I have written a lot on this blog about retaliation by the judiciary against anybody who dares to even try to ensure in any court proceeding a litigant’s federal constitutional right to an impartial judicial review.
Parties and their attorneys are sanctioned, attorneys are suspended or disbarred, in May of 2016 in the State of Nevada, a public defender was handcuffed, and in October of 2016 in federal court in the State of Oregon, an attorney who was making a legal argument on behalf of his client was
- physically tackled by 9 U.S. marshals;
- taken into custody; and
- charged with contempt of court.
But, all of that was outdone by a Texas judge – still on the bench – George Gallagher.
After he was sued by a criminal defendant in federal court:
“Morris contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his counsel’s motion to withdraw based on a conflict of interest, as Morris had filed a lawsuit against his counsel in federal court“; “[w]hen Morris continued to speak and mentioned his motion to recuse and federal lawsuit against the trial judge, the trial judge asked his bailiff to intervene by activating the stun belt attached to Morris’ leg“ (by the way, the lawsuit was hidden from public view, and is not accessible on Pacer, I checked),
Judge Gallagher obviously devised a very interesting point of retaliation against the presumed-innocent criminal defendant.
First, he refused to allow the defendant’s attorney, a public defender, to withdraw – because the defendant was suing his own attorney, too.
That created an interesting situation: the defendant was “represented by counsel”, and for that reason, only his counsel (who the defendant was suing, and who was, thus, angry at the defendant and unwilling to do his job for the defendant) could make any motions, including motions to recuse.
And, of course, the public defender was not making any such motions. The court cannot even accept for filing written motions from represented parties filing pro se.
Which, as the judge correctly predicted, provoked the defendant to make such a motion, for lack of other opportunity, right during the trial, in open court.
And boy was Judge George Gallagher prepared for that occasion.
Criminal defendant – kept in pretrial detention – was not allowed to take a shower properly, which caused his DEFENDER, his own attorney, to make a speech in front of the jury IN HIS DEFENSE pointing out that his client smells badly. That’s some defender…
Yet, while not being allowed to follow minimum sanitary norms – which could be done intentionally, to incite the jury against the “smelly” defendant, and the defendant’s own attorney (sued by the defendant and who the judge refused to allow to withdraw) made sure the jury would notice – the local Sheriff had enough time to follow George Gallagher ILLEGAL order (not following the preliminary required procedure) and to outfit the defendant for trial with a 50 000 Volt electric shocker-belt.
And, during the trial, when the defendant tried to preserve his right to impartial judicial review – and to preserve the issue of judicial bias on appeal – the judge gave repeated orders to the court attendant to torture the defendant with electric shocks. 50 000 volts each time.
And the court attendant did so – in front of multiple witnesses who, including the defendant’s own attorney, did NOTHING to stop the torture.
After the torture, the judge was not arrested.
Instead, he was allowed to continue with the trial – in the defendant’s absence.
And, if you think the defendant was given medical assistance after torture – you will be mistaken.
He was taken to a “holding cell”.
And, if you think the judge stopped the trial to allow the defendant to regain his health and ability to “assist” his attorney (whom he was suing) in his defense, you are mistaken, too.
Judge Gallagher proceeded with the trial right away, in the defendant’s absence.
Of course, by the time of sentencing, the judge magnanimously sent a court attendant to ask whether the defendant wanted to appear in court.
And, when the defendant told the court attendant that he is fearing further torture, the court attendant gave the defendant a fatherly advice – just do not “run your mouth against the judge” (read: “do not make any more motions to recuse, or any other legal arguments that your attorney who you are suing is not willing to make on your behalf”), and everything will be hunky-dory.
Well, the defendant, for some inexplicable reason, still continued to fear the torture and did not come for the sentencing.
And, the judge considered that “failure to come to the courtroom” to be “voluntary”, and continued with the sentencing stage.
Where the defendant’s attorney (who the defendant sued and who the judge refused to allow to withdraw) said the following to the jury in his closing speech:
“You may not like Terry Morris. I don’t like him. Kind of rude. Smells bad, you know.”
- the attorney did not like his own client (likely, for suing the attorney);
- that the client was rude, and
- that the client smelled bad.
Our three ladies of the Texas Appellate Court, of course, outdid the New York State’s 3rd Department appellate court – after all, Cristian Hummel did not use electric shocks on attorneys or parties for making motions to recuse (at least, not just yet).
Let’s go over the instruction to Judge Gallagher as to what to do on remand from the Texas Appellate Court once again:
“We agree with the State that the trial court was within its power to order Morris removed from the courtroom for his conduct; disrespect of the court, talking out of turn, and disrupting proceedings are recognized as valid reasons to exclude a defendant from proceedings (and had that been the only thing the trial court did in the lead up to Morris’ removal, this case would be an easy affirmance)”.
A new rule, therefore, emerges in Texas:
a criminal defendant can be denied effective assistance of counsel by being forced to accept an attorney who the defendant is SUING – and will have absolutely no recourse, because if such defendant dares to make motions to recuse in open court,
“the trial court [will be] within its powers to order [such defendant] removed from the courtroom for his conduct; disrespect of the court, talking out of turn, and disrupting proceedings”.
Do not disrupt proceedings with your silly constitutional arguments – that’s the new rule.
And, by the way, the court pointed out a very interesting thing, indicating why the appellate court did not overrule Judge Gallagher’s refusal to grant the defendant’s request to remove the defense attorney who he was suing:
“The State asserts that any error the trial court made in shocking Morris three times for his disobedience and disrespect of the trial court was waived by Morris’ failure to object, both at the time he was fitted for the stun belt and each time the trial court electrocuted him.”
Consider the morality of a prosecutor – who, as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Berger v United States in 1935,
to the same judge;
the same prosecutor; and
the same criminal defense attorney
First, the judiciary holds in their hands the law license and livelihood of each state prosecutor.
Source: New feed