Remove judges who ... are not smarter than a 5th grader
... is the primary force in elections.
With so much going on in everyone's lives outside the election of judges, very rarely is the public informed enough to make an informed decision when an attorney is first up for election as a judge, resulting in party-line votes without any substantive evaluation of the candidates.
But in the Kings County Supreme Court, they must come up for re-election every 14 years for Supreme Court and 10 years for Civil Court.
After a decade or more of being a judge, one has ought have more than party-backing to go by.
Until recently, reviews of how a judge did during his or her 10/14 year term were hard to come by.
Now we present scorecard of sorts.
Many things are subjective and open to judicial discretion.
But, any judge who fails at basic math needs to get the pronto heave-ho.
Quite simply, they get paid too much to get dispositive facts, facts upon which decisions are based, and, upon which years of litigants lives are based, wrong.
In one case we have seen a judge not get that 110/3, or 36.66, is less than 110/2, or 55, and, thereby, screwing a party.
In another case, we have seen a judge state that a document with a court date-time stamp of October 26 happened before a document with a date-time stamp of October 19.
Now, one would think, judges are human, too, am I right?
Maybe, but, if that is the case, they should correct the bad math decisions when they are brought to the court's attention.
If they fail to correct, especially if the litigant being harmed (lost the decision), such judges need to go.
There are many tricks of the judicial trade. Any court that utilizes such tricks, needs to go post haste.
- Bad math. get simple math wrong and fail to correct.
- Refusing to provide a court reporter (guaranteed at trial, guaranteed at hearings when requested) by selectively quoting a case with words, however limited, that make the court's desired point without reviewing the context (is case on point) and whether the cases cited IN the case they cite say the same thing they purport.
- Holding hearings in chambers. Can't be bothered to hold public hearings.
- Failing to address arguments raised in oral argument.
- Failing to address arguments raised in papers.
- Giving opposition hints at what to ask for.
- Citing incomplete portions of decisions out of context.
Unforgivable uncorrected judicial sins:
- Failed to see that that the Plaintiff noticed Defendants in March of 2011 to appear in April of 2001, yup a decade in the past. Why is this critical? Lack of statutory notice never invokes the power of the court for the motion. Negative is pretty much, by any conceivable logic, less than statutory notice.
- When looking outside the record to help developer Plaintiff, failed to address the impact of looking outside the record, that the Plaintiff had never served any notice of motions on the attorney for Defendants, an attorney whose presence in the case the Plaintiff had hidden from the court (by swearing under penalty of perjury that there had been no interaction with the defendants, a lie, apparently).
- Refuses to hold open public hearings.
- Refuses to have a court reporter at hearings citing a case not on point, that in and of itself, cites cases that find exactly the opposite, that the right to a court reporter is mandatory at trial and waivable at hearings, and, if not waived, must be provided.
- Commits perjury to appellate court to back up failure to provide court reporter.
Unforgivable uncorrected judicial sins:
- Found, and refused to correct, finding that 19 > 26.
- Cited an 8 year old colleague's case that had never, ever, Ever, EVER been cited before for the proposition that a case abandoned by plaintiff inaction becomes un-abandoned by defendant inaction when the court's own case, and cited 128 times in the same eight years, says that you can't use evidence put in after a decision, that was always in your possession, to back up that decision when the decision is challenged. I know that is word salad but it really boils down to the court cannot later use what was not before it as the basis to support a decision made without that new evidence. The court cannot go outside the record.
- Cited a 5 part standard to uphold a contempt finding but then addressed only 4 prongs, leaving out the requirement that an order be in effect in order to have contempt of that order.
If not now, then when?
Several judges are up for re-election. Almost all sitting judges get similar vote counts.
Take a moment to think about if you approve of what these two judges have done.
And ,whether by refusing to put their name on your ballot or by putting in a clearly bogus name, drop the vote count for these judges.
If you are an attorney for ten years in New York State and you think you would do a better job than theses people, contact us.
Maybe, on the eve of voting we will push out the name for people to vote for.
Even if you lose, we, and others, now know who you are and you will get more votes next go round.