KRAMER AND FRANK "Esquire" Wow

[Anne Tyler]

This is ultimately turning out to be a thread about judicial misconduct, what it is, and what happens to people who claim judicial misconduct.

Nobody wants to believe the judge could be guilty of corrupt behavior and if you say it, too often the view becomes that you are the problem, not the judge.

From the judge to the members of the bar, and sadly to the members of the public and the courtroom, the one who exposes corruption becomes the problem.

Trying to explain away judicial misconduct by pointing out the misconduct of other judges doesn't work for me.

It doesn't matter what other judges do (in effect to explain away misconduct because other judges do it). That seems to be a juvenile mindset similar to: "But Mom, the other kids do it".

Edited October 2, 2010 by Anne Tyler
redirect

[WhoCares1000]

I see nothing wrong here.

1) Any licensed attorney who has been admitted to the bar is formally called Esquire. It is a formal practice that we really have gotten out of in this country. If he is an attorney, that is proper

2) These are simply tips for public speaking. You can get the same information from any Toastmasters group in your local community.

3) He teaches lawyers how to collect debt and Pete Barry Esquire teaches lawyers how to go after debt collectors. We still have the 1st amendment in this country and hence, he is allowed to speak on the topic.

[Guest usctrojanalum]

The information was actually pretty useful, I do not do much if any public speaking but that is good stuff to know. Thanks OP.

[Anne Tyler]

I see nothing wrong here.

1) Any licensed attorney who has been admitted to the bar is formally called Esquire. It is a formal practice that we really have gotten out of in this country. If he is an attorney, that is proper

2) These are simply tips for public speaking. You can get the same information from any Toastmasters group in your local community.

3) He teaches lawyers how to collect debt and Pete Barry Esquire teaches lawyers how to go after debt collectors. We still have the 1st amendment in this country and hence, he is allowed to speak on the topic.

Maybe you don't see anything wrong but then you haven't had a default judgment entered against you by this law firm that was a lie.

The judge told me to come back in November and then the two of them entered a journal entry of default judgment against me as a no show when I was beating them, which is the problem. I guess the two of them probably view themselves as Robin Hood maybe taking from deadbeats like me and giving to pond scum debt collectors.

My comment was an attempt at humour, if I have any left after what I've been having to deal with. I like dry humour/wit. Calling himself Esquire is pretentious and as you stated Esquire is a term rarely used in the U.S. so yes, it's an apparent attempt on his part to gain respectability that perhaps he might not have earned. and it just goes to show you that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. An a low-life cheater by any other name still stinks.

Also, it appears I might not have the right to freedom of speech you so ardently defend, at least not without being hassled by you for voicing MY OPINION.

Read it and weep or don't. Whatever.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Anne Tyler

[Anne Tyler]

The information was actually pretty useful, I do not do much if any public speaking but that is good stuff to know. Thanks OP.

As you say, in addition to an inside look at the "man" behind the abuse machine that is Kramer and Frank, there were some helpful public speaking tips. I don't do much of it either, preferring to do my "addresses" by "pen and ink". I'm glad you got something out of it, and you're welcome anytime.

[Guest usctrojanalum]

Calling himself Esquire is pretentious and as you stated Esquire is a term rarely used in the U.S. so yes, it's an apparent attempt on his part to gain respectability that perhaps he might not have earned. and it just goes to show you that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. An a low-life cheater by any other name still stinks.

I see the word Esquire used every single day multiple times a day and on every single Court document that is filed in the Court here. American society is just lazy as a whole and people like to abbreviate, but if you ever saw the Esq. after someones name, it means esquire.

[cinnamngrl]

have you filed a complaint with the bar? are you saying that the default judgment was entered on a date that you were not notified for?

