| ► Retired Judge Mary Waterstone of Detroit; ethical dwarf |
 |
 |
|
Retired Judge Mary Waterstone of Detroit; ethical dwarf
The state of Michigan presented Mary Waterstone with a law license in 1966.
The Michigan Judicial Commission charged Mary with allowing perjured testimony to be presented to the jury during a 2005 trial.
Mary was charged with misconduct on claims that she and others were hiding the fact that a witness for the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office was a paid police informant who helped authorities set up a drug bust. (Detroit News)
The charges against Mary, two Inkster police officers and Wayne County’s former chief drug prosecutor Karen Plants were filed in 2009 by former Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox. The charges came after the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission found evidence of uncorrected perjury in the trial of Downriver bar owner Alexander Aceval. The police officers involved and prosecutor Plants all served jail time after pleading guilty.
In April 2012, the cheerleaders for Judicial Misfits sitting on the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed the misconduct charges against Judge Waterstone. These comedians bought into Mary’s hyperbolic (BS) defense in allowing perjured testimony during a trial to go to the jury because she wanted “to protect the identity of a confidential informant.”
According to these enablers for Judicial Misfits, it is perfectly acceptable for a judge in Michigan to ignore perjured testimony in a criminal trial. Apparently, Mary the Moron is unable to understand the legal principle of “due process.” She must believe that “due process” is the means by which the grass becomes moist in the a.m.
The only reason that Mary wasn’t criminally prosecuted or found guilty of misconduct is because Judicial Misfits in Michigan are held to a much lower standard of conduct then everyone else.
As we speak (ca. June 2012) Mary retains her law license and practices at 3404 Seminole Street in Detroit.
And lastly, it should be noted that the Michigan Attorney General’s office said, “We are reviewing the opinion [Court of Appeals dismissal] and will make a decision on which action to take at a later time.
|
