While sitting with a friend of mine I was abhorred by a call she received from Delavan Wisconsin Judge James A. Ritchie. Ravyn was only 15 years old when these alleged offenses occurred and was under her mothers supervision as a minor. Now ten years later, this judge has not only discarded the statute of limitations but has recuscitated these old cases to collect fines for the state! I don’t know when things changed so radically in this country where a Judge acts as a prosecutor rather than the unbiased and impartial entity he is supposed to be, but Judge Ritchie seems to have risen to new levels by taking matters of state into his own hands concerning fine collections, and in my humble opinion, should probably be disbarred for doing so. His actions are so far outside judicial purview that he should be called a prosecutor instead of a judge. Am I missing something here? In an article titled New Delavan judge, clerk working to restore court by Darryl Enriquez in the December 20, 2010 Janesville Gazette Extra, Enriquez seems to praise Judge Ritchie for his work when he states
“A New Delavan Municipal Judge Jim Ritchie, who took office in May, and Sandi Jeffrey, his court clerk, have implemented fresh practices for courtroom conduct and fine collections.”
Fresh practices for courtroom conduct and fine collections? I’ll say. This judge has become an advocate for the state! My question is, since when does it fall within judicial duties to work as a cop, secretary and a prosecutor for the state? Judges are supposed to be impartial and unbiased. Isn’t it somewhat biased for a judge to be personally involved in dredging up cases from ten years ago and wouldn’t that bias substantially influence his decision making? I conclude yes! Furthermore, the statute of limitations on most crimes of minors outside of murder is 2 years beyond their 18th birthday, how is it that Ritchie has somehow contorted the law to allow for this?
It states in the Supreme Court Rules of Judicial Conduct the following:
SCR 60.03 A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities.
(1) A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
SCR 60.04 A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.
The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's other activities. The judge's judicial duties include all the duties of the judge's office prescribed by law.
(1) In the performance of the duties under this section, the following apply to adjudicative responsibilities:
(a) A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except those in which recusal is required under sub. (4) or disqualification is required under section 757.19 of the statutes and except when judge substitution is requested and granted.
(b) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge may not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.
Have we all become so complacent that we will continue to stand for this? The judge is supposed to be an unbiased arbiter of law, which means he is never supposed to take sides, this would include digging up several year old cases the city or state has against an individual and reviving them! With all the above in mind the Gazette article continues:
“Ritchie attributes the revenue uptick to Rambo-like efforts he, Jeffrey and the Delavan Police Department have devised to track down scofflaws and restore credibility to the local court.”
Rambo like efforts by a Judge? Credibility? How does a Judge that acts as a prosecutor restore credibility? He may be filling the city coffers, but he’s doing so unethically by standards under the SC Rules of professional conduct he swore an oath to serve under.
Enriques further states: A payment technique Ritchie immediately used was to call to court adults who were way past due on payments and to send them to Walworth County Jail until fines were paid.”
A payment technique? Calling people 10 years after these petty violations to strong-arm them using a threat of warrants and imprisonment is hardly impartial and borders on government tyranny. In fact, a judge taking it upon himself to call her at all is in and of itself improper by any stretch of the word!
"You should have seen it, we had squads lined up to take them to jail," Ritchie said. "And some ducked out of court to pay their fines at the (City Hall) counter to avoid going to jail."
Does the above statement sound impartial to you? There is such a thing as a statute of limitations, isn’t there. Under Wisconsin Statutory Code 939.74 it states that the statute of limitations on all misdemeanors is 3 years. How does this judge explain the resurrection of these misdemeanors and why is this considered to be acceptable? Furthermore, how is it that Judge Rambo can prosecute someone who was a minor after himself dredging up the case which should have been dead after the first three years were up, but most certainly should have been closed 2 years after my friends 18th birthday at age 20 when the statute of limitations is up on crimes of minors. In the above quote Ritchie sounds more like the legend of Judge Roy Bean than a hero. I realize, as does this judge I am certain, that most people cannot afford to appeal an erroneous ruling and are forced to comply or go to jail. This is simply wrong and as I told the judge in my telephone conversation with him, he oughtta be ashamed of himself! That said any judge knowledgeable of that fact could use it to their advantage against an unwitting populace. I call on all of you who have been victimized by this inappropriate behavior and have been strong armed by this judge to send letters , emails and make phone calls to the City of Delavan protesting this judge, and call the Wisconsin bar Association to report these judicial improprieties as soon as possible. For more information you can contact me at djbeaulieu@yahoo.com.
Dave Beaulieu
No comments:
Post a Comment