New York City EMERGENCY APPLICATION, Magistrate Goodman threatening to issue an unlawful arrest warrant on Nov. 16, 2017/ courtroom deputy conspired

Lidya Radin - Being Defrauded              in the Federal Southern District of New York City -                                Retaliation   To:  Courtroom Deputy Ivannya Fitzgerald, please give this case to Magistrate Lois Goodman, as it explains to Magistrate Goodman that her October 25, 2017 Order threatening to arrest Me is not based on sworn allegations in the Violation Ticket, the pleading in this case.  Should you continue to block my communications to Magistrate Goodman, Ms.Fitzgerald, I can and will lien your property, and my insurance company will hold you accountable, personally.  I remind you that you refused to put my phone call to Magistrate Goodman through on October 25, 2017, upon request, this case should have been over on October 25, 2017, and I have your recorded statements.  Again, Scott Kransny is not and has never been my attorney.  I understand you and federal prosecutor R. Joseph Gribko went behind my back in an attempt to force this former federal prosecutor, Mr. Kransy on Me.  Please stop.   This email is NOTICE to you. Citation:  U.S. v. Herndon 546 F. Supp. 2d 854  ( E.D. Cal 2008 ) ORDER JOHN F. MOULDS, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's motion for probation revocation came on regularly for hearing October 4, 2007. Joseph M. Cook, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared for the plaintiff. Linda Harter, Assistant Federal Defender, appeared for defendant. The court ordered further briefing, which has now been submitted. Upon review of the motion and the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel and good cause appearing therefor,             THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Defendant was convicted of theft of government property, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 and on August 22, 2002, was sentenced to a term of 60 months supervised probation. On December 22, 2006, the defendant's sentence was modified to allow court probation in lieu of supervised probation. On August 1, 2007, the government filed a probation revocation petition. On August 15, 2007, the defendant was ordered to appear and show cause why probation should not be revoked. On August 22, 2007, defendant's five-year probation term expired. On October 4, 2007, the matter was heard and defendant moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant argued that plaintiff's petition was not under oath or affirmation; thus the order was invalid and could not serve to extend the court's jurisdiction beyond the expiration of defendant's five-year probation term. The order specifically stated: "Based on the foregoing allegations, and the good cause appearing therefrom, it is hereby ordered that the defendant appear on Wednesday, September 5, 2007, at 11:00 a.m., to show cause why the probation granted on August 22, 2002, and subsequently modified, should not be revoked. [¶] IT IS SO ORDERED." (Id.) An attempt to modify, extend, or revoke probation must be made within the probationary term. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3563(c), 3564(d), 3565(a) and (c); see also United States v. Schmidt, 99 F.3d 315, 317-18 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that revocation after expiration of probation term was proper where summons was issued prior to expiration); United States v. Humphress, 878 F.Supp. 168, 170-71(D.Or. 1994); cf. Freeman, 922 F.2d at 1394-95 (discussing former 18 U.S.C. § 3563(c) and stating that a court "may not revoke a probationary sentence once it has expired."). Overruled on other grounds in United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999). Title 18 U.S.C. § 3565(c), dealing with delayed revocation of probation, provides: (c) Delayed revocation. — The power of the court to revoke a sentence of probation for violation of a condition of probation, and to impose another sentence, extends beyond the expiration of the term of probation for any period reasonably necessary for the adjudication of matters arising before its expiration if, prior to its expiration, a warrant or summons has been issued on the basis of an allegation of such a violation. Id. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i), dealing with delayed revocation of supervised release provides: (i) Delayed revocation. — The power of the court to revoke a term of supervised release for violation of a condition of supervised release, and to order the defendant to serve a term of imprisonment and, subject to the limitations in subsection (h), a further term of supervised release, extends beyond the expiration of the term of supervised release for any period reasonably necessary for the adjudication of matters arising before its expiration if, before its expiration, a warrant or summons has been issued on the basis of an allegation of such a violation. Id. Here, it is clear that no warrant issued and that the August 15, 2007 order was not based on sworn allegations. The question here is whether this court's order of August 15, 2007 may be construed as a summons under the above statutes. This court finds that it cannot. The statutory provision for warrants or summonses, 18 U.S.C. § 3046, refers to Rules 4 and 9 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 4(b) provides for the form for the warrant and summons: (1) Warrant. A warrant must: (A) contain the defendant's name or, if it is unknown, a name or description by which the defendant can be identified with reasonable certainty; (B) describe the offense charged in the complaint; (C) command that the defendant be arrested and brought without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer; and (D) be signed by a judge. (2) Summons. A summons must be in the same form as a warrant except that it must require the defendant to appear before a magistrate judge at a stated time and place. Id. Rule 9(b) provides: (1) Warrant. The warrant must conform to Rule 4(b)(1) except that it must be signed by the clerk and must describe the offense charged in the indictment or information. (2) Summons. The summons must be in the same form as a warrant except that it must require the defendant to appear before the court at a stated time and place. Id. Under common principles of statutory construction, the word "summons" is a term of art distinguishing it from orders issued by judicial officers. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has construed 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i) "to mean that not all warrants or summonses will extend the district court's jurisdiction to revoke supervised release." United States v. Vargas-Amaya, 389 F.3d 901(9th Cir. 2004). In Vargas-Amaya, the court held that the district court's jurisdiction to revoke supervised release could be extended beyond the term of supervision, based upon a warrant issued during the term of supervision, but only if the warrant was based on sworn facts.Id. The court declined to express an opinion as to whether the summons must also be based upon sworn facts. Id. at 906 n. 4. However, this court finds the reasoning of Vargas-Amaya equally applicable to the summons in this context. Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states: If the complaint or one or more affidavits filed with the complaint establish probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the judge must issue an arrest warrant to an officer authorized to execute it. At the request of an attorney for the government, the judge must issue a summons, instead of a warrant, to a person authorized to serve it. A judge may issue more than one warrant or summons on the same complaint. If a defendant fails to appear in response to a summons, a judge may, and upon request of an attorney for the government must, issue a warrant. Id. Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the complaint be made under oath. Id. When read together, these rules demonstrate that generally a summons must also be supported by allegations sworn under oath. As noted by defendant, the Ninth Circuit has previously found there was "little distinction between the issuance of a warrant or a summons."United States v. Greenberg, 320 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1963) (the requirement that it must appear from the complaint that there is probable cause to believe an offense has been committed and that defendant has committed it, applies whether a warrant or summons is issued); see also Jaben v. United States, 381 U.S. 214, 219 (1965) ("Notice to a criminal defendant is usually achieved by service upon him of the summons or arrest warrant provided for in Rule 4. Neither is appropriate absent a judgment by the [magistrate judge] that the complaint shows probable cause. . . .") Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure also hinges the issuance of a warrant or summons on whether one or more affidavits accompanying the information establish probable cause. Id. "Professor Wright has concluded that since a summons may issue "instead of a warrant," and a warrant may issue only on a sworn information, then a summons may issue only on a sworn information." United States v. Millican, 600 F.2d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 915 (1980), quoting 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 151 at 342 (1969). "If a summons could be issued on an information not supported by oath, and a warrant then issued for failure to appear in response to the summons, the end result would be that defendant could be arrested on warrant though there had never been a showing under oath of probable cause. This is not permissible." Id. Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure also supports this court's conclusion that a summons, like a warrant, must be supported by sworn statements. Id. (3) Summons or Warrant. Upon an indictment, or upon a showing by one of the other charging documents specified in Rule 58(b)(1) of probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant has committed it, the court may issue an arrest warrant or, if no warrant is requested by an attorney for the government, a summons. The showing of probable cause must be made under oath or under penalty of perjury, but the affiant need not appear before the court. If the defendant fails to appear before the court in response to a summons, the court may summarily issue a warrant for the defendant's arrest. Id. This rule specifically requires that the showing of probable cause, supported by facts asserted under oath or penalty of perjury, is required whether a warrant or summons is issued. Id. Finally, in the Speedy Trial Act context, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b),courts have held that only a court order based on a complaint supported by probable cause is a "summons" that triggers the thirty day time limit; other documents hailing a defendant into court are not a "summons." See e.g., United States v. Graef, 31 F.3d 362, 364 (6th Cir. 1994) (a violation of notice is not a "summons" under the Speedy Trial Act because it is not issued in conjunction with a "complaint," as defined by Fed.R.Crim.P. 3.) Section 3161(b) provides as follows: "Any information or indictment charging an individual with the commission of an offense shall be filed within thirty days from the date on which such individual was arrested or served with a summons in connection with such charges. If an individual has been charged with a felony in a district in which no grand jury has been in session during such thirty-day period, the period of time for filing of the indictment shall be extended an additional thirty days." Id. There is no reason to invent a new meaning for the word "summons," when applying 18 U.S.C. § 3565(c). This court is required to follow the analysis used by the Ninth Circuit in Vargas-Amaya when it interpreted the parallel statutory section, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i). Because this court's August 15, 2007 order was not based on probable cause supported by sworn allegations, it was not a "summons" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3565(c), and therefore this court no longer retains jurisdiction over the petition to revoke probation. Good cause appearing, defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted and the petition to revoke probation will be denied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's August 1, 2007 petition to revoke probation is denied. 2. Defendant's October 4, 2007 motion to dismiss is granted.

To:  Chief U.S. District Court Judge Jose L. Linares, Newark, telephone: 973-645-6042

CC:   U.S. District Court Judge Brian Martinotti, U.S. District Court Judge Michael A. Shipp, U.S. District Court Judge Freda L. Wolfson,

          Magistrate Douglas E. Arpert, Magistrate Tonianne J. Bongiovanni, Deputy U.S. Marshals Paul Safier, and Deputy U.S. Marshal 

          Jerry Sanservino,Trenton

From:   Lidya Radin, mobile phone: 516-445-4390, on Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2017

RE:  ( 1 )  Magistrate Goodman's unlawful Order threatened to issue an unlawful arrest warrant on Thursday, Nov. 16, 2017, and,

        

        ( 2 )  Goodman's courtroom deputy, Ivannya Fitzgerald, blocked my phone call to Magistrate Goodman on Oct. 25, 2017

                 to unlawfully prolong the unlawful proceeding, in USA v RADIN, docket no: 17-mj-4519.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************

--Please find attached my EMERGENCY APPLICATION  to have this case stricken from the docket, and to stop Magistrate Goodman's threats.

--( 1 )  Magistrate Goodman cannot issue a warrant for my arrest on Nov. 16, 2017,  because:

             ( a ) she has no sworn statements on-the-record by "USMS Holland"  and,

             ( b ) because statements by Homeland Security Officer Mitchell are based on unsworn statements made to Mitchell  by  "Holland",  and,

             ( c ) because a possible "official source"  exception does not apply, as  both  "Holland"  and Mitchell broke the law  on August 10, 2017,

                     by arresting Me without a warrant, not bringing Me immediately before a judge, and not filing a Complaint based on facts sworn to

                     under oath or penalty of perjury within two days, all in violation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the 4th and 5th 

                     amendments to the federal constitution, and U.S. Supreme Court rulings ( which are constitutional law ).

             ( d )  The fact that  "Holland"  and Mitchell broke the law on August 10, 2017  ( arrest without a warrant with no showing of probable 

                      cause ) was confirmed by:

                                        ( i )  Deputy U.S. Marshal Jerry Sanservino  ( I have his recorded statements ):  "...you were arrested...".

                                        ( ii )  AUSA Gribko's November 1, 2071, letter to Magistrate Goodman:  "  The Deputy then placed the defendant

                                                under arrest, "   page 1, last sentence, in paragraph two

                                        ( iii )  A review of the court records by the Supervisor of the Courtroom Deputies, and, 

                                         ( iv )  the court records, themselves.

-- ( 2 )  This case should have been over on October 25, 2017, but for the unlawful conduct of Goodman's courtroom deputy Ivannya Fitzgerald.

Ivannya Fitzgerald blocked my access to the Court on October 25m 2017, by refusing to put my phone through to Magistrate Goodman upon request.  I have Ivannya  Fizgerald's recorded statements.

-- ( 3 )  Accordingly, I demand federal witness protection.

--( 4 )  In addition, this email will serve as NOTICE   to  Courtroom Deputy  IVANNYA FITZGERALD of a non-judicial lien that I will place on her property should she continue to involve herself in my case(s) and/or otherwise continue to interfere with Me and my business.

       

Also, Courtroom Deputy  IVANNYA  FITZGERALD is personally liable to Me and to the United States government for all the harm and expenses incurred after October 25, 2017, as is dishonest federal prosecutor R. Joseph Gribko with whom Ivannya Fitzgerald conspired.

