For Biased Judges Even White Doesn't Make Right

The three protestors, all former policemen, had sued the City of Philadelphia for savage, career-ending retaliation they received from Police Department personnel, including top officials, for their reporting of racism, corruption and other misconduct in the department.

This trio suffered severe retaliation during the late 1990s for opposing the vile racism heaped upon black police officers and minority citizens in the precinct where they worked.

Additional retaliation resulted from their reporting misconduct such as officers fraudulently obtaining over-time-pay by falsely claiming involvement in arrests that enabled them to testify in court while off-duty.

Fellow white officers harangued the trio as “rats” and snitches, failed to assist them and physically assaulted one trio member inside the precinct station.

Meanwhile, police commanders harshly disciplined the trio eventually discharging each on trumped-up charges, the jury determined.

The roadblock triggering that courthouse protest by Ray Carnation and twin brothers Michael and William McKenna is one of the most unusual elements in this legal saga that highlights deep deficiencies in America’s justice system.

While the trio’s lawsuit exposes the enormous rot of rampant lawlessness by law enforcers, the roadblock preventing them from collecting their jury award represents something more sinister: bias by judges bending rules requiring impartiality and doing so with seeming impunity.

The obstacle confronting this trio is a Philadelphia federal judge, Mary A. McLaughlin, whose years-long actions in this lawsuit evidences disturbing bias and unfairness against the trio.

Federal law – Section 455(a) of Title 28 – states that federal judges “shall disqualify [themselves] in any proceeding in which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Yet Judge McLaughlin has rejected repeated requests that she withdraw from presiding over the case.

“We have repeatedly asked [McLaughlin] to remove herself from our case because she’s obviously biased but she refuses to do that,” Ray Carnation said.

The 3rd Circuit Appeals Court in Philadelphia, which oversees the federal district court where McLaughlin serves, has stated with respect to recusal requests under Section 455(a) that “a party seeking recusal need not demonstrate that the judge is actually biased, but rather he would appear to be biased to a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts.”

Facts in this case, for example, include McLaughlin permitting lawyers for the City of Philadelphia to file post-trial motions 15-months after the jury’s May 14, 2008 multi-million dollar verdict, despite court rules requiring such filing within ten days after a trial.

McLaughlin is not the only problem. Her supervisor, Chief Judge Harvey Bartle, apparently downplayed an August 2009 seven-page letter sent to him by the trio’s attorney listing a litany of misconduct allegations against McLaughlin.

The “Plaintiffs have presented several examples of events they believe demonstrate a bias by the Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin and I have observed it on my own,” attorney Brian M. Puricelli stated in that 8/31/09 letter to Judge Bartle.

Judge McLaughlin initially dismissed the trio’s lawsuit in 2003, contending whites cannot use federal discrimination laws to challenge racist job-related retaliation.

The 3rd Circuit Court faulted McLaughlin’s reasoning, ordering her to conduct a trial.

“Contrary to the conclusion [of McLaughlin] under governing law the fact that the plaintiffs are white is not a 'threshold problem' for their retaliation claims,” the 3rd Circuit stated in an August 2006 ruling.

During the May 2008 trial and immediately afterwards McLaughlin urged City of Philadelphia lawyers to request a mistrial based on McLaughlin’s contention that “smirks” on the trio’s faces during trial tainted the jury.

Although McLaughlin characterized the smirks as “astounding.” even claiming the facial expressions gave jurors the impression she was “doing something wrong.” the city’s lawyers initially denied observing such behavior, according to trial transcripts.

“A motion for a mistrial was not brought within 10 days of judgment, but now, some fifteen (15) months later, the City has filed this motion, along with other trial issues,” stated Puricelli’s letter to Chief Judge Bartle.

“Her Honor has consistently told the Plaintiffs they must conform to all aspects of the rules,” Puricelli wrote highlighting McLaughlin’s apparent favoritism to the City and racist/corrupt police by extending deadlines.

After trial, McLaughlin rightly noted that the jury’s award exceeded federal law limits for discrimination lawsuits and sought to reduce that award. She faulted the trio’s attorney for not including Pennsylvania state law claims that would permit a multi-million dollar award in the lawsuit.

This posture required attorney Puricelli to dig through legal papers filed earlier in the case to produce proof to McLaughlin that previous lawyers for the trio had in fact repeatedly included state law claims in the case, claims ironically added on directives from McLaughlin.

McLaughlin’s apparent failure to thoroughly know legal facts in the case, some experts contend, shows she is either not doing her job or suggest she is grasping at straws to deny the trio justice ordered by the jury.

Now McLaughlin seemingly resists relinquishing jurisdiction over the case, thus delaying appellate court review of her actions and challenges from the City.

“All we’re asking [McLaughlin] to do is finalize the case and send it up to the appeals court,” said a frustrated Mike McKenna during that protest.

Judge McLaughlin cannot comment on the trio’s allegations and/or her actions because federal law bars judges from publicly commenting on cases pending before them.

McLaughlin did issue a letter denying a charge in Puricelli’s letter to her boss that she improperly communicated with the city during the 2008 trial informing them of her concern that they were losing the trial.

While McLaughlin wrote she’d “seen most of the allegations of this letter before and will not respond to them,” she strenuously added, “I have never had any ex parte conversations with anyone from the city concerning this lawsuit.”

McLaughlin’s 9/11/09 letter stated she received a copy of Puricelli’s letter from Chief Judge Bartle.

The refusal by judges, whether federal or state, to accede to recusal requests when their impartiality is reasonably questioned is a scandal that courts and legislators cavalierly ignore, despite the impact such actions have on "public confidence in the judiciary."

Impartiality standards are supposed to bolster confidence in the fairness of the judiciary.

A serial abuser of appearance-of-impartiality standards is ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Scalia’s transgressions while sitting on the highest court in the land include a highly publicized duck hunting trip with U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney despite the Court's then deliberating on a pivotal lawsuit against Cheney. Scalia voted to support Cheney in that lawsuit.

Self-described “law and order guy” Scalia has repeatedly participated in cases where his impartiality has been challenged because of his direct associations with litigants, like the involvement of one of his sons with the infamous 2000 appeal by George W. Bush, where Scalia voted to elevate Bush to the presidency.

Just a few weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal from a Texas death row inmate claiming violations of his fair trial rights because the judge and prosecutor during his 1990 murder trial were engaging in a secret, years-long extramarital affair.

Legal ethics experts contend that love affair created an appearance of impropriety mandating at least a new hearing for the inmate irrespective of guilt evidence against him.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had rejected an appeal from that inmate in September 2009, faulting him for not raising the affair issue years ago, despite the fact that conclusive confirmation of that affair wasn’t available until 2008.

The majority of the Texas Court members rejecting that appeal worked with the fornicating judge during her tenure on that court…giving appearances of a friendship improperly influencing judicial decision making.

Last year the U.S. Supreme Court did fault a West Virginia State Supreme Court justice for accepting a coal company executive’s $3-million campaign contribution months before his backing that executive’s company in a key ruling.

Yet, last year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Pennsylvania death-row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal, who had a compelling-evidence appeal rejected by that state’s supreme court in a 1998 ruling where five of the seven justices had accepted campaign contributions from Philadelphia’s police union – the prime political entity pushing for Abu-Jamal’s execution.

Famed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis once noted: “If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.”

On the evidence, many judges entrusted with fairly upholding the law are guilty of disrespecting it.

Linn Washington writes for ThisCantBeHappening.net, the new collectively run, journalist-owned online newspaper, at www.thiscantbehappening.net
_______

Comments

Mr. Washington

Submitted by jon peppers (not verified) on Thu, 05/27/2010 - 8:38pm

Your paragraph as to the convicted, proven and affirmed murderer of another human being, Officer Daniel Faulkner, shows your bias in spite of the proven facts. There was no underhanded "conspiracy" regarding Jamal's guilt...none. I guess you believe all of the Police Officers including the State and Federal Judges as well as the Supreme Court "set Jamal up". If that is so Sir, in my opinion, YOU as well as MOVE are fools led and leading fools who support an affirmed and proven killer of another human being. Jamal will die in prison, with or without the help of the State...and rightfully so.

Jon Pisano

Oops, get back to your ABC News, friend, your stupid is showing

Submitted by Austin Nolen on Tue, 06/01/2010 - 10:49am

I have actually read trial transcripts, and I have listened to and read what anti-Mumia activists have said and wrote. I have also listened to and read pro-Mumia activists. All of those things, including obvious problems with evidence and consitutional violations and blatant racism in the actual trial transcripts, I don't believe him to be guilty of killing Officer Faulkner. I am also an anti-death penalty activist, and if I believed that Mumia WAS guilty, I would simply advocate for the abolishment of his death sentence as well as everyone elses. But the problems are glaring. They include:

- The fact that Mumia was barred from representing himself, a blatant violation of his constitutional rights.

- Many judges and appeals judges have had FOP affiliations, including the original trial judge, Albert Sabo, an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to cases involving possible violations of conduct by police, or the killing of a police officer, and especially when it comes to the trial of a man who was world-reknowned for his criticism of police and the FOP for killing a police officer.

- Albert Sabo told the jury things that would make them quicker to apply the death penalty, like "He'll always be able to appeal" or something along those lines.

- Sabo has sent more people to Death Row than any other PA judge.

- A court scribe has testified, in court, and under oath, that Sabo said "Yeah, and I'm gonna help them fry that n-----." or something vary similar.

- The prosecution's star witness was a prostitute, who testified to being given the deal of stating Mumia's guilt in exchange for POLICE PROTECTION as she worked her corner.

- Another prostitute, Veronica Jones, was harassed by the state of PA for many years because she refused to change her testimony about Mumia's innocence, and because she testified of her intimidation by authorities in the realm of what would happen if she did not change her statement.

- William Singletary, a decorated Vietnam veteran, and Philly businessman, with no blemishes on his record, and who is loved by the community, and who also has NO TIES to Mumia, has given sworn statements that he saw another man run away after killing Faulkner, and that Mumia was shot himself after attempting to help the officer, when the gun discharged. He has also claimed that he was beaten and intimidated by police.

- Police at the trial testified to "accidentally" banging Mumia's head into a telephone pole.

- The police medical examiner originally claimed that the bullets that killed Faulkner were .44 caliber, Mumia's LEGALLY LICENSED weapon, which he had because he was a cab driver, was a .38.

- The alleged confession Mumia made in the hospital was never recorded or reported until around two months later. One present officer said that "It upset him so much he forgot about it" (?!) or somesuch, another actually wrote in his notes that "The Negro male made no comment."

- In the orginal trial, the prosecution had the whole of the police force to use for investigative purposes, the court only approved minimal amounts of monet for use by the defense, giving the prosecution a clear upper hand.

- Both prosecution and defense witnesses have testified to a figure running from the seen. This figure matches the description of William Friedman, a close friend of Billy Cook. Cook is Mumia's brother, and his presence is a key element of the prosecution's case. During the original trial, the prosecution criminally withheld evidence from the defense, one bit of it was an application for a drivers license found in Faulkner's breast pocket. The man who it belonged to had himself given it to William Friedman, who was inseperable from Cook.

- Arnold Beverly has also confessed to the shooting. It is yet another possible angle to pursue, and despite his confession, and the fact that legal experts have said that it meshes with evidence to a reasonable standard, the Philadelphia DA's office has never even opened an investigation.

- During the death penalty phase of the trial, Mumia's First Amendment rights were violated when his membership in the Black Panther Party and an article he wrote exploring a quote by Mao Tse-Tung ("Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.") which in fact turned the phrase against the violent government of Mayor Rizzo in Philadelphia, were used to somehow prove that he had planned to shoot a cop.

There is FAR MORE than that. Those are just the MOST egregious.

And let's not forget the fact that even if Mumia is guilty (he's not) the bias in the air is still foul. Who ever went to jail for, let's say, the MOVE bombing, May 13th, 1985 that killed more than ten people, some of them children? Only Ramona Africa, the lone adult survivor. And before you say MOVE was firing on police, let's remember that even official Philadelphia city commissions on the bombing have stated that, in all likelihood, all fire was from police at different angles firing on each other by accident, and that police did indeed shoot into the house to prevent MOVE members from exiting. Let's also remember that the police were illegally armed by the ATF, possessing explosives no non-Federal agency is legally allowed to have. Furthermore, the previous major incident involving MOVE, that led to the imprisonment of 9 people for one murder (!) was likely the result of, again, accidental police friendly-fire.

So how many people, just of MOVE, has the city of Philadelphia killed, and how many police have been killed by MOVE members, even just according to official Philadelphia government commissions? And then look who's in jail. It doesn't take a genius to see some sort of plot going on there... Get back to your racist corporate news.

Well slick

Submitted by jon peppers (not verified) on Thu, 06/03/2010 - 4:40pm

I attended most of the trial and you, in my opinion are misguided as to the FACTS.

Jamal DID in fact, after he told his qualified attorney not to speak on his behalf, represent himself and that was taken from Jamal after the Judge ruled on certain criteria.

Sabo WAS NOT, when he was a Judge, a member of the FOP...FACT There is much more to blow smoke toward your misinformation...but here is one. The Hospital security guard reported ...the NEXT DAY...'the statement Jamal blurted out at the ER doors.

Arnold Beverly is a joke and not credible,

No deals (MOVE propaganda) were made regarding any witnesses.

The scribe who stated in an affidavit stating she heard Judge Sabo state...before the trial, " I'me going to help them fry that Ni--ger" was reported 20 YEARS later. So you take HER word over that of the Hospital employee who reported the statement bu Jamal ," I shot the mother Fu--er and I hope he dies" the next day

In my opinion..you sir are a fool led by fooled fool's

Jon Pisano

Justice for Officer Faulkner

Yes, he had his

Submitted by Austin Nolen on Wed, 06/09/2010 - 10:48am

Yes, he had his self-representation rights revoked when he was too hostile with potential jurors, and thus the prosecutors got their way, and this, by the way, was acknowledged by Judge Yohn in 2001, that the juror selection wasn't fair. That is a violation of Constitutional rights, something you don't seem to care too much about.

And when did I say Sabo was currently FOP? I didn't. I said he had affiliations, as have many other judges ruling on Mumia. Undoubtedly, many were contributors, and none had actively renounced the FOP, meaning that they still shared in the group's fierce mentality against anyone who would criticize police, and that led to the FOP to officially campaign for George Wallace, Mr. "Segregation now, segregation forever!" On top of that, Mr. Sabo sent more people to death row than any other judge in Pennsylvania.

"The scribe who stated in an affidavit stating she heard Judge Sabo state...before the trial, " I'me going to help them fry that Ni--ger" was reported 20 YEARS later. So you take HER word over that of the Hospital employee who reported the statement bu Jamal ," I shot the mother Fu--er and I hope he dies" the next day"

I find that humorous. She reported it to her superiors, supposedly, and never reported it to the police. The two cops there, took TWO MONTHS to remember a confession. One of them was Faulkner's best friend. I find it suspicious when they both forget for two months, one writing "the negro male made no comments" and the other one being too shocked to remember, until a meeting with prosecutors. Compared with a court scribe who deals with loads of info every day, and who had no personal connection with anyone in the case, and who doesn't bring it up until she's CALLED TO TRIAL (which happens to be in 20 years), which seems pretty normal, I forget minute details of my work life all the time, yes, I do regard the cops as less trustworthy.
So, essentially, the only one who stated what they allegedly heard at the appropriate time was the court clerk, not the cops or the nurse. And for the record, the doctor actually operating on Mumia still maintains he was too badly hurt to say, much less scream anything.

And dare I mention that Kenneth Pate, the stepbrother of the hospital employee Priscilla Durham, has also stated she told him she heard no confession.

Add to that the fact that many witnesses, without any chance to contact each other before the first trial, spoke of very similar methods of police brutality and coercive threats against them; none of them knew Mumia either. And contrary to your assertions, Philadelphia officials did make a deal with Cynthia White, she received light treatment for the rest of her life from the police there.

Plus, let's analyze some issues of the prosecution's case. They claim, you remember, that Mumia fired first, and Faulkner fired one shot as he fell, right? Official medical records, never shown to the jury, show that the bullet that hit Mumia entered on a downward slope, entirely inconsistent with the theory of Faulkner falling and shooting. That would have led to a bullet entering Mumia going on an upward slant. The richocet theory is also ridiculous, as some have testified, because, all aspects considered, a rib could not have deflected the bullet to the extent required for it to then travel downward as it did. Another issue, never shown to the jury: The lack of bullet holes in the sidewalk. Why is this an issue? The prosecution states that after being shot by Faulkner, Mumia stood over him and fired down several times, hitting him only once. So why no bullet marks in the ground at the night of the crime? A third: Police never performed ballistic tests on the gun, and they mishandled it with un-covered hands. The jury was never told these facts.

And lastly, when did I say Arnold Beverly was credible? I didn't. There are much more possible theories, many of them involving William Cook, Mumia's brother, the one stopped by Faulkner, and his associates.

There's no need to get into them here, however, because whether one believes he's guilty or not, when one considers all these facts, you realize, justice has not been done. And if you want to ignore all of these facts, because you believe he's guilty and thus doesn't deserve a fair trial, then you are the lowest of the low. As your Mantra of "Justice For Daniel Faulkner" suggests, you don't believe there has been justice. I think we can agree. If Mr. Faulkner was an upstanding man who believed in the law, unlike his wife and many other police officers, then there is no better way to honor his memory than to bring his killer to justice by the principles he upheld. If you don't believe that, you're just another racist looking for an excuse to kill one of the greatest voices in the struggle for freedom. I personally believe Mumia innocent, and you may think differently, but justice is not served by not giving him a new trial.

In the end, you picked just a few things to rail wrongly against, I've shot down your arguments, and given your lack of response to other points, it would seem to me you acknowledge everything else. You're not as terrible as others then, you open your ears at least some of the time.

Recent Similar Articles

Comments

Mr. Washington

Oops, get back to your ABC News, friend, your stupid is showing

Well slick

Yes, he had his

Post new comment