MLK said: "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere"

End Corruption in the Courts!

Court employee, judge or citizen - Report Corruption in any Court Today !! As of June 15, 2016, we've received over 142,500 tips...KEEP THEM COMING !! Email: CorruptCourts@gmail.com

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Judges Hijack Cases, Take Power From Jurors

Judges Hijack Cases, Take Power From Jurors
The Connecticut Law Tribune by Norm Pattis - April 4, 2011

You might think they are contradictory, but I tell you the notions are wholly consistent. We can and should have an independent judiciary. We should also permit juries to nullify the law. The world would be a better place if we appointed judges for life, and set jurors loose. Ordinary citizens might feel that what they say and do in a courtroom matters. Instead, on the stateside at least, we have the worst of both worlds. We have judges with limited terms and jurors who are routinely lied to and then told to do justice. In the federal system, we do have lifetime judges, but the distrust of juries has led these judges often to become the third party in litigation. While the litigants slug it out, the judge represents justice. Or so the theory goes. I was startled the other day when a federal judge whom I otherwise respect and admire decided, after two years of litigation, that he did not fully understand the complaint. My adversary moved for judgment on the pleadings and had not seen the need to file a motion for a more definite statement. The case perked along through discovery. Suddenly, the judge decided he needed more facts pleaded. If that was not done by a certain time, he would dismiss the action. I view this judicial conduct as the rough equivalent of an umpire deciding that justice really does a fourth strike might be necessary for the last batter in a close game. So, without either side asking for such an accommodation, the rules get changed to suit the umpire. Both teams adjust as best they could. In the context of litigation, adjusting to sua sponte dictates of this type adds expense to the case. It may well benefit insurance defense counsel, who can whine and whinny to their claims adjuster about the unfairness of it all, but, hey, they get paid their hourly tribute. Folks working on a contingency fee get hammered. We’re asked to work gratis to satisfy the umpire. Somehow, I don’t think this is what the framers had in mind when they created a court system. Parties come to court seeking vindication and validation. They have stories to tell. They want those stories told, more often than not, to their peers. A jury trial is supposed to be a communal event, appealing to common norms and expectations. When we permit judges to hijack the proceedings, we deprive juries of the right to police the conduct of the parties. We sideline jurors and implicitly tell them that the business of justice belongs in the hand of the wise man in the robe. It’s too important for ordinary folk.

Several years ago, I read several law review articles about whether summary judgment on the civil side comported with the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases. The arguments struck me as outlandish, even bizarre. Summary judgment is a common tool. Indeed, most civil cases disappear in to the black holes of the judiciary. Judges speak of the vanishing trial while they kill it decision after decision. I am now less inclined to scoff at constitutional challenges to those rules and procedures that empower judges to end cases by judicial fiat. If there is less public respect for the judicial system than we might expect, might not part of the reason for that be that we are killing the judicial system, burying it beneath opaque and impenetrable paper? We have an evidence code. Let a judge decide what is and is not admissible. There are rules of procedure determining the order in which things should be done, and giving parties the right to discovery. These are all matters of law that must be decided by someone. Let the umpires call these procedural and evidentiary balls and strikes. But when it comes time to deciding facts, let juries decide. I say let them also decide whether the law as charged ought to be applicable. Let juries nullify a law they find unfair or unjustly applied. Expecting questions of ordinary justice to be resolved by legislators is simply naive. How many men and women suffer from the unjust application of a law is even noticed by lawmakers. An independent judiciary calling balls and strikes makes sense. So does letting litigants submit their cases, both facts and law, to a jury. Jury trials were once an important part of American life. We can make them so once again. • Norm Pattis is a criminal defense lawyer and civil rights attorney in Bethany. Most days he blogs at www.pattisblog.com.

17 comments:

victim of Lawless courts said...

Some good thoughts but some of the really bad judges need to be removed by the U.S. Senate.

Jail4Judges said...

This Judge effectively seized control of the case because he had a payday and he had to be sure it turned out the way someone wanted, it's that simple.

Anonymous said...

I went to my trial...
I was not allowed to tell the jury how the car accident happened, the injuries or surgeries from the car accident...only allowed to talk about falsified medical records from 16 years ago...and then the jury was to make their decision on the car accident!
The American Justice System.........


Where are the Hippa Violators in the Department of Justice!

Anonymous said...

Judiciary law is like the tax law, so many grey areas, you can play it any way you want it or write a new law for your benefit...... who cares it only matters if you get caught and then you just pay someone off some small amount if you get caught.....

Anonymous said...

Judiciary law is like the tax law, so many grey areas, you can play it any way you want it or write a new law for your benefit...... who cares it only matters if you get caught and then you just pay someone off some small amount if you get caught.....

Spirit of Thomas Paine said...

Was the Declaration of Independence about getting rid of a ruling nobility to replace it with the self-serving of a nobble judge? We need a American Magna Carte giving all of us a jury trial by our peers (non-lawyers or non-judges, or their non-relatives and non-cronies.
Who believes a black robed lawyer is more honest or smarter than a random selection of jurors, or thinks as a non-lawyers.

Anonymous said...

Judicial fiat is definitely a method used in Federal Cts in summary judgment issuances, so they can protect governments and corporations, when they are defts.
The usage of the above is often illegally determined and printed using the convoluted laws of twists and turns...that have been created in both state and federal cts, to perplex the average citizen pltf, while shutting down their helpless atty.
I am in the process of this situation of summary judgment about to be addressed...and I intend not to have this happen to me..using some unusual methods to prevent it...as I am aware this is the hardest part of Federal Ct. litigation.
Providing proof that is sustainable is the easy part, the Federal Judge's magic in denying my right to a jury is the most concerning and stressful.
Tell the people how convenient this procedure is being used by judges... and change the rules...ASAP.
One OCA Administrtive judge told me she loves the process of summary judgments, as she could control her cases(juries)..as I also noted her legal abilities were generally, exclusively only of that extent.
She now teaches OCA judges in NY state... a very sad commentary about OCA and specifically their female appointees.

Anonymous said...

What do you expect?

A case presently in the So Dist, a judge is punishing a juror for being honest in answering a juror questionnaire.

Judge gives 'Juror No. 799' indefinite jury duty after she makes racist remarks on questionnaire

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/06/2011-04-06_verdict_yer_a_joke_judge_forces_woman_to_eternal_jury_duty_after_racist_remarks_.html#ixzz1IkEGiR6R


Apparently, he forgot that there are no laws against believing what you want and that we are supposed to have freedom of speech.


They should put a sign over the doors to the courthouse. "Abandon all hope ye who enter here."

Anonymous said...

I just read the article about the lifelong ordained Federal Ct judge punishing a juror for stating what she most likely felt about those she made the statements regarding, in a form used to distinquish that type of thinking.
Whether it was politically correct enough for the arrogant judge, defts and pltfs would rather know what someone's prejudices are, esp while utilizing their guaranteed right TO freedom of speech on A JURY FORM USED TO WEED OUT BIAS ...something certainly a lifetime appointed federal judge...should be WELL cognizant of.
I believe that the punishment doled out, without due process .. from this Judge.....is by far illegal...and hopefully some courageous atty will represent her and show the American judiciary how reactionary and unethical they typically are and how unlearned of the law and human behavior they manifest themselves to be.
I despise a lot of what the judicial system represents today, so if I sit as a juror, the Federal Ct has openly told me they want me to lie and pretend that they, the court, are not more corrupt than most defts that appear in front of them..and thus they have forced me to find anyone that I sit as a juror for...not guilty due to the fact the court is a bigger criminal than they are, so I cannot find them guilty without finding the court so , also.

Anonymous said...

I am in the process of this situation of summary judgment about to be addressed...and I intend not to have this happen to me..using some unusual methods to prevent it...as I am aware this is the hardest part of Federal Ct. litigation

just a few suggestions

have that trial taped
have a background check done on all the jurors
have someone sit inside/outside the jurors deliberation to see who leads their decision and why (aka who is the corrupt bastard on that jury)
double check all info given to jury for deliberation

Anonymous said...

if the judge thanks them for their corrupt verdict and winks you know something is up!

Anonymous said...

if the judge thanks them for their corrupt verdict and winks you know something is up!

Anonymous said...

make sure you have zoom feature on the judge and the jury!

Anonymous said...

the corruption of the legal system is wide spread and this is an example - - I have been told that there is a school for judges in Nevada that will teach them to all the corruption tricks

Anonymous said...

It would be nice to even to be able to get to the point where there could be summary judgment. It seems most cases are thrown out almost before they are filed.

As citizens of the US, we are supposed to have the right to access the Courts and have legal and constitutional rights protected. It's not supposed to be that some guy blocks the door and won't let anyone in.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know how and why the judges get the authority to decide cases without a trial?

Does the Constitution give them this right, or does the Constitution give every citizen the right to have a trial?

Does the Constitution even give the US Supreme Court the right to reject appeals without hearing them?

Anyone know the answer?

Anonymous said...

Canada has a legal system much like you described, right down to the black robe but no wigs, thank God. Since I saw some very odd behavior while practicing in NY, I kept thinking about rules and ethics up North. Justice in the US is more of a joke than functioning system.

Blog Archive

See Video of Senator John L. Sampson's 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption

The first hearing, held in Albany on June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:


               Video of 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption
               The June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:
         
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 1
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 2