« "Cuba to release 3,522 prisoners on the eve of Pope Francis’ visit; why can’t Obama do the same?" | Main | "Mass Incarceration Has Become the New Welfare" »

September 18, 2015

Shouldn't former federal judge Mark Fuller now be federally prosecuted for perjury?

The question in the title of this post prompted by this new AP article, headlined "Judicial Conference says former federal judge's conduct was reprehensible, impeachable." Here are the details:

Judicial investigators told Congress this week that a former federal judge — arrested last year on a domestic violence charge — had demonstrated "reprehensible conduct" and there was evidence that he abused his wife several times and made false statements to the committee reviewing his behavior.

The Judicial Conference of the United States, in a report to Congress this week, said former U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller of Alabama brought disrepute to the federal judiciary and that his conduct might have warranted impeachment if he had not resigned this summer.  

In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee [which can be accessed here], the Judicial Conference noted Fuller's resignation, but said the severity of Fuller's misconduct and its finding of perjury led it to turn the information over to Congress for whatever action lawmakers deem necessary. "This certification may also serve as a public censure of Judge Fuller's reprehensible conduct, which has no doubt brought disrepute to the Judiciary and cannot constitute the 'good behavior' required of a federal judge," Judicial Conference Secretary James C. Duff wrote in a Sept. 11 letter to House Speaker John Boehner....

The Judicial Conference wrote that there was substantial evidence that the judge "physically abused Kelli Fuller at least eight times, both before and after they married, which included and culminated in the assault that took place on Aug. 9, 2014, in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in downtown Atlanta, Georgia." The conference wrote that Fuller denied under oath to the investigating committee that he ever hit, punched or kicked his wife, and that the investigating committee considered those to be false statements. The Judicial Conference also cited a separate incident, on which it did not elaborate, saying Fuller in 2010 made a false statement to the chief judge that caused a disruption in operations and a loss of public confidence in the court.

The House committee is not releasing the full report, which contains some sensitive victim information. Fuller was placed on leave after his arrest. In May, he announced that he was resigning effective Aug. 1. The Judicial Council of the U.S. 11th Circuit at the time said Fuller's actions might have warranted impeachment, but the reasons for the determination were not released until this week.

Fuller was appointed to the bench in 2002 by then-President George W. Bush. He is perhaps best known for presiding over the 2006 public corruption trial of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. 

As celebrity white-collar attorneys surely recall, in recent times a number of prominent public figures ranging from Barry Bonds to Roger Clemens to Marion Jones to 'Lil Kim to Scooter Libby have been federally prosecuted for alleged acts of perjury that seems far less serious and consequential than what the Judicial Conference has found former judge Mark Fuller committed.  Absent some prominent explanation for why a federal perjury prosecution would not be worthwhile in this setting, I will be mighty disappointed and a bit concerned if Fuller does not face sanctions for his apparent criminal behavior in this matter.  (Critically, I am not — at least not yet — asserting that Fuller should be imprisoned for his lying under oath to cover up his misbehavior and stay in his position as a federal judge.  But I am saying (former state DA prosecutor) Fuller ought to at least face federal criminal charges and be subject to the heat that comes with a formal federal prosecution.)

September 18, 2015 at 09:15 AM | Permalink

Comments

In Pennsylvania, convicted behavior should be relevant to the job before denying a job on its basis. I agree with that law. So a pedophile should not work in a daycare center, but may work as a cashier. A thief should not work as a cashier, but may work in a daycare center. Outside of the feminist witch hunt, and I have no facts of his conduct nor that of his wife to support any conclusion, what is the relevance of his convicted behavior if any to his work? I certainly do not trust the vile feminist lawyer and its male running dogs. His biggest crimes are his legal decisions, and this is lawyer gotcha on a collateral corruption. I oppose those.

Nor should there be a duty to assist in one's personal destruction. So Martha Stewart did not go to prison for insider trading, but for lying to the FBI about her phone records. That is a lawyer gotcha, since it is impossible to tell the entire truth, if only due to memory changes. I once wrote to a professor to get a reference citation about something striking she said years before, and which I repeated many times to others. She replied, she never said anything like that, because it was not true. I thought she had said, males like very direct visual porn, and females prefer something else. No. Both sexes like direct visual porn. Was I lying about her assertion? My memory was poor, and filled in the blank. If I had been on the stand, and repeated the false assertion, should I have gone to prison for perjury?

I know we should not mix law subjects, but there should be a mutuality of remedy in the criminal law. Mutuality of remedy does originate from equity, so it should apply in the criminal law, but does not. Government immunizes itself, and rigs the system solely to its advantage, that means to promote lawyer rent seeking.

If the police can lie to the defendant, as supported by the Supreme Court, the defendant has a duty to lie to the police or to the vile feminist inquisitor, and its male running dogs. They are attacking the white family as a competitor to government power and authority, and are mortal enemies of our nation. There is no duty to assist the enemies of the nation in one's personal destruction.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 18, 2015 9:59:52 AM

SC,

While I may or may not say that the abuse is relevant to his being a judge I would certainly say that lying about it is.

Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Sep 18, 2015 12:26:49 PM

I think the professor may have it backwards. Instead of over-prosecuting this judge to justify over-prosecuting less powerful people, perhaps the Justice Department should not prosecute this judge to justify not over-prosecuting less powerful people in the future.

Posted by: Stephen Hardwick | Sep 18, 2015 4:27:12 PM

Yes he should be prosecuted as the Feds gleefully hammer joe avg.

But why, yes hes a creep and a scum bag. Just revoke his retirement and fine him, revoke his license. Now he can see how it is to live like Joe avg.

Thats exactly what I would do.

Posted by: MidWestGuy | Sep 18, 2015 6:27:21 PM

Yes he should be prosecuted as the Feds gleefully hammer joe avg.

But why, yes hes a creep and a scum bag. Just revoke his retirement and fine him, revoke his license. Now he can see how it is to live like Joe avg.

Thats exactly what I would do.

Posted by: MidWestGuy | Sep 18, 2015 6:27:36 PM

As the government may lie, not just about general facts and policy considerations, but to a defendant about the facts of his case, I believe there is a personal duty to lie and to derail their tyrannical investigations. The FBI is a bunch of lawyer scum. I would like to lie to them, then tell them I lied, and demand they prosecute me. Any prosecution is an opportunity to destroy the life of a lawyer and of a judge. Give them the legal buzz saw. They are the enemy, and lying is fully justified morally.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 19, 2015 1:05:27 AM


Yikes, I need to clean off my soles from this moronic sh*t:

"Absent some prominent explanation for why a federal perjury prosecution would not be worthwhile in this setting, I will be mighty disappointed and a bit concerned if Fuller does not face sanctions for his apparent criminal behavior in this matter. (Critically, I am not — at least not yet — asserting that Fuller should be imprisoned for his lying under oath to cover up his misbehavior and stay in his position as a federal judge. But I am saying (former state DA prosecutor) Fuller ought to at least face federal criminal charges and be subject to the heat that comes with a formal federal prosecution.)"

Posted by: Diogenes | Sep 19, 2015 8:03:59 AM

@Midwest guy

You have it backwards. We should be demanding that the average joe be treated like a Federal Judge.

Posted by: Daniel | Sep 19, 2015 4:53:28 PM

It sounds like, don't do as I do - do what I tell you to do situation.

Abuse is abuse, is he above the Law?

Did the victim accuse him? - you have a right to face your accuser.

Common Law is to do no harm or damage!

Posted by: LC in Texas | Sep 19, 2015 8:46:15 PM

He needs to be prosecuted for assaulting the wife.

Posted by: Liberty1st | Sep 20, 2015 12:00:12 AM

Just trying to better understand, Diogenes, what do you find moronic about my statement?

Posted by: Doug B. | Sep 20, 2015 10:57:55 AM

I call that statement inequitable. It is the law of the land. It assumes the good faith of the government, and the absence of game playing. These assumptions are unwarranted, and foolish. However, they are enforced by thugs at the point of a gun. That is their sole validation.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 20, 2015 11:40:35 AM

The burden of proof could be the reason reason why no one may prosecute Fuller for perjury. The Judicial Conference found "substantial evidence" that Fuller abused his wife. That's a good distance from proof sufficient to persuade a unanimous jury that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And if they can't prove that Fuller abused his wife, they can't prove he was lying when he denied it.

There should be a much lower burden to prove that someone is unworthy to remain on the federal bench than there is is to prove he should go to prison.

Posted by: Stephen Hardwick | Sep 20, 2015 3:29:35 PM

Maybe punching the old lady in the head is not "abuse". I heard from another website that she talks like Carly Fiorina.

Posted by: Liberty1st | Sep 21, 2015 1:36:34 PM

Any one, feminist or not, complaining about domestic abuse must take in the person for a month, at their house.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 21, 2015 6:04:14 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB