Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Rogue Judge Leads Warrantless Search Party Through Man's Home

  1. #1

    Rogue Judge Leads Warrantless Search Party Through Man's Home

    https://twitter.com/RealSpikeCohen/s...03274793611265


    [additional matter hidden to save space]
     

    WATCH: Rogue Judge Leads Warrantless Search Party Through Man's Home
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS-MIdnwWPg


    West Virginia Judicial Field Trip
    Man fights to uphold court ruling that judges aren't above the law
    https://ij.org/case/west-virginia-judicial-field-trip/

    Judges are not entitled to do whatever they want, and then demand special treatment just because they happen to wear a robe at work. But that’s exactly what happened in Raleigh County, West Virginia.

    During divorce proceedings between Matthew Gibson and his ex-wife, Raleigh County family-court judge Louise Goldston personally forced her way into Matthew’s home to search for items that were in dispute. Goldston—accompanied by Matthew’s ex-wife and the ex-wife’s attorney, among others—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. Goldston was ultimately censured and fined, and roundly condemned, by the West Virginia high court for violating the state’s code of judicial conduct.

    When Matthew sued for these egregious violations of his privacy and free-speech rights, Goldston argued that she was not liable—even if she had violated the Constitution—by invoking a court-made doctrine called judicial immunity. Judicial immunity, as the name suggests, shields judges from liability only for things they do in their roles as judges. Goldston argued that she was entitled to judicial immunity’s special protections for leading a search party through Matthew’s home.

    But judicial immunity is reserved for judicial actions, and searching someone’s home is not a judicial act. Just like police officers cannot act like judges, judges cannot act like police officers. The trial court correctly recognized this principle and denied Goldston judicial immunity for her actions. Nonetheless, Goldston is now appealing that decision to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On appeal, Matthew is teaming up with the Institute for Justice to protect important constitutional guarantees by holding judges accountable.

    Matthew faces a contentious court hearing, alone, with an unexpected twist.

    Matthew is a longtime federal law-enforcement officer. After twenty-five years of marriage, he and his ex-wife decided to divorce. A year after the divorce was finalized, his ex-wife filed a petition with the Raleigh County family court alleging that Matthew still had some of her personal property in his home.

    In March 2020, the court held a hearing on Matthew’s ex-wife’s petition. Although Matthew’s ex-wife had counsel present, Matthew did not have an attorney and represented himself. In the middle of the hearing, Goldston—on her own initiative—abruptly halted the proceedings and demanded that Matthew provide his home address. Without explaining why, Goldston then ordered the parties to meet at Matthew’s home immediately.

    Matthew is forced to allow a judge and his ex-wife to rifle through the most intimate parts of his home.

    [additional matter hidden to save space]
     
    Minutes later, a large group of people—including Goldston, Matthew’s ex-wife, the ex-wife’s attorney, several law-enforcement officers, and members of the ex-wife’s family—descended on Matthew’s home. Matthew, realizing what was happening and, still representing himself, moved for Goldston to recuse herself on the ground that she had become a fact witness in the case. Although the judge’s all-important neutrality was in serious doubt—a judge cannot be both a judge and a witness in the same case—Goldston flippantly denied the motion as untimely. And when Matthew informed Goldston that she could not enter the home without a warrant, she replied: “Oh yeah, I will.” [1]

    Shortly after, Goldston realized that Matthew and his girlfriend were recording the encounter. Goldston ordered them to stop recording and ordered the court bailiff to seize Matthew’s phone. She also threatened Matthew with arrest. [2]

    Goldston then proceeded to lead a search party—again including Matthew’s ex-wife and the ex-wife’s attorney—through Matthew’s home. When Matthew’s ex-wife claimed that pictures on the walls were hers, Goldston instructed her to “take ‘em.” [3] When Matthew’s ex-wife stated that certain yearbooks were hers, Goldston ordered her to “get ‘em.” [4] Goldston ultimately led the party to Matthew’s basement, where she sat in Matthew’s rocking chair uninvited while she instructed others on how to search Matthew’s DVD collection. She also ordered the court bailiff to accompany Matthew while he searched his gun safe. [5]

    The search party ultimately removed several items from the home without Matthew’s permission, including items that belonged to Matthew’s children and girlfriend. Some of the wrongfully seized items were never returned. Goldston later testified that she could have ordered law-enforcement officers to search for the disputed items, but she did not think they would do a good enough job. [6]

    Because of her actions, Goldston was charged with multiple ethics violations and was ultimately censured and fined. The West Virginia high court, in affirming her punishment, observed that Goldston had illegally taken up the powers of a police officer by personally searching Matthew’s home. And the court condemned her actions—and her attitude during the incident—as unbecoming of a judge. [7]

    Matthew later sued Goldston in federal court for violations of his constitutional rights. The judge, however, claimed that she was not liable to Matthew simply because she was a judge. She argued that, even if she did violate the Constitution, a court-made doctrine called judicial immunity barred Matthew’s claims. When the trial court rejected her argument, she appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Judges aren’t entitled to judicial immunity when they don’t act as judges.

    On appeal, Goldston continues to argue that judicial immunity protects her. Judicial immunity—which appears nowhere in the Constitution—is absolute, meaning that it does not matter whether the judge knew or should have known that her actions were unconstitutional. When it applies, it completely bars even meritorious legal claims.

    But judges are not entitled to judicial immunity merely by virtue of their office. As the Supreme Court has explained, judicial immunity is reserved for judicial acts that occur within the bounds of a judge’s jurisdiction. [8] Put simply, judges do not get judicial immunity when they’re not acting as judges. The key question, then, is whether a judge’s conduct consists of “truly judicial acts” or whether it “simply happen[s] to have been done by [a] judge[].” [9]

    Under that standard, Goldston is not entitled to judicial immunity here. As both the federal trial court and the West Virginia high court concluded, Goldston searched Matthew’s home. But judges don’t have the power to search people’s homes. That power belongs to law-enforcement officers, who are part of the executive—not the judicial—branch. By definition, a judge cannot be performing a judicial act when she is exercising executive power.

    This limitation on judicial immunity is crucial to maintaining a bedrock principle of American government: the separation of powers. Even before the Constitution was adopted, the Founding Fathers recognized that too much power in the hands of one individual would lead to tyranny and oppression. [10] As Matthew’s case illustrates, the separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches is a particularly important check on government power. The judicial branch has the power to give orders, but only the executive branch has the power to enforce those orders. Judges cannot ignore their own constitutional limitations and take matters into their own hands because they believe they will do a better job than the people to whom the enforcement power is legally entrusted. Judges certainly cannot cease to act like judges and then claim special protection from liability reserved for judicial functions.

    The Litigation Team

    The litigation team consists of IJ Senior Attorney Patrick Jaicomo and Attorneys Anya Bidwell and Tori Clark.

    The Institute for Justice

    The Institute for Justice is a public-interest law firm that litigates nationwide to vindicate individual liberties. IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability is dedicated to fighting judge-made rules that make it difficult, if not impossible, to hold government officials accountable for violating the Constitution. IJ is currently challenging a broad swath of immunity doctrines that protect bad government actors—for instance, a Midland County, Texas, prosecutor who also effectively moonlighted as a judge in his own cases. IJ is fighting these doctrines in numerous cases across the country—from Parma, Ohio, to Roswell, New Mexico—as well as through grassroots initiatives such as Americans Against Qualified Immunity. IJ’s commitment to these issues rests on a simple idea: If we the people must follow the law, our government must follow the Constitution.

    Brief of Appellee (PDF): https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/20...llee_FINAL.pdf

    NOTES:
    [1] 2:20–2:25 of video, available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9duAPB9SwI.
    [2] 3:10–3:30 of video, available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9duAPB9SwI.
    [3] 0:27–0:31 of video, available here: https://youtu.be/HA1UuxUiCwk. Despite Goldston’s previous order that no recordings were to be made of the incident, the court bailiff recorded part of the search inside the home without Goldston’s knowledge (and Goldston later chastised him for it).
    [4] 1:00–1:08 of video, available here: https://youtu.be/HA1UuxUiCwk.
    [5] 3:21–4:43 of video, available here: https://youtu.be/HA1UuxUiCwk.
    [6] In re Goldston, 866 S.E.2d 126, 131 (W. Va. 2021).
    [7] In re Goldston, 866 S.E.2d 126, 136 (W. Va. 2021).
    [8] Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11–12 (1991).
    [9] Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 227 (1988).
    [10] The Federalist No. 47, at 336–38 (James Madison) (Benjamin F. Wright ed., 1961).
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    https://twitter.com/RealSpikeCohen/s...67112026099714


    West Virginia Judge Retires Amid Impeachment Push; Lawsuit Against Her for Warrantless Search Will Continue
    https://ij.org/press-release/west-vi...will-continue/
    Dan King (01 February 2023)

    ARLINGTON, Va. — On Tuesday, West Virginia Family Court Judge Louise Goldston retired from her position amid a legislative push to impeach her for violating the rights of West Virginians. The resolution to impeach Goldston specifically mentions the judge leading a warrantless search of the home of Institute for Justice (IJ) client Matt Gibson. Despite her retirement, Matt and IJ will continue moving forward with their lawsuit against Goldston.

