Now that the salacious facts have been devoured, what are the salient questions?

Should a chief justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, Frank Williams, have used unconstitutional administrative powers to hire a deputy sheriff as a putative servant, and as a pretext for a “home invasion”?

Had the chief justice, like former chief justices, only exercised his limited judicial powers to adjudicate controversies, and to assign cases for deliberation, and otherwise not have used unconstitutional executive powers to hire a public servant as a personal servant, would the privacy of a Johnston family have been disrupted?

Are the obligations of the state constitution still sacred obligations?

In 1843, in the preamble to the Rhode Island Constitution, the voters spoke: “We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution of government.”

Rhode Island Constitution, § 1, states: “In the words of the Father of his Country, we declare that ‘the basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and alter their constitutions of government; but that the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.’ ”

In November 2004, the voters again spoke clearly through the passage of Separation of Powers constitutional amendments, which essentially declared that only the governor administers, only the legislature shall pass laws and that the judiciary shall only adjudicate. None shall interfere with the exclusive powers of the other.

In other words, judges are to have no constitutional power to administer. Otherwise, judges are then adjudicating what they administer. That is a constitutional conflict of interest. That is a violation of the principle of checks and balances.

From holding a federal presidential position to misappropriating tax money for gold leaf and for personal chauffeurs, the former chief justice has violated the will of the people. Those are the salient facts. Frank Williams may be gone, but his unconstitutional administrative statutes remain.

There has been an unspoken ongoing unholy patronage alliance between the General Assembly and the former leadership of the judicial branch, which must end.

Legislative friends and former staffers are appointed as alleged judges in needless statutory courts, such as the Workers Compensation Court and the Traffic Tribunal, and are also placed in other unneeded quasi-judicial positions, such as pseudo-judges called magistrates. Those legislative actions are taken without the approval of the Rhode Island Judicial Nominating Commission, or of the governor. In exchange, the General Assembly has delegated unconstitutional gubernatorial powers of administration to the position of chief judge of the Workers Compensations Court, to the position of chief magistrate of the Traffic Tribunal, and to the position of presiding justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Like defensive members of a closed fraternity, pandering judges and members of the Department of the Attorney General now defend that unholy alliance on the basis that no citizen has standing to challenge those blatant violations of the separation of powers. The “public servants” now want to protect their unconstitutional posts as the “public masters.”

Perhaps if enough voters have chips on their shoulders regarding insider abuse of constitutional power, the constitutional rights of the people might be restored. Does anyone want to join a “vendetta” on behalf of the constitutional rights of the people of Rhode Island?