Are imaginary friends a prima facie disqualification for a judge?

Via Ed Cone I found one of those stories that makes me love the Wall Street Journal: "In the Philippines, Ex-Judge Consults Three Wee Friends":

As a trial-court judge, Florentino V. Floro Jr. acknowledged that he regularly sought the counsel of three elves only he could see. The Supreme Court deemed him unfit to serve and fired him last year. ...

Helping him, he says, are his three invisible companions. "Angel" is the neutral force, he says. "Armand" is a benign influence. "Luis," whom Mr. Floro describes as the "king of kings," is an avenger.

Oh my.

While it's not common in these parts for adults to claim that they're in regular contact with invisible elves, apparently, in the Philippines, an elf (or "duwende") is as plausible a critter as a vampire -- which is to say, lots of folks believe in them. Still, it would seem that it was an unusual enough thing for a trial-court judge to claim that it made judicial officials uncomfortable. That their medical clinic determined Mr. Floro suffers from psychosis can't have helped, either.

In 1999, Mr. Floro invited officials from the Supreme Court's administration unit to inspect his small courtroom. What they found unnerved them, and the Supreme Court convened a hearing to determine whether Mr. Floro should be removed from the bench.

According to Supreme Court papers, the court investigators presenting evidence at the hearing said they found Mr. Floro wearing blue robes instead of the normal black. Mr. Floro's own witnesses testified that he wore black on Fridays to "recharge his psychic powers."

The court investigators also reported that Mr. Floro began court proceedings with readings from the Book of Revelation and conducted hands-on psychic healing sessions for members of the public in his chambers during recesses. The investigators said Mr. Floro would sometimes enter a trance to write his rulings.

During the hearing, Mr. Floro revealed his contact with his elves.

As I read it, this seems to be saying that there were worries about Mr. Floro's performance prior to the revelation that Angel, Armand, and Luis were in the picture. (Who knew that blue robes would be an issue?) But it doesn't sound like this additional information about the elves counted as a positive for his competence on the bench.

Should they be counted against his competence? If Mr. Floro hadn't been performing psychic surgery on the job, reading from the Book of Revelations in the courtroom, and wearing those non-regulation blue judicial robes, would his belief in the elves be reason enough to remove him from the bench? Mr. Floro argues that it would not:

Mr. Floro says he never consulted the invisible elves over judicial decisions and the fact that he puts faith in them should make no difference to his career. "It shouldn't matter what I believe in, whether it's Jesus, Muhammad, or Luis, Armand and Angel," he says in an interview.

In other words, Mr. Floro is arguing that his faith in the elves is a personal matter, and something quite distinct from his job performance as a trial judge. In the case that he really was making his rulings on the basis of sound principles of jurisprudence, would it be possible to count his elfin inclinations as idiosyncratic but irrelevant?

Or is the belief in elves necessarily a sign of a state of mind incompatible with sound judicial reasoning in the real world we all share?*

In March 2006, after lengthy delays, the Supreme Court finally dismissed Mr. Floro from the court service, largely because of his belief in the supernatural. Even though Mr. Floro says the elves played no part in his judicial decisions, the Supreme Court justices said his broad faith in mysticism and supernatural phenomena had affected his work. "Lest we be misconstrued, we do not denigrate such a belief system," Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario wrote in the Supreme Court's verdict. "However, such beliefs, especially since Judge Floro acted on them, are at odds with the critical and impartial thinking required of a judge under our judicial system."

If I'm reading this right, the Supreme Court's verdict seems to indicate that Mr. Floro was acting on his belief in the three invisible elves in the course of his duties as a trial judge. Does this mean that they weren't influencing his rulings but, say, he acknowledged their presence in the courtroom? (I'm guessing that might wig out defendants.) Surely, there are more components of the job performance of a trial judge than the authorities he consults when writing his decisions.

But if Mr. Floro had better compartmentalized his work life and his personal life, would we (or the Supreme Court of the Philippines) be OK with his continued service as a trial judge?

It strikes me that there's a tension here not unlike that in the Marcus Ross case. On the one hand, our confidence in a particular methodology for decision making (whether scientific or judicial) makes us inclined to say that deploying that methodology will get us reasonably objective and impartial results that have relatively little to do with the details of which particular people are using that method. On the other hand, there are some beliefs that strike us as pretty likely to compromise objectivity and impartiality.

It would be nice to have some empirical data on how compatible elf-belief is with competent exercise of jurisprudence, or of the scientific method. As well, getting some independent confirmation of Mr. Floro's psychosis (to make sure there were other indicators besides elf-belief) would be useful. Otherwise, our inclination to take elf-belief as a disqualification from being a judge (or a scientist) looks like an attractive hypothesis without a whole lot of support.

