The Oregon Supreme Court issued an opinion today in Judge Day’s ethics case. Its long, self-justifying opinion, reciting much of the hearsay evidence collected by the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability. This is the same Commission which wears all the “hats” that are usually found in a jury trial: they investigate; they prosecute; they serve as the judge on the case, and they are the initial Jury-fact finders. Some in the media have accurately called it Oregon’s Kabuki Theater. One wonders how such a biased system can exist in America today?
Here’s what we do know:
- The State of Oregon has alleged that Judge Day committed two Felonies by supposedly aiding and abetting Brian Shehan with possessing a firearm. Judge Day has pled not guilty and plans to go to court to clear his name in front of a jury;
- The Oregon Supreme Court is fully aware of Judge Day’s case, as numerous issues have come before it on the criminal case (all of which have been denied). The Oregon Supreme Court was asked to delay its opinion until Judge Day had an opportunity to present his evidence before a jury under the rules of evidence. If acquitted, then he promised to bring the evidence back to the Oregon Supreme Court to supplement the record in the ethics case. Judge Day’s contention all along has been that the Commission denied him due process and a fair hearing. Facts seem to now very clearly support that the Commission was biased. It appears that the Oregon Supreme Court has now exhibited its bias.
- The Supreme Court knows that Judge Day has a constitutional right to have an unbiased jury. Both the Oregon and the U.S. Constitution speak clearly to that right.
- There is no time requirement on when the Oregon Supreme Court releases its decision in an ethics matter. They have the discretion to wait until after the criminal matter.
- In their opinion today, the Oregon Supreme Court says that it is interested in “upholding the integrity and the impartiality of the judiciary.”
Conclusion: We are not lawyers, so would somebody tell us how the Oregon Supreme Court can issue an opinion which serves to publicly enhance the credibility of the state prosecutor’s only eye-witness in an upcoming criminal trial, and at the same time seeks to destroy the credibility of a criminal defendant before a jury can be selected. The Oregon Supreme Court chose to issue its opinion only 33 days before Judge Day’s criminal case goes to trial.
From the man-on-the-street perspective, the Oregon Supreme Court’s action today demonstrates that it is willing to place its heavy hand upon the scales of justice just days before their target gets his day in court. How can this be? Are we in the old Soviet Union? How can the court be serious about upholding “the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” when it seeks to rob Judge Day of his only chance to a fair trial – a trial which would likely change the evidence upon which the high court decided the ethics case today.
How is this not an oligarchy in black robes, engaging in a rank deprivation of Judge Day’s Constitutional rights?