► Santa Ana Federal Judge David Carter; scofflaw ethically impaired Print E-mail

Santa Ana Federal Judge David Carter; scofflaw ethically impaired

Judge David Carter believes he is not required to follow the law on Financial Disclosure.  
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires federal judges to complete and submit an annual Financial Disclosure Report, which becomes a public record. That report requires that the following information be disclosed:
  1. Positions held and name of organization/entity
  2. Judge’s Non-Investment Income – Pensions, Social Security, etc.
  3. Spouse’s Non-Investment Income – employment
  4. Reimbursements – transportation, lodging, food, entertainment including spouse
  5. Gifts – including those to spouse and dependent children
  6. Liabilities – creditor name and amount including spouse
  7. Investments/Trusts – income earned and value of investment/trust
Judge David Carter’s redacted (blacked-out) all of the above required information on his Annual Financial Disclosure Reports from 2003 through 2007 and did so as follows:
  1. Positions held – redacted 5 positions held and names of organization/entity
  2. Judge’s Non-Investment Income – redacted 3 sources of income and amounts
  3. Spouse’s Non-Investment Income – redacted source and type of income
  4. Gifts – redacted 1 source and the value
  5. Liabilities – redacted name/description/value of 2 creditors
  6. Investments/Trusts – redacted 10 lines of income earned and value of asset
The Federal Judicial Conference working hand-in-hand with the U.S. Marshall Service reviews any request from a judge to have certain information redacted if it is determined that it would or could cause a serious security concern.
It would be laughable for Judge David Carter to claim that the release of such generic information for public consumption would or could cause a serious security threat to him and/or his spouse. If it could, then why didn’t Chief Justice John Roberts and all associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court disclose such information? To ask the question is to answer it.
Prior to being appointed to the federal bench in 1998, Judge David Carter spent twenty-six (26) years porking out at the public trough in Orange County as a District Attorney and then as a judge. Therefore, Judge David Carter is likely receiving a pension from Orange County and California in an amount of $75,000 to $100,000 a year.
Obviously, Judge David Carter doesn’t want the public to know that his annual earnings (judicial salary, pensions and investments) may well exceed $300,000 a year. And this amount would not include the earnings of his spouse.
Clearly, Judge David Carter, a lifetime consumer of public pork (never held a real job after law school) believes he can summarily thumb his nose at federal disclosure laws. Clearly, there’s no accountability in the Federal Judicial Industry, so why should Judge David Carter give a damn, right?

Who's Online

We have 93 guests online

Donation Request

Your donations are needed to help defray the recurring costs for internet services, cable access, research via LexisNexis, media subscriptions, and the employment of a researcher and editor.

Donate Here

The Committee to Expose Dishonest and Incompetent Judges, Attorneys and Public Officials, Powered by Joomla!; Joomla templates by SG web hosting

website counter