>’Kennedy Lied, But What’s New?’

>We’ll get to the point.

When Kennedy announced from the bench in open court that the Danny Tate conservatorship was terminated nunc pro tunc (now for then), it was a calculated lie. He had no intention of terminating the conservatorship, he just wanted the bad press and supporters to go away.

The Temporary Letters of Conservator have yet to be dissolved. In other words, the Tate conservatorship was NEVER terminated.

Kennedy’s robes are almost laughable except for the horrific results forced upon the citizens he’s supposed to serve. Kennedy does not serve the people, he serves attorneys and politicians. He’s been given control of quite a deep purse of other people’s money and has no problem giving it away.

Source:
ImpeachRandyKennedy

>2010 State Judicial Discipline

>In 2010, as a result of state judicial discipline proceedings, seven judges or former judges were removed from office. In addition, 18 judges resigned or retired in lieu of discipline, pursuant to agreements with judicial conduct commissions that were made public, and agreed not to serve in judicial office again. One former judge was barred from serving in judicial office in the state again.

100 additional judges (or former judges in approximately six cases) received other public sanctions in 2010. (Two judges are counted twice because they were disciplined twice). In approximately half of those cases, the discipline was imposed pursuant to the consent of the judge.

Seventeen judge were suspended without pay, ranging from five days to one year, two of which were stayed in whole or in part with conditions. Nine of those suspensions included a censure, reprimand, fine, or probation. In addition, 17 judges were publicly censured; one of the censures was “severe,” one censured former judge also agreed not to serve again, one censure was based on the judge’s agreement to resign, and one censure also barred a former judge from serving in judicial office again.

Conduct commissions publicly reprimanded 42 judges (one reprimand also included a $5,000 fine, and one included a $6,000 fine), publicly admonished 19 judges, and publicly warned one judge. Three former judges were sanctioned in attorney discipline proceedings for conduct while they were judges. One judge was ordered to pay a $2,400 civil penalty.

Those figures do not include pending recommendations or decisions that were pending on appeal at the end of 2010, two of which have been decided in 2011.

Article and Source:
2010 State Judicial Discipline

>A Different Kind of Story

>From the judge’s bench of any family court, the view of the world is rarely a pretty one. It is of splintered dreams and tarnished vows and the frustration and fury that inevitably follows.

One day in 1999, Judge Robert Scandurra had a view of something else as well. A divorced couple had been squabbling over child support and time with their 11-year-old son, but what Scandurra saw more clearly was that their lawyers couldn’t stand the sight of each other.

So Scandurra did something he had never done before and has rarely done since. He asked if he could meet with the mother and father alone in chambers, and their lawyers, to his surprise, agreed.

Over the next two hours, the judge and parents hashed through support payments, a parenting schedule, and a whole lot else. Toward the end of the session, the relieved parents, Jeff and Caroline, said they were trying to encourage their son, Vincent, to pick up a sport. Scandurra urged them to think of wrestling, elaborating on his days on the mat in high school and college. Both parents seemed to grab the idea and Scandurra, to his relief, never saw them in his court again.

When a judge makes a mistake, it’s often front-page news, film at 11, here we go again with an activist judiciary overstepping its bounds. It’s easy to forget, or to never realize, that every day, in quiet ways, judges can make a difference in people’s lives.

Full Article and Source:
A Good Match

>Ciavarella Found GUILTY!

>Former Luzerne County Common Pleas Court Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. has been found guilty of 12 of 39 counts of corruption filed against him, a federal jury in Scranton announced today.

The 12 men and women, who deliberated for an estimated 12.5 hours, returned to U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Edwin M. Kosik’s courtroom to announce their findings, which included decisions that Ciavarella was guilty of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, honest services mail fraud, money laundering conspiracy and a host of tax fraud charges. Ciavarella was cleared of extortion, bribery and honest services wire fraud charges, however.

In the indictment, Ciavarella was charged with racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, four counts of honest services wire fraud, four counts of honest services mail fraud, 10 counts of corrupt receipt of bribe/reward for official action concerning programs receiving federal funds, money laundering conspiracy, five counts of money laundering, eight counts of extortion under color of official right, conspiracy to defraud the United States and four counts of subscribing and filing a materially false tax return.

Ciavarella admitted during testimony on Tuesday that he was, in fact, guilty of filing false tax returns for tax years 2003, 2005 and 2006 as alleged by prosecutors. Prosecutors also argued during trial that Ciavarella filed a false return for tax year 2004, but Ciavarella is disputing that charge.

He fought the majority of the charges by arguing that the kickback alleged by prosecutors was no more than a finder’s fee paid by Mericle as a thank you for putting him in touch with Powell. He fought the extortion claims by attempting to insulate himself from the actions of fellow former Luzerne County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael T. Conahan and claiming that any money paid by Powell was for the use of a condominium owned by a company controlled by the former judges’ wives.

Conahan, who faced an equally damning indictment and opted to plead guilty to one racketeering charge in relation to the alleged crimes, was a name that arose often during the trial. He was, however, conspicuously absent in person.

Neither side called him as a witness.

Full Article and Source:
Ciavarella Guilty of Racketeering

>New York: Judicial Bad Behavior

>One judge who was driving drunk led the police on a half-mile chase, and when he was pulled over, asked for “professional courtesy.”

Another said “good boy” when a man who wanted to file a lawsuit made an insulting comment about Jews.

A third repeatedly jailed people without any trial and talked at length from the bench about how the decoration on a woman’s T-shirt made him think of a male sex organ. “I’m bringing down the house,” said the judge, Gilbert L. Abramson of Family Court in Saratoga County, evidently delighted with his own humor.

Those are a few of the cases that were handled over the last year by a secretive state agency, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, that is at the center of a new dispute about the state’s judicial-discipline system. Last week, the 77,000-member New York State Bar Association called for major changes in the commission’s structure and operations after a Manhattan lawyers’ group criticized the panel as unfair to judges.

The state bar association’s position is expected to set off a campaign in Albany to change the system in ways that could make it more difficult to remove judges, for example by allowing them to question investigators’ witnesses before a hearing. The proposal would also break the commission into two separate agencies, one to prosecute judges and another to rule on the charges. It is also likely to prompt the first detailed review in decades of the way the state handles the roughly 1,800 complaints made against judges every year.

The complaints filed with the 11-member commission vary from nuisance accusations by people who lost cases to sobering claims about judges’ fixing cases and ignoring constitutional rights, the agency’s reports show. Because of the power wielded by the state’s 3,500 full- and part-time judges, any system of policing them would be delicate.

In an interview this week, the chairman of the commission, Thomas A. Klonick, criticized as “unfortunate and kind of distressing” the way the Manhattan lawyers’ group, the New York County Lawyers’ Association, had reached its conclusions that the system was unfair to judges. “I believe they don’t understand the process of how the commission works,” said Mr. Klonick, a lawyer and part-time town judge in Perinton, N.Y., near Rochester.

The president of the Manhattan lawyers’ association, James B. Kobak Jr., said his group had consulted people widely, but “beyond that I really don’t care to respond.”

But the comments of Mr. Klonick, a Republican appointed to the commission by the state’s chief judge, showed that the effort to change the state’s judicial-discipline system is likely to meet resistance as the debate begins in Albany.

Full Article and Source:
Sex Joke and Other Judicial Bad Behavior

>Judge Them in Open Court

>Some New York judges seem to believe they don’t get a fair shake from the agency that polices their actions on the bench. There is one way to find out for sure:

The Legislature should open Commission on Judicial Conduct proceedings to view. All its hearings should be public once the panel has found grounds to vote charges against a judge.

The commission supports openness, as does every court-watching organization in the state. Only the judges balk at lifting the secrecy that bars the panel from releasing any information except a final order of discipline.

Despite this protection, judges complained that the commission has too much power to act against them. They got the ear of the New York County Lawyers Association, which in turn got the attention of the state bar association.

Ever friendly to its judicial brethren, the association is asking Albany to give judges consideration beyond the wildest dreams of due process.