[Anne Tyler]

In my 25 years working in the legal field I can count on one hand the times any attorney I was associated with or corresponded with referred to themselves as "Esquire"

Here are some comments I looked up just today in a U.S. English language forum about the usage of "Esquire":

Join Date: Mar 2006

Country: USA

Posts: 3,545

Current Location: Detroit, Michigan

Native Language: English

Member Type: English Teacher

Re: Correct use of Esq

Years ago, we were taught that the honorific "Esquire" should only be used when addressing someone by their initials, as opposed to their whole name:

F. Boggs, Esq. not Fred Boggs, Esq.

This rule has probably changed since those Dark Ages when I went to school.

The use of "Esq." in the U.S. is not as common as it once was; some attorneys find it pretentious. You'll see it used by mainly very old attorneys, who remember the good ol' days when everyone used "Esq." and very young one who are excited that they've finally passed the bar exam.

MrPedantic

Moderator

Join Date: Feb 2005

Country: England

Posts: 2,506

Current Location: SE England

Native Language: British English

Member Type: Other

Re: Correct use of Esq

Hello Ewelina

It's a long time since I received a letter marked "Esq." – even my bank stopped using it some years ago. So I think it's probably safer to use "Mr".

(If this isn't the case in the US, perhaps a passing N. American member will let us know.)

MrP

[Anne Tyler]

have you filed a complaint with the bar? are you saying that the default judgment was entered on a date that you were not notified for?

Yes, I was not notified of the September hearing date. In August at the last hearing I was given instructions by the Judge to return in November 2010 (the 16th). This instruction continuing the matter to November was oral, as were all the judges orders. Nothing was ever solidified in writing.

Yet, remarkably, on September 14th an order was prepared and filed that day finding me in default and SPEEDILY filed I might add. Given time constraints, the attorney most likely had it prepared and with her on that date so it was ready to file. Given the fact that I had made all previous court dates I think it is highly unlikely that a reasonably efficient person would have prepared a default judgment prior to the hearing which I "missed" unless they knew I would miss it.

I am in the process now of preparing the complaint. It is a form supplied by the "Commission on Retirement Removal and Discipline" located in St. Louis, Missouri.

I will also be filing complaints with the bar association for both the judge and the "law" (unlaw might be more accurate) firm.

I plan to have my complaint in the mail no later than this coming Monday.

There was no "mistake" on my part. I recall hearing the date and the judge (in an unusual demonstration of courtesy) asked me if it would be alright. It stood out in my mind that he "asked" me and also that it was 2 days after my son's birthday. So that is why I know it was not continued to September. I recall stating to the judge that to date plaintiff had proved nothing (I filed several pleadings and documents to that effect, including a motion to dismiss with prejudice and which the judge ignored). The judge's response was that was when the Plaintiff would present its evidence which was remarkably hard to come by considering that the case was filed in June and still nothing to show of substance.

Despite the fact that the few people I've mentioned this to seem to insist that I MADE A MISTAKE, I am quite confident I did not and that is why I will include in my complaint that there was a tape recorder presumably recording the cases on docket that day.

The attorney I talked to at length about this when I mentioned the recording to seemed to wish to dampen my hopes as to the recording backing me up as he stated that frequently matters in associate district court are not recorded. I find that hard to believe that anyone who wish to maintain confidence in the courtroom would not have a recorder nor transcriber nor would they issue written orders. When I referred to the specific laws regarding the matter he said "well those laws are not always adhered to on the associate level".

It seems to me there is very much an automatic DEFENSE of the judge despite any evidence to the contrary.

Here is a quote from the rules in Missouri:

2.03. Canon 2. A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All of the Judge's Activities

A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

COMMENTARY

• 
  
  • Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judge's conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.
    

• 
  
  • The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the proscription is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in this Rule 2. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules or other specific provisions of this Rule 2. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.
    

B. A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

2.03. Canon 3. A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently

A. Judicial Duties in General. The judicial duties of a judge take precedent over all the judge's other activities. The judge's judicial duties include all the duties of the judge's office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply.

B. Adjudicative Responsibilities.

• 
  
  • (1) A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required.
    

• 
  
  • (2) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.
    

• 
  
  • (3) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.
    

• 
  
  • (4) A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity and shall require similar conduct of lawyers and of staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control.
    

COMMENTARY

• 
  
  • The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Judges can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.
    

• 
  
  • (5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge, in the performance of judicial duties, shall not by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability or age, and shall not permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.
    

COMMENTARY

• 
  
  • A judge must perform judicial duties impartially and fairly. A judge who manifests bias or prejudice on any basis in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute. Facial expression and body language, in addition to oral communication, can give to parties or lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media and others an appearance of judicial bias. A judge must be alert to avoid behavior that may be perceived as prejudicial.
    

• 
  
  • (6) A judge shall require lawyers in open court or in chambers to refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability or age against parties, witnesses, counsel or others. This Canon 3B(6) does not preclude legitimate advocacy when race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability or age or other similar factors are issues in the proceeding.
    

Edited October 2, 2010 by Anne Tyler

[Anne Tyler]

It is remarkable to me the pervasiveness of the beliefs and defense of the Judge by attorneys in this case or presumably any case. During an online "discussion" with a bankruptcy attorney I mentioned ex parte communication and the frequency of the Plaintiff's attorney and the judge having "asides" with each other and conferring with each other out of the hearing of the courtroom. The attorney seemed offended by my implication and in fact said that for all I knew they could have been discussing what they had at lunch that day.

But as you can see the rules dictate the judge avoid even the APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY and clearly that kind of conduct does not avoid it. It's my observation that this judge's arrogance has lead him to disregard any requirements or constraints on his behavior and he does as he damn well pleases.

Superhuman though he may wish to be or be observed to be, there is no judge who can keep track of what happens in the thousands and thousands of cases he hears without putting it down in writing.

If he doesn't put it down in writing then maybe he has something to hide.

2.03. Canon 1. A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

A. An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct and shall personally observe those standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of this Rule 2 are to be construed and applied to further that objective.

COMMENTARY

Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depends in turn upon their acting promptly, courteously and without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law, including the provisions of this Rule 2. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Rule 2 diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.

(Adopted Jan. 29, 1998, eff. Jan. 1, 1999.)

Edited October 2, 2010 by Anne Tyler

[Anne Tyler]

My first substantive tip-off the judge was not going to be fair to me:

When my case was called the first time and I went before the judge it was obvious that contrary to most court appearances conversation was conducted in muted tones. Somehow, in my efforts to hear what was being said, it being important to me, and also due to my naivete, I "touched" hizzoner's Bench and his first direct communication with me was to tell me and I quote "Don't lean on my bench". I was not LEANING on his bench, my elbow seems to have been resting lightly on the edge of his BENCH and he was quick to tell me to "back off".

The difference between the cozy and private asides with Plaintiff's attorney and his belittling and embarrassing me was quite obvious. While Plaintiff was not required to submit motions for continuance either orally or written, he was in contrast quick too point out to me the times when he felt I had not used "the proper form". Being pro se, he should have known I might not be up to date on FORM but that what I was saying and doing was accurate. So his relaxed standards for plaintiff's attorney (who was supposed to BE A FULL-TIME ATTORNEY who underwent years of education) and his hyper-critical comments to me defy explanation of what HIS CONDUCT should have been.

I'm pretty intuitive when it comes to peoples character and conduct and I immediately felt that this judge was not inclined to be fair to me and everything that has happened since convinces me of the same.

And I refer to this quoted again from above:

A judge who manifests bias or prejudice on any basis in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute. Facial expression and body language, in addition to oral communication, can give to parties or lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media and others an appearance of judicial bias. A judge must be alert to avoid behavior that may be perceived as prejudicial.

and

(4) A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity and shall require similar conduct of lawyers and of staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Anne Tyler

[cinnamngrl]

wow, i feel like i stepped on a hornets nest

ok, I work at court house. we record our sessions. in the past 24 months we have upgraded the system. we changed from tape to disc, and put in new mics. Before this was done, the recording of sessions was somewhat more variable. it is also somewhat normal to have discussions off the record. That being said, things like the next date should really be on the record.

so I would ask, what is the techno state of your court house? what does file show?

[Anne Tyler]

It is a hornet's nest, but I'm not sure we see the same hornet's nest. I see one in which the judge is behaving in such a way that can easily and reasonably construed as prejudicial not to mention dishonest.

That is a hornets nest and certainly to me as I am offended that my right to an impartial hearing and judgment have been superceded by an arrogant judge and a disreputable law firm.

so I would ask, what is the techno state of your court house? what does file show?

Techno state? I'm not sure what you mean by that but I would say that I have had the opportunity to be in several different courtrooms in the area, some in smaller jurisdictions than this one (in a major U.S. City) and I have never seen a courtroom that did not have the capacity to record and/or amplify the record of what transpired.

If anything, I've seen judges advise witnesses and parties to SPEAK UP because the judge rightly wants to be able to hear and everyone in attendance to hear and any recordings or transcribing to be done effectively.

Unwritten orders (oral only), conducting conversations that the courtroom at large cannot hear, having "aside" conversations with Plaintiff's attorney does nothing to reinforce my faith in the judicial system in THIS JUDGE'S COURTROOM.

I think most people are more comfortable believing that I, being personally involved and with the outcome at stake, am making too much of the goings-on or more importantly not goings-on (no written records).

I have logical reasons and reasonable beliefs that this judge has done nothing to insure that what happens in his courtroom is above reproach. He plays things "close to the hip" and the usual courtroom procedures don't seem to apply in HIS COURTROOM.

How would the things I've outlined be construed in any way as to demonstrate a desire to his conduct being above reproach or question?

it is also somewhat normal to have discussions off the record.

It might be "somewhat normal" to have discussions off the record but if I were someone investigating, for my own benefit or public benefit, reliability and confidence in the justice system, I would have questioned what was said or why there were conversations off the record, especially if you mean conversations that most people in the courtroom could not hear.

There are asides, references to extraneous matters or even a humorous observation or joke, true, but any PRIVATE conversations open up possible accusations of impropriety and the rules clearly state it is part of the judge's responsibility to avoid appearances of impropriety.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Anne Tyler

[Anne Tyler]

For a little over a year I was the assistant to a part-time U.S. Magistrate Judge and as such I accompanied him to all courtroom proceedings and was, among other things, responsible for seeing that the proceedings were properly recorded.

What I observed in this magistrate judge's behavior (a PART TIME magistrate) was far and above the conduct by the current judge in my case.

Irregardless of the charges brought before the magistrate judge he was TO A FAULT courteous to those appearing before him and all conversations were conducted openly and audibly for the entire courtroom to hear.

That judge would have definitely found fault with the current situation if he were to observe it because his character, in all the time I observed him, was above reproach as it should have been.

The current judge makes a mockery of the judicial system and his court, something which he is bound to uphold and instead he denigrates and erodes it.

[cinnamngrl]

ok, I am going to be honest (and i may regret this). Stop yammering about the reproach of the judge. the only thing that matters is whether you were given notice of the court date. I would get a transcript of the court proceeding. they charge for that but you can get it.

and yes, every court room is capable of recording but if they have bad equipment then the recordings fail. if they failed to give you the court date, then it is a reversible error, and can be fixed by vacating the judgment. i'm sorry i mentioned contacting the bar. have you looked at the file.

[Anne Tyler]

ok, I am going to be honest (and i may regret this). Stop yammering about the reproach of the judge. the only thing that matters is whether you were given notice of the court date. I would get a transcript of the court proceeding. they charge for that but you can get it.

and yes, every court room is capable of recording but if they have bad equipment then the recordings fail. if they failed to give you the court date, then it is a reversible error, and can be fixed by vacating the judgment. i'm sorry i mentioned contacting the bar. have you looked at the file.

