"The discretion of a Judge is the law of tyrants: it is always unknown. It is different in different men. It is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper, passion. In the best it is oftentimes caprice; in the worst it is every vice, folly, and passion to which human nature is liable."
– Lord Camden, L.C.J., Case of Hindson and Kersey, 8 Howell State Trials 57 (1680).

"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body – working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." – Thomas Jefferson, 1821

GOOD JUDGES
(Yes, there are a few...)

Judge Dorothy T. Beasley, Georgia

"Although the dispute is symbolized by a 'versus' which signifies
 two adverse parties at opposite poles of a line, there is in fact a
 third party whose interests and rights make of the line a  triangle.
 That person, the child who is not an official party to the lawsuit
 but whose well-being is in the eye of the controversy, has a right to
 shared parenting when both are equally suited to provide it.
 Inherent in the express public policy is a recognition of the child's
 right to equal access and opportunity with both parents, the right
 to be guided and  nurtured by both parents, the right to have
 major decisions made by the application of both parents' wisdom,
 judgment and experience. The child does not forfeit these rights
 when the  parents divorce."

                                                               --Presiding Judge Dorothy T. Beasley,
                                                                         Georgia Court of Appeals,
                                                        "In the Interest of A.R.B., a Child," July 2, 1993

Justice Colin McKinnon
Ottawa, Canada

From the Ottawa Sun, July 5, 1998:
"After months of legal wrangling, Thursday's [July 2, 1998] strongly-worded decision from Justice Colin McKinnon awards joint custody to both parents. McKinnon ruled Hildinger [the mother] had intentionally planned to become a single parent and had 'largely denied' Carroll [the father] access to the baby. 'Nancy Mae [the baby] does not "belong" to the mother, no more than she "belongs" to her father. She is not the "property" of either,' McKinnon ruled. Carroll is now legally permitted access to his daughter for one month in the summer, one week in the fall, one week during Christmas holidays and one week in the spring. He may bring Nancy to the U.S. during those periods." [Emphasis added.]

Judge Richard A. Curtis
Los Angeles, CA

   "WHAT I SEEK TO ACCOMPLISH IN MY COURTROOM"

Divorce is a process -- a growing and learning process. When people come to court in the early stages of their divorce they have no knowledge or training about how to go through it unless they have been divorced before. I view my role as judge as not being merely a decider of disputes but as being an educator as well. If I can help divorcing couples get through the divorce process, both legally and emotionally, while avoiding the traps and pitfalls in which I have seen others before them become ensnared, then I consider myself to be fulfilling my role.

Read Judge Curtis' full statement here.

Judge Christopher Munch
District Court, Jefferson County, Colorado

Judge Munch's offenses don't rise to the level of Constitutional violations, so he falls into our "Bad Judges" category.
From an associate who must remain anonymous at present due to ongoing litigation:

"Another candidate for your bad judge list is Christopher Munch in the First Judicial District in Jefferson County, Colorado.
"He fails to enforce court orders requiring disclosure of assets. He is known far and wide for absolutely refusing to grant a continuance for any reason. He proceeds even though discovery cannot be completed due to failing to enforce motions to compel and for sanctions. He interprets rules and laws to suit his understanding. Hearings are cut short because he has to go to a meeting.
"He ignores marital debts paid by the husband and then makes him pay the wife's debts as well. Refuses to divide assets [equitably] as prescribed by law if it is the woman who has the greater assets in her retirement account.
"He combines trivia with arrogance and regards it as intelligence.

Judge Alan M. Black
Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania

In considering a petition from the father for a reduction in child support, the court refused to allow discovery of pertinent Domestic Relations Office (DRO) records and the mother's financial information. Father's financial assessment was increased despite the fact that mother has acquired additional income and earned much more than the father. The assessment was backdated using the April 1999 PA Child Support Guideline, having the effect of an unconstitutional ex post facto application of the law.

Attorney for the father reports that:

1. The lower Court deprived the father of due process and equal protection.
2. He was not served notice of the new claim by DRO and mother.
3. He was not permitted to cross-examine mother to test her credibility.
4. The Court applied a prejudicial differential to the same guideline when calculating the income of mother and father.
5. The Court knowingly and with malice accorded superior weight to representations of fact and law made by the Title IV-D attorney representing mother, who also represents the County as a solicitor.
6. The Court refused to take judicial notice of Attorney Wrona's attempt to correct an erroneous record pursuant to PA Rules of Evidence (PRE 201(d)).
7. The audio tapes of the support hearings were altered. The transcribed record is incomplete and inaccurate.
8. The trial judge recused himself during post-trial motions, then, over counsel's objections, withdrew his recusal, violating the Code of judicial Conduct.
   In the Pennsylvania Superior Court:
9. The Title IV-D attorney refused to file a brief in response. Appellant should be awarded a default judgment. DENIED.
10. The