Ken Smith is banned from this blog

This morning Ken Smith posted another diatribe.  Once again, it raised his personal grievance at the hands of the federal courts and others. Two days ago, on May 12, 2014 at 7:38 am, I warned Ken against doing that anymore. Ken has broken the letter and spirit of my warning.  What is more, I owed him no warning, but did so to be extra fair. Having violated my rules, Ken will no longer be able to post comments to this blog and I will remove comments he made today, May 14, 2014. See my Rules.


14 responses

  1. RDS,

    Respectfully, I decline to answer your first question. As for the second question, suffice it say that I can only do what I can do.

    All the best.


  2. The man was ruled against by a judge who was a party in his case, and no one here saw anything wrong with that. Not even the Judge.


    I’ll go back to lurking now.

  3. You could consider handling bannings without making a post explicitly calling attention to it – either silently or just mention it in comments.
    Making it a post:
    1. Has potential for causing drama about drama.
    2. Is slightly cruel when the predicate behavior, however exasperating, is probably caused by some illness and the commenter is not (pseudo)anonymous.
    3. Has higher potential for provoking some irrational response by a probably unstable person.

    Obviously, your blog, your rules, your call etc.

    – Motion to partially seal (while conceding among other things, lack of standing) :-).

  4. TF,

    I had no intention of being cruel, but your thoughts deserve further consideration and I will give them that consideration. Thank you for your candid comment. I appreciate it.

    All the best.


  5. Cathi,

    As my “rules” suggest, it is my intention to avoid use of the comment section to bring up personal issues impugning the character of a person. When I began to fear that was developing between two commentators who began exchanging comments, I warned both of them in a comment. My sole interest in situations such as this is to promote a degree of civility and about that I am very serious.

    Furthermore, I try not to comment about cases involving commentators when I don’t know all the facts and circumstances and don’t feel that further research would further the goals of the blog. To be specific, I remain essentially ignorant of the facts and circumstances of the case involved in this particular matter.

    Thanks for your engagement. All the best.


  6. You sound like a very wise man. The grandfather I never knew.

    My question is aimed at your concerns about the legitimacy of the judiciary. How can we trust the judgment of judges who don’t see anything wrong with a judge deciding a case when he is a party? I am not a lawyer, but I don’t see how that would ever be proper. Do you think that you would get a fair hearing under those circumstances?

    Ken broke your rules, and he deserves to be banned. But can you see why he is angry?

  7. Cathi,

    There are rules when a judge is sued while presiding over a trial. Here’s one: The judge should not remove himself or herself if there is reason to believe that the judge was named only to cause the judge to disqualify himself or herself. Here’s another,called the rule of necessity: If no judge could hear the case because all judges are technically parties, then the randomly assigned judge may hear the case out of necessity. (Appreciate please that I have given you just summaries in plain English).

    I don’t know what happened in Ken’s case. Therefore, I can’t know what rule or rule was or should have been applied. I don’t want to get into Ken’s case because I fear that I will spend all my time looking into that matter. And, yes, I can appreciate Ken’s anger but that is precisely why I don’t want to pursue this matter in dueling comments especially when allegations (from both commentators) were becoming increasingly hostile.

    I have no intention of hurting Ken. I just don’t want to deal with this matter any further. By the way, I don’t “moderate” comments (except for certain technical security issues that pop up sometimes) precisely because I want to be accessible and transparent. With that and other things in mind, I believe I have treated Ken fairly. Indeed, I wish him well.

    All the best.


  8. I’m not interested in Ken’s case. I’m interested in how we can trust the judgment of judges who were caught deliberately refusing to follow the law.

    While you have taken down his posts, I remember him saying that there is a Colorado law allowing appellate court judges to sit in any state court. If other judges can hear a case, how can the “rule of necessity” apply?

    I also recall Ken saying that he filed his lawsuit in federal court first. If he named those judges there first, your other exception shouldn’t apply.

    If judges refuse to respect the legal limits on their powers, how can we trust them to decide cases honestly? And if other judges refuse to prevent their colleagues from abusing their authority, how can we trust their stewardship of the law?

    Forget Ken. Let’s say we are talking about John Doe. Why should we trust the judgment of a judge who would do that? I want to know that I will be treated fairly if I ever end up in a courtroom.

  9. Judge, you are right. Many pro se litigants (many with mental health issues in their background and I am not speaking about Ken) will file a judicial complaints or a lawsuit against the judge presiding over his case in the mistaken belief he gets a new judge. Believe me I have had a few where I would like nothing better than to to give them their wish, but if you do, it leads to more and more of that.

    Anyone who has worked in a judge’s office can see the signs. Extremely long pleadings that make no sense but come in every day, some hand written. Strange telephone calls to your staff. If he is the plaintiff, a cause of action that is dubious or could have easily been settled. The “there is no justice, you are all against me” mentality. They also are chronic litigators and like to sue the court clerk.

    I have had 5 or 6 (and all the other judges chickened out of handling the cases) where I have been super polite, but when I determined there was nothing there and had oral argument, I warned them to be civil and if not, 10 days. Well in every case they got agitated and the profanity came out. Right then I judge them in contempt and jailed them. Then I ordered all circuit clerks in the State of Alabama to accept no filings from these litigants.

    Is it going to set them off? Possibly. But I am an NRA firearms instructor and teach a self defense course 2x a month and my M-9 Beretta is closer to me than my wife. But I have found that if they get away with bullying a judge there is no end to it.

    Judge Rusty Johnston
    13th Judicial Circuit
    Mobile, Alabama

%d bloggers like this: