1,000 federal judges seek to remove personal info from internet as threats skyrocket

Source: cnbc.com 3/17/23

More than 1,000 federal judges have asked the U.S. Courts system for help removing personally identifiable information from the internet under a program implemented after a New Jersey judge’s son was murdered at their house.

That is nearly one-third of the active and retired federal judges eligible for the program, a spokesman for the U.S. Courts system told CNBC on Friday. The response to the online scrubbing program was detailed in the agency’s annual report, released Thursday.

The report also details what it called “a dramatic rise in threats and inappropriate communications against federal judges and other court personnel” in recent years.

Those incidents numbered 4,511 in 2021, a more than four-fold increase from 926 in 2015, according to the report. It cited the U.S. Marshals Service, the agency responsible for protecting federal judges and courthouses.

“Some cases have involved litigants angered by judges’ decisions in cases,” the report said. “And the home addresses of judges handling controversial cases have been circulated on social media.”

The Justice Department’s internal watchdog in a 2021 report found that the Marshals Service lacked enough resources to adequately protect federal judges and prosecutors.

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

44 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

You think they’re gonna learn some empathy yet?? As Bob Dylan once said “Oh how does it feel??!”

How about that..

Who is surprised? Not me! I’ve been flapping my lips about this very trend since the Salas case in NJ. AFTER her child and husband were shot on her porch she, through personal and professional channels got a bill in Congress. Last I heard, it was stuck on the desk of Senator Rand Paul a committee chair.
Obviously sex offenders were the first citizens to have their home addresses purposely posted publicly! Now these folks believe they’re entitled to desperate protections not afforded to sex offenders nor the general public. I wrote Judge Salas via her courts address about 60 days ago, pointing out this hypocrisy!
I also wrote her that I didn’t buy the convenient MSM- FBI ending to the guy who killed her son and wounded her husband. The killer was from California and he was a lawyer! Master Salas’ murder investigation revealed the killer had also shot and killed another lawyer who’d won a SCOTUS case concerning men’s parental rights that was on the Salas’ District docket in the past.
I think the guy was really a contract killer and had committed other murders of lawyers.

It seems to me it would be a good time for Advocacy to point out how this all also implicates ” the database and uses thereof.”
Removal of personal information for some, but not all, defies every notion of Equal protection. Just another way the DDI overruns traditional and defining notions of sovereignty.

I think you all misunderstand. The judges want THEIR personal info removed, not yours. But this is a great message. It is perfect ammunition for when Janice goes before the SCOTUS some day to argue the unconstitutionality of the registry. Roberts will have a tough time defending his Price Club comment in this day and age. How many have been killed, how many have been assaulted, how many perpetrators got their information form the registry.

This is yet another incident that is easily comparable to one being plastered all over the internet due to the registry. One may not be a judge, but does that mean our families should have to face possible harassment or death due to some lunatic seeing our profiles online? If they shouldn’t be forced to be wary who could be snooping on their information to do them harm, registrants shouldn’t either.

This is hilariously hypocritical. Would love to know how many of these judges have thrown out requests from registrants that have been targeted by vigilantes to remove their info.

‘…. a 2021 report found that the Marshals Service lacked enough resources to adequately protect federal judges and prosecutors.”

Oh, boo-hoo!! 🎻 😭 😒

Maybe if the U.S. Marshals Service would stop harassing Registrants with their stormtrooper Compliance Checks, they would have enough resources to adequately protect their precious judges and prosecutors! Their Compliance Checks of law abiding, tax-paying, non-threatening, non-dangerous citizens only makes them look like lazy, cowardly, pathetic losers!
😠

Last edited 1 year ago by David🔱

Not fun having a target on your back, is it? Lucky they have the marshals and money to keep them and their families secure. No so much for those of us who are barely surviving and have to live among the malcontents that most often want to see harm come to us.

Some of that personal information is “self-inflicted.” You know those Law & Order scenes, where the defense & prosecution gather at the local bar at the end of the day, like Ralph Wolf & Sam Sheepdog when they’re “off work?” Every prosecutor they assigned to my case, I’d dox and turn the information over to Mr G_____s, so he’d have conversational ammo. Like, the DDA who posted her sonograms on FB. Or the DDA who posted they wanted the $700 ice cream maker on their wedding registry. There was the DDA who blogged his home renovations, which included pictures of his kid’s rooms, and the DDA posted her parenting problems on FB.

Depends on how they get their request met, but hopefully it can be used as precedent for ACSOL’s day in front of SCOTUS.

Here’s a fun idea: Let’s see what happens if the personal information {phone numbers, addresses, working hours, where they work, and email addresses} of all Judges (at every level), and all law enforcement (at every level, including correctional personnel and prosecutors) is made available for everyone to look up anytime. After all they are supposed to be public servants right? So what’s wrong with knowing their basic personal information? Nothing bad has ever happened with sharing even some of this information about people in publicly available ways right?

So its ok for registrants to be threatened, harassed, and murdered, but not judges?
Bunch of hypocrites.

Aha,ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Can’t take the heat don’t go in the kitchen!

It’s not like they didn’t know beforehand that becoming a “Judge” would make their info public –

UNLIKE registrants who many had no forwarning of the law which did not exist at the commission of offense. A simple “reduced expectation of privacy” AFTER the fact is all these are afforded.

It’s simply a collateral consequence of becoming a judge.

They can dish it but they can’t take it!

Such crybaby little bitches…

DEFINATELY NOT !! Judges put our info on the internet and give us RISK they should get the same risk !!! AN EYE FOR A EYE !!

Did these people that threatened and harmed these judges and their families not get prosecuted, when it was known who they were? That’s always been “Good enough” to “Sufficiently discourage” vigilante violence against PFRs…so why is it not enough for judges and their families? Oh and the State AGs can use their, AG Magic…that makes these judges as safe as anyone else?

I mean, at least Judges are safe when they are at work…unlike PFRs.

The standard LInE has always been that prosecuting vigilantes is sufficient to discourage vigilante violence towards PFRs. So let it be sufficient for these judges! In America, as we recently saw in Florida, you can get attacked just because somebody says you’re a PFR…yet cops and DAs are all that is needed to keep us and our families safe. When was the last time a person was attacked based on the rumor they are a Judge? Maybe never?

Good thing this won’t be used as a excuse to hire on another bigillion Marshalls, who will mostly be sent on their KGB style Compliance Checks. Yes, KGB style…not Gestapo. Gestapo didn’t ask questions, or look for excuses to take you away…they already knew you were coming with them, and why…that’s why they came there. KGB however, they went around to people’s homes looking for excuses to take people with them.

On the one hand, we don’t need any special laws concealing the addresses of DAs, judges and other public officials. On the other hand, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg better batten down his home after the indictment comes down. Because the MAGA people will be coming after him in full force.

I hate to break bad news, but I’m pretty sure the framers set things up in such a way that the judicial branch absolutely has unique rights, or better put, the executive branch has unique duties to protect the other. Please consider the fact that there is no provision for sworn federal judges to have their own police force. It’s enshrined in The Constitution, and commonly known as separation of powers, and also why presidents pick judges. I would not want to be the person arguing otherwise!

This is what I’d be barking about: “The Justice Department’s internal watchdog in a 2021 report found that the Marshals Service lacked enough resources to adequately protect federal judges and prosecutors.” Obviously, the argument there is, perhaps if they weren’t so busy harassing registrants, they would have the resources to do their constitutional duty.

As for elected judges, such as state and local, I’d say put up all red signs you want, lol!

Since when have those mentioned above who feel threatened become a protected species? A security detail 24/7 or removing ones public info leads to power trippin’ and thus the ability to really do harm while being influenced by sources for decisions in their favor. It used to be you had to pay extra to remove your info from the white pages. Unless there is a viable reason, i.e., a proven threat, use the court system to protect yourself like all others must or find another way to conceal yourself. Just because you wear a robe and sit on a bench, you are not entitled to more than other citizens in this nation.