Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

America’s First Female Muslim Judge Found Dead in the Hudson River

Yesterday, police found the body of Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam, the first female Muslim judge in U.S. history, floating in the Hudson River. Abdus-Salaam was 65 years old and had been reported missing earlier that day. Authorities said there were no signs of foul play so far, but the investigation is ongoing. Abdus-Salaam made history as the first black woman on the New York Court of Appeals–she was nominated in 2013 as part of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s effort to diversify the court. Many described her as a professional and intelligent but above all a warm and empathetic judge who often sided with vulnerable parties. Many high-profile New Yorkers expressed their condolences on social media.

Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam was a trailblazing jurist and a force for good.

On behalf of all New Yorkers, I extend my deepest sympathies. https://t.co/hnic07Shp1

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) April 12, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Canadian Judge Robin Camp has resigned after his comments during a 2014 rape trial when he asked the woman testifying why she didn’t “keep her knees together.” Camp’s language and comments during the trial implied that he thought the woman could have prevented being assaulted if she had wanted to. He faced backlash for his condescending and wrongheaded behavior pretty much immediately and a 15-month investigation by the Canadian Judicial Council began.

On Thursday, the council released its findings and stated that Camp was “manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality, integrity and independence.” The council urged that he be removed from office, and a few hours later Camp announced that he would resign.

The case involved 29-year-old Calgary man Alexander Wagar and an anonymous 19-year-old woman, who accused Wagar of raping her in the bathroom during a house party. The judge’s behavior was also inappropriate; throughout the trial he acted as if the alleged rape victim was to blame. He repeatedly referred to her as “the accused” even though that was the proper term for Wagar.

Why couldn’t this guy keep his lips together? He was obviously asking for it. https://t.co/gZsU5j9Zgt

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) March 10, 2017

Camp also claimed that young women “want to have sex, particularly if they’re drunk.” He stated that for women, “some sex and pain sometimes go together,” which is not necessarily a bad thing.” He even went as far as telling the woman that she could have avoided being raped if she had moved her pelvis “slightly.”

As expected, Camp acquitted the man. But the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the decision and ordered a second trial with another judge. Judge Gerry LeGrandeur said that although neither the accuser nor the accused sounded completely reliable during their testimonies, he couldn’t say without reasonable doubt that a sexual assault had actually occurred. After his second acquittal, Wagar’s attorney claimed that he was “the true victim.”

Repeat, he is one person. We need to look at the systemic issues of victim blaming in the criminal justice system. https://t.co/EBgX07DH4g

— Farrah Khan (@farrah_khan) March 9, 2017

The woman in the case said that her experience throughout trial left her with suicidal thoughts, including Camp’s inappropriate questioning. “What did he get from asking that?” she said at a hearing during the inquiry into Camp. “He made me hate myself and he made me feel like I should have done something… that I was some kind of slut.” Camp, who had been nicknamed the “knees together judge,” showed remorse and admitted that he had been rude and had used “facetious words.” In the middle of an apology he had to correct himself, when he said, “The thing I feel worst about is the questions I asked of the accused.” He then quickly corrected, “the complainant.”

Camp’s daughter also took part in the hearing and said she is a rape survivor herself. She said that although her father’s comments were “disgraceful,” she claimed to have seen him develop an understanding and empathy for those who have experienced trauma. Camp also pointed to how he has spent a lot of time educating himself about sexual assault, met with feminist scholars, and underwent sensitivity training. But in the end, that was too little, too late. The council wrote in its report, “his apologies and efforts at remediation do not adequately repair the damage caused to public confidence.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Who Asked Rape Survivor Why She Didn’t “Keep Her Knees Together” Resigns appeared first on Law Street.

An Arkansas judge resigned from his position on Saturday when accusations were revealed that he had arranged deals for female defendants in exchange for sexual favors. The judge, Timothy Parker, sent a letter to the Arkansas governor, Asa Hutchinson, announcing his choice to step down. He also wrote that he realized he could never serve as a judge again.

