Day 6. A FAQ from a Liberal

Six more days until Judge Hinson's last day. While we count down the days, let's answer some "Frequently Asked Questions."

It's been interesting hearing from readers. Sorry that I can't get back to most of you. (Like C. who left a 928 phone number.) Remember, I'm not an attorney. And while I can sympathize with you all in your plight (more than you know), I probably can't do much for you. But please keep those tips coming. I'm doing what I can with them.

Now, I got a comment that's been typical of some I've received. I think this particular one came from a Supreme Court staffer, based on the timing. They ask:

Do you have nothing better to do with your time? Who appointed you to investigate? Why don't you mind your own business and let the proper authorities do their jobs.

I'm trying hard not to roll my eyes and I know that name calling—like calling this person a Liberal—while true, isn't an answer.

So let me answer this compound question in reverse order, as it might render the first parts moot.

Q: Why don't you let the proper authorities do their jobs?

A1: If, by "proper authorities," you mean the Commission on Judicial Conduct, how much longer should I have waited for them to do their job?

It's been eight long years since Judge Hinson's first Constitutional violation. They warned him. They warned him two more times after that. Then there was a flurry of violations—25 in three years—that went unchecked by the Commission. (See Count 1 for documentation.)

They didn't act decisively until a concerned citizen made a stink. And then, and only then, they finally did their job.

So how much longer should I have waited for the authorities to do their job? One more month? One more year? How many more victims until they finally acted?

A2: Who are the "proper authorities?"

While the Commission on Judicial Conduct, is the final judicial authority (as opposed to criminal authority), aren't there others who are in authority who can do something?

What about Judge Hinson's clerks? They must have known about his violations. I understand the political pressure they're under—it's very difficult to report your boss' wrongdoing, even though it's the right thing to do.

Funny (sad) story: I was in the Yavapai County Courthouse when I overheard a new clerk talking to a seasoned one as they waited for the elevator. The new clerk told the older that she had been scolded for "asking too many questions!"

But that's the type of clerk we want!

What about the Clerk of the Superior Court? She signed all the Quarterly Audits documenting Judge Hinson's violations.

In her defense, someone pointed out to me today that the Clerk may not have known that Judge Hinson was falsifying his Affidavits, since those forms don't pass by her.

Maybe so. But doesn't she have an obligation to investigate and report? To file a complaint herself? She's an elected official in authority.

What about the Presiding Judge? What's his responsibility? He presides over the other judges. Doesn't that mean he's supposed to ensure they're obeying the law?

What about all the attorneys in Judge Hinson's court who watched the 60-day Rule violations go by but didn't file any paperwork about it? While I have reports from some of you that you filed pleadings when a ruling was overdue—and thank you for that—that's distinct from filing a Complaint. There's a dirty little secret about that. From caught.net,

I can state with certainty that if you go against the status quo in Rhode Island and point out wrongdoing of the judiciary they will ruin your legal practice and make it impossible for you to win a case.

Sad. But that's the reality. So unless an attorney is about to retire or quit the profession, it's not likely that they will be a whistle blower.

So that leaves We, the People, who are not members of the Bar. Per the law, "anyone can file a complaint of judicial misconduct." So you see, we are part of the "authorities."

To answer your question, then, the proper authorities did act. It was MY business. And it should be YOUR business. Especially if you're a staffer in the Supreme Court.

Q: Who appointed you to investigate?

A: As attorneys say, "Asked, and answered." See above.

None of the usual investigators investigated. Often this kind of thing falls to the Press, although "The Press" is not distinct from We, the People.

But except for KPHO-TV reporter Peter Busch, the Press didn't investigate. In fact, it didn't want to.

All the documentation was public record. That means you, and I, CAN inspect it. And have a duty to do so. It's called "Eternal Vigilance." A requirement for our form of government.

Q: Do you have nothing better to do with your time?

A: Considering that the Commission sustained my Complaint, I'd say I did pretty well with my time. (Although, frankly, I don't enjoy any of this. There are lots of self-indulgent things I'd rather be doing. But I'm called to sacrifice, and that includes sacrificing my time for a common good.)

I could ask you your same question: What are you doing with your time?

Do you have nothing better to do with your time than discouraging good citizens who are seeking Justice? Instead of hurting, why don't you help?

We'd have better judges if everyone were involved, watching and acting.