Its proposals include requiring the commission to give judges early notice of probes, as well as almost full access to the work of investigators. The group also calls for limits on the panel’s power to expand probes and for taxpayers to bankroll expenses judges incur in defending themselves.

These are not worth a moment’s thought. But opening the process to sunlight after the commission has filed charges – a step ignored by the association – would enhance confidence that judges and the public alike are being treated justly.

Source:
Judge Them in Open Court: Legislature Should Open Commission on Judicial Conduct Proceedings to View

>Nevada Judges the Judges

>2010 Report: A biennial survey of local attorneys rating judges; Supreme Court justices

A total of 796 respondents completed online evaluation ballots and were qualified to be included in the statistical calculations and results in this biennial survey conducted by the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The survey has been published every other year since 1992 as a public service.

Source:Facebook: HALT

Read the Supreme Court Report

Clark County District Court Criminal/Cival Division

Clark County District Court Family Division

Clark County Justice Courts

Municipal Courts

Survey Questionnaire

2008 Report

>Red Flags in the Jerry Eckwood Guardianship

>Red flags shot up all over the Jerry Eckwood case file.

First, Christina Norris is attorney for the Petitioner. Ms. Norris is a campaign contributor to Judge Kennedy’s unopposed “re-election”. In a study of Judge Kennedy’s rulings, no campaign contributor has EVER been ruled against.

Second, Paul Gonterak, appointed Guardian Ad Litem, is a campaign contributor to Judge Kennedy’s unopposed “re-election”. It’s obvious from his report that he is cooperating with Ms. Norris and the Probate racket.

We spoke with Jerry Eckwood on the telephone several times. He’s got a great memory for someone diagnosed with dementia. He is contesting the conservatorship. Contesting a conservatorship is another great way for Kennedy to clean out your account.

Judge Kennedy often announces from the bench in open court that “there are more conservatorships in this court than any other court in the state”. I’m not sure he should be bragging about this, but seems to constantly be ruling as if he’s protected. And maybe he is, but not from public scrutiny.

Source:
ImpeachRandyKennedy

>First Week of ‘Kids-for-Cash" Trial Concluded

>With former Judge Michael T. Conahan’s personal tax preparer about to answer questions about returns in 2006, U.S. District Judge Edwin M. Kosik told prosecutors they would stop at 2005 for the day.

After about two hours of financial testimony, Kosik said he understands the attorney’s jobs, but “I don’t hesitate in commenting that you have been punishing us all day.”

He adjourned court for the weekend at 4 p.m., cautioning jurors to avoid any media reports or other conversations about the trial.

Testimony is expected to resume at 8:45 a.m. in the federal courthouse in Scranton [tomorrow]. It is unclear who the prosecution intends to call next. Potential witnesses who have not appeared during the first four days of the trial include former probation officer Sandra M. Brulo, former court administrator William T. Sharkey and people familiar with the juvenile court practices.

Conahan is not expected to to testify, as a source says prosecutors decided they see him as “too big a liability.”

Full Article and Source:
Trial Update: First Week of Testimony Concluded

>Indiana SB 312: Judges Should Have Law Degree

>The Indiana trial court system has several types of courts: circuit, superior, small claims and one probate court. In 2009, 1.5 million cases were filed in those courts, and all of the cases were heard by judges who are lawyers. Those judges are in good standing with disciplinary authorities and licensed to practice law in Indiana.

Indiana also has about 75 city and town courts. In 2009, 375,000 cases, including criminal misdemeanors and speeding tickets, were heard in these courts. Not all of the judges in those courts are lawyers. Some cities and towns do not require it.

SB 312 would require all judges in the state to be lawyers. Judges who are not lawyers would be allowed to complete their current term. Their replacements would have to be lawyers in good standing, admitted to practice law in Indiana.

The Indiana Judicial Conference (judges from across the state) and the Strategic Planning Committee of the Conference, strongly support SB 312. Indiana judges believe that non-lawyers serving as city and town court judges attempt to perform their duties to the best of their abilities.

Full Article and Source:
Judges Should Have Law Degree