Ten Federal Judges Who MUST be Impeached for Abuse of Power

The last federal judge impeached, tried, and convicted for trampling the rights of an American citizen was Judge John Pickering. He was scraped off the bench on March 4, 1804.

All the other impeachments and convictions since then have been for either income tax fudging or taking bribes. When Gerald Ford "got" Abe Fortas in 1969, it was the public humiliation and unfavorable publicity that did the job of keeping Fortas from becoming Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, not Fordís fellow members of Congress.

Congressional refusal to discipline members of the federal judiciary for trampling the rights of the rest of us has turned our federal courts into instruments of oppression and creators of social problems almost beyond belief. Here's a sampling of how federal judges behave on the bench and trample the rights of the rest of us. Hundreds of other federal judges are just as bad.

No. 1  Richard Alan Enslen, Western District of Michigan

Judge Enslen appears to be an alcoholic. He allows federal prosecutor Lloyd K. Meyer to write his orders denying motions in criminal trials concerning motions Judge Enslen hadnít read, in cases of which he is completely ignorant. He sentenced Bradford Metcalf to 40 years in prison for "conspiracy to possess" and "possession of machineguns" that were not machineguns. What Metcalf had were Browning .50 caliber and .30 caliber weapons without the sideplates (the part that makes a Browning a machinegun, according to BATF regulations). These guns are commonly sold through the Shotgun News.

No. 2  Colleen McMahon, Southern District of New York (White Plains)

Judge McMahon commonly makes statements in open court such as, "This is not a gun society any more." She refers to her duties on the bench as "torture" and "pain and suffering." She pays no attention to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure if they might happen to benefit a defendant. Judge McMahon appears to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

No. 3  Scott O. Wright, Western District of Missouri

Judge Wright "vetoed" the Missouri legislatureís enactment of the bill banning partial-birth abortions, which overrode deceased Governor Mel Carnahanís previous veto of the bill. As soon as the bill was passed, Planned Parenthood objected to the bill (unconstitutionally vague) and chose Judge Wrightís court in which to file its lawsuit because he had previously made rulings in their favor. Judge Wright immediately issued a temporary restraining order to suspend enforcement of the law.

No. 4  Russell G. Clark, Western District of Missouri

Judge Clark implemented an experimental school desegregation plan in Kansas City that cost Missouri taxpayers 1.3 billion (with a "b") dollars, drove Kansas City real estate values into the toilet, and bankrupted scores of businesses. The plan didnít work. See Jenkins v. State of Missouri, 77-420-CV-W-4. There were more than two dozen appeals filed in this case covering a period of more than twenty years. For a newspaper account of this litigation see the Washington Post, July 2, 1995. Luckily this judge has passed away.

No. 5  Richard W. Story, Northern District of Georgia (Gainesville)

Judge Story presided over a trial in which a government prosecutor brought an indictment against three people because the books they were selling by mail "had no value." The case should have been dismissed on First Amendment grounds. A large dollar amount of the forfeited property in this case disappeared into the pockets of your federal employees, but Judge Story refused to order an investigation into the matter.

No. 6  D. Brooks Smith, Western District of Pennsylvania

Judge Smith presided over a trial in which the main government exhibit was a forged document. Once this was pointed out in a Motion to Vacate Sentence, Judge Smith "sat" on it over a year. Justice is not dispensed by this judge. Maintaining the status quo and collecting his paycheck are the two important factors in his courtroom.

No. 7  William J. Zloch, Southern District of Florida

Judge Zloch doesnít believe the financial statements of federal judges should be open to public scrutiny, though federal law passed by Congress says otherwise. Judge Zloch blocked public access to these records on the Internet. Apparently federal judges donít want the public to be able to "track" some of the bribes they took. The nickname of this judge is "Zloch them up" from the unnecessarily stiff sentences he hands out.

No. 8  Kathryn Hoefer Vratil, District of Kansas

Judge Vratil finds nothing wrong with the womenís prison in Topeka, Kansas, a cesspool overrun with mice, in which toilets back up into other cells, and used sanitary napkins and other hazardous waste flows into the prison when the sewer system backs up (which is frequently). The State of Kansas finally had to fix these problems despite the illogical ruling by this judge, who thinks it is okay to treat women prisoners worse than any animal is allowed to be treated in this country. She is known for favoring defendants in civil litigation (large corporations, state actors violating citizensí rights, etc.) and the government in criminal cases.

No. 9  Morris Sheppard Arnold, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Judge Arnold was promoted to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals by President Bush shortly after he recognized "humanism" as the official religion of the Arkansas public school system:

Even if one religion of secular humanism were established through public school textbooks, such conduct would not allow establishment of a second religion, Christianity, in public schools.

Doe v. Human, 725 F.Supp. 1503 (W.D. Ark. 1989)

Judge Morris Arnold was appointed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals where he joined his brother Richard Arnold, then Chief Judge of the Circuit, in violation of the federal anti-nepotism statute, 28 U.S.C. § 458: § 458. Relative of justice or judge ineligible to appointment

No person shall be appointed to or employed in any office or duty in any court who is related by affinity or consanguinity within the degree of first cousin to any justice or judge of such court.

No. 10  All nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court

All nine of the U.S. Supreme Court justices issued a "unanimous" (of one mind) opinion in Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate Dist., No. 98-7809 (Jan. 12, 2000) that there is no constitutional right to appeal without the hindrance of a lawyer (pro se) in a criminal case. Watch what the lower federal and state courts do with this one: within 36 months or less American citizens who canít afford a lawyer wonít be allowed to appeal anything anywhere. Those who canít afford a lawyer are 80% of the population. This case should give new meaning to the words, "judicial tyranny."

Request Financial Disclosure Reports for these judges
Click below to get the instructions and forms to request the Reports:
Click Here

Write to your Representative in Congress

U.S. Senate: Committee on the Judiciary

Visit the Judicial Hall of Shame

Secret Courts - Secret Law by Larry Bolin

This One's For You

Crooked Courts and Cruel Incarceration

The Judicial Misconduct of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges

Dry Bones on the Bench -- The Remedy for the Evil

Mirrour of Justices

Home Page

This page was updated on June 20, 2003