It is opinions and attitudes like yours about my yammering on that really get to me.

This entire forum is dedicated to protecting our rights and being treated fairly according to the law so if you view my outlining how the judge failed to conduct himself properly as YAMMERING then there really is nothing further that I can say to you or want to say to you. You obviously can't empathize with how offended I am and so you label what I say as yammering. I guess I am trying to outline clearly the difference between what the judge was supposed to do and what he did in fact do but that seems to be beside the point where you are concerned. But I say it is precisely the point.

Further it is not a REVERSIBLE ERROR, it was judicial misconduct.

End of discussion.

[cinnamngrl]

from me honesty= respect

I am suggesting that you focus on things that can be changed to help you.

I can certainly empathize with reasons that you are taking this personality, but all of this emphasis on the emotionality and conduct will not help you.

if you did not get notice of the court date, then that would be wrong. it is not judicial misconduct

Edited October 2, 2010 by cinnamngrl

[Anne Tyler]

if you did not get notice of the court date, then that would be wrong. it is not judicial misconduct

I outlined Rules of the court that were not followed. I stated what they are and how he did not follow them. I'm sorry if you feel that is "emotionality".

It is the judge's responsibility to conduct his courtroom fairly.

I outlined something the judge said to me as our very first interaction that was rude. The rules say the judge is supposed to be courteous.

Rules are set out. Conduct that does not conform is set forth.

Sorry you don't get it.

And your statement that it is not judicial misconduct convinces me you haven't a clue. It is obvious the judge gave me false information. He lied and misrepresented the facts when he said it was continued to September. What exactly is misconduct then? Giving someone an incorrect date that was clearly on purpose is judicial misconduct and the attorneys who are clearly (unless you want to call everyone who has dealt with Kramer and Frank a liar) complicit. Plaintiff's attorney advised the judge she needed time to prepare for trial and both of them knew it was set for November. It seems though that I am the liar in your eyes.

Luckily, your eyes in this instance don't count. Because you have obviously decided, as I outlined before, how the desire is to, upon evidence of misconduct, to "explain it away" as error.

Setting things up so that one party is unaware of a hearing (and it is obviously a setup since plaintiff's attorney came prepared with a notice of default judgment (why when I had attended all hearings previously) so that a default judgment can be entered in a case where not only has the plaintiff's attorney failed to establish the debt and state a claim for recovery, but has submitted misleading and false information (for example the bogus affidavit) is judicial misconduct. It is not an error. It was willful acts set out to deprive me of money, for one thing, and to deprive me of my right to a defense.

According to you, if it is correctable, then its not misconduct its an error.

Wow, I wish I'd known all this when I was growing up, if I disobeyed and broke the rules and was set to be grounded, I could have pointed out how I could correct it all, take out the trash a day late, and I wouldn't have been defying my parent's authority, it would have been an oversight on my part.

That is sick thinking. And OJ is innocent right?

Edited October 2, 2010 by Anne Tyler

[cinnamngrl]

this will probably freak you out some more but there are judges that sit on the bench all week and then go to jail on the weekends to serve a sentence for drunk driving. it's not ok for the judge to be rude to you , but no one will care. I am sorry you think that i am against you. i don't think you are a liar. I think you are unable to accept any criticism or compassion

[Anne Tyler]

this will probably freak you out some more but there are judges that sit on the bench all week and then go to jail on the weekends to serve a sentence for drunk driving. it's not ok for the judge to be rude to you , but no one will care. I am sorry you think that i am against you. i don't think you are a liar. I think you are unable to accept any criticism or compassion

COMPASSION? You telling me that a judge's lie is not misconduct is compassion? Compassion for whom?

And it does not "freak me out" judges serving a sentence for drunk driving. I'm not naive.

What freaks me out is someone like you who who redefine misconduct and attempt to explain away this judge's misconduct by telling me that some other judges go to jail on the weekend for drunk driving.

