ForeWord This Week

September 5, 2013

Elizabeth Weaver Elizabeth Weaver has had enough of the backroom deals and tyranny she believes corrupts the justice system in her home state of Michigan, and she’s written a book that pulls the lid off the secrecy. And no, Weaver is not a wild-eyed young radical out to dismantle the system. She actually goes by the title Former Chief Justice Weaver. She’s retired now after serving for sixteen years on the Michigan Supreme Court, where she earned a reputation as a Republican who refused to toe the party line and generally annoyed her colleagues by crusading for reform of a system that she believes values money and secrecy over justice. Her independently published book, Judicial Deceit: Tyranny and Unnecessary Secrecy at the Michigan Supreme Court, written with co-author David B. Schock, clocks in at 766 pages, in which she writes about the impact of big money and politics on the state’s high court, its lack of transparency, and lack of objectivity. She’s proposing a series of reforms that, among other things, would require Supreme Court candidates to reach the ballot by petition rather than party nomination. Needless to say, her book is making some people a bit nervous. But, as co-author Schock tells ForeWord This Week, it could have been even more of a tell-all: “I am an ‘include everything’ kind of reporter. Elizabeth had as her watchword ‘what the public needs to know … no more and no less.’ So there is nothing gratuitous in all those 766 pages.” Justice Weaver agreed to be cross-examined by FTW about her book and her goals in writing it. Here’s what she had to say. Tweet Advertisements



Advertisements Part of the title of your book is “Tyranny.” As you know, that’s a very strong word. It implies some kind of dictatorial power. Tell me how you see the Michigan Supreme Court as tyrannical. According to Webster, the definition of tyranny is: an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act—oppressive power exerted by government. Our book, Judicial Deceit: Tyranny and Secrecy at the Michigan Supreme Court, has many chapters showing specific examples of tyranny at the Michigan Supreme Court. We repeatedly show examples of the misuse and abuse of governmental power, particularly at the Supreme Court. For example: Chapter 24—"Dragged through the Mud," where a judge is persecuted because he is "in the way" because he objects to building an unnecessary $6 million courthouse at taxpayer expense; Chapter 23—"Having his Cake," where a judge pleads guilty to shoplifting: This is kept secret from the public and even some of the Justices; Chapter 11—"Reputations and Careers: Destroy Them!" Several tyrannous examples of the ways the court dealt unjustly with its internal public … its employees. Tweet Advertisements



Advertisements Your book is the latest in a long, proud tradition of “whistleblowing” literature, where somebody formerly on the “inside” comes out with revelations about what goes on behind closed doors. Are you happier now as an “outsider” able to fully tell the story? For more than the last ten years at the Supreme Court, I worked for reform of the election/appointment of justices and reform of the court's operations and administration of itself and its offices, commissions, and boards. I could never get four of the seven justices' votes to address and lead it. I am, I always have been, and continue to be, very happy. That’s my nature, and I was happy at the Supreme Court. That’s not to say I wasn’t at times astonished or dismayed at the conduct of my colleagues, even when they were attacking me. I strive to not take offense, even when it is meant personally. And I don't get upset over challenges, disagreements, or conflicts. These are elements of our lives, and the work of a supreme court will necessarily encompass them. But I never intended to inflict personal or professional damage on my fellow justices. I don't indulge in hate and do not dislike any of my former colleagues. To me, some revealed in the book are tragic figures. It took a year and a half to write the book—researching, writing, going through hundreds of file boxes to make sure everything in the book was accurate and necessary. It wasn't always a pleasant task. My co-author and I did not want to have to write this book. Only after a full year of retirement from the Supreme Court filled with prayerful thought and consideration did we conclude it was my duty to do so. The purpose of the book is reform—reform of how we elect and appoint justices. And reform of the unnecessarily secret administration and operation of the Supreme Court and its offices, commissions, and boards. Transparency and accountability are needed. Tweet Advertisements



Advertisements Your book names names, and you do not hold back about your former colleagues on the bench. Was there any time during the writing when you paused and thought, “No, I’d better not?” Judicial Deceit is not a tell-all book. That would have been volumes. Our standard for what was included was: “Was the inclusion of the item or information accurate and definitely necessary for the public to have sufficient information to understand the nature and the extent of the tyranny, deceit, and unnecessary secrecy at the Supreme Court and its operations, offices, and commissions”? The book is like a Wizard of Oz book—Toto pulling back the curtain and finding deceit. Tweet Advertisements



Advertisements There is a lot of talk about legal reform in the country as a whole, from Michigan’s broken indigent defense system to sentencing reform nationwide. Is there a general lack of confidence in the legal system across the United States? It appears so. People fear or sense that the justice system and the courts have become politicized; that they are callous, tyrannical, and unjust; that one may not get a fair hearing; that the judiciary at large is not independent, just, and fair. In Michigan in particular, there is the fear that special interest agendas, ideological and ambitious agendas of the justices, those elected and/or appointed, or their bias and prejudices are at work in the courts. They find outrageous the sums of money spent to elect justices ($18 million in Michigan's last Supreme Court election, most of which is not accountable to individuals—secretly contributed “dark” money). They find equally outrageous the unchecked and unbalanced gubernatorial appointments as justices and judges of political allies, friends, or choices of contributors. The basic fundamental problem is the lack of rotation in office, of checks and balances, and of transparency. The lack of these basic democratic principles allows for deceit, unnecessary secrecy, misuse and abuse of power, and tyranny. The worth of proposed reforms should be judged as to whether they “promote and contain the basic democratic principles: rotation in office, checks and balances, and transparency—no unnecessary secrecy.” Tweet Advertisements



Advertisements You and your co-author, David B. Schock, are essentially promoting this book on your own, without a major PR firm or publisher hyping you up to the media. How is that going for you? We priced Judicial Deceit at $20 so everyone can have it. No one can say they didn't know or have the opportunity to know the danger and do something about it. We are progressing with our goal to reach a grassroots critical mass that will catapult the book into its proper statewide and national recognition and usefulness. Tweet Advertisements



Advertisements You live in Leelanau County, Michigan, the tip of the state’s little finger, where the folks are known for their fierce independence. You weren’t born there, but you’ve made it your home for years. Did this environment help mold your judicial philosophy or your rejection of party politics in the judiciary? Certainly Leelanau is my home of choice for the last forty years. But my independence started in early childhood in New Orleans with my family: Mom, Dad, and two older brothers—a very loving, disciplined, challenging, and stimulating family, a very happy group. The first chapter of the book details this, including the “Story of the State of Tulane.” You’re “retired,” but still quite active in judicial reform, obviously. Can we expect more books? Perhaps, if there is a need. I always keep my options open. Looking for a good book to read? Subscribe to our magazine. ForeWord Reviews delivers and promotes fresh conversations about great books, with thought-provoking reviews which highlight the latest literary achievements by lesser-known voices. From cookbooks to translated fiction to innovative children’s literature, as well as discussions with authors, booksellers, librarians, and publishers to keep our readers current with what's trending in the world of great independent literature. Share the wealth Know someone who would benefit from reading ForeWord This Week? Forward this email to them and have them subscribe to our newsletter. They'll thank you!