Two Democrat judges were removed from office for “case-fixing schemes.” Of course, none of the mainstream media reported on this, in another one of their attempts to hide the truth from the American public.
According to the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline, one of the judges unethically intervened in cases. The other was “guilty of seven violations of judicial ethics rules, including bringing the court into disrepute,” reveals the Philadelphia Inquirer.
The Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline ruled that Municipal Court Judge Dawn Segal and Common Pleas Court Judge Angeles Roca be removed from office for their involvement in separate case-fixing schemes.
“As we have said in more detail in prior decisions, when it comes to corrupt acts and the derogation of a fair and just judicial process, a judge must have ‘the willingness to stand up for what was right and buck a corrupt tide,'” the court wrote in both rulings.
The judges’ lawyers have informed that they are appealing the decisions to the state Supreme Court.
“I’m very disturbed by the decision,” said Roca’s attorney, Samuel Stretton.
In October, the disciplinary court found that Roca had unethically intervened in a tax case involving her son by calling then-Municipal Court Judge Joseph Waters Jr. Waters then reached out to Segal, who reversed herself and issued a ruling favorable to Roca’s son.
Waters was sentenced in January 2015 to two years in prison for fixing cases on behalf of campaign donors and political allies. He was released by the end of the same year.
In July, the court found Segal guilty of seven violations of judicial ethics rules, including bringing the court into disrepute.
“I got something in front of you at 1 o’clock today,” Waters told Segal in an intercepted 2011 phone conversation in which he asked for favorable treatment of a politically connected defendant appearing before her.
“Oh, OK. OK,” Segal responded, according to the disciplinary panel.
Both Roca and Segal had been on unpaid suspension. If the rulings stand, they would be ineligible to hold judicial office in the future, reports American Lookout.
What do you think about this? Share this on Facebook and Twitter SCROLL DOWN FOR MORE