On occasion, a review of court documents reveals that a Judge presiding over a case not only failed to adjudicate an issue correctly, but made grievous error(s) which resulted in a gross violation of a party's Constitutional rights.
In addition, the facts may also signal a lack of integrity on the part of the Judge, which may have resulted in a corruption of the court.
Such is the case with Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, a Judge sitting on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - who has demonstrated in one case that I know of - that he is not fit to "warm" the bench.
For example, in a case Judge O’Scannlain presided over a few years ago, a litigant appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on several issues - one of which - was pertaining to a lower court ruling denying a right to proceed IN FORMA PAUPERIS (waiver of filing fees).
In respect to the fee waiver issue, O'Scannlain incorrectly ruled that because the "Petition for Relief" was denied in the lower court, and the appellant subsequently paid the filing fees thereafter, that the issue was "moot" in the Appellate court.
On the contrary.
Judge O'Scannlain not only established his ignorance of applicable statutes, but a shocking willingness to deceitfully ignore his duty to uphold Justice in a "Court of Law" and openly discriminate against an IN PRO PER litigant.
Notwithstanding, his grievous legal error caused considerable hardship to the litigant involved, for which he should be ashamed.
For example, in the lower court the litigant was entitled to a "waiver of fees” based on his low income. That right was protected by Statute.
When the court failed to issue a ruling, and serve him with notice, the litigant was forced to pay the fees out of his meager earnings to salvage his "case".
Just because the appellant paid the filing fee, did not make the issue "moot". In fact, it made it more grievous and ripe for legal issue.
In sum, the litigant was denied his right to a waiver of fees. Because of this, he was forced to use funds - that would normally be used to pay for food, rent, and the necessities of life - to pay court costs to which he was legally entitled a waiver.
Was Judge O'Scannlain too stupid to figure this out, or was he demonstrating his distaste for disadvantaged litigants without the benefit of funds to secure legal counsel?
The fact the appellant paid the fees under great hardship - and "did without the necessities of life" to do so - does not negate the fact he was denied his legal right to a waiver of fees, nor does it make the issue "moot".
In sum, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain’s ruling is a bunch of hocus-pocus bullsh**.
In fact, the erroneous ruling - in the public record and available for close scrutiny by the wise, the mighty, and the compassionate - calls attention to a man who has not only fallen from Grace, but - ultimately - "is a disgrace" to the Judiciary and in the eyes of the Lord.
As Martin Erdmann aptly put it,
Appellate Division judges [are] the whores who became madams.”