--( 5 )  The U.S. Marshal service and its agents are warned by this NOTICE  that should they act on Magistrate Goodman's unlawful and unconstitutional warrant for my arrest I will place non-judicial liens on their property, in addition to any other actions necessary to protect Myself and my witnesses.

--( 6 )  Scott Krasny is not and has never been my attorney.  I already asked the Court not to pay him.  In addtion, should Mr. Krasny continue to involve himself in my business, I will place a non-judicial liens on his property as well as seek to have him disbarred.

--( 7 )  This email is copied to U.S.Senator Grassley's office with a request that it be placed on the Congressional record and forwarded to the House Judiciary Committee, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Inspector General's Office at the DOJ, and Internal Affairs at the U.S. Marshal Service in Washington D.C.   in connection with complaints that certain federal judges and DOJ officials, employees, and their agents be removed from office, for cause.

--( 8 )  This email is copied to Sgt. Major Ronald L.Green's office with a request that it be forwarded to their legal department for constitutional violations in connection with reporting for immediate corrective action as per 18 USC section 4, reporting to any military officer.

Note:  These prosecutors lied in connection with the criminal prosecution against former U.S. Army Major John Jackson, to be detailed in other follow-up reports.

Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, SEX or a Weekend getaway: which one purchased your Judges?

Where is the Justice in America?

Today our Judiciary is being run by a Mafia.  In Virginia the head of our Mafia is out of Richmond and by all appearance is Judge Donald Kent.  How he does it - by all appearance the Richmond School of Law.

The ownership of the FBI though James Comey and Andrew McCabe has also come in handy when it comes to COVERING UP the "MURDER FOR HIRE" 

Virginia's JIRC A Corrupt System Style - Article by the Virginia Pilot 1996

THEVIRGINIAN­PILOT
Copyright(c)1996,LandmarkCommunications,Inc.
 DATE:Sunday,September22,1996
TAG:9609230248 SECTION:LOCAL PAGE:B1
EDITION:FINAL SOURCE:BYMARKDAVIS LENGTH: 217lines

STATE'S BEST KEPT SECRET IS AGENCY THAT JUDGES THE JUDGES 

The complaint was filed in secret.

The public was not told that a Norfolk judge may have acted improperly.

A government agency investigated the judge in secret.
 There was no public record. A misconduct hearing was called in secret.
The location was kept quiet.

The agency would not confirm the judge's name or even that it was meeting. Witnesses against the judge were called in secret. Subpoenas were not filed in open court, as they are in criminal cases. The witnesses' testimony may never be known. They were urged not to talk after the hearing.

A newspaper reporter who showed up was asked the leave the building, a Holiday Inn. The reporter stayed out in the hallway. And in the end, Judge Luther C. Edmonds of Norfolk Circuit Court resigned under pressure.

That was nearly two weeks ago, and still nothing is known officially about the case, and probably nothing ever will be. Edmonds will go back to his private law practice in Virginia Beach and he will be eligible for a judge's pension in a few years. The exact charges against him remain sealed.

The nature of his alleged misdeeds remain unknown. The name of whoever filed the complaint against him remains confidential. The testimony against him is secret. The system worked exactly as it was intended: The public will never be told why a sitting judge left office. 

Lawyers call it The Jerk ­ that's JIRC, short for Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission. It is the most powerful and most secretive government body you've never heard of. How secret is Virginia's judicial commission? 

Consider the scene Sept. 12 when the commission heard charges against Edmonds. Nothing at the Holiday Inn Executive Center on Greenwich Road hinted at the serious proceedings inside. It was 8:30 a.m. and the hotel buzzed with activity. Several meetings were going on at once. In Parlor E, Navy officers discussed rescue techniques. In Parlor B, blue­collar workers from Georgia Pacific talked shop. Their doors were open. Across the hall in Parlor C, the door was closed and locked. 

No one was admitted without permission. There was no sign on the door or on the hotel marquee to tell visitors who was meeting there. Inside, the seven commission members ­ three judges, two lawyers and two private citizens ­ met.