The fact some judges are in jail for drunk driving has nothing to do with the case at hand. Judges being in jail on the weekend does not explain away or forgive this judges deliberate attempt to CIRCUMVENT THE LAW. Seeing that the Plaintiff was not able to come up with proof in order to collect, he decided to take a shortcut.

What you offer is not compassion to me. It is compassion to a judge who lied and manipulated the system and he covered up his acts by not giving written orders.

And finally, in addition to rewriting history and the facts of what happened (we are all given the benefit of being believed here otherwise why come for advice) so that not only are you denying the wrongdoing of the judge (labeling it error) now you are going to tell me that you did all that in an effort to be compassionate and that I, rude person that I am, refuse to accept your compassion?

You must have been a member of OJ's DREAM TEAM.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Anne Tyler

[cinnamngrl]

Sigh.

failing to give you notice of a date is not misconduct by anyone. if you keep accusing people of lying, they will just pretend you are crazy and never help you.

[Anne Tyler]

Sigh.

failing to give you notice of a date is not misconduct by anyone. if you keep accusing people of lying, they will just pretend you are crazy and never help you.

Save your SIGHS for somebody who believes in your brand of COMPASSION.

According to you, unless I "rethink" what happened and turn a lie into a mistake then I'm going to be labeled crazy.

That's what happens to whistleblowers. Suddenly THEY are the problem. Whatever motivated them to blow the whistle is not wrong, THEY ARE for speaking up.

YOU and people like you are what makes corruption possible.

If I am crazy (how compassionate of you to infer that) then I prefer insanity to the "real world"/your world any day.

[cinnamngrl]

It is possible that you are quite sane, but your accusatory tone, BLOCK LETTERING and insistence on finding some conspiracy of evil by this judge seems crazy.

remember I said honesty = respect

anyway, you seem to hate me but I wish things could get better for you

[Anne Tyler]

It is possible that you are quite sane, but your accusatory tone, BLOCK LETTERING and insistence on finding some conspiracy of evil by this judge seems crazy.

remember I said honesty = respect

anyway, you seem to hate me but I wish things could get better for you

Don't lecture me about honesty. That is what I expect from judges. The fact that you don't care if they are honest or that you would explain away their bad behavior tells me that you aren't honest so what could you possibly have to say about honesty.

I don't hate you, I hate what you represent.

Call me dumb, or call me stupid or even as you have done call me crazy but I have this naive, I guess, belief that judges should be honest.

I'm sorry you've compromised your integrity. It's a sad thing to witness.

And speaking of accusatory tones, you have accused me of many things, of lying for one, of being crazy, of being clueless (you think you are telling me something I don't know about judges ending up in jail on the weekend).

You have a smug and superior attitude that will bite you in the A$$ someday.

What goes around comes around.

People like you are the reason corruption exists. People like you who look the other way are the reason so many people died during the Holocaust. And there are those who deny the holocaust happened.

Which is kind of close to what you've done. you've taken all the facts I gave you and condensed them down into the judge didn't lie he made a "mistake".

And Hitler wasn't really evil, he just had bad judgment right? Probably true of all despots, Saddam Hussein, I'm sure he wasn't really a bad guy once you got past the part where he tortured and killed people, he was a SUPER NICE GUY.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Anne Tyler

[cinnamngrl]

Don't lecture me about honesty. That is what I expect from judges. The fact that you don't care if they are honest or that you would explain away their bad behavior tells me that you aren't honest so what could you possibly have to say about honesty.

I don't hate you, I hate what you represent.

Call me dumb, or call me stupid or even as you have done call me crazy but I have this naive, I guess, belief that judges should be honest.

I'm sorry you've compromised your integrity. It's a sad thing to witness.

I haven't lectured and I haven't lied to you. I can't see how the judge lied from what little you have said here. I can't help but wonder if you are projecting a lot of drama to cover up your mistakes.