Judge Frank M. Hull, Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Judge Frank M. Hull appears to be suffering from severe mental disability in two areas.

1.  Judge Hull violates her oath of office on a regular basis.  The oath of office every federal judge takes binds that judge, in addition to upholding the Constitution, to judge impartially.  See 28 U.S.C. § 453.

Judge Hull, on a consistent basis, appears to favor supporting the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" (or privileged elite) instead of judging impartially.  The idea of having "respect of persons in judgment," originally prohibited in Leviticus 19:15 and Deuteronomy 1:16-17, has caused entire civilizations to collapse.

For example, any student of English history knows that the defeat of the Saxons at the hands of William the Conqueror in 1066 A.D. was because of the corruption  rampant in England's court system.  By the time the Normans landed, the English court system had reduced 80% of the population to the status of serfs and slaves by consistently favoring the nobility over the common people in judicial decision.  80% of the population did not look upon William as a conqueror:  they looked at him as a deliverer.

2.  Judge Hull appears to make rulings in her cases based neither on precedent nor original intent of the Constitution or statutes.  Her rulings appear to be made based on a mental mindset observed by Louis B. Boudin in 1932:

No one but a member of the "privileged elite" can get a favorable decision from Judge Hull.  Specific examples of her rulings evincing a corrupt "mindset," inability to recognize or follow precedent, or recognize "original intent" are given as follows:

A.  Given an obvious conflict of interest in a federal district court case with Delta Airlines as a defendant, Judge Hull failed to recuse herself voluntarily, as any honest judge would (and should have).  Instead, she stayed on the case until she ruled in favor of Delta Air Lines, denying the plaintiff in the case a jury trial.  In this same case Delta refused to produce documents to the plaintiff.  During a hearing in chambers Delta said the documents did not exist.  Judge Hull told Delta that since those documents did not exist they had better not show up later in their briefs.  They did show up later in their briefs and Judge Hull then used those documents to deny the plaintiff her "day in court."

B.  While a Fulton County Superior Judge, Judge Hull issued a ruling to give full-time retirement credit for part-time service.  This ruling applied to less than fifteen people, all members of the "privileged elite"  See Atlanta-Journal/Constitution December 31, 1992, January 5, 1993, and January 10, 1993.  Fortunately for Georgia taxpayers, a Georgia appellate court reversed this nonsense.  See same publication, December 5, 1993.

Apparently Judge Hull was appointed to a federal judgeship only because of her sex.  See Atlanta-Journal/Constitution, August 11, 1993.

Her bias in favor of the privileged elite is equally evident from reversals in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  A few examples:

    1.    Childree v. UAP/GA AG Chem, Inc., No. 95-8871 8/28/96:

Judge Hull threw out this "whistle blower" case against a wealthy and powerful chemical company.  Denise Childree had been fired because she refused to falsify documents submitted to the government.  Remanded.

    2.    Sierra Club v. Martin, 96-8840 44/29/97:

Judge Hull put hundreds of people involved in the timber industry out of work at the behest of the Sierra Club.  Reversed.

    3.    United States v. Wimbush, 96-8217 1/22/97:

This case had to be remanded because Judge Hull sentenced the defendant under the wrong statute.

    4.    First National Bank of Boston v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., 94-9025 6/3/96:

Predictably, Judge Hull found in favor of a large and powerful bank as opposed to a small firm.  Reversed.
What make these biased-in-favor of the privileged elite and other rulings so ridiculous is that Judge Hull has been corrected by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals four out of six times.  A litigant could expect better and more consistent results by throwing darts at legal principles stuck on a dart board.

In Childree Judge Hull demonstrated she couldn't apply precedent.  All she had to do was read Neal v. Honeywell, Inc., 33 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 1994).

In Wimbush Judge Hull showed her inability to read a statute and was completely oblivious to the true meaning of the Second Amendment (a disability unfortunately also shared with almost all other federal judges these days).

Wimbush was convicted of one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.  Congress enacted this statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g), based on judicial construction which was described in 1910 by Justice Harlan in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 31 S.Ct. 502, 533, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

The Second Amendment is quite plain to most of us:  "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The position of the federal judiciary has been that the "right" is a collective right and applies to the States, not the individual.  This "collective right" theory was first enunciated by the Kansas Supreme Court in 1905.  Salina v Blakesly, 72 Kansas 230, 83 Pacific Reporter 61 (1905).  The theory is patently wrong.  See Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Michigan Law Review 204, 211, note 31 (1983).  As Mr. Kates pointed out, the word "people" in the First and Fourth Amendments ("individuals") did not change meaning in the Second.

Congress (the people we vote in and vote out) defines "militia" in clear and unmistakable terms:

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819, expressed his apprehension over a judiciary accountable to no one:

This is admitted by federal judges themselves in Yates v. Aiken, 108 S.Ct. 534, 537 (1988):

    Under the Constitution, no federal gun control statute is constitutional.  As long as judges like Frank Hull sit on the federal bench we will have neither constitutional protections nor the benefit of statute law or precedent.

This erratic judge should be impeached.  There are certainly many far more qualified individuals to pick from for appointments to the federal judiciary.

The U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Hull's appointment to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals despite the consistent favoritism she has exhibited toward the privileged elite (a group which includes U.S. Senators).