A federal judge has gone to federal court to demand that he be protected from attacks from other federal judges who complained he was working too hard to see that magistrates took care of their Social Security case load in a timely fashion.

After all, reasoned U.S. District Judge John R. Adams, of Akron, Ohio, an American citizen shouldn’t have to wait five-and-a-half years for a ruling in such a dispute.

Now he’s suing the Judicial Council of the 6th Circuit, R. Guy Cole as chairman, as well as the Committee on Judicial conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States and Anthony Scirica, the head of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability.

The case alleges the defendants essentially lost their cool because Adams was pushing magistrates, those who review circumstances of individual cases and recommend to judges what a logical and legal ruling should include, to make decisions.

So Adams’ detractors put him through a year-long ethics tribunal, and they finally demanded he undergo a mental health exam over his desire to see work get done.

Who REALLY rules America? Stand up against the unelected tyrants in black. Find out how in “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America.” Available now at the WND Superstore!

Judicial Watch, the Washington watchdog group, confirmed it has filed a complaint on behalf of Adams.

It came after an appeals process offered him no relief.

At the heart of the problem was the fact magistrate judges simply were waiting years to make recommendations to judges on specific cases.

“Judge Adams had long been concerned about the productivity and supervision of his court’s magistrates and the timeliness of their decisions, particularly in Social Security cases. To reduce delays in such cases, he began issuing orders setting deadlines for magistrates’ ‘reports and recommendations’ – the magistrates’ reports on how a judge should rule,” Liberty Counsel explained.

But the magistrates refused to go along, and when one magistrate missed a deadline, Adams issued an order requiring an explanation.

Having received that, he canceled his order, all in a matter of 48 hours, the complaint says.

“But some of Judge Adams’ colleagues on the Ohio federal district court filed an ethics complaint claiming that Judge Adams’ deadlines caused the magistrates to give priority to his cases over theirs. As a result, Judge Adams was subjected to a years-long ethics investigation so vengeful and vitriolic that even his mental health was questioned,” explained Judicial Watch. “Despite the complete absence of any medical evidence suggesting he suffers from a mental disability, Judge Adams was ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination, including a three-hour battery of psychological testing.”

He responded with two separate examinations by board-certified psychiatrists of his own choice that revealed he had no “diagnosable mental disorder whatsoever.”

But the other judges then claimed he wasn’t cooperating with their investigation.

“No case has ever decided whether a sitting federal judge can be compelled to undergo a psychiatric examination, but the August 14 [judicial system] decision nonetheless held it was misconduct for Judge Adams to object to this unprecedented demand. It also ordered him to endure two years of monitoring by a judicial committee, and threatened to reassign his current case load and ban him from being assigned new cases if he does not submit. Judge Adams’ September 14 complaint asserts that these actions not only are unwarranted, but violate U.S. Constitution and threaten judicial independence,” Judicial Watch explained.

The complaint points out no one ever has complained that Adams does not or cannot maintain his own work load. It’s those other things he does that have riled the other judges.

For example: “In addition to his efforts to ensure timely processing of Social Security appeals, Judge Adams also has spoken out numerous times about the Ohio federal district court’s wasteful use of taxpayer dollars, such as spending of thousands of dollars to purchase iPads for judges and other court staff while simultaneously threatening cutbacks and furloughs for essential staff, such as probation officers. He also questioned reimbursing judges for travel expenses incurred attending ceremonial portrait unveilings of their colleagues.”

Adams said: “I am deeply disappointed with my colleagues’ decision. This case is not about my mental health, but about my efforts to improve court administration. I presented overwhelming evidence of my sound mental health, but the panel refused to consider it.”

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, explained: “Judge Adams is a fine jurist committed to the highest standards of judicial ethics and has served with distinction for over 14 years. This was not an investigation, it was a hazing. Judge Adams looks forward to restoring both his good name and the integrity of the judicial ethics process.”

Cole declined to respond to a WND request for comment.

The complaint explains how Adams had been frustrated by the fact that Social Security cases were rising, and there were “long delays at every step of the disability application process.”

The courts had taken “no steps” to address the problem, it explains.

The complaint says his fellow judges fretted he had a “strained relationship” with them, and that he had withdrawn from the “social life of the court.”

Shortly after, they demanded he undergo a mental health evaluation after refusing “to identify any specific reason.”

If fact, the judicial committee pursuing Adams ordered members to “ignore any statements made by Judge Adams or any statements made by [counsel] that are suggestive that some mental health professional has suggested there is not a serious psychological or mental issue with him.”

But Judicial Watch argued there is no law or requirement for a judge to have a coerced psychiatric exam in an investigation into his mental stability.

So, it explains, the “compelled examination of plaintiff is ultra vires and unconstitutional.”

The judicial committees’ “orders and threats constitute constructive impeachment in violation of the Constitution,” the complaint concludes.

Who REALLY rules America? Stand up against the unelected tyrants in black. Find out how in “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America.” Available now at the WND Superstore!


Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.