In response to those saying that the information regarding tickets, Johnny's previous arrest, mugshots, other legal matters is public knowledge and can be found on the Internet; yes that is true, but that's where the whole innocent until proven guilty aspect plays in. Plus, they are only reporting the facts.
If you get arrested, yes most counties post mugshots and the 'charge(s)' on their website. In that instance, the arrest cannot be debated, it happened. The charges are just that, charges and not convictions. The charges are fact, and cannot be argued, but you are still not guilty. That is for a judge and/or jury of your peers to decide. The charges can be debated for validity by the court of public opinion, but the judge is the neutral body to hear the facts and rule based off them.
This judge crossed that line, and deserves the repercussions. If I am representing my employer in a matter and post info regarding private issues or trade secrets on Facebook, I would be fired. The fact that he has been a judge since 87 does not exempt him from this, and in actuality should make him more liable. That long on the bench he should well know what he did was wrong.
This judge deserves every bit of scrutiny, and deserves to lose his job and be disbarred.
If I were JFF's dad, on top of the judge losing his job, he'd have to deal with me personally.
A regular citizen drives by and posts a pic of JFF getting a ticket on Facebook? Mind your own business. The cop issuing the ticket posts about ticketing JFF on his own Facebook? Bad form in your profession, shame on you. The judge presiding over the case does it? Lost job.
This is why they interview and weed out jurors before trial to ensure a neutral body of your peers who will not bring their pre established conclusions with them. In this case, the head of that room, the true neutral party presiding overall has proven his bias.
