Author Grant Langdon grew up in Copake, New York, in the house built in 1687 by one of his ancestors who settled an 80 acre farm under a feudal lease given by Lord Robert Livingston on his 160,000 acre manor. Livingston provided the livestock for the livestock share lease and bound a young slave to the farm to help with the construction of the house, clearing and working the land and constructing the road to the manor. After Grant graduated from Iowa State University he came home to operate a 380 acre dairy farm that included part of the original farm. His first book, “Scandal in the Courtroom: Found Guilty without Trial,” tells what happened in his pleasant farming community when a serial arsonist terrified its people during the 1980’s and 90’s. The arsonist also burned three of the author’s barns. The local sheriff seemed neither able nor willing to act when the author, as County Farm Bureau President, discovered a secret. The resulting conflict with the sheriff landed the author’s 19 year old son in court and ended a 300 year link to his land. Subsequently, Grant relocated to Cincinnati and now works at Lowe’s. Grant Langdon has just completed writing “Rebels of the North: How Land Policy Caused the Civil War,” which is expected to be available at the end of June. This new work traces the origin of Livingston Manor through the conflict over land ownership that started in the 1750’s. The hard–won conflict of rebellious farmers was legacy for a new generation, ready to do battle with the plantation south over development of the Western Land.

Scandal in the Courtroom: Found Guilty without Trial

Narrative nonfiction by Grant Dinehart Langdon

John Adams was a small man, but if he could observe our courts today, the ground would rumble with an earth–shaking force as he burst forth in protest from his grave. The jury trial, he understood, was what made America free. The American people — not King George’s judges — would determine guilt and punishment. Hence our Constitution places the power in the hands of the common person and not the government judge.

Today, however, what I call “Club Justice” places a privileged few beyond the reach of the law. They are our Federal Judges, who can take a bribe or rule as they wish, rendering the common man unprotected. I speak from experience. While the VII^th Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial for damages in excess of $20, it is no longer enforced. In practice, a Summary Judgment Motion ruled on by a judge can block a jury trial. I believe that violates our Constitution.

My son and I ran our family’s 380–acre dairy farm in rural Copake, New York, where a serial arsonist attacked many buildings, including three of our barns. The local Sheriff grew up in the community and the series of arsons placed him in a predicament. He was being pressured to arrest a person he knew. I told a reporter for the New York Times that a firefighter had failed a lie detector test given by the Sheriff. When asked about the test, the Sheriff declined comment. However, one week later, the Sheriff forced my son to sign a confession statement and then arrested him for burning our own family barns. That silenced my protest.

During a hearing questioning the legality of the confession the District Attorney was shaken when witnesses for the prosecution testified to the illegal and deliberate deception used to force the confession. The District Attorney investigated further and learned that a prior investigation had established that a badly burned man, probably known by the Sheriff, had started the fire. Incredibly, the District Attorney then dropped the charges before trial.

In Federal District Court, Judge Munson found for the Sheriff on a Summery Judgment Motion. He rejected a motion for a hearing on my son’s forced confession and ruled that the arrest had been proper because of the “confession.” Judge Munson pointed out that no affidavit, which was required from my son, had been presented. He then made his ruling final, which blocked the needed affidavit from being introduced for an appeal. I was in the courtroom and made my presence known by pointing out that an investigation had established that another person had started the fire. Nevertheless, Judge Munson stuck with his decision and implied I could sue my lawyer if I didn’t like his decision.

Judge Munson similarly disposed of three other cases that I heard him hand down. In each of these cases, he told the losing side the deficiencies that he found. Then he made all of these cases final within twenty days. This gave the losing side only twenty days to repair the deficiencies, such as missing affidavits. In this case, it is clear that he had no intention of allowing my son’s missing affidavit to be presented for his consideration, let alone to allow an appeal. This case illustrates that judges have too much power without reasonable accountability or effective oversight.

My book, “Scandal in the Courtroom: Found Guilty without Trial,” tells the whole story, which emphasizes the need for complaints of judicial misconduct to be investigated by someone other than another judge. It proposes that this role be assigned to the Inspector General of the Department of Justice.