_____
*I suspect some folks would want to make an appeal to community standards here (where Mr. Floro lives in a community in which his belief in the elves is not so outrageous), and others will respond that judges and others with significant authority in society must rise above community standards and try to latch onto something more truth-like. I see the intuitive appeal of each of these positions.

Categories

More like this

It was clearly an elf and safety matter.

I don't think there's any way you can defend a standard whereby believing in and consulting with elves is "necessarily a sign of a state of mind incompatible with sound judicial reasoning in the real world we all share", but believing in and consulting with God isn't.

The psychosis thing, though. That probably should be considered a showstopper.

That hot dog stand would of course be Top Dog, the libertarian hot dog vendor.

If the judge really does compartmentalize the elf beliefs, then I'd be inclined to say that they shouldn't disqualify him. I would guess that a very large proportion of people who are in such positions have some set of beliefs or other that are equally ludicrous, and we don't want to disqualify all of them. Of course, we'd want very good evidence that the beliefs really are compartmentalized once we find out about them.

I observed, as did an attorney with which I was associated, a Superior Court Judge in California state on the record that he refused to read a 100+ page document in the day's hearing "because it was filed yesterday."

The fact was, according to the document itself and the clerk's date stamp, that it was filed 9 days earlier, not "yesterday."

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and paid the attorney to appear again on the same matter.

"Your honor," began the attorney in the Motion to Reconsider, "The Court believed..."

The Judge interrupted. "I believed?"

"You are the Court.." continued the attorney, and was cut off again.

"There being no new facts, this motion for reconsideration is denied," said the Judge. And he banged his gavel, ending the hearing.

In the Minute Order, this was described as" Counsel argue. There being no new facts, this motion for reconsideration was denied."

I asked a clerk in another department. "Does Judge Xxxxxx sometimes not know what day it is?"

The clerk rolled her eyes. "I'm pretty new here, but even I know about him. Poor man."

Is this better or worse than belief in elves?

The tragic irony is that this was a lawsuit about Legal Malpractice, where Plaintiff's attorney was fairly good, until more and more frequent lapses of memory.

On my suggestion, Plaintiff filed another Motion for Reconsideration, deeming the old, un-read document, to constitute New Information, the Court not having considered it before. Plaintiff also explicitly pointed out the appearance of bias, where it seemed that a judge with memory or cognitive problems was in abuse of discretion to protect a defendant with memory or cognitive problems -- who just happened to have gone to the same law school. "I would prefer to deral with this here," wrote Plaintiff, "but if this motion is denied, I will have no choice but to take this matter before the Appellate Court for more public analysis."

The case is now in Appellate Court.

I've read about more egregious Judge misbehavior, but this is what I SAW with my own eyes, so I give it greater weight of evidence.

Again, Is this better or worse than belief in elves?

Vampires are more plausible than elves in the US?
Oh my.....

My wording wasn't clear enough -- elves are as plausible in the Philippines as vampires are in the Philippines, and apparently there are a fair number of vampire reports in the Philippines.

Possibly, though, the effect of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and the declining status of the Keebler elves and Snap, Crackle, and Pop) is such that more Americans believe in vampires than elves.

Kids these days ...

Since I'm moving to the US, I was starting to feel a bit nervous.....

No worries, it is just that the elf thing is euphemized into the socially acceptable "that little voice in my head" in our culture.

Can I ask a stupid question? (And get it answered...)

What is the appropriate use of prima facie vs. a priori? I know what the direct translation of each would be, but I've never really been comfortable with when to use one and not the other (not that it comes up a lot).

Sorry, it's just bothered me for a while and seeing it in the title...I had to ask.

By yukon slim (not verified) on 22 Sep 2007 #permalink

Judge Floro's Blog:

http://angelofdeathluisarmandandangel.blogspot.com/

Judge Floro's 27 Philippine TV documentaries on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=judge+floro

Judge Floro's Auto / Article User Page on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentino_Floro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Florentino_floro

Judge Floro's 27 pages, 34, 000 views, 1, 400 replies Legendary thread on RUSH Counterparts Message Board:

http://www.rushmessageboard.com/cpmb/index.php?showtopic=2112&st=1300&s…

Judge Floro's email and yahoo messenger:

judge_florentino_v_floro@yahoo.com

judgefloro@yahoo.com

Judge Floro's contact numbers:

Celphone No. secretary Belen:

0927-3440957

digitel Philippines land line

(044) 662-8203