, and people sometimes do when they come to visit, or ask if they should.
It's like a burglar who takes your grandma's jewelry, and eats a sandwich out of the fridge while they're at it, but is careful to wipe up all the crumbs and load the plate in the dishwasher. WTF?
Actually this judge had a long track record of doing things like this. She ran into the wrong civil rights attorney.
The Institute for Justice are legendary. They're what the ACLU used to be.
...why was this detail added? i-is it even positive or negative? did the writer have foot fetish or shoes fetish?
one word, but many more questions
We’re lucky as hacker types that we can sometimes do our jobs barefoot and in casual clothes, but I can’t think of any situation (other than this one) where an agent of the state executes their official duties unshod.
And I know of some occassions where cops have taken off thier boots when entering certain religeous places.
I would have expected- naively, of course- that once it was pointed out that the judge was trespassing, didn't have a warrant, and wasn't allowed to do this, the cop would have stopped her.
I can understand a non-lawyer deferring to the lawyer (and judge) in their midst. If I were with my (non-judge) lawyer and they started doing something surprising, my first instinct wouldn't be to restrain them.
There is also a general principal that lawyers and judges should not turn themselves into witnesses. This judge just made herself a witness should any siezed material need be debated in court. Judges dont attend lineups or medical tests, nor should they attened searches.
But speaking just to the issue being asked here, why didn't anybody respond to a search being warrantless, the presence of the judge may have muddied that for the reason I suggested.
Everything else was fucked up, as you say.
My guess is the cop was simply ignorant of the law and more than happy to help the judge, ignorantly. But I'm curious if we was sanctioned or if ther was any consequence to him at all.
All these people think hierarchy first, text second; if the judge is ordering it, that's sufficient for it to be legal. Especially in a small town.
To the police (and bailiffs, too, I would think), the judiciary is the source of all their powers.
De facto it's exactly like that.
Bailiffs' jobs are literally to provide immediate enforcement of the judges determinations of what is lawful. The normal expectation is that any legal arguments will be presented to and resolved (conclusively, for purposes of the bailiff, as any appeal will be after the execution of any orders) by the judge.
> Already I think bailiffs are normally mostly limited to courthouse?
Judges mostly work in the courthouse, but bailiffs aren't generally, that I know of, limited to it so much as that being normally where they are needed by virtue of where court work tends to happen.
"Please be advised that we conducted a diligent search based on the information you provided. However, no records were found in response to your request."
I don't know about other jurisdictions, but in Illinois contempt has no upper limit. I assume you can give someone the death penalty for contempt. The sheriff in Illinois certainly has the ability to give the death penalty for any infraction inside a jail, even if it is as petty as littering.
I was in court once during the Jason Van Dyke trial and a guy laughed at a joke the judge made. The judge gave him 30 days jail for contempt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick
> The sheriff in Illinois certainly has the ability to give the death penalty for any infraction inside a jail, even if it is as petty as littering.
Legally?
Thank you for the information.
This is also the way debt is criminalized.
The judge says you have to pay, you don't, contempt.
There was a guy imprisoned for over a decade because the judge believed he had money and was hiding it.
You can't go to jail in the USA for debts, but the judge can convert a debt into a contempt charge and then jail you on that.
You say people, but I'm going to bet they were all men.
Because judges can ruin cops lives too. There's virtually no oversight of judges. They granted themselves such secrecy that even if their disciplinary files have exculpatory evidence, you're not allowed to subpoena it. And the discipline is usually only related to egregious acts of misconduct. Stuff like incompetence or bending the rules or being inconsistent is basically ignored.
Plenty of videos online of judges being let out of reaffic stops and such while being assholes about it too.
In family law cases, she regularly entered the homes of and had meetings there with the involved parties, though typically she had one of the parties request the motion and in this case she did it herself. She usually required the consent of both parties legal representation before going through with it. The guy involved represented himself and didn’t realize he should have objected until it was too late and they were there. He’d been held in contempt for allegedly not turning over property she had ordered him to, which he said he didn’t have, and entering the house and searching it was her way of establishing that. Clearly out there, wacky, and illegal, but not quite so egregious as the article represents.
You can see how the judge probably thought she was being practical and fair minded, but nevertheless hugely overstepped.
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge-who-searched-l...
I do think that this is underselling the egregiousness a bit:
> He’d been held in contempt for allegedly not turning over property she had ordered him to, which he said he didn’t have, and entering the house and searching it was her way of establishing that.
Just because it sounds to me like she was a bit vindictive in having to enter and started telling them to seize things that may not have even been in question/contention. Dunno!
Professionals doing jobs over $10k should have to buy malpractice insurance like doctors.
There's a bill to end qualified immunity currently. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1470
This is like saying employees should be personally liable for mistakes they make at work. Under egregious circumstances, yes. Otherwise, it’s their employer’s liability.
So yes, some immunity is necessary. The problem is the current standards of police immunity don’t seem to make sense. (I see no issue with present standards of judicial immunity.)
> Professionals doing jobs over $10k should have to buy malpractice insurance like doctors
One, this would obviously be paid for by taxpayers. Nothing would change except some insurance brokers would make money. Two, you want a private company gating the courts? Who would you expect to impartially adjudicate their disputes?
No, it isn't--poor choice of a strawman. This judge's actions were not a "mistake", they were a deliberate abuse of power.
It's a leap to go from that to "end all immunity in all circumstances."
Almost certainly this judge abused individuals who did not have the resources to defend their rights. Perhaps the burden of proof should not be so onerous.
Maybe the solution is that the employer (in this case the WV judiciary) has the option to accept liability. If they do so, immunity is presumed. If the employer rejects the liability, then the individual must prove that they are entitled to immunity.
Obviously there's a financial incentive for an employer to deny liability, but doing so would be extremely unpopular with employees. So presumably they would be judicious depending on the circumstances.
They also weren't within the coverage of judicial immunity, so that's irrelevant.
Any employer can provide liability insurance, but only the Supreme Count can grant carte-blanche to commit crimes.
Neither qualified nor judicial immunity provide for immunity from criminal prosecution.
The current interpretation of prosecutorial immunity allows:
- initiating prosecution entirely for political or racial reasons
- falsifying evidence
- coercing false testimony
- hiding evidence
Supreme court can only rule they are legal under current laws.
No, so can individual prosecutors and Congress, through immunity grants.
Qualified, judicial, and absolute immunities are (among others) immunities from civil, not criminal, liability that apply to public officials in different conditions.
This is like saying a dentist shouldn't be personally liable for the "mistake" of raping somebody under his care. Of course he should be!
The only way you can read what was written this way is if you don’t consider rape egregious.
Outrageously bad. Even if unintentional, it's behaviour that obviously isn't acceptable or part of the job. Like this lady.
"Oops I tripped and accidentally fell onto his property and through his door." "Oops my tongue stumbled and I accidentally threatened to have the man arrested if he tried to film what I was doing."
Yeah right. She knew she was breaking the law, that's why she freaked out about being filmed. None of this was a mistake.
Chesterton’s thousand mile long fence!
[1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2847
[2]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/119...
[3]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/233
The only winning move is to stay out of court if possible.
Federal courts is a different beast, but the outcome is normally known.
Doesn't matter if it is civil or criminal, the only way to win is to stay out of court.
> Is the judge criminally liable for the forced home entry?
This could also be true, but you'd need a prosecutor to take up the case
Those are the one that were caught.
I stand by what I wrote. That prosecutor would get a reputation of going after judges and it would only bring obstacles into his professional or even personal life.
Prosecutors know better than to mess with people with real power.
In this case it is a civil suit.
So these judges formed a clique and covered each other? You heard of police covering up each other's wrong doing. You rarely heard of judges doing it.
How do you think they get to those positions?
Glad to see some actions been taken.
What would happen then?