    “The West Virginia Legislature has done the right thing in this case, but Americans cannot and should not have to depend on legislative grace to ensure that judges follow the Constitution,” said IJ Attorney Tori Clark. “Judge Goldston’s retirement is a good first step, but this lawsuit must continue to move forward so we can ensure that Matt and others who are wronged by unconstitutional judicial conduct can vindicate their rights in court.”

    In March 2020, Goldston stopped a court proceeding between Matt and his ex-wife, ordered everyone in the courtroom to go to Matt’s home, and led a warrantless search party through the home. When Matt tried to stop her by telling her that she could not enter his home without a warrant, she said—and it’s all recorded on video—”oh yeah, I will.” During the search, Goldston ordered Matt’s ex-wife to take anything from the home she believed was hers and threatened to arrest Matt for filming the encounter.

    Following the events of that day, Goldston was charged with several ethics violations, censured, fined, and condemned by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Matt then brought a federal lawsuit against Goldston for violating his rights. The judge argued that she should be entitled to judicial immunity and that Matt’s claims against her should be thrown out. Judicial immunity is a legal doctrine that shields judicial officials from being held accountable in a lawsuit when they violate people’s rights if those actions were done in a judicial capacity. Thankfully, the district court held that Goldston was not entitled to judicial immunity because judges don’t barge into people’s homes without warrants. Goldston then appealed that decision to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    In November 2022, Matt and IJ teamed up to defend the district court’s decision so Matt can hold Goldston accountable in court. Matt’s victory in this case would send a strong signal that judges are not above the law and can’t count on judicial immunity to shield them from unlawful conduct. “I’m happy that the corrupt judge is stepping down so she can’t violate other people’s rights like she did to me,” said Matt. “But judges aren’t above the law. My case will move forward to ensure that what happened to me does not happen again.”

    This case is a part of IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability, which fights to ensure that qualified, judicial, and prosecutorial immunities do not prevent individuals from vindicating their rights in court. If citizens must follow the law, government officials must follow the Constitution.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Matt’s victory in this case would send a strong signal that judges are not above the law [...]
    It's a signal, maybe - but not a "strong" one.

    A "strong signal" would see her criminally charged, prosecuted, and imprisoned if convicted.

    But of course, that's not going to happen, so ... *shrug*

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    It's a signal, maybe - but not a "strong" one.

    A "strong signal" would see her criminally charged, prosecuted, and imprisoned if convicted.

    But of course, that's not going to happen, so ... *shrug*
    A bit of tar-n-feathers would serve well too.

  6. #5
    The man's attorney just happens to be the guy who has The Civil Right Lawyer channel on the youtube.

    Despite being a lawyer, he seems to be one of us and has a great channel.

  7. #6
    and what would happen if you couldn't afford that attorney or wasn't lucky enough to have them defend you?
    Why did the guy say he had to allow her in the house when she threatened him with arrest if he didn't allow them in?

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged View Post
    and what would happen if you couldn't afford that attorney or wasn't lucky enough to have them defend you?
    Why did the guy say he had to allow her in the house when she threatened him with arrest if he didn't allow them in?
    He did fine.

    He asked the judge in a motion to recuse herself and she refused as well as asking for time to confer with his council, which she refused.

    The two court deputies are being sued as well, and if I remember the details correctly, their immunity is in doubt.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by sparebulb View Post
    He did fine.

    He asked the judge in a motion to recuse herself and she refused as well as asking for time to confer with his council, which she refused.

    The two court deputies are being sued as well, and if I remember the details correctly, their immunity is in doubt.
    It takes more than a mere mortal to take down a judge.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. Dog Executed During Warrantless Search Phoenix City Alabama
    By presence in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-11-2014, 06:08 AM
  2. Massive Car To Car Warrantless Search In DC Region
    By Lucille in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-22-2014, 10:47 AM
  3. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-16-2014, 10:15 PM
  4. NV: Judge lets stand warrantless search evidence
    By XNavyNuke in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-27-2013, 02:38 PM
  5. SEATTLE: Prosecutors review warrantless search practices
    By presence in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-31-2012, 05:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •