JRN ANNOUNCES "TOP 12 MISTAKES JUDGES MAKE" THAT LEAD TO SANCTION OR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Free-Press-Release.com) February 17, 2012 --

1

JRN ANNOUNCES "TOP 12 MISTAKES JUDGES MAKE" THAT LEAD TO SANCTION OR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE

Welcome visit Our WebSite:

http://WWW.ENDDISCRIMINATIONNOW.COM

New York, N.Y, February 15th, 2012.: Judicial Reform Now, the nation's top judicial reform advocacy group, revealed the findings of its study of select Case Dispositions in New York State and Palm Beach County courts. JRN estimates that roughly a third to a half of all judges have either "fixed" a case or aided in the cover up of one. JRN stated that these findings were based upon anecdotal data from litigants across the country and from reviewing hundreds of judicial orders across virtually all courts from NYS to Miami to California. The following constitutes the essence of their findings. JRN stated that they welcomed input from attorneys and judges who might be able to supplement these observations or correct them if necessary:

/i Acting in a Clear Absence of Jurisdiction /i;. Many judges have become so sloppy in their handling of cases that they fail to even verify that they have jurisdiction when they are delegated a case. When a judge acts outside their jurisdiction, their orders are automatically a "nullity"/i in inceptio/i. A judge does not have jurisdiction to intervene into their own settlement especially to advance a coerced deal, nor does a successor judge have jurisdiction to order "legal fees" on a case where the prior judge 'closed the docket" to one of the parties while allowing the other to file, nor does a judge have jurisdiction on appeal to change a jury verdict unless there is NO evidence that would lead a rational jury to the same finding. When judges act outside their jurisdiction, they render their decisions Null and Void, subject to vacature at any time. This conversion of verdicts is a fraud upon the Tax Payers who usually have to fund double costs of the deception.

/iFailing to Evaluate & Manage Case Economics & Risks /i;. Under the current system, judges are not held accountable for Case Economics, which have to be balanced by effective performance. This leads to judges building up excessive charges on a case that, in hindsight, could have been avoided by placing the case on an streamlined trajectory.. All judges should be trained in, and held accountable fo,r strategic case disposition. JRN will provide coaching in future communications. Courts currently usually handle these situations by dismissing the case, and by engaging one of the attorneys to aid in a conspiracy to devise pretexts for the same. The latter can often lead to obstruction of justice and conspiracy to defraud charges for the judges and lawyers, and extensive damage to the litigant including the complete demolishment of the his/her Due Process rights.

/i Adopting Errors of Defense Counsel, Prior Judges /i. The Judiciary is a consensus culture where legal precedent governs. However, many judges fail (often intentionally) to ascertain whether the prior judge had jurisdiction or rendered an accurate or unbiased decision. It is no secret that many judges r"adopt" favored party briefs, usually Defense Counsel, to expedite their case dispostion. This dangerous practice is a form of "case fixing" and clearly provides unfair advantage to the party who "Case Sits while violating the Due Process rights of the other party. "Adopting" the mistakes of attorneys can lead to egregious legal errors. The 2nd Circuit has been deployinng this flawed device routinely with disastrous results.

/i Disregarding Rules of Evidence/i : Rampant speculation often replaces 'facts" in many judidical decisions and is one of the first signs of "case fixing". "When the factual record is disrespected, the judge goes beyond abuse of /discretion. Frequently a judge who speculates or worse renders outright false statements about a party or a case, not only has a bias but often alters the evidentiary record rendering it impossible to appeal. On appeal, many judges (Chief Justice Lippman is a classic example) use "sufficiency" arguments to justify recreation the evidentiary record to reweight and reclassify the evidence. "It's tampering with evidence and its a felony in NYS", Jordan said. "Further, many judges have biases or agendas and manipulate evidence to "conform" the record to that bias". In extreme cases, a case fixing judge will allow one party discovery, and preclude the unfavored party from the same. This is a complete violation of Due Process law. All judges are required to conform to the Rules of Evidence and are precluded from speculating as to how they might have responded or, on appeal, how they might have ruled if they were the jury.

/i Failing to Recuse Where Bias or Improper Influence Is Apparent/i;. Most judges fear recusal and some even refuse to recuse when it is apparent that a bias has precluded the ability of the judge to rule impartiality. Recusal is not discretionary and should usually be granted. Judges who refuse to recuse, especially those who try to use the request to justify abuse of discretion, are violating Disqualifcation Laws. Litigants know that a judge must hear their case and that a change in judge is never favorable, but sometimes necessary if there is improper influence or a clear bias.

/i Propounding Arguments Based on Incorrect Law/i. Half of the Opinions issued by judges reviewed were based on the wrong Standard of Review and cited case law that either failed to support their argument or proved the opposite. This abuse was noted as high as the Second Circuit.

/i Failing to Properly Define "The Law of the Case" /i: It's almost unimaginable that a judge would advance a case, often to trial, without having a firm understanding of the "Law of the Case" and all relevant and governing standards, but this is usually what happens Without an overriding legal theory for a case, it's like a ship leaving port without a sail plan.

/i Failing to Conduct Sufficient Early Discovery, Relying on Speculation /i. Judges are not planning or enforcing strategic discovery plans and are delegating this critical function back to the attorneys or failing to address it altogether. Judges who fail to address discovery plans early on cannot blame litigants when a case derails. This is also a Due Process violation so if a case is not dismissed sua sponte, a judge better define and compel a discovery plan.

/i Dismissing Meritorious Cases and Using Wrong MTD Criteria /i. A large number of cases today, especially Pro Se or Individual cases are dismissed in Motions to Dismiss Or Summary Judgment. The greatest mistake is when the Sua Sponte is abused and misapplied. "The Sua Sponte tool was envisioned by the Twombly Court as a useful tool to prune meritless cases from judicial dockets, which it technically is. However, in less than competent hands, it has been used to bludgeon meritorious cases by incompetent or neophyte judges. This means that this tool needs to be rethought and greater guidance provided. In the interim, questionable decisions should be put aside.

/i Over Reliance On Settlement to Manage Dockets /i. "Judges are addicted to Settlement", JRN President Jordan stated. "They settle 95% of their cases. It is a common myth that Settlement is the only mechanism by which judges can prune unweildy dockets. In fact, proper case management tools can drive a case to an expedited conclusion. Structured Settlements ("Mini Trials") are far more effective and less risky for judges than unwarranted dismissal. "
.

/i Failing to Verify & Authenticate Factual Records/i:. It is apparent across a majority of cases reviewed that Judges are not only not doing "de novo" reviews, they are not doing any fact checking and relying upon Defense attorneys for records. In some instances, judges are actually directing attorneys to alter records and dockets. When the Chief Justice of the New York Court System feels entitled to change the facts of a case on appeal, or the First Department routinely alters the weighting of evidence after a jury has rendered its verdict, even after being warned about "discretionary balancing". Judicial activism has reached a new low and poses a threat to the very integrity of the judicial system.

/i Kicking Problems Up to the Appeals Court/i: So many judges today know that they have made serious legal errors and mismanaged a case, but selfishly 'kick it upstairs" to their Appellate division, often with nasty remarks about appeals courts. Judges who rely upon appellate review are judges looking for a job.

/i Failing to Enforce Laws /i: The primary task of a judge is to interpret and enforce relevant laws, yet increasingly Judges are disregarding legal precedent, imposing their biases, and dumping meritorious cases, . This often leads them to exact Extra Judicial acts which render their decisions Void and their acts abusives of discretion & Judiciary Law.. There also is a reluctance to enforce damages even as the US Supreme Court has made great strides in clarifying and strengthening discrimination laws and "Make Whole" damages. This means that Appellate Courts are subverting the advances in key areas like Civil Rights and Discrimination. Judges who fail to enforce the Laws, or worse subvert them, must be removed from office.

Case Fixing, or the unlawful manipulation of the outcome of a case by a judge, usually with a bias or political agenda,including economic or career advancement, is unlawful and any judge who disrespects their judicial oaths and engages in a case fixing agenda will not receive raises, appointments, promotions and could be targeted for Impeachment hearings if the charges are serious enough.

Weak judicial leadership, lack of effective Regulation, & rampant attorney misconduct must be addressed before Judicial Reform can begin, JRN concluded. Ultimately, judges must be held accountable for their conduct if they wish to be rewarded for their performance. Judicial independence must be weighed with Accountability

More information can be found online at http://WWW.ENDDISCRIMINATIONNOW.COM

case fixing     case management     Chief Justice Lippman     discrimination     judicial accountability     Judicial Conduct Commission     Judicial Disqualification     judicial misconduct