The news was made public on Tuesday by the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission, which is investigating Parker. According to the commission, he has repeatedly denied the accusations, but resigned in order to avoid being formally charged with a violation of judicial conduct. He was also worried about how the dispute would affect his family, but said that his term would expire soon anyway.

Arkansas judge resigns after allegations that helped female defendants in exchange for sexual favors https://t.co/Oe1v2lCm1g

— NYT National News (@NYTNational) January 5, 2017

In a letter describing the allegations, the commission wrote that Parker had a pattern of “personal relationships with many female litigants” and made deals such as releasing them from jail without bail, or constructing bond conditions that were favorable for the women. The commission said there are video statements from more than a dozen women, recordings of conversations, and text messages as evidence against him.

There are also other allegations against Parker that say he often showed up without notice at the county jail to release friends of his without bail and would give them a ride home in his own car. This part, the commission said, he admitted to. Parker is also facing criminal charges for the accusations. David Sachar, director of the commission, said:

Bonds would be set, or release of the women on their own recognizance was ordered by going to the jail or via telephone. The bonds or release of these women or their family or friends were done by their request in exchange for sexual favors.

But Parker kept denying his guilt, and when asked by the Associated Press why he didn’t contest the accusations, he answered, “I have young children and I don’t want them exposed to that kind of crap.”

This is not the first time this has happened in the state. In October another Arkansas judge, O. Joseph Boeckmann, was arrested for giving male defendants lighter sentences in exchange for sexual favors, which he called “community service.” The defendants had committed light crimes like traffic or misdemeanor offenses. Boeckmann made at least nine men, between 16 and 22 years old, collect trash from the ground and bring it to his home, where he snapped compromising photos of them and asked them to perform sexual favors. He later threatened or bribed them to make them keep quiet, and focused on vulnerable defendants who couldn’t afford to pay their fines.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arkansas Judge Allegedly Offered Female Defendants Freedom For Sexual Favors appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge has ordered the Republican National Committee to provide details on what kind of agreements it has with the Trump campaign for preventing voter fraud and maintaining “ballot security.” The RNC is bound by a decree from 1982 to not engage in voter fraud prevention activities without the consent of a federal court.

The judge also ordered the RNC to give an explanation of what Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and Mike Pence were alluding to when they recently said that their campaign is collaborating “closely” with the RNC to make sure there is no voter fraud going on. The order comes after a lawsuit that the Democratic National Committee filed against the RNC last week, alleging that it is supporting the Trump campaign with ballot security measures that could be illegal.

Trump has been talking at great lengths about how widespread voter fraud is and claiming that the system is rigged. On his website he urges people who see anything “suspicious” going on at the polls to personally intervene or to sign up to become a volunteer “Trump Election Observer.” This is all to prevent Crooked Hillary from rigging the election, of course.

Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2016

At a rally in Cleveland, Trump claimed that there are 24 million registered voters that are “invalid or significantly inaccurate” and 1.8 million people registered to vote who are actually dead. But there is no evidence of any widespread voter fraud in America and Factcheck.org debunked Trump’s statements.

This makes it extra ironic that it was a Trump supporter who was arrested for attempting to vote twice in Iowa last week. Terri Lynn Rote, 55, said that she hadn’t planned on voting twice, it was just a spontaneous idea. “I don’t know what came over me,” she said to the Washington Post. She also told Iowa Public Radio that the polls are rigged, and she was afraid someone would change her Trump vote into a vote for Clinton.

Des Moines woman Terri Lynn Rote arrested for voting twice #voterfraud https://t.co/snE3mz9Tn6 pic.twitter.com/uCS09WQmOp

— Jeffrey Guterman (@JeffreyGuterman) October 28, 2016

The decree that blocks the RNC from engaging in any voter fraud prevention that is not approved by federal authorities came about after the RNC used armed guards at the polls in 1981 to intimidate minority voters. It is set to expire in December of next year, but if the DNC is correct in its suspicions, it could be extended. The RNC has until Wednesday at 5 PM to respond to the judge.

But individual presidential candidates are not bound by the decree, which means the Trump campaign is free to go ahead with whatever plans it has uphold “security” at the polls. And according to Slate, Republican officials all over the country are engaging in illegal measures to prevent Democrats from casting their votes. So why are the Republicans so sure that voter fraud exists? Maybe because in some cases they are the ones behind it.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Orders the RNC to Explain What it Means by “Ballot Security” appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this year, a totally bonkers transcript from Rome, Georgia made national news. It involves a defendant, Denver Fenton Allen, a murder suspect in the death of another inmate at the Floyd County Jail. Allen goes in front of Judge Bryant Durham Jr. and attempts to get a new attorney, but the conversation between the two men just turns into a bizarre series of expletives and sexually charged comments.

The defendant allegedly goes in front of the judge to try to get a new attorney because his public defender was sexually abusing him, and forcibly performing oral sex on him. Allen then got increasingly vulgar and violent with the judge, threatening: “’ll cut your children up into pieces. I’ll knock their brains out with a (expletive) hammer and feed them to you. … The babies will be going, ‘Daddy, daddy, help me.” But Durham didn’t hold back, he told Allen that he “looked like a career.” All in all it was a totally bizarre exchange, you can check out the transcript for yourself here:

Georgia Shenanigans

For those in the legal field–or people who just love good out-of-place swearing–the transcript was a riot. Apparently the creators of “Rick and Morty,” agreed, and made a “a faithful, word-for-word recreation of one colorful day in the American court system” for the show. Check it out:

And yes, all of the dialogue is taken directly from the transcript.

While this is a particularly funny court video, it’s not the first time that a ridiculous transcript has come to life through a video reenactment. A few years ago, the New York Times put together this hilarious clip, again straight from a deposition transcript.

Sometimes the best humor comes straight from the courtroom.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post State of Georgia Vs. Denver Fenton Allen Transcript Gets “Rick and Morty” Treatment appeared first on Law Street.

There are two lessons I learned from the following story:

1. Never go on a cruise if you owe the government money (or even if the government erroneously thinks that you owe it money); and
2. Yellowstone National Park is all about collecting its debts so don’t think you can get away with cheating it out of even a dime.

It all started in 2003 when Hope Clarke forgot to put her hot chocolate and marshmallows away one night when she was visiting Yellowstone. Helpful hint: if you are visiting a national park, do not forget to put away your food. There is actually a good reason for this: animals that eat people-food. So, when she forgot to put away her food she received a $50 fine that was probably reasonable and frankly would in no way inspire me to write about it. So why am I?

Courtesy of giphy.

To answer that, let’s move forward to 2004. Clarke, in another travel-related expedition, went on a cruise to Mexico. Everything was going great, and–I assume, but I did not ask her this myself–if you had asked her right before she exited the cruise when it landed back in the US, she probably would have told you that she had a good time; however, the government had something to say about this smooth sailing.

You see, Clarke did not exit the ship of her own accord. She was escorted out of the ship in handcuffs after having been awakened at 6:30am by federal agents. The agents then dragged her before a judge in leg shackles.

What happened?

Well, customs agents who meet ships at the port and perform random checks of passenger lists had found an interesting thing on Ms. Clarke’s record: that year-old $50 fine from Yellowstone. They did what they would have done to any hardened criminal and immediately threw her before a judge.

Clarke tried to come up with some defense for her horrid deed. She said something really lame like that Yellowstone would not let her leave until she paid the fine, and thus, since she was not still in the park, she must have already paid it. Of course, she might have said that a little more respectfully, but I wouldn’t know since I wasn’t there.

Clearly she was lying, though. There was no way this would have happened if that fine had already been paid. So basically, she should have been thrown in jail for both the unpaid fine and perjury. Only wait, the judge went a different way. Instead of buying either the story of the criminal or the claims of the feds, he looked at the citation itself, which said that the fine had indeed been paid. Understandably after that he dropped the case and Clarke was free to go while the government was left to ponder what exactly had gone wrong.

Courtesy of giphy.

All I know is that my mom was right: if you don’t clean up your mess right now, young lady, bad things are going to happen.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happens in Yellowstone Does Not Stay in Yellowstone appeared first on Law Street.

A lawyer in Atlanta recently got first-hand experience with a pretty intense double standard. Stacy Ehrisman-Mickle, an immigration attorney in Atlanta, was publicly humiliated by a judge for having to bring her child to court.

Ehrisman-Mickle recently gave birth to an infant. She was entitled to six weeks of maternity leave, despite the fact that she did have a busy schedule of hearings and court proceedings. After her child was born, she tried to move some of the hearings scheduled during her maternity leave, using a doctor’s note to show why. All the judges and opposing attorneys complied with her motions to continue, with the exception of one — Judge J. Dan Pelletier Sr. He denied her request to move the hearing, saying she had no good cause.

So, Ehrisman-Mickle was put in an incredibly tough situation. She had a one-month-old baby, her husband was out of town for work, she had no family in the area, the child was too young for daycare, and she had just moved to town so she hadn’t found a babysitter yet. Essentially, she was left with a horrible choice — do her job or take care of her kid.

Luckily Ehrisman-Mickle was able to talk to her pediatrician who said that as long as she took appropriate precautions, she could show up that day with her baby strapped to her chest. All went relatively well, until the child started to cry, and Ehrisman-Mickle had to calm her down. At this point, Pelletier started scolding her for bringing her child to court. According to Ehrisman-Mickle,

When the [immigration judge] saw me with my daughter, he was outraged. He then questioned my mothering skills, as he commented how my pediatrician must be appalled that I am exposing my daughter to so many germs in court.

Ehrisman-Mickle was humiliated, and understandably so. There are a lot of serious problems with what happened to her — let’s start at the beginning.

The fact that she was not allowed the motion to continue. Motions to continue are very routine, as long as you can show that you have a good reason to file it. Most judges view having a child as a good reason, along with family emergencies and the like. Another requirement is that it’s rescheduled so that only a reasonable amount of time passes. Given that Ehrisman-Mickle only had six weeks of maternity leave to begin with, it’s clear that she could probably could have easily rescheduled the hearing to a different date that fell within the reasonable amount of time requirement.

Pelletier was unreasonable to deny the request, to be sure. But his public shaming of Ehrisman-Mickle is even worse — it’s ridiculous and unprofessional. There were other lawyers in the room with her when she was embarrassed who backed up her story. One of them talked to the Guardian confirming her story, but asked to not be named in hopes that Pelletier wouldn’t find out that it was him.

What happened to Ehrisman-Mickle was disgusting, but it shouldn’t be considered particularly surprising or even unusual. Maternity leave polices in the United States are pretty much accepted as being awful and outdated. We’re one of only a few countries that don’t have paid maternity leave, and the amount of time we give is almost laughably unproductive. That means that women are often put in situations like Ehrisman-Mickle’s, and sometimes they don’t even have the ability to consider taking their child to their job, or the access to a pediatrician to make sure that it would be ok to do so.

Ehrisman-Mickle has filed a complaint against Pelletier, and as of the time this story broke onto the national news scene, had not heard anything further.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawyer Admonished by Judge After Bringing Baby to Court appeared first on Law Street.

Detroit’s bankruptcy case will continue without legal challenges. The decision by Judge Steven Rhodes of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court halts all litigation against the city, its emergency manager and Gov. Rick Snyder.

Protests by retired city employees over potential pension cuts and a potential challenge to the city’s Chapter 9 filings will be addressed in upcoming hearings. Judge Rhodes said the Federal Bankruptcy Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” over this case.

Protesters gathered around the downtown Detroit courthouse while the Judge reviewed arguments on whether or not Mr. Snyder had crossed his authoritative boundaries when forcing the city into the largest municipal bankruptcy case in American History.

[NYTimes]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Ian Freimuth via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Judge Clears Way for Detroit Bankruptcy Case appeared first on Law Street.