 1/11/2016 STATE'S BEST KEPT SECRET IS AGENCY THAT JUDGES THE JUDGES https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA­news/VA­Pilot/issues/1996/vp960922/09230248.htm 2/4 

The hearing started, then stopped abruptly. JIRC's chief counsel emerged to confront a Virginian­Pilot reporter waiting outside. ``I am asking you to leave the building,'' Reno S. Harp III told the reporter. ``I can't order you to leave, but I am asking you to leave the building. Your presence here is threatening the confidentiality of the witnesses who will testify.'' 

It is that secret. For 25 years, the JIRC has been meeting out justice behind closed doors. This is required by the state constitution, under the heading of ``Disabled and unfit judges.'' It says, ``Proceedings before the Commission shall be confidential.'' How confidential are they? So confidential that, until 1993, it was a crime for witnesses to publicly discuss their testimony. So confidential that, until 1978, it was a crime for newspapers to report that an investigation existed. 

Technically, the commission is not all­powerful. Technically, it answers to the state Supreme Court, which has the real power to remove or censure judges. Technically, the commission merely makes recommendations, and technically the most serious cases become public when the charges and transcript move to the Supreme Court. But that rarely happens. 

In 25 years, only six judges statewide have been publicly punished. And only one case resulted in a judge's removal ­ a Richmond judge who gave away confiscated guns and liquor. More often, judges under investigation resign, like Edmonds, and their cases fade away. Many lawyers and judges say it is the fairest system possible. They say privacy is needed to protect judges' reputations from unfair attacks and to protect witnesses who are afraid to come forward. 

``I know there's some debate about whether the entire process should be open,'' says commission chairman Theodore J. Craddock, a Lynchburg lawyer. ``I personally feel the system should stay the way it is. I've seen it work and I feel it works best . . . ``Anybody can make an allegation. I think the reputation of a judge can be unfairly attacked.'' The system is so secret that Craddock says he cannot offer examples of cases in which confidentiality was needed. 

Richmond lawyer James C. Roberts has represented several accused judges before the commission. He agrees on the need for secrecy. He says many complaints against judges are worthless and deserve to be kept quiet. Besides, Roberts says, ``You're more apt to have people come forward and be honest and candid under those circumstances than if the process had been public.'' 

Harp, the commission's chief counsel for 25 years, refuses to get drawn into the debate. He says simply that confidentiality is required by the state constitution ``and I'm required to follow it.'' He calls the commission ``the personnel department of the judiciary,'' an agency that deals with problem employees like any other. In an interview earlier this year in the Newport News Daily Press, Harp said he sometimes works in the background to get at the root causes of judges' problems ­ medication, for example, or alcoholism, or even a hearing aid. 

Sometimes the commission simply eases a judge into retirement, sometimes for medical reasons, sometimes as a quick remedy to charges of misconduct. For example, Judge Stephen Comfort retired from Chesapeake General District Court in 1993, saying he had become bored with the job. A few days later, a friend said Comfort was forced to quit by the judicial commission. 

The friend said Comfort was being investigated for improperly intervening with another judge in the friend's child visitation dispute. As in the Edmonds case, neither the judge nor Harp could comment because the investigation was confidential. Last week, Harp said other ``personnel departments'' don't have to deal with problem employees in public. The system has its critics. Richmond lawyer David P. Baugh may be the most outspoken. In 1990, he attacked the commission's confidentiality with a federal lawsuit. He complained that his First Amendment rights were being violated because he could not talk about a complaint he had filed against a judge. 

1/11/2016 STATE'S BEST KEPT SECRET IS AGENCY THAT JUDGES THE JUDGES https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA­news/VA­Pilot/issues/1996/vp960922/09230248.htm 3/4 And he won. A federal judge ruled that Virginia cannot stop witnesses and complainants from talking about their cases. As a result, the General Assembly in 1993 revoked the law that made it a crime. But the legislature made no other changes, and the commission still urges witnesses to remain silent after they testify, even after hearings are over. That infuriates Baugh. ``The JIRC is the ultimate star chamber,'' Baugh says. ``I have a hard time keeping secrets from the people. We're paying the tab for this guy (a judge). We don't know the allegations against him. We don't even know if the allegations ought to be crimes . . . ``If I make a complaint against you and it's a crime, it becomes public. If I make a complaint against a judge, that's different . . . I don't like this secrecy. Secrecy and democracy don't mix.'' Norfolk City Treasurer Joseph Fitzpatrick agrees. In 1979, when Fitzpatrick was a state senator, he tried to change the rules. His anger was sparked by secret misconduct hearings against Norfolk Judge Joseph Jordan of General District Court. The investigation was no secret. 

Many lawyers in town talked openly about the case. It was debated endlessly in the press. Eventually, the commission did certify public charges against Jordan to the Supreme Court, and Jordan was publicly censured. Fitzpatrick testified for Jordan in secret. He was furious that Jordan had been ``tried in the press'' without a public hearing. In the legislature, he called for a constitutional amendment to open the system. Fitzpatrick lost that fight, but his opinion hasn't changed. ``It occurred to me that judges were subject to being found guilty without anyone ever knowing what the charges were,'' Fitzpatrick said last week. ``The more these things go on, the more convinced I am that . . . the public should know what a judge is being charged with and should be able to be a part of any action taken against a judge, through the media.'' 

Even accused judges who want their hearings open cannot change the law. In 1990, for example, Portsmouth Judge Archie Elliott Jr. of General District Court was accused of misconduct. Again, it was a poorly held secret. Lawyers, including Portsmouth's top prosecutor, talked openly about the case. Elliott asked for an open hearing. The commission said no. 

The commission never revealed the outcome of the hearing. It became public only after Elliott told a church congregation three days later that the charges against him had been dismissed. ``There were so many rumors floating around about different allegations,'' Elliott's attorney, Kenneth R. Melvin, said at the time. ``We wanted the people to know that the charges were essentially procedural allegations.'' Is there another way? 

Most states are not as secret as Virginia. All 50 keep initial investigations private. But after that, 32 states make cases public when charges are filed against a judge, according to the American Judicature Society in Chicago. Among the less­secret states are neighbors North Carolina, Maryland, West Virginia and Tennessee. Unlike Virginia, seven states and the District of Columbia also allow an accused judge to waive confidentiality. Only 13 states have systems similar to Virginia's, and six are more secret, including neighboring Kentucky. In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that newspapers and broadcasters in Virginia cannot be prosecuted for truthfully reporting on the JIRC. 

The issue arose after The Virginian­Pilot was convicted of a misdemeanor and fined $500 for reporting that a judge was under investigation. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: ``The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern. The operation of the Virginia commission (JIRC), no less than the operation of the judicial system itself, is a matter of public interest.'' 

After the ruling, JIRC's chairman breathed a sigh of relief. At least, he said, the hearings themselves will remain closed. A ruling against JIRC's secret nature ``would have killed the commission,'' he said. The American Bar Association has a different take. 

1/11/2016 STATE'S BEST KEPT SECRET IS AGENCY THAT JUDGES THE JUDGES https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA­news/VA­Pilot/issues/1996/vp960922/09230248.htm 4/4 In 1991, an ABA commission reported that the public is suspicious of lawyers who discipline themselves in secret. The report focused on lawyer disciplinary systems ­ not judicial discipline systems ­ but found that lawyers hold themselves to different standards than the general public. ``The irony that lawyers are protected by secret proceedings while earning their livelihoods in an open system of justice is not lost on the public,'' the ABA commission wrote. ``The public will never accept the claim that lawyers must protect their reputations by gag rules and secret proceedings.'' 

ILLUSTRATION: Graphic Color photo JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW COMMISSION When Judge Luther C. Edmonds, left, resigned, the public never knew why. The commission kept secret the charges against him. The name of whoever filed the complaint against him, and the testimony, remains unknown, as well.

 COMMISSION MEMBERS The Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission has seven members ­ three judges, two lawyers and two laymen. They are appointed by the General Assembly to four­year terms. The members are: Chairman Theodore J. Craddock, Lynchburg lawyer. Vice Chairman Thomas E. Glascock, Hampton lawyer. Judge James H. Flippen Jr., Norfolk Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Robert J. Grey, Richmond, retired from A.H. Robbins John S. Massad Sr., Richmond, real estate Judge Paul F. Sheridan, Arlington Circuit Court Judge Joseph S. Tate, Marion 

General District Court KEYWORDS: JUDGES JIRC JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW COMMISSION Virginia Tech University Libraries DLA Contact Us PDFViewers This w ork is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution­Noncommercial­Share Alike 3.0 United States License. URL: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA­new s/VA­Pilot/issues/1996/vp96092