Late history professor from UNL, JM Sosin, exposed the false history activist judges have used to justify their existence in his book "The Aristocracy of the Long Robe." From the Choice review: “Sosin has written a perplexing book. ..On the basis of a survey of English practice and American Colonial case law and legal controversies, the author engages in a sometimes heated complaint against the emergence of a `Transcendently(sic) Omnipotent' Court' in opposition to the historical evidence that no precedent for such a Court can be found in English or Colonial American practice.

Nebraska Supreme Court hands down 120 day suspension against Douglas County Court Judge Marcuzzo for steering his nephew's domestic disturbance case away from "stern" Judge White to a judge who gave the nephew probation and also for leaving profane phone messages with prosecutors who were handling cases in his court. In re Complaint Against Marcuzzo, S-35-080001, 278 Neb. 331. Special Master had recommended a 3 month suspension.

Thank you Senator Nelson for voting FOR Sonia Sotomayor to the Supremes: Thank you Senator Nelson for voting for Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. You showed great courage in resisting the hypocritical call of Republicans to disqualify any minority candidate who failed to meet the strict tests we must apply to white politicians when those white public figures try to discuss race. Puerto Ricans have been historically disadvantaged since we occupy their territory give their residents social security and subsidize their industries. Judge Sotomayor early on showed herself to be a fine example of the wise Latina woman in her Yale Law Journal Note that advocated massive reparations from the United States to Puerto Rico when it entered the Union.

Governor Heineman appoints Attorney Rob Otte to replace Lancaster County District Court Judge Earl Witthof. Journalstar.com The Governor forgot that judge slots are for career public sector lawyers. "Dave Heineman’s office announced the appointment of 51-year-old Robert Otte on Friday. A spokeswoman for Heineman said Otte will be replacing Judge Earl Witthoff, who retired in March. Otte is a partner at the law firm of Morrow, Poppe, Otte & Watermeier. The governor’s office said Otte has handled real estate and other business law cases and has trial experience in state and federal courts. Otte is a 1978 graduate of the University of Nebraska in Lincoln and was awarded his law degree from UNL law school in 1981.

Nebraska Court of Appeals excludes a divorcing spouse's lump sum social security disability award from the couple's marital assets, but the divorce court judge should consider the social security payment when dividing the remaining assets that are marital. Dinges v. Dinges, A-06-239, 16 Neb. App. 275. Divorcing wife received a lump sum social security disability (SSDI) award of $27000 and the couple used the funds to purchase a modular home. The trial judge included the SSDI award in the couple's marital assets. The wife represented herself and also objected to the court's refusal to hold a pre-trial conference. Nebraska Court of Appeals overrules the wife's objections to the conduct of the trial judge but modifies the division of assets to exclude the social security award while still considering the award when dividing the remainder of the marital assets. "the trial court erred in stating that it “should consider the lump sum award received by wife as a marital asset subject to division in this dissolution proceeding” and then including the modular home, purchased post separation with the Social Security funds, in the marital estate. The Nebraska Supreme Court’s holding in Webster v. Webster, 271 Neb. 788, 716 N.W.2d 47 (2006), precludes such treatment. However, we must also decide the issue discussed but not reached by the Webster court. We hold that while an offset of a Social Security award is prohibited by the anti-assignment clause of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (2000) and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a court may properly consider a spouse’s Social Security award in equitably dividing the marital property. We rely upon the “weight of authority” noted by the Webster court. See id. at 798, 716 N.W.2d at 55. Of course, such award is only one of many factors which we consider in our de novo review of the division of marital property."

Nebraska Supreme Court rules that Double Jeopardy Clause prevented retrial of assault defendant whose judge recused himself from the first bench trial after starting to hear testimony and declared a mistrial. State v. Jackson, S-07-084, 274 Neb. 724The State has the burden to show that it was manifestly necessary to allow a retrial after the mistrial. we cannot determine whether the judge exercised sound discretion in calling the mistrial because of the inadequacy of the record as to the underlying reasons for the decision. Because of the constitutional implications, the State bears the burden of demonstrating the manifest necessity of a mistrial declared over the objection of the defendant in a criminal case. See Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 98 S . Ct. 824, 54 L. E d. 2d 717 (1978){necessity for the retrial must appear in the record, although explicit findings are not required}; The State cannot meet this burden by simply requesting the court to make a general finding of manifest necessity, as it did here, without a factual record to support the finding. Where the reason for a mistrial is not clear from the record, the uncertainty with respect to manifest necessity must be resolved in favor of the defendant

The Heritage Foundation and The Federalist Society Host A Reception with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Omaha, NE, October 19^th

Event details Friday, October 19, 2007 6:30 p.m. Reception 7:00 p.m. Remarks Hilton Omaha 1001 Cass Street Omaha, NE 68102

Sign up here for this special event. Justice Thomas is a national treasure and a great speaker. Just think if a few more decisions from the Supremes went his way. As John Lennon said, "Imagine!"

The Lancaster County Court and local prosecutors do the right thing to avoid another "Jena 6" situation here. Lancaster County Judge Gayle Pokorny sentenced Earl Richardson III to six months in jail yesterday for "criminal mischief." Journal Star.com What was his crime? Richardson an Omaha resident was randomly shooting a harmless paintball gun while riding in the back of his friend's Lincoln Towncar. One of his shots found the back of a three year old girl's head, and it knocked her to the ground. He plead to two counts of "Criminal Mischief," Section 28-519. Criminal Mischief can be a Class IV felony, or Class I, II, or III misdemeanor. The article does not say whether the judge sentenced the defendant to concurrent six month terms or whether the defendant received two consecutive three month sentences. Naturally the public is outraged at the seemingly light sentence, especially since the Defendant had a rather long rap sheet, 5 pages of computer print-outs. But good Judge Pokorny and the prosecutors who watered down the charges did the right thing. After all, we don't need any Jena 6 marches or more Ernie Chambers lawsuits around here do we?

Edward Poindexter's attorney recently lost his client's latest motion for new trial; Douglas County District Judge Bowie ruled against him on every point. Poindexter's attorney also obtained ham sandwich indictments against Lincoln Police and Fire Department personnel in 1995 from Lincoln's 1994 "Rodney King" wannabe Renteria. When the cases when to trial all promptly resulted in acquittals. Does anyone see a pattern here? Poindexter's attorney Bob Bartle said it all however, when he seemed to brush off the district court loss because "it's going to the Supreme Court." Well if I were a friend or relative of the Omaha Police officers Ed Poindexter and David Rice killed or maimed, I would not assume that the meddlesome snivel liberties lawyers representing these Black Panther thugs and their lackeys on the Supreme Court are done yet.

Eminent law prof blawgger applauds Nebraska Supreme Court's decision to maintain SNAFU status with sentencing guidelines. Sentencing Law and Policy Blog loves Nebraska's Justice League member Joe Bataillon, US District Court, and now William Connolly Nebraska Supreme Court for refusing to bow to pressure from the Legislature to introduce some sanity to sentencing decisions. Why if we had guidelines for drug dealers, then we might have to have guidelines for electrocuting murderers, Nigerian gang-bangers, and pedophile runt-rangers.

Supreme Court cautions parties to be more diligent in making jurisdictional challenges especially when they are upstairs in the big court. In two cases involving probated estates the Nebraska Supreme Court allows a related case to proceed in the district court but refuses to revoke an informally appointed personal representative's status for the estate of a decedent who had died in 1987, Washington v. Conley, S-06-428, 273 Neb. 908 In re Estate of Nemetz, S-06-487, 273 Neb. 918, The Supreme Court criticizes the Legislatures giving exclusive jurisdiction of probate cases to the county courts under § 24-517 (Cum. Supp. 2006), while Neb. Const. art. v, § 9 grants the district courts common law and equity jurisdiction. In Washington the Supreme court reverses the district court's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a constructive trust case that appeared to be related to a probate case in county court. The District court failed to consider the jurisdictional attack as a facial one under Rule 12b1, depending solely on the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint and thus in finding that it lacked jurisdiction, the district court erroneously relied upon information not found in Washington’s complaint, specifically, the assertions of counsel that the property at issue in this case is subject to a separate and contemporaneous probate proceeding in county court. The supreme court rejected the objections of the decedent's children to the second wife's appointment as informal personal representative nearly 20 years after the decedent's death in Estate of Nemetz. Although it appears unseemly for the widow to wait 20 years to probate an estate and shut off the children, the court concluded "the county court (properly) applied § 30-2454(b) finding no cause to remove Widow as personal representative. based on an examination for error appearing on the record."

Follow up: Who was the former Supreme Court employee who retained access to the Nebraska Supreme Court's JUSTICE program? More details leak out after the Nebraska State Auditor pulls up the rug in the "squeaky clean" Supreme Court's crib and shows a few more roaches scurrying around. Turns out some former employees still retained access to the main JUSTICE computer system and in theory some had the capability to alter court records. Who was/were these employees? After all just two years ago someone in charge of the Supreme Court forced the resignation of the probation director Ed Birkel after a drunk driving arrest and then terminated then State Court administrator Frank Goodroe after he had been on the job about 18 months. Journal Star reporter Leah Thorsens March 30 2005 headline on the story read, "No details given on state court administrator's firing." Janice Walker, the Court administrator deputy took over, and received all the hits for the Court's extravagant seminar costs. Looks like s*** really doesn't roll uphill.

Lets hear it for the "squeaky clean" Nebraska Supreme Court: some in their comments accuse State Auditor Mike Foley of grandstanding his critical report of Supreme Court spending. Journal Star.com. Journal Star reporter made much of the Auditor's report on apparent overspending on Supreme Court conferences, maybe by a twice as much according to federal GSA standards. The full report though reveals more than this tip of the iceberg: a. lack of accounting for state vehicle use and meal reimbursements b. the over funded budget for the Counsel for Discipline; remember CJ Hendry wrote just about two years ago in the Nebraska lawyer that he had to raise dues because of the big holes the bad lawyers left because they wouldn't pay the court costs in their disciplinary cases. By they way, why would Mr. Mabin be asking CJ Heavican for his comments? Didn't this happen on the Champion of Justice Justice Hendry's watch? Maybe he shouldn't have left so suddenly to spend quality family time so that he could straighten this out.

Follow up from the Deep Thoughts Department: ultra liberal and super genius Nebraska Supreme Court Justice Jack Handy, er Gerrard takes it upon himself to protect a death row inmate from himself. Just think where we would be without Justice Gerrard, the conscience of the Supreme Court? Who would stick up for lesbians who want to adopt kids? Who would give sappy inspirational speeches to his kids’ law student peers with mush in their heads? Who would be there to protect death row inmates from their own instructions not to proceed with any more appeals? Read this gem: If we were to conclude that electrocution was cruel and unusual after Moore had been electrocuted (Were going to hide behind the bench for a while on this one and drag this out some more), “our citizens’ (Brother Ernie only why pass it off on the 90% who want the death penalty carried out?) confidence in this court and the rest of the judicial branch as a bastion of civil rights might suffer irreparable harm.” (That’s sure more important than looking erratic and playing chicken s*** with the Department of Corrections and the Attorney General) Death row inmates especially need protection from themselves, and to serve a higher purpose! Moore (must) cede control of his defense to protect the public’s interest in the integrity and fairness of capital proceedings (his umpteen appeals don’t matter, with some of the best defense counsel helping him along the way) Although we respect the defendant’s autonomy (hey remember Roe v Wade?), the solemn business of executing a human being cannot be subordinated to the caprice (caprice, that’s after committing these grisly murders nearly 30 years ago) of the accused. We must adhere to our heightened (opinions of ourselves) obligation to ensure the lawful and constitutional administration of the death penalty, regardless of the wishes of the defendant in any one case.

It's getting hard to find good law clerks for activist judges department: Eighth Circuit points out citation error in Judge Bataillon's Citizen for Equal Protection v Bruning decision while reversing this laughingstock of a juristCitizens for Equal Protection v. John Bruning 052604P.pdf 07/14/06 The good for gays and the victims of tyrannical sentencing judges the Honorable Joe Bataillon in throwing everything at the Nebraska marriage protection amendment(Art1 Section 29 ) but the kitchen sink appears to have incorrectly cited the constitutions bill of attainder provision, as the fundamentalist right wing Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted: "The district court also concluded “that Section 29 violates the Bill of Attainder( Art. I, § 9, cl. 3) Clause by singling out gays and lesbians for legislative punishment.” 368 F. Supp. 2d at 1005.4." Footnote 4: (District Judge Bataillon) cited Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, of the Constitution, a section that applies only to Congress. We assume the court meant to cite Art. I, § 10, which bars the Statesfrom passing bills of attainder. The two provisions are construed identically. See Crain v. City of Mountain Home, 611 F.2d 726, 728-29 (8th Cir. 1979); Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp. v. Edgar, 837 F. Supp. 927, 934 n.6 (N.D. Ill. 1993).