Let's say a Judge overseeing a high profile case in which a protest group ... [View all]

[Fantastic Anarchist]

Let's say a Judge overseeing a high profile case in which a protest or dissenting group has been charged with trumped up charges by the government, under the overly broad powers of the Patriot Act or other quasi-legal statute.

Then let's say, for a moment, that this Judge is not squeaky clean in his personal life. Say he beats his wife, cheats on her, or hasn't paid enough taxes, or took a small bribe way back when. Let's say he's done something a little more egregious; say he's a pedophile who's had "conversations with kids" on the internet, or you can think of anything equally or more egregious; let your imagination soar.

Say that a majority of the citizenry sympathize with the dissent group. The ideas that this group advocate are anathema to the surveillance state, and the government's powers to fight the "War on Terror." Say this group is gaining clout from the population at large.

Let's say that by all accounts, the prosecution is not making its case against this dissent group, and as a matter of private conversation with his wife, the Judge leans towards acquitting said group.

Enter some men in black suits, who have monitored any of the aforementioned activities this Judge has ever done.

They pay the Judge a little visit as the day the verdict is to be rendered is near.

The day of the verdict, the Judge reads his finding that the dissenting group is guilty, despite absence of evidence, and his own personal (secret feelings).

Having information is power. Having it can certainly influence behavior, and it can quell dissent.

Just my two cents.