Judge Estelle is being used as a scapegoat

The Alaska Judicial Council has announced that it is recommending to Alaskans not to vote retention of Palmer Judge William Estelle. This act is glaring and gross proof that its recommendations are worthless, and that its members are arguably incompetent at executing their constitutional duties.

Consider this. Judge Estelle had the honesty to admit to some judicial wrong doing prior to investigation. Properly, the matter was taken up and fully investigated by the Alaska Judicial Conduct Commission. This constitutional institution voted for 45-day suspension as punishment for Judge Estelle’s statutory violations (regarding timely handling of his judicial business). This judgment is now properly pending validation by the Alaska Supreme Court.

In other words due process has not yet been rendered to Judge Estelle. Due process regarding statutory violation allegations against him is not only Judge Estelle’s constitutional right, but is required by the Alaska Rules of the Court concerning treatment of duly appointed/elected judges.

Now let me list defects that are proof that the members of the Judicial Council and other judicial officials are arguably incompetent and betray the trust and power granted them by the public.

1. The Supreme Court Chief Justice is the chairman of the Judicial Council. She should have removed herself from deliberations concerning Judge Estelle (called recusal) but apparently didn’t. This is because she has the validation of judgment against Estelle before her Supreme Court — a clear conflict of interest. Worse, that she permitted the Judicial Council to act as if the Judicial Conduct Commission’s judgment was fully validated, which betrays either her prejudice unfiltered by her Supreme Court brethren, or her utter disregard for rule of law in the guise of due process. Either way; how dare she.

2. Guilt and responsibility for bad acts/conditions are established first by due process. Punishment must always follow such organized revelation of truth to meet the fundamental definition of justice. Estelle’s guilt for wrongdoing has not been validated by completion of due process. For anyone on the Judicial Council to not recognize that they violate the integrity of their constitutional authority by using information not validated by due process — including mitigating factors judged relevant — is a betrayal of the very cornerstone of the Rule of Law. If the people on the Judicial Council are consistently engaged in such casual betrayal of public trust, they are hideous oath breakers far worse than our Legislature’s legendary Corrupt Bastard’s Club.

3. There is a supreme mitigating factor that must be considered in disciplining or retaining William Estelle as a judge. This factor has obviously been overlooked by the Judicial Conduct Commission, the Judicial Council, and — by her acts or tolerance — our Supreme Court Chief Justice. This mitigating factor is that his false swearings (that he had no judicial business older than six months) could not have been possible if his superiors had been enforcing and applying the Supreme Court’s Rules of Administration No. 3. [This rule requires each judge to report weekly to Alaska Court Administrator and his presiding judge on “all matters under advisement” (including age). This is in order to maintain a list that can be used by the Presiding Judge in his statutory duties of supervising his subordinates in the timely execution of their duties. Motions under advisement are similarly required to be reported on every 10 days].

So get this. It isn’t possible for Judge Estelle to have let matters go unhandled for more than six months — unless his superiors weren’t paying attention or not enforcing a rule, which obviously could wholly prevent such statutory violations. Judge Estelle therefore has the Affirmative Defense for any of his alleged lawbreaking of Contributory Negligence and even lawbreaking by his superiors. And upon investigation, that negligence extends even to the Alaska Supreme Court for not enforcing its own well-crafted rules, and to the Judicial Conduct Commission and Judicial Council for not executing their constitutional and statutory