Supreme Court Censures Family Court Judge for Home Search



Late last week the West Virginia Supreme Court issued an opinion formally censuring a Family Court Judge who was caught on video searching the home of my client, threatening him with jail, and forcing him to turn off video and audio recordings documenting the event. The Court held that the WV Constitution bars a judicial officer from personally searching someone’s home and that doing so was no longer a “judicial act.” This may be very important to the fact that we have a federal civil rights lawsuit pending right now, where the judge has asserted judicial immunity, which pertains to that very thing.

While the judge claimed to have the power to conduct a “view” of a litigant’s home because in Family Court, they are both the judge and the jury, the Supreme Court shot that argument down.

“Indeed, searches are so quintessentially executive in nature that even a judge who participates in one acts ‘not * * * as a judicial officer, but as an adjunct law enforcement officer….”

Read the full opinion here: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2021/11/18/wv-supreme-court-censures-family-court-judge-goldston-for-illegal-search/

#JudicialImmunity #JudicialMisconduct #FourthAmendment

source

37 thoughts on “Supreme Court Censures Family Court Judge for Home Search”

  1. the question remains. Do we really need the Third Amendment in our modern age? We have a standing Army, Navy and Air Force. All have healthy budgets for housing troops. Yet, legal scholars contend the Third Amendment does have relevance in the present. It exemplifies the right to personal privacy, to the sanctity of the American home. It is the only place in the Constitution discussing the relationship between civilians and the military. It stands for the idea that in this country people are protected from the government intruding into our homes and our private spaces.

  2. In a recent family court submission, explosive allegations have been made against the Ministry of Justice, New Zealand Lawyers, and the New Zealand Police. The submission,which has been described as one of the best court submissions ever, alleges criminal activities and corruption within these institutions.
    The submission alleges that the Ministry of Justice engaged in child abuse theft, fabrication, fraud, and perverting the course of justice, all for pecuniary gains. The evidence presented in the submission is said to be documented beyond any reasonable doubt, leaving no room for doubt about the intentions of those involved mostly that of detective Shane Pilmer, Judge De Ridder and a Judge De Jong among many other offenders within this institution.
    During the court proceedings, Judge De Jong was accused of lying and deliberately perverting the course of justice. The submission alleges that Judge De Jong, who was under oath as a judge, was complicit in the corrupt court practices and fabrications.
    The submission paints a bleak picture of the justice system in New Zealand and alleges that filthy judges and dirty cops are still at large to harm others. The submission concludes with a chilling warning that no one is safe and asks if your child and property could be next.
    These are serious allegations and will undoubtedly be thoroughly investigated. The Ministry of Justice, New Zealand Lawyers, and the New Zealand Police have yet to respond to the claims made in the submission. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for the justice system in New Zealand.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmqTYJJ9ljU

  3. A fully understood Reference to the jury – is a jury of "peers "
    Does this mean an " equivalent"?
    This Judge / jury/ and executioner capacity by this Judge is absolutely mind-blowing 🤯

  4. Imagine, a woman who thinks she is the law, entirely. the arrogance and ignorance of the law. I hope this woman was dis-barred, and found guilty of multiple civil rights violations.

  5. Is it wise to grant a corrupt judicial officer immunity for corruption? I suspect some other corrupt judge or judges set this policy up to affirm their being above the law.

  6. This women is on some kind if drugs. She is slurring her words, anger problem and is a well known man hater lesbian. I live near her and she has over 20 cats, her property is disheveled and the whiskey and beer bottles are pilled high near her garbage cans. She is a crazy old lady.

  7. This all came to light because one single litigant stood his ground and refused to grab his ankles on command, resulting in this out of control judge being reminded of her place in the pecking order. Just imagine how much different things could be if not for the normalization of people grabbing their ankles. We need people far and wide to learn from this guy's example and adapt it to their own situation. If people could learn to let go of their ankles long enough to at least consider that as a possibility, there might be a glimmer of hope in it that all is not entirely lost.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top