Council Votes to Publicly Reprimand Real
A judicial discipline council has voted to publicly reprimand U.S. District Judge Manuel Real for taking actions based on ex parte communications with a litigant — and for giving inaccurate and misleading testimony about the incident. Real is appealing the decision.
If the reports are accurate, and the findings are upheld, it’s hard to reach any conclusion other than that Judge Real should be impeached — at the very least, for giving deliberately misleading testimony. How can we allow a judge to continue in office if he has deliberately lied under oath?
Impeachment might not be a bad idea, but I think a better solution would be to amend the Constitution to limit the terms federal judges get. Giving lifetime tenure to judges makes them completely unaccountable, a particular vulnerability when the judge is old and senile, like Real.
BTW, have you ever had the pleasure of appearing before Judge Real?
Steve Smith (ee9fe2) — 12/23/2006 @ 2:31 pmBut…did he lie about sex? After all the 4th-and-five-eighths Amendment allows lying under oath about sex….
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 12/23/2006 @ 4:32 pmI haven’t myself, but I have heard plenty of stories about the guy, none of them good.
Xrlq (2656a4) — 12/23/2006 @ 4:51 pmany chance at all patterico will give props to stephen yagman for being the primary force for holding judge real accountable?
according to the l.a. times, this reached the light of day due to a “web error”. i’d like to see that part fleshed out a little more. the 9th circuit intended to keep it under wraps, but it ended up on the website of a legal reference publisher. how did they get ahold of it?
my primary sympathies rest with the landlord in hancock park who was out $35,000 in rent plus beaucoup legal fees because this doddering old horndog with life tenure fancied a bit o’ young fluff and shielded her for three years from the inevitable consequences of not paying her rent. the 9th circuit went way out of its way, i thought, to reassure potential leakees of its opinion that judge real was **not** porkulating the “comely woman” every time he could get it up, about once a week i would guess, but once you acknowledge that she was a bankrupt criminal, you have to ask what exactly she brought to the judicial table, or should i say the judicial bedroom. compliments are due this landlord for the significant show of restraint in not resorting to extralegal means in such an intractable situation where the rule of law obviously no longer applied; i’m just a little surprised that both the building and the tenant are still visible above ground.
assistant devil's advocate (3a7778) — 12/23/2006 @ 9:45 pmWhy not? We let a president do it after all. Besides, if we impeach him, he’ll just get elected to Congress as a Democrat.
gahrie (ee9fe2) — 12/24/2006 @ 12:15 amThe same way we can allow presidents to continue in office after committing perjury
wayne (2fdbd3) — 12/24/2006 @ 1:12 amYou can’t trust Prosecutors,you can’t trust Judges,my G-d were caught in the middle with no where to go.Judges on the ninth circus,Judges like Lance Ito,prosecutors like Nifong and the creep in Texas(Delay).where do we go for justice,nowhere!
jainphx (c07aae) — 12/24/2006 @ 1:44 pm…I went before Judge Real in 1975 on a Dyer act arrest I made ( interstate transport of stolen vehicle ) and was regaled by the Asst. U.S. Atty afterwards with Real stories. If they were true, this guys been needing replacement for a long, long time.
Dave (d5580e) — 12/24/2006 @ 10:24 pmAnyone remember A. Andrew Hauk?
Steve Smith (d0ba0d) — 12/25/2006 @ 8:58 am“when the judge is old and senile, like Real.”
Another Drew (8018ee) — 12/25/2006 @ 1:30 pmWhen reviewing this judge’s record, in the beginning he was young and senile, and things haven’t gotten any better.
Another law the Dems can figure out a way to ignore? Just what we need!
Gayle Miller (1288b1) — 12/26/2006 @ 9:25 amI too would love more information on this case. The Judicial Council had voted not to censure Real, over the strenuous objections of the absolutely awesome Alex Kozinski; Patterico blogged about it here. What changed their minds?
Voice of Reason (d737be) — 12/26/2006 @ 10:36 amJustice Kozinski is a true hero. Can you imagine how depressing it has to be for him try to do his duty, knowing he is associated with such a den of corruption as the ninth circus, given that this case is unlikely to be an exception? I’ll bet he has to take blood pressure medication to cope with it.
Ken (245846) — 12/26/2006 @ 3:50 pmKozinski appears to have a certain fondness for his Circuit; he’s written eloquently against the notion of breaking it up (presumably so the hippie-liberals have less of a jurisdiction).
Regrettably, from what I hear he’s stepped on too many toes on both Left and Right to ever be seriously considered for the Supreme Court, which is a terrible pity. Our nation is poorer for it.
Voice of Reason (d737be) — 12/27/2006 @ 1:48 pm[…] Howard Bashman has some real breaking news: a link to the opinion reprimanding Judge Manuel Real, as I blogged about recently here. The copy Howard has is of poor quality and is currently missing a page. Still, it’s worth a look if you’re interested in the topic. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Opinion Censuring Judge Real Is Now Online (421107) — 1/2/2007 @ 4:43 pm[…] If Judge Manuel Real is doing this simply to get on my good side after being censured…it’s working! (But I still have no dispute with Patterico’s thoughts on the matter). […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Censured Judge Trying To Make Amends With The Public? (421107) — 1/4/2007 @ 9:25 pm