Malfeasance in office
Malfeasance in office, or official misconduct, is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election.
An exact definition of malfeasance in office is difficult. Many highly regarded secondary sources compete over the elements. This confusion extends to the courts where no single consensus definition of malfeasance in office has arisen. In part, this can be attributed to the relative paucity of reported cases involving malfeasance in office.
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals summarized a number of the definitions of malfeasance in office applied by various appellate courts in the United States.
| “ | Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted no, to do. | ” |
| —Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted). | ||
The court then went on to use yet another definition, "malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance."
Nevertheless a few "elements" can be distilled from those cases. First, malfeasance in office requires an affirmative act or omission. Second, the act must have been done in an official capacity—under the color of office. Finally, that that act somehow interferes with the performance of official duties—though some debate remains about "whose official" duties.
In addition, jurisdictions differ greatly over whether intent or knowledge is necessary. As noted above, many courts will find malfeasance in office where there is "ignorance, inattention, or malice", which implies no intent or knowledge is required.
Scotillo and witness taampering?
Witness tampering is harming or otherwise threatening a witness, hoping to influence his or her testimony.
In the United States, the crime of witness tampering in federal cases is defined by statute at , "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant". The punishment for such an offense is up to 20 years if physical force was used or attempted, and up to 10 years if physical force was only threatened. The tampering need not have actually been successful in order for it to be criminal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_tampering
What if, Wenrich or Hunter that were high on drugs on my arrest, wanted to change the testimoney as to be less creditable. But the assistant states attornies and judge deceided and ordered the police officers not to change their story.
Obstruction of justice, right up Scotillo's alley
The crime of obstruction of justice includes crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and elected officials in general. It is misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance in the conduct of the office. Most commonly it is prosecuted as a crime for perjury by a non governmental official primarily because of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors and attorneys general however commit obstruction of justice when they fail to prosecute judges and other government officials for malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in office.
Modern obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of Perverting the course of justice.
Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, who is not a suspect, has lied to the investigating officers. However, in most common law jurisdictions, the right to remain silent allows any person who is questioned by police merely to refuse to answer questions posed by an investigator without giving any reason for doing so. (In such a case, the investigators may subpoena the witness to give testimony under oath in court) It is not relevant if the person lied to protect a suspect (such as setting up a false alibi, even if the suspect is in fact innocent) or to hide from an investigation of their own activities (such as to hide his involvement in another crime). Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters or destroys physical evidence, even if he was under no compulsion at any time to produce such evidence.
In United States v. Binion, malingering or feigning illness during a competency evaluation was held to be obstruction of justice and led to an enhanced sentence.[1]
both scotillo's president twice
Twice president of same bar, 21 years its news editor
By Stephen Anderson
For many who have served a year as a bar association president, attaining the exalted office of past president is like a reprieve from the governor.
Aside from all the glory and a niche in association history, herding a diverse membership can be a worrisome chore. Once is usually enough, although a few have served as presidents of more than one bar.
But imagine serving twice as leader of the same association. It's happened twice for the Northwest Suburban Bar Association, and one of the double-timers was honored June 14 during the organization's annual dinner.
Arlington Heights attorney Nancy S. Scotillo was NWSBA president in 1996-97, attaining the office in the usual manner of moving up through the chairs.
One of her challenges was replacing the executive director, Nancy Hughes, who retired after many years of stewarding the growth of the NWSBA to the largest membership among suburban bar associations.
Scotillo overcame that obstacle by hiring Nairee Hagopian, who served ably for the next decade, and her year as past president was a welcome relief.
But less than two years after she handed over the gavel, Scotillo heeded a call in 1999 to take over as interim leader when a subsequent president stepped down abruptly to devote more effort to his judicial responsibilities.
The turmoil that precipitated this bump in the NWSBA road soon subsided as her calm, professional demeanor prevailed for a few months over what had been contentious proceedings.
When Scotillo was called up to the lectern by retiring president Adra F. Campbell last month, however, it was not just because of the double presidencies.
More amazing than that achievement is Scotillo's devotion to the association as editor of its monthly publication throughout the 21 years since its inaugural issue was distributed in April 1986.
Newsbriefs began during the reign of Edwin H. Shapiro as a modest, four-page, cut-and-paste vehicle for more timely communication with members than the occasional magazine-style Journal.
The June 2007 issue, Scotillo's last, is a 20-page compendium of NWSBA events in modern desktop design that includes color photographs and useful content.
It happened before
The irony of Nancy Scotillo's two stints as Northwest Suburban Bar president is that the only previous time this occurred can be attributed to her husband, Associate Judge John J. Scotillo.
During the annual dinner in September 1988, John Scotillo was installed as the 28th president during a festive event at the Crystal Lake Country Club. It was their 11th wedding anniversary, too.
Also installed that night was Sam L. Amirante, the incoming executive vice president, who was destined to succeed Scotillo the following year.
But a few months into their year of leadership, both Scotillo and Amirante were appointed to the Cook County bench. NWSBA bylaws prohibited judges from holding offices, so both had to resign.
Rather than thrust First Vice President Robert L. Best into the presidency a year and a half ahead of schedule, the organization prevailed on a past president to step up.
So Richard G. Larsen, who headed the association in 1980-81, served out Scotillo's term, and Best moved up a notch toward his installation later in 1989.
http://www.isba.org/association/july07bn/Twice.htm
Anthony Scotillo artical with no dirt
Justinians past president headed judges association
Retired Cook County judge Anthony J. Scotillo died May 27 at age 76 of heart disease in Northwestern Memorial Hospital. He was president of the Justinian Society in 1972 and of the Illinois Judges Association in 1984.
The son of immigrant Italian parents in Chicago's Austin neighborhood, Mr. Scotillo joined the Marine Corps after high school and served four years. He graduated in 1957 from the DePaul University College of Law.
He began his legal career with Nicholas J. Caruso as Caruso & Scotillo, and after Caruso died in 1963 he opened a downtown general and matrimonial practice.
http://www.illinoisbar.org/Association/056j.htm
Mr. Scotillo became a judge in 1971, first serving in the 2nd Municipal District and later in the Law Division and Chancery Division. He retired from the bench in 1991 and continued to practice law.
Survivors include a nephew, Associate Judge John J. Scotillo of the 3rd Municipal District, who is married to Arlington Heights attorney Nancy S. Scotillo.
Scotillo and his law bar are good at
Perverting the course of justice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In English, Canadian (see article 139 of Canadian Criminal Code) or Irish law, perversion of the course of justice is a criminal offence in which someone acts in a manner that in some way prevents justice being served on either themselves or on a third party. Perverting the course of justice is an offence in common law. It carries a theoretical maximum sentence of life imprisonment, although no sentence of more than 10 years has been handed down in the past one hundred years[where?].
Perversion of the course of justice takes the form of one of three acts:
- Fabrication or disposal of evidence
- Intimidating a witness or juror
- Threatening a witness or juror
It is also criminal to conspire with another to pervert the course of justice and to intend to pervert the course of justice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverting_the_course_of_justice
judge Scotillo files case, knows the fix is in?
24 A. Pat -- Pat Marcy, Sr. was charged with
815
1 everything from -- he was the one you would pay
2 if you wanted to become a judge. You would pay
3 Pat money. He'd make you a judge.
4 He was also charged with fixing a
5 zoning case. He was charged with fixing a case
6 that I put into the -- into the court system with
7 Judge Scotillo. He was charged with a whole
8 series of other related matters under
9 racketeering.
http://www.ipsn.org/laborers/transcripts/Transcripts_7-21-97.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
