« Women in UniformLazy, Stupid or Willfully Ignorant? »

Judge Not

The judge who sued the Boston Herald, reporter David Wedge, myself and others for libel and was granted a $2.1 million judgment by other judges,* is now charged with “conduct unbecoming” and “willful misconduct” by the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct.    

Highly unusual occurrence. This stems from several bizarre letters, including one on official court letterhead, in which the judge demanded Boston Herald publisher Patrick Purcell meet him privately, without lawyers, and pay him off.  Or else. Else unspecified. Some key events in the case here. Related links here, here, here, and here.  

* I was acquitted.  My role was documenting, in the original offending article, a history of lenient action on violent criminals and subsequent victim distress. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in its own emotionally wrought decision upholding an emotionally swayed jury’s verdict seemed to ignore or misrepresent some facts of the case,  including that background, and in the process considerably lowered the bar for establishing malice in reporting on public figures. In this case, public figures who have the power to deprive people of their liberty and property, and to liberate demonstrably violent people.   I see this morning that the judge is disputing the ethics charges.  The Herald, while its appeals process may be practically exhausted, has disputed the findings against the newspaper and its reporter.

Topics: crime, punishment

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 12:14 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2007

8 Responses to “Judge Not”

1. Don Surber » Blog Archive » Judge not Says:
   July 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pm

   […] Jules Crittenden has more. Yes, I stole his headline. […]

2. AW1 Tim Says:
   July 11th, 2007 at 1:33 pm

   Jules,

   I read that this morning. heh. I hope they give him a whopping big fine. Say, oh, I don’t know… maybe 3.4 million?

   Couldn’t happen to a better prick.

   Respects,

3. Dave Surls Says:
   July 11th, 2007 at 3:42 pm

   The judiciary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts apparently feels that making a couple of erroneous or unprovable statements about one of their judges is a far more serious crime then statutory rape or armed robbery, going by the sentences and judgements that they’re dispensing.

   I sincerely hope I’m never exposed to their brand of “justice”.

4. tanstaafl Says:
   July 11th, 2007 at 5:52 pm

   That judge sounds as tenuous as the one who sued the dry cleaners for $1 million+ for losing a pair of his trousers.

   (something like that)

   Strange times.

5. rhomp2002 Says:
   July 11th, 2007 at 6:50 pm

   Could not be happier to see him charged. I love that his letters to the Herald publisher on court stationery should be considered private mail. If it were private, then why would it be on official stationery?

   Nail the sucker for all you can get and then get him off the bench.

6. Mgmax Says:
   July 11th, 2007 at 6:58 pm

   Just be glad you didn’t ruin his suit!

7. Purple Avenger Says:
   July 11th, 2007 at 7:06 pm

   I remember a story from MA maybe 20-25 years ago where some woman was repeatedly denied a pistol permit even though she’d been threatened with murder by a psycho ex. Of course there were restraining orders…

   …and of course she was subsequently murdered by said ex.

   Judges who are soft on violent criminals are pandemic. Florida is rife with them. We constantly see stories of still walking the streets with 20-30 arrests for pretty serious stuff.

   One of the people tangentially involved in the Boynton Beach Mall shooting (a big deal locally) was arrested just a month prior on weapons charges but was obviously let out in time to make it to the mall shooting.

8. saltydog Says:
   July 13th, 2007 at 11:18 am

   The authorities responsible for the early release of violent criminals ought to be required to serve out the sentences of those who subsequently commit further violent crimes.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.