Judicial Misconduct Sanction Against Judge Newman Affirmed

by Dennis Crouch

The Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee has denied Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman’s petition challenging the Federal Circuit Judicial Council’s misconduct finding against her. The Committee includes seven Federal Judges from around the country, chaired by Fourth Circuit Judge Traxler. The particular finding here is an affirming the Federal Circuit’s determination that Judge Newman committed serious misconduct by refusing to undergo a requested medical examination to assess whether she has a disability rendering her unable to discharge her judicial duties. In re Newman.

The complaint originated in March 2023 when the Federal Circuit Chief Judge Moore identified concerns about Judge Newman’s fitness for office based on incidents suggesting significant cognitive impairment. A Special Committee of Federal Circuit judges was appointed to investigate whether Judge Newman has a disability. The Committee ordered Judge Newman to undergo neurological and neuropsychological testing to make this determination. Judge Newman refused, arguing the special Committee lacked reasonable basis for the testing and her due process rights were violated.

The Special Committee and Judicial Council (consisting of all Federal Circuit judges except for Judge Newman) found Judge Newman’s refusal to comply constituted serious misconduct under the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings. Her failure to cooperate meant that her “fitness” could not be determined.  As sanction, Judge Newman was barred from hearing cases for one year, subject to renewal if she continues refusing to comply.

In her petition to the Broader Committee, Judge Newman argued the Council abused discretion by not transferring her case to another circuit and that alleged due process violations established good cause for her noncompliance. She also challenged the sanction as exceeding the Council’s authority.

The Committee upheld the misconduct finding and sanction.  It found the Chief Judge and Judicial Council properly exercised discretion not to request a transfer per the Rules’ exceptional circumstances standard. Judge Newman’s due process arguments also failed since she received required procedures and access to evidence. The one-year case suspension comported with the Council’s responsibility to ensure effective court administration under the circumstances and was “not grossly in excess of other suspensions imposed under the Act.”

By unanimously affirming the finding against Judge Newman, the Committee reinforced judicial councils’ broad authority to investigate disability complaints and impose sanctions for noncompliance. However, its opinion indicates that a transfer may be warranted if, for instance, Judge Newman calls Judicial Council members as witnesses regarding her fitness in future Judicial Council proceedings.

Judge Newman’s lawsuit in the D.C. Circuit is ongoing, with the district court considering the motion to dismiss filed by her co-judges.  Newman v. Moore, et al., Docket No. 1:23-cv-01334 (D.D.C. Filed May 10, 2023).

 

45 thoughts on “Judicial Misconduct Sanction Against Judge Newman Affirmed

  1. 6

    As should be abundantly clear, Judge Newman was not processed in this decision for the original (fake) charge of being mentally deficient and not being able to do her job.

    One really does have to wonder at the folks wanting her punished when we have a (puppet) president who is found to break the law, but will not be processed because he IS mentally incompetent.

    W
    T
    F

    1. 6.1

      Well thanks for making clear what you’ve been ranting about, I figured it was similar. But obviously you’ve got to understand that she was obstructing that proceeding so it was not allowed to finish up. Technically they’re just waiting for her to continue.

      1. 6.1.1

        obstructing the FALSE proceedings – by not willfully being railroaded – and still complying with not one but two medical reports…

        Yeah, no.

          1. 6.1.1.1.1

            Yeah, you still miss the substance of the present ruling there, 6.

  2. 5

    Sad. If this was necessary — and I’m not convinced it was — it was done very poorly, and far too publicly.

    Procedurally, we have a process to allow non-article III judges (magistrates) to do the work of judging, subject to ratification via report & recommendation. Removing a sitting article III judge is solely Congress’ prerogative.

    1. 5.1

      Is there any “real” difference between “removing” and “effectively removing”?

      From a “Ends Justify the Means” perspective?

      1. 5.1.1

        Yes, they’re literally just waiting on her.

        1. 5.1.1.1

          … to die.

          And yet, she is FAR more lucid and cogent than the current Puppet-in-Chief.

          ALL but the self-deluding Sprint Left must be able to see that, eh?

    2. 5.2

      the ONLY reason it was public was because Newman forced it to be by leaking documents. Second, CONGRESS did provide statutory authority for the remedies that were justly and rightly imposed.

      1. 5.2.1

        So, your answer then is that the Ends justifies the Means then, LBJ?

  3. 4

    The sh it that they pulled on judge Newman is reprehensible.

    1. 4.1

      Absolutely – and ‘celebrated’ by the types of useful 1 d10ts that will nicely serve in the gulags or Ma0’s fields in their own turn.

      1. 4.1.1

        First they come for our rights to remain active Federal Appellate Court Judges at age 94 while we berated our office workers with paranoid nonsense. WATCH THE SKIES! YOU ARE NEXT!

        1. 4.1.1.1

          Your micro-agressions of AGEISm are noted.

  4. 3

    If Newmann cared about anything beyond herself she would either immediately (1) retire or (2) take the physical exam.

    1. 3.1

      Go do what you do best, id i ot who is using a basketball player’s name.

    2. 3.2

      First, regardless of whatever else she does she needs to sincerely apologize to her worker/clerk and any others involved. And try to do right by him settling a small suit, or acknowledge the gov should settle with him for a small sum.

      1. 3.2.1

        Keep on quaffing that Kool-aid 6.

    3. 3.3

      I am constantly amazed whenever anyone takes the position that it is best to just give in to a demand one disagrees with. It is like they do not know history.

      1. 3.3.1

        I’m not sure if you’re referring to me. I actually think that you should not give in to an loldemand. But you’ve got to be willing to face whatever consequences there are for your not giving in. Lack of employment, a few years in jail, maybe your life.

        1. 3.3.1.1

          Bold words (see your own post above), but coming from you in this context, more than a little tinny.

        2. 3.3.1.2

          I was replying to LeBron James.

          But, people are now demanding that President Biden take a cognitive test after Hur’s report. The report provides evidence that Biden is cognitively impaired. So I am curious how Mr. James responds to those demands.

          As for your, you’ve got to be willing to face the consequences statement, what if the consequences themselves are improper?

          1. 3.3.1.2.1

            Please Pardon Potential re(P) eat…

            Your comment is awaiting moderation.

            February 18, 2024 at 7:29 am

            Not just consequences being improper – but the means to those consequences.

            This is but yet another flavor to the “Ends justify the Means.”

            ANYONE involved with law should recoil at that type of thing.

  5. 2

    Lap dogs gonna lap.

  6. 1

    I hope this action by a removed and more clearly objective panel of judicial peers will put to rest the ad hominem claims against the rest of the Federal Circuit bench, that they have some form of vendetta against Judge Newman, and reiterate that the goal of this unfortunate situation has been to preserve the quality of adjudication from the bench.

    1. 1.1

      It only draws more attention, skyywise – note the “penalty” is NOT on the original Trump’ed up charges, but on the (reasonable) reaction TO those charges, that ‘conveniently’ disappeared.

      Pull your head out.

      1. 1.1.1

        “It only draws more attention, skyywise – note the “penalty” is NOT on the original Trump’ed up charges, but on the (reasonable) reaction TO those charges, that ‘conveniently’ disappeared.”

        lolwut?

        1. 1.1.1.1

          The least that you can do 6 is pay attention.

          Read the present finding – note that the original charge was NOT pursued.

          This is like “resisting arrest” when an original ‘arrest’ is entirely bogus and would be thrown out immediately.

          It is a farce, a fabrication, a sham, a railroad job.

          1. 1.1.1.1.1

            Well I’m not sure I’m familiar with what the “original charge” is if not the large filing we all pawed over awhile back.

            Further, yeah you’re not allowed to resist arrest period, even if the original charge is bogus. It’s kinda a lawl n sheet. You have to kinda cooperate with the law.

            1. 1.1.1.1.1.1

              Please Pardon Potential re(P)eat…

              Your comment is awaiting moderation.

              February 10, 2024 at 3:40 pm

              That kind of “co-operate no matter what” went out in the Vietnam War era.

              1. 1.1.1.1.1.1.1

                “That kind of “co-operate no matter what” went out in the Vietnam War era.”

                Well, that may be, but it still gets enforced, as it’s still on the books.

                1. Yeah and I also know that people like you don’t in fact resist arrest irl, or resist minimally that you don’t get charged for, you just go down to the courthouse and handle it, as is proper. You talk big, and spread that sht around so that ta rds (usually druggies) and a bit disproportionate ethnic people resist arrest and get their sht pushed in, killed, or several years in jail. And you think you’re “liek fitin the mane, man”. It’s a despicable practice irl.

                2. Please Pardon Potential re(P)eat…

                  Your comment is awaiting moderation.

                  February 13, 2024 at 7:14 am

                  Did you just a$$ume a gender?

                  O H H H H – I am so m1cr0-@ggressed.

    2. 1.2

      The type of people who circled the wagons around Judge Newman are not the type of people who are generally capable of learning or admitting they’d been hoodwinked. On the contrary, they are the types who double down, no matter how ridiculous they look, or who just pretend that nobody was paying attention.

      1. 1.2.1

        How very odd of you.

        NO ONE who has supported Judge Newman has acted as you attempt to denigrate.

        The party that looks ridiculous is the Court system itself.

        Supporters want the opposite of “pretend that nobody was paying attention” and WANT attention to the ongoing tragedy.

        But go ahead and gas1ight that your ‘celebration’ is in line with you NOT being anti-patent.

        1. 1.2.1.1

          “ NO ONE who has supported Judge Newman has acted as you attempt to denigrate.”

          …. says Billy as he and his cohorts act precisely as described.

          1. 1.2.1.1.1

            Your typical projections notwithstanding. you are false – as “described.”

            As for, ‘Billy and the Cohorts,‘ didn’t they chart in the 60’s?

      2. 1.2.2

        When the crowd running toward the cliff, the one going in the opposite direction is thought to be wrong.

        1. 1.2.2.1

          Exactly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture