There are three falsehoods that James D. Heiple and his fast-dwindling band of apologists continue to desperately attempt to persuade the citizens of Illinois to believe.
The first falsehood is that to condemn Heiple–chief justice of the Illinois Supreme Court–for his actions is an assault on the judiciary as a whole. Thus, Heiple would have people believe, he is fighting not to save his own skin, but on behalf of judges everywhere.
Nonsense. This is about one man–James Heiple–and how he has disgraced his position. It’s not those who are pointing out what Heiple has done who are harming the judiciary–it’s Heiple. It is difficult to believe there is a single judge remaining in Illinois who really would choose Heiple to represent what the bench should be–or who would want his or her approach to justice and fairness to be equated to Heiple’s.
As the leading newspaper in Heiple’s judicial district–the Peoria Journal Star–editorialized after Heiple’s bizarre, Captain Queeg-like performance at his disciplinary hearing last week: “Another man might step aside for the good of the legal system, but not this one. . . . (P)erformances such as that delivered (by Heiple) have to make even his supporters wonder whether he is fit to hold this office.” Representative of all judges? What an insult that notion is to the Illinois judiciary.
The second falsehood proffered by Heiple is that the only reason he has been charged with judicial misconduct is because he wrote the decisions removing the children known as Richard and Joe from their safe and loving homes.
It is true that the first time many Illinois citizens ever heard of Heiple was when he revealed his sheer meanness in the way he wrote the decision removing Richard from his adoptive home without even allowing the child a hearing on his own behalf. But the charges the Judicial Inquiry Board have brought against Heiple have nothing at all to do with the cases of Richard and Joe; the charges concern the way Heiple has allegedly repeatedly behaved when stopped by police. Actually, Heiple should consider himself lucky that these were the only charges he was brought up on.
There are equally serious ones the inquiry board could have chosen to level– including Heiple’s use of the official seal of the Illinois Supreme Court to argue the facts of his personal criminal case, and the use of a Supreme Court employee to distribute those arguments. Beneath the seal of the court, Heiple told the state’s attorney in Tazewell County how he thought his criminal case should be handled. The license of that state’s attorney, like the license of every attorney in Illinois, is subject to the scrutiny of Heiple and the Supreme Court. Heiple knows that very well–and the use of the court’s seal to discuss his personal criminal case would seem to be as serious an offense as what happened with the police. And, of course, the way Heiple nominated his friend Moses Harrison II to chair the commission that would judge him is a separate matter entirely.
The third falsehood is that Heiple is somehow displaying courage in the way he is handling the charges against him.
Courage? He makes sure there will be no testimony against him–and then he impugns the police officers whom he has been able to silence as witnesses. Courage? He uses every legal trick to avoid having evidence against him heard–including, after he has stipulated that he does not deny the charges against him, saying that this does not mean he admits those charges.
Courage? Heiple’s actions, as in so much of what he does, are the actions of a bully and a coward–a bully who pushes helpless or less powerful people around, and then, when he gets called on it, scurries away, saying that he didn’t really do what he so obviously did, didn’t really mean to say what he so obviously said. Courage? He talks in a different voice when it’s not a 4-year-old child he’s pushing around. He talks in a different voice when he’s up against someone his own size.
As he threw himself onto the furniture in the hearing room last week, those present fell silent. This man is the top judicial figure in Illinois–the man who is supposed to symbolize all that is just and fair. His fellow justices on the Supreme Court have some decisions to make. And they ought not to insult the citizens of Illinois by claiming they are powerless.
