Loading...
This is too rich to pass up. While speculations are running rife over possible actions and consequences over the circulation of a racially charged email against President Obama by Chief U.S. District Judge of Montana, Richard Cebull, and Cebull has since then publicly expressed regret over the act, we considered what may entail if actions were initiated against Cebull for using his official email to spread private racist jokes.
We found the manual of judicial discipline stating that anyone, whether a litigant or not can file a complaint about the conduct of a federal judge. However, the protection afforded to judges for preventing misuse of such wide rights included that courts shall not make such complaints public, and the complaints would be reviewed first by the chief judge of the circuit under whose jurisdiction the conduct complained of occurred.
So, if a complaint is made against Judge Cebull, it would be first reviewed by the Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The reviewing judge has the power to either dismiss the complaint or to appoint a committee of attorneys to investigate the complaint according to his/her discretion.
And in this case, such discretionary rights over the fate of any complaint filed against Judge Cebull would go to Judge Alex Kozinski who is well acquainted with the disciplinary process pertaining to federal judges.
As we found in a July 03, 2009 report in Los Angeles Times, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski stood publicly admonished for maintaining “a publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos,” which he had intended to be private.
Point to take note of is that Judge Cebull too, has also gone public toeing the same line of arguments, saying he intended the racist email to be private.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
In the case of Judge Kozinski, who would be exercising his discretionary rights over any complaint brought against Judge Cebull, the LA Times had reported that several of the files uploaded and kept on a publicly accessible server by Kozinski were sexually explicit and “included a photo of two nude women posed on all fours and painted to look like cows.”
If the conclusion of the judicial panel judging Kozinski’s case is seen: “The conduct involved was intended to be private. The judge took reasonable, although insufficient, steps to keep it private, and that behavior does not constitute judicial misconduct.” Then Cebull is acting according to established precedents and aware that nothing can be done against him for what he did, complaint or no complaint.
