- Quickdraw McLaw
- 13 Comments
- 109 Views
- Judge rules Legislative Counsel Bureau can’t pick sides in fight over tax extension. [RGJ]
- Fake guns are banned downtown, but it is still legal to pen carry real guns. [RJ]
- Here’s an update on the Sun vs the RJ. [Las Vegas Sun]
- A Utah judge will decide if a woman must register as a sex offender for being topless in her home in front of her stepchildren. [SLTrib]
Concerning the Judicial Discipline Commission intending to suspend Judges Tobiasson and Chelini I have some real questions and concerns.
Now Judge T does have that separate proceeding(concerning the actions she took when she perceived her daughter needed protection), but these current proceedings against these two judges seem to be based on how they treat, and interact with, staff and other court employees.
None of it appears to have anything to do with how they handled specific cases, nor are there allegations of any corruption, etc. It all seems to center on interactions with Justice Court personnel.
If that is the case, I believe the Commission may be on dicey ground to proceed, and should have instead waited until Human Resources and/or Diversity, conduct an Internal investigation to substantiate such claims.
Otherwise the discipline hearing may well be a pissing contest with witnesses saying that they don't like the way the judge raised their voice at them, or whatever. Apparently, the allegations are so dubious and nebulous that they also include some female court employee complaining that while in chambers Judge T wears low cut blouses and hooker-type pumps.
Seems there is a lot of resentment and envy toward these female judges, and it also appears, at least based on what is reported, that everyone who is complaining is a female employee.
Now, it could be the Commission has a lot more than has been reported, but based on what has been reported, come on!
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that one or both judges has some real problems with their interpersonal and work-place skills, as to how they interact with others. But the fact that some may describe them by using the "B' word does not translate to serious ethical violations.
I'm mystified by all this as I don't necessarily share the negative view that some bloggers here have towards the NJDC. Many of their decisions as to discipline appear quite well-reasoned and proportionate. But I suspect they are on real shaky grounds with this one.
The panel will be chiefly composed of male members, and if so, they should avoid like the plague issuing any subjective judgments as to what attire they believe is too provocative for a female jurist to wear in chambers.
Re Discipline
Of course, neither of the commenters today know any facts. The Commission has not release any information and the only news floating around is coming from the defense firms.
Why are women threatened by women? Who gives a shit what someone else is wearing. Stay in your lane.
11:09–True,the commentators don't really know the facts(no one does yet).
But they have accurately mentioned the few assertions that were reported. Yes, it can be assumed there may be a lot more than what we have been told so far, which is not much.
I bet the house the court administration is the body that actually has an issue with these two judges. A court administration that has a tight relationship with a dopey chief/presiding judge equals court administration ruling the roost. Good luck.
I think 12:44 hit the nail on the head. Although it is quite possible that this all results from a random handful of disgruntled clerks and staff members,it is even more likely (based on history)that this is a case of admin. joining forces with a Presiding Judge.
I'm pro boob and I vote.
10:22–it's a bit more involved than the judges just being really unpleasant, but even so, it does sound debatable as to whether there is really something of substance here.
Profanity? Not a big deal unless deemed to be really abusive and directed in a real personal fashion at someone.
Intervening on behalf of their clerks who are facing discipline? Depends what form this took. I don't think that it necessarily establishes that a judge, by intervening in this fashion, used the prestige of their office for personal gain. The devil would be in the details.
Banning certain clerks from their courtroom? Judges, from time-to-time, request that certain clerks not serve in their courtroom.It's not like this affects someone's employment–they will just serve in other courtroom. So, unless this is really excessive and/or done for frivolous or vindictive reasons, I doubt it's a major problem.
Protesting how admin. shuffles staff? Let them protest. Judges sometimes complain of admin. staff assignments. They don't always get their way, but they sometimes complain. Nothing new here. Sounds like these judges may be real hands-on and perhaps too controlling, but that seldom constitutes an ethical violation.
Lending $5,000. to a court employee who has car problems? A much bigger problem, IMO, if the judge had been the one who borrow the money from the clerk.
Veiled threats of what harm could come to people based on the judge's connections? This one, admittedly, could be problematic providing that it can be established precisely what the judge said and that it should clearly be interpreted as a threat. But the more oblique it is, the harder to prove intent.
Low cut blouses and hooker pumps? 100% agree that if the Commission proceeds with this that that would easily be the worst tactical decision, by far, that they ever made, or will ever make. If they don't know how the NSC would react to that upon review, well, they should.
I want to comment on something concerning the Judging The Judges.
There was one real low-rated Family Court Judge. I am not taking up for her in any fashion, or taking a positon on whether or nor she deserved such a low rating, but the article about her prominently featured a certain incident.
She was harshly criticized for a case of almost two years ago(which was also prominently reported back then) wherein two parents, who could not agree on the simplest of issues involving their child,and were frittering away thousands of dollars in attorney fees fighting over idiocy like the hair style the child will receive. The judge, noting this involved a bi-racial little girl, asked if the challenge involved the girl possibly having somewhat "nappy" hair which thus required some degree of specialized care. The mother was very offended by this, and then the issue eventually wound up being reported in the media, and the mother also sought a disqualification of the judge.
The judge even prefaced her remarks by indicating she is no way wishes to sound insensitive, but she is using the term simply to find out what the hair care issue is. In fact the judge said she wanted to find out so everyone could better decide how to tend to the girl's "probably beautiful curls." And, notable is that the mother's attorney quickly responded "yes" to the question of whether thee child had nappy hair.
True that "nappy" can have negative connotations when used by white people, so it should have been avoided, particularly considering the fallout when radio host Don Imus used the term a decade or so ago(in a context which was in fact truly abusive and negative). But the judge meant no harm and in fact apologized.
Now, a lot of people don't like the judge, I get it. But did this incident really warrant the coverage it received at the time, and then justify being prominently revived in the article concerning the judge's low survey scores?
I think the real focus should be that two parents are so lacking in the most basic co-parenting skills and can cooperate on almost nothing, no matter how small or trivial, that they spend thousands and thousands of dollars(that they can in no way really afford to spend)litigating every incredibly minor parenting decision the other makes that isn't 100% the same as in the home of the complaining party.
So, the judge said the obvious, which occurred to neither of these two–simply make a joint appointment with the hair stylist and see how it should all be done.
The next motion(that these two spent thousands of attorney fees on–money which could have really enhanced their lives and their child's life)was probably something one parent bought a brand of toothpaste that is not the same brand used in the other household. But since that has no racial or religious overtones, and noone couldn't readily blame a judge or someone else for such nonsense, that one wouldn't have been reported to the media.
But the mother decided to keep pursuing the judge–filing a motion to have the judge disqualified, apparently being the one who alerted the media, etc.
The last part of 11:33 post seems to have been some extraneous part meant to be eliminated, but the post as a whole suggests why many attorneys don't wish to practice Family Law.
If low functioning parents wish to get on a soap box and act all indignant and victimized, rather than creating the most basic of abilities to cope and function, and co-exist with others, may I suggest, as follows, where the actual victimization may be emanating from.
If parents like this,in addition to their own limited social skills, are at all victimized by outside influences, I would suggest they are not really being victimized by a judge who, although well-meaning, made an insensitive and inappropriate remark(which she apologized for).
In my view, if there is any victimization of these types of parents by outside influences, it is sometimes by lawyers who will gladly accept thousands(often tens of thousands) to litigate such preposterous nonsense, rather than helping guiding such parties to some sort of conjoint counseling with the other parent, so they can raise a much happier and well-adjusted child, and(as the above post says) spend the thousands on raising their child and enhancing the child's quality of life, rather than give to attorneys to complain about hair care, etc.
I had clients who wanted to hire me to file similar motions, but I just said no(unless there was a legitimate major issue to be addressed, and these much more minor issues could simply be added to the motion.)
But when I rejected these clients, they had no trouble going down the street and quickly hiring someone else to file such motion.
And people who never practiced in Family Court will not believe me, but each day, in each department, lawyers are arguing about issues even more minor than hair care.
Now, perhaps this hair care issue strikes me as frivolous because I've been completely bald for decades. When I had a nice bushy head of blown back hair(during the disco era) I never would have thought of hair care as a frivolous issue.
at 11:54 Agree.
But my opinion is that judges should on their own motion find these kinds of endless arguments frivolous and start sanctioning the parents. Over time, the family law bar will get the message.
@12:03; A judge following your suggested course of conduct does so at their own peril. Such a course would likely be among the quickest method of turning a large portion of the family bar against them since it would be perceived as taking money from the lawyers pockets. Such a judge would find themselves with an opponent in the next election campaign and among the lowest rated judges in the next survey (should it again be repeated).
12:03 is, so far, the leading candidate for post of the day.
Perhaps even post of the week.
The Family Court judges are probably hesitant to sanction attorneys because the judges are worried about political repercussions. And with the elections soon to occur, any contested judge in that building, who should sanction an attorney for filing a motion about hair care or toothpaste, will not dare.
Just another reason, among a gazillion other reasons, why electing judges is ludicrous.