Monday, March 28, 2011

Say what???

I've had dealings with many law enforcement officers and agencies in my time . . . but I've never before heard of something like this! State Police in Connecticut have applied for a warrant to arrest a Superior Court judge . . . because she refused to sign a warrant they'd filled out to arrest someone else! They've accused her of "coercion and hindering a police investigation of an assault".

Surely it's a judge's responsibility (not to mention her right) to refuse to sign a warrant if she believes that it's not justified? I can accept that in a case of judicial misconduct, or where other aggravating circumstances exist, action against the judge might become necessary: but that usually happens after an investigation, and is justified by abundant evidence that the judge in question is way out of line. In this case, no such evidence has been publicly reported. On the other hand, if the State Police want to arrest the judge purely on the grounds that they believe their initial warrant was justified, and she refused it out of pique, or spite, or general lack of co-operation, that's a matter for the State's government and its Supreme Court. If necessary, they can remove her from office and/or impeach her - and/or do the same to any officers of the State Police who've overstepped their boundaries.

This smells to high heaven. Can any readers in the area shed any more light on the subject? If so, please tell us about it in a comment.



suz said...

Very fishy. This will be a huge credibility problem for the State Police if they can't back it up. I suspect you're right - a whole lot of something is NOT being said...

kay sieverding said...

There was a fight in a bar and the judge said that both people involved should be arrested, not just one.

dave said...

Without doing any research, let me guess: the second person, for whom no warrant was sought, is a cop.

Am I right?

kay sieverding said...

Don't know the identity of the second person, but if that person is a "peace officer" or otherwise connected then the judge in this case at least doesn't seem so bad does she?

I've had a lot of problems with judges in the past. Judges deprived my rights by subjecting me to a restraining order that wasn't based on a statute and didn't have transparent procedure. I am a middle aged woman and a judge "sua sponte" ruled that I "molested" the city council president's wife, with whom I had no physical contact at all. She followed me around Steamboat Springs asking the police to arrest me anytime she got within 30 feet of me. She asked the police to arrest me because I faxed a notice of intent to sue to the city council.

My federal judge was "Naughty Nottingham". He ordered that I should be jailed for 5 months without a criminal charge and without a bail hearing. The U.S. Attorney claims to have no knowledge of this. It was straight witness intimidation, a crime. He also adopted a sua sponte recommendation that I should be fined 100K + for saying that prosecutors don't have immunity for their statements to the press after dismissing a criminal charge.