This week, the Associated Press reported that a West Virginia Circuit Court Judge John Hutchinson, has issued a broad restraining order against environmental protesters who have staged events at several mountaintop removal sites run by Massey Energy. What is troubling about the court action is not only the overbroad nature of the order but the ethical problems stemming from the financial influence over the judicial system wielded by Massey’s CEO, Don Blankenship.
Judge Hutchinson said his order applies not only to people accused of trespassing, but also to any “associates” of those activists. When challenged on the overreaching effect of the Judge’s order that extended to any associates of named protesters the judge stated, “Then it enjoins thousands of people. Everyone is enjoined from interfering with the processes at these facilities.”
The problem from a neutral observers point of view is that the West Virginia judicial system has become tainted by real and perceived conflicts of interest and the biggest conflict arises from Massey Energy itself.
In 2004, Massey CEO Don Blankenship spent $3 million on an independent campaign to back lawyer Brent D. Benjamin for an elected position on the state’s Supreme Court. Blankenship’s money accounted for 60 percent of all money spent on Benjamin’s behalf. Benjamin defeated Justice Warren McGraw in November 2004 (See Justice at Stake).
In 2007, Justice Benjamin rejected a motion to recuse himself in a case involving Blankenship’s Massey Energy and a competitor. Benjamin then cast the deciding vote in a 3-2 decision to overturn jury verdict that had awarded the competitor more than $50 million. When two justices later recused themselves, Benjamin voted in a second 3-2 decision to overturn the $50 million judgment.
The case was taken on appeal and is now under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. The key issue before the court centers on the conflicts of interest created by contributors to judicial candidates who then receive rulings from the very same judges. Oral arguments in the case – Caperton v. Massey – were heard by the Supreme Court on March 3, 2009.
“This case offers the nation’s top court the opportunity to make clear that judges who receive outsize campaign contributions have a duty to recuse themselves. Although not all contributions implicate due process, Mr. Blankenship’s multimillion-dollar quest to tilt the scales of justice surely does. It is vitally important for the Supreme Court to say so.”
New York Times Editorial, March 2, 2009
The noted novelist John Grisham stated in an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer several years ago that his novel, “The Appeal” was not far fetched, pointing to the circumstances stemming from the conflicts of interest in the West Virginia courts and specifically the case involving Don Blankenship.
Lauer asked, “Was there a specific story that caught your eye in the headlines that made you want to write this?”
“There have been several,” Grisham said. “In judicial elections … huge sums of money get involved on both sides to purchase a seat on the Supreme Court.”
When Lauer asked Grisham if the plot was “far-fetched,” Grisham replied, “It’s already happened. It happened a few years ago in West Virginia.
Thus, regardless of the underlying motivations of Judge Hutchinson in barring anybody from engaging in any peaceful protest at Massey Energy mining sites, his position on the bench, along with all of the other justices in the West Virginia court system have been so tainted that any decision rendered is at the very least suspect.
“It’s a shame that the Mountain State is on display nationally as a place where justice is suspect.”
Charleston Gazette, Jan. 9, 2009
For peaceful protesters, the corruption of justice remains an unanswered question as they ponder their denial of the right to assemble under the U.S. Constitution that was denied by the West Virginia court.
Recent Comments