Marla Greenstein’s 36 year strangle hold on the Alaska Judicial System
Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct
The Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct held a public meeting on December 6, 2924. During this meeting, Marla Greenstein reported on her professional activities. She is solely responsible for conducting individual new judge ethics orientations. Marla Greenstein serves as vice-chair of the ABA Judicial Conduct and Professionalism committee. She indicated she is working on a committee attempting to draft a Code of Conduct for law clerks. Marla writes an ethics column for the Judges Journal. These embody the slim report she gave on her duties, clearly these are not all inclusive.
“The judicial commission is meant to be independent, although the length of time members on this council is retained lead one to believe otherwise. You will be surprised to find that the three public members on the judicial council abstain from votes almost 93% of the time. It is highly likely that pressures from the three judge members and three attorney members are the cause of withheld votes.” This excerpt is taken straight from the website. The 9 members are tasked with addressing problems of judicial conduct.
Alaska’s judicial system is not unified with centralized administration. The system is financed by our state legislature but it is not independent. The Alaska judicial system is set up to be independent judicial experience for all Alaskans. The Alaska Constitution contains reforms that other states were fighting for at the time Alaska became a state. This indicates a substantial reason the Constitution upheld a checks and balance system accountable to grand juries. Grand Jury powers are found under the Alaska State Constitution Article 1 Section 8.
This allegedly independent council is created by the Alaska Constitution. The Council screens applicants for judicial vacancies and nominates the most qualified applicants for appointments by the governor, evaluates the performance of judges and recommends whether voters should retain judges for another term, and conducts research to improve the administration of justice in Alaska. There are 7 members unlike the commission where there are 9 members all overseen by Marla Greenstein.
Make no mistake between these two organizations are different. Alaska Judicial Council is headed by Susanne DiPietro, The Alaska Judicial Commission is headed by Marla Greenstein.
In Marla Greenstein’s own publication “JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION IN ALASKA COURTS, she states that, the ability to have every dispute heard by an impartial judge is essential to our system of jurisprudence.” This is far from the case when you look at recent major cases. One example is the fact that Judge William Matthews has been appointed to oversee many highly cases publicized cases. The case of Thomas Garber vs the court system, which has gone on to the Supreme Court. Three cases against ex-Senator Lora Reinbold, all politically motivated. The most publicized one against Judge Margeret Murphy for perjury. These are three examples of cases that were not heard by an impartial judge.
When one considers impartiality, it would seem logical that the perception of the public in many cases like those mentioned above, there is a huge gap in impartiality 1. Given that Marla Greenstein has been in her seat for now 36 years you would think she could follow her own ethical insights. Anyone unable to see the
Greenstein educates readers of JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION IN ALASKA COURTS about how disqualification works. She writes, “In Alaska, judicial disqualification law takes essentially three different forms: disqualification for cause under Alaska Statutes section 22.20.020; peremptory disqualification under Alaska Statutes section 22.20.022 and corresponding Criminal Rule 25(d) and Civil Rule 42(c); and the judicial ethics requirements set out in the Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct.”
The question remains with a panel of three judges, three attorney members and three public members all who work for the entity overseen by Marla Greenstein for 36 years, where is the impartiality? This Article published in the “Alaska Law Review,” details how things should be. When you talk about ethics but fail to employ them you rob those being served by the judicial system.
Marla sits in a seat of power that controls the justice system of Allaska. For 36 years she has held this seat with no real checks and balance. This indicates an appearance of complacency for those who are supposed to protect the unbiased platform of the Alaska Judicial System. Marla Greenstein writes about ethics and impartiality very well but she fails to apply it to her own job. The fact is she has sat on over 8000 judicial review cases. Many cases of misconduct have been swept under the rug. This trend is likely to continue. This could be in large part because she appeases those who could unseat her by dumbing down any real investigations of judicial misconduct.
Alaska Statutes section 22.20.022(a) is based on a subjective belief on the part of a party or party’s attorney that “a fair and impartial trial cannot be obtained2.” It is a sad situation when one cannot ask for a real investigation into alleged judicial misconduct without going through the party you want investigated. That, my dear readers, is exactly what SCO 1993 was implemented to do.
How impartial is our judicial system? How impartial is an oversight system that has retained those sitting in power for over 20 and 36 years? Why is this being allowed? When is Marla Greenstein going to step aside and give the State of Alaska back the judicial system it deserves?
The Alaska grand jurors association exists to expose the corruption in this system and to help correct the balance for the good of all people. This is not a red or blue fight but rather a fight for justice for all. Join us in promoting equal access to ethical justice.
Citations:
- RICHARD E. FLAMM, JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION: RECUSAL AND DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES § 1.2.2 (1996).
- ALASKA STAT. § 22.20.022(a).
