If you pay taxes in Massachusetts, you just got another slap in the face

BOSTON AP— A Massachusetts judge charged with helping an immigrant escape a federal agent waiting to arrest him will be paid while her legal battle plays out, the state’s highest court ruled Tuesday.

Reversing course in a closely watched case that has showcased official resistance to the Trump administration’s tough immigration policy, the Supreme Judicial Court said Newton District Court Judge Shelley Joseph would resume collecting her annual salary of $181,000.

Yes, that is right honest law abiding residents of Massachusetts, a state judge who opening broke the law in a COURT OF LAW is going to keep getting paychecks from the state. I’m sure this was a tough call for her fellow state appointed judges.

In a 5-1 decision, it also ordered that she receive back pay dating to late April, when the high court ruled she should be suspended without pay.

Oh, I guess not. I wonder if she sends Christmas cards to them?

Joseph, who lives in Natick, is fighting federal criminal charges for allegedly helping a man from the Dominican Republic slip out a back door of her courthouse while a federal immigration officer was waiting for him. She has pleaded not guilty to obstruction of justice, and court records indicate she rejected a plea deal offered by federal prosecutors last month. A former court officer also was charged.

You mean the illegal immigrant who was arrested on drug charges and had a warrant out of Pennsylvania and had been deported twice before? We wouldn’t want him to pay for his crimes. Good thing he was given no bail and escorted out a back door by a court officer.

The case has drawn national attention, with Joseph’s lawyer denouncing her indictment as “absolutely political.

Its not political, it is called law enforcement. You and the judge should probably look up what that means. Nobody is above the law, your honor .

“The federal and state governments have staked out different and sometimes conflicting positions on what can or cannot be done with respect to immigrants who are subject only to … civil warrants in state courthouses,” Justice Scott Kafker noted in an opinion attached to the decision made public Tuesday.

And I thought the courts were meant to uphold the law and service justice, silly me.

Joseph had argued in an affidavit filed last spring that her family faced mounting legal bills, had to borrow money from friends and family and was at risk of having to sell their home.

Thats how it works. You broke the law and now you have to pay to for it. If I did that I would be out a job and a paycheck. So why should you get paid to not be able to do you job in law enforcement ? I could care less if you lose your house in Natick or have to get loans from friends and family. Speaking of which.

That is more than most of the people you are stealing (and I say that because the state is giving her money she isn’t capable of earning) from earn in a year.

Lawyers’ groups and a collection of retired judges backed Joseph, calling it “unprecedented” to take away the pay of a judge who hasn’t been found guilty of wrongdoing.

But I’m sure none of them know these judges that gave it back to her, right? If a police officer is charge with a crime they get suspend without pay, but it isn’t fair to the rich ( well not anymore) woke judge.

The Massachusetts Bar Association, Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts and Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys said in court documents that judges “must be able to act without fearing for their livelihood or the well-being of their family if a powerful litigant, the public, or other judges disagree with their actions.”

Did you really just say that? You mean a judge shouldn’t be afraid to lose their job if they set a wanted criminal who has no right to be in the country in the first place, no less is here committing crimes?

Chief Justice Ralph Gants said Tuesday he came around to that view.

“In turbulent times, the risk of being stripped of a paycheck may have a chilling effect on a judge’s willingness to challenge the conduct of a prosecutor and thereby diminish the overall independence of the judiciary,” he wrote.

I hate nothing more than when prosecutors try and take criminals off the street. But you are so right Ralphy, a judge shouldn’t lose their paycheck for breaking federal laws. maybe she just didn’t know better?

What about the one judge that voted against her?

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Frank Gaziano said the decision “smacks of preferential treatment, and thereby erodes public confidence in the judiciary.”

Couldn’t agree with you more Frank, but I think you are off Shelley s Christmas card list.