Threats against federal judges dramatically rise

[Demosthenes]

Threatening written, verbal communications to federal judges increase by 89%
Marcia Coyle / Staff reporter
March 19, 2009

WASHINGTON — In the past five years, written or verbal communications that threaten, harass or make unsettling overtures to federal judges and others protected by the U.S. Marshalls Service (USMS) have increased by 89%, and threats via the Internet are also increasing.

Michael Prout, assistant director for judicial security within the USMS, recently provided the data to the U.S. Sentencing Commission which is looking into sentencing guidelines under the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. The commission sought input on whether current guidelines are adequate as they apply to offenses under the act.

The USMS, according to Prout, is concerned with two criminal provisions of the 2007 act: 18 U.S.C. 115 and 18 U.S.C. 119, particularly with respect to violations that occur through the use of the Internet.

The first section, 18 U.S.C. 115, prohibits threatening a federal official to influence, impede or retaliate against a federal official who is performing official duties. This statute specifically mentions the federal judiciary. The 2007 act increased the statutory maximum penalty for this crime to 10 years, except that imprisonment for a threatened assault cannot exceed six years.

The second section, 18 U.S.C. 119, is a new law that makes it illegal to intentionally release personal restricted information, such as a home address or Social Security number, with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime of violence to a covered person, such as a judge, assistant U.S. attorney, federal law enforcement officer or a member of their family. Violations of this section are punishable by imprisonment of up to five years.

The USMS has two categories of communications:

♦ Threats — defined as an inappropriate interest, circumstance or event that causes, or could potentially cause, damage to a target whether it is a person, location or specific event. A threat may be communicated in writing, verbally or through a third party.

♦ Inappropriate communications — any communication in writing, by telephone, verbally, through an informant, or by some suspicious activity that threatens, harasses, shows an unusual direction of interest, or makes unsettling overtures of an improper nature directed to a protectee.

Prout said a threat is always an inappropriate communication, but an inappropriate communication is not always a threat.

"For the purpose of this report, we defined 'through the use of the Internet' as writings or other information posted on an Internet website or blog," he said. "We consider these threats to be more serious than written communications sent solely via e-mail. In terms of impact to the victim, and the potential to incite others, we do not consider a communication sent via e-mail to be much different than communication sent via regular mail.

"On the other hand, we view inappropriate communications and threats made via Internet postings and blogs very differently than other delivery method," he added. "Unlike a letter or an e-mail, comments posted on an Internet Web site have the potential to be viewed by a countless number of persons. Internet postings that are hyper-critical and contain restricted personal information of the protectee, such as a home address or Social Security number, can create a large number of potential threateners virtually unknown to the USMS."

Prout reported the following breakdown of inappropriate communications (ICs) by fiscal year:
FY 2003 674 total ICs received (no further breakdown available)
FY 2004 873 total ICs received (no further breakdown available)
FY 2005 943 total ICs received (no further breakdown available)
FY 2006 1,111 total ICs received
• 651 ICs received via written method of delivery
• 12 ICs received via Internet posting or blog (1.0% of total ICs)
FY 2007 1,145 total ICs received
• 632 ICs received via written method of delivery
• 13 ICs received via Internet posting or blog (1.1% of total ICs)
FY 2008 1,278 Total ICs received
• 724 ICs received via written method of delivery
• 15 ICs received via Internet posting or blog (1.2% of total ICs)
FY 2009
(to date) 478 total ICs received
• 265 ICs received via written method of delivery
• 8 ICs received via Internet posting or blog (1.7% of total ICs)

In the vast majority of these Internet cases, Prout said, the threat or inappropriate communication was directed at a single victim, usually the presiding judge in a particular case. In rare cases, he added, the threats made reference to more than one judge, or to a prosecutor or case agent.

"Internet cases do not necessarily create volumes of victims; they do, however, create volumes of potential threateners," he told the commission. "Additionally, our numbers only catch the number of Internet threats and inappropriate communications that were reported to us. It is impossible to determine how many threats and ICs occurred everywhere on the Internet, just as it is impossible to determine who has seen these threats."

[LPC]

Staff reporter for what?

National Law Journal.

See http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 2429189887

[jkeeb]

Is it possible that most of them came from cohorts, family:Brown?

[LPC]

Is it possible that most of them came from cohorts, family:Brown?

This is only a W.A.G. - but I bet a lot of threats get sent to judges during/after divorce and/or child custody cases, followed by suits between individuals.

That would be a good guess if you were talking about state courts, but the USMS protects only federal judges, and federal judges don't hear divorce or child custody cases.

I don't think that federal judges get many death threats over anti-trust or most kinds of civil litigation between private parties, so that leaves criminal defendants and tax nuts as the prime suspects, with maybe an occasional unhappy personal bankruptcy debtor.

[Judge Roy Bean]

IMHO, the most significant threat comes from the drug cartels and the gangs they have relationships with on this side of the border.

[Dr. Caligari]

I don't think that federal judges get many death threats over anti-trust or most kinds of civil litigation between private parties, so that leaves criminal defendants and tax nuts as the prime suspects, with maybe an occasional unhappy personal bankruptcy debtor.

I am aware of one case in which a federal judge (Judge Daronco in the Southern District of New York) was killed by a disappointed litigant in an employment-discrimination case.

[LPC]

From a thread in Last Horizons following the disclosure that a motion by Hendrickson (for a continuance) had been granted:

I would not want to be a corrupt federal judge. The day is coming when the citizens will take law into their own hands. When the courts and the judges do not follow the law or grant justice where justice is REQUIRED TO BE SERVED, it is the duty and responsibility of Americans to eradicate this injustice and reestablish the rule of law.

Lawless authorities will indeed pay a high price for their treason and injustice.

I wonder what the response would have been if Hendrickson's motion had been denied.

[grixit]

They would take it as an admission that corrupt judges dare not face the truth.

[Number Six]

It's astounding that the judge in Hendrickson's case has been as patient and painstaking as he has. As for the mock outrage over what they characterize as judicial "corruption", I would think that the following would be applicable to the anarchists--solopcistic, sophistry, and egomanical. These people need a 12 step support group to adress their denial of reality.

[Demosthenes]

updated 9:36 p.m. EDT, Tue March 24, 2009
By Terry Frieden
CNN Justice Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The federal judge whose husband and mother were slain in their family home in Chicago, Illinois, four years ago was honored Monday by U.S. marshals charged with combating a growing number of threats to the judiciary.

Judge Joan Lefkow has advocated improving judicial security since her husband and mother were killed.

"It's now four years later, and I do see dawn has broken," Lefkow told a crowd of friends and federal officials gathered at the Marshals Service headquarters across the Potomac River from Washington.

The improved security -- including home intrusion security systems and coordinated intelligence and threat analysis -- was badly needed, according to both judges and the Marshals Service. The number of threats has increased each year, and is expected to exceed 1,500 this year, up from 1,278 last year.

"We've already had 600 inappropriate communications reported in the first months of this year," said Marshals Service spokesman Dave Turner.

Whether real threats or hoaxes, every e-mail, phone call, written note and letter -- including some with white powder -- is investigated.

The scope and seriousness of the protective effort increased sharply after the Lefkow tragedy.

On Tuesday, the Marshals Service dedicated the "Joan Lefkow Conference Room" in the new Threat Management Center to the memory of her slain husband, Michael Lefkow, and mother, Donna Humphrey. Judge Lefkow returned home on February 28, 2005, to find them shot to death.

The man authorities said was their killer committed suicide 10 days later when he was stopped by police in Wisconsin. The killer was angry that Judge Lefkow had dismissed his medical malpractice case and he sought revenge, police concluded.

U.S. Marshals Director John Clark credits Lefkow's advocacy for better security as the catalyst for dramatic changes.

"Because of her courage to speak out and her advocacy for reform in the protection of judges, things started to happen," Clark said. He cited congressional funding for home-intrusion alarms in every judge's residence and a sharp increase in funding to hire more threat investigators, protections specialists, analysts and trainers.

The threat management center has been open for more than a year.

Deputy marshals in the judicial protection effort attribute a growing number of the threats to disgruntled members of what is known as the sovereign citizenship movement. The movement is a loosely organized network of individuals and groups claiming not to be accountable to the federal government. The movement includes tax protesters, white separatists, zealots of fringe religious groups and desperate individuals lashing out at bankruptcy courts or judges who had wronged them.

As a result, some judges have been given around-the-clock protective details by deputy marshals.

"While steady progress has been made, we must be ever vigilant and progressive in order to ensure we are providing the best possible protection to our nation's judiciary," Clark said.

[Demosthenes]

And here's the first TP reaction I've seen to the above CNN story.

Sent by Mike Golden (aka "Mike the Radio Rebel"):

OH BOO HOO!!! GREAT!!! PISS on these CORRUPT BA$TARDS!!! If they were doing their jobs, THEY WOULDN'T NEED to FEAR U.S,!!! Judges Fearing For Their Lives!!!!!!

[Judge Roy Bean]

I had completely overlooked bankruptcy courts.