This judge is dishonest.
This judge is so biased in favor of the prosecution in criminal cases that he allows the prosecutor to write his opinions for him and then issues those opinions as if they were his own.
This judge commits criminal acts in order to aid the prosecution.
This judge, in short, needs to be impeached.
This judge needs to be indicted, tried, convicted, and sent to prison in order to protect the public and teach other federal judges that judicial arrogance, incompetence, dishonesty, and criminal acts are not uncorrectable. The rhetoric is that "no-one is above the law." Davis v. Passman, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 2277 (1979). Of course, Passman was a mere Congressman.
At present, at least concerning federal judges like Richard Alan Enslen (hopefully there are not too many more like him), this statement appears to be mere hyperbole in the hands of other federal judges, including those at the appellate level, determined to "protect their own" at the expense of the rights of the common citizen.
In case no. 1: 98-CR-54, Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, Judge Richard Alan Enslen has exhibited the following behavior.
The indictment in case no. 1:98-CR-54 was issued on April 9, 1998.
The superseding indictment in case no. 1: 98-CR-54 was issued on July 9, 1998.
Bradford Metcalf and his co-defendant, Randy Graham, addressed the following issues in their pre-trial motions:
2. The meaning of the word "militia" in the Second Amendment and the fact that the word is part of a subordinate or dependent clause in the Second Amendment.
3. The fact that defendant Randy Graham has had a dislocated shoulder and has been denied proper medical treatment since his arrest.
The Order and Opinion denying the motions filed by the defendants is dated September 23, 1998.
The Order and Opinion was not authored by Judge Enslen, as the following quotes from the hearing transcripts of October 26, 1998 and November 17, 1998 clearly prove. The statements made by Judge Enslen at these hearings clearly prove this, even though he states (falsely) that the motions "are DENIED as stated in this Court's Opinion."
The Opinion was not authored by the Court. It was obviously authored by the prosecutor, Lloyd K. Meyer.
Statements of Judge Richard Alan Enslen made and recorded at Kalamazoo, Michigan on October 26, 1998, by U.S. District Court Reporter James L. Reinardy, CER 2532:
Hearing transcript, page 36, lines 12-17.
I haven't read the indictment.
Hearing transcript, page 51, line 21.
The obvious question is, how could someone who hasn't read an indictment be able to hold that indictment legally sufficient after that indictment had been challenged in five (5) separate motions by two (2) separate defendants? Those motions were nos. 27, 39, 59, 60 and 78 in the master docket and DENIED in the "Court's Order" of September 23, 1998. Note that this judge, without even reading the indictment, can issue a six (6) page Opinion finding an indictment sufficient that he hasn't read concerning charges of which he has no idea.
Tanakh, Proverbs 18.13, page 1314 (The Jewish Publication Society 1985)
The obvious answer is, this judge has committed a fraud upon his own court, in this instance and (undoubtedly) many others.
Not since the 1930s have the published opinions addressed a judge like this.
United States v. Manton, 107 F.2d 834 (2nd Cir. 1938).
This type of judge has been addressed in more recent times, outside of published opinions.
Roy M. Cohn, quoted in New York Times Book Review, 3 April 1988, at 24.
It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it proved anything, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.
Bichel v. Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd., 96 F.3d 151, 159 (6th Cir. 1996) (dissent).
Or, with Judge Enslen, why bother to separate the judicial from the executive branch? It appears that separation of powers doesn’t apply any time this judge can't find the energy to do the work he is paid to do.
Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago, page 298.
Id. at page 355.
Judge Enslen may be qualified to be a judge in the former Soviet Union. Under a Constitutional Republic, this judge is a disaster.
Peters, Inquisition, page 15 (1988).
Or, in Judge Richard Alan Enslen's courtroom, the edict of an Assistant United States Attorney.
Benjamin Austin, Observations on the Pernicious Practice of the Law, 1786, quoted in Roscoe Pound, The Lawyer from Antiquity to Modern Times 234 (1953).
To fully document the dishonesty and laziness of Judge Richard Alan Enslen would require the production of both the October 26 and November 17 transcripts, which this Court is urged to obtain.
On pages 3-4, Judge Enslen sidesteps his "own" September 23 Order and Opinion that Metcalf's issues concerning the Second Amendment would be addressed in jury instructions. These pages indicate that Judge Enslen hadn't read Metcalf's motion and was instead simply attempting to cover up for his judicial dishonesty and slothfulness.
On pages 6-31, Judge Enslen held a hearing on the intimidation of one of Bradford Metcalf's defense witnesses by Assistant United States Attorney Lloyd K. Meyer and BATF agent Mark Semear in the hallway outside the courtroom. The conduct engaged in by the two named "public servants" was a felony, intimidation of a witness, 18 U.S.C. § 1512. On pages 12-13 of this transcript, Judge Enslen came up with a height and weight criteria for witness intimidation (the witness was bigger than either of the government employees, one of whom presumably had a gun). His reasoning was that physically large witnesses cannot be intimidated by smaller-sized government employees (even two at a time).
Judge Enslen "covered up" this felony, pages 14-31, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3, accessory after the fact.
The pattern of misbehavior exhibited by this judge in this case alone would fill a volume (or three). Unfortunately, your complainant is limited to five (5) pages for this 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(1) complaint against Judge Richard Alan Enslen.
Lord Camden, L.C.J., Case of Hindson and Kersey, 8 Howell State Trials 57 (1680).
This is the same judge who wrote the article, "Should Judges Manage Their Own Caseloads?" 70 Judicature 200 (1986). This complainant's question is, should they write their own Opinions?
—Quoted by Lord Mansfield, Archbishop of Canterbury v. House (1774), Lofft. 622.
Which is exactly what Judge Enslen has done in this case (and undoubtedly many others)—turned an American federal court into an instrument of destruction and oppression, acting as a lazy but willing tool of the Assistant United States Attorney. While Judge Richard Alan Enslen continues to enjoy the benefits and salary of his exalted position, Bradford Metcalf languishes in prison due to the dishonesty of this judge. Randy Graham, also incarcerated, continues to be denied proper medical treatment for a dislocated shoulder that he has brought to the attention of Judge Enslen more than once.
This judge apparently wants the public to think of him as a legal scholar. His name is listed as one of the authors
of Constitutional Law Deskbook: Individual Rights (Lawyer’s Co-op). Given the dishonesty of his September 23, 1998 Order and Opinion, an inquiry should be made as to who actually authored his share of the book for which he claims credit.