The discipline of Judge James EnEarl or how the public’s supposedly “protected” by not telling them why.

This is the judge we addressed our complaints to, Lupita’s former boss.
It speaks for itself.

The Irreverent Lawyer

LaughingThis one doesn’t pass the laugh test. A spokesperson for Nevada’s Commission on Judicial Discipline told the media on June 23, 2011 that “to protect the public,” the details couldn’t be disclosed concerning a stipulated settlement where a former judge agreed to never again seek judicial office.

Admittedly, there are statutory restrictions the Commission has to follow about when and what it can or cannot say when judicial disciplinary matters are involved. But to assert that its unwillingness to reveal specific information about an elected official’s stipulated ethical violations because of a supposed concern for the public’s protection — that rises to self-contradicting sophistry of the worst kind.


Were it not that the public is getting treated like dunderheads or tow-headed toddlers, that statement might even be funny. But in truth, it’s outrageous. Why should greater weight be given to protecting a public official’s private embarrassment over the public’s right…

View original post 987 more words


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s