Reply #10: the judge is a right wing [View All]

[IChing]

From:Robbien----http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=590746&mesg_id=591379

Dateline -- ALEXANDRIA, Virginia -- Ever heard of Judge Claude Hilton?

In case you are not familiar with the name, allow The Doc to elucidate. Earlier this week, Judge Hilton rebuffed Julie Hiatt Steele's request that the government reimburse her for attorneys' fees -- thousands upon thousands of dollars she incurred during allegedly Independent Kenneth Starr's attempt to railroad her for throwing a monkey wrench in his persecution of President Clinton. Starr's office charged Steele with lying -- and the press largely played into Starr's hand in their reportage, practically refusing to mention the fact that Steele's attorney Nancy Luque utterly destroyed the credibility of Starr's case, Starr's witnesses, and Starr's staff.

I digress... but only slightly.

In his ruling, Judge Hilton claimed -- catch this -- that "the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty."

"Reasonable trier of fact?" The jury was HUNG. Yes, it was hung 9-3 in favor of conviction -- but you may not know that the foreman of the jury was reportedly a "lurker" on the FreeRepublic web site. That's right -- the Clinton-hating site filled with death threats against the First Family and all form of lies about Steele. The Doc won't burder you with the preponderance of ties FreeRepublic has to ultra-right organizations and causes -- but will remind you that such conservative stalwarts as Lucianne Goldberg and Matt Drudge have severed relations with the site in recent months.

But I digress...

"Reasonable?" What would be reasonable, Judge Hilton, is an investigation of the jury foreman and his conduct.

However, we're not surprised at all at the "reasonable" Hilton upon learning the following tidbit. A tip of the Gonzo hat to APJ reader Norma, who passed along this "fun fact" about Judge Claude Hilton: a couple years back, this judicial genius told the court, in the case of Kahn v. Xerox (96-622-A U.S. Dist. Court Va.), that it is ok to allow the disabled to suffer because "everyone feels pain."

http://www.americanpolitics.com/081499DISpatch.html


No surprise he ruled in favor of big corporate profits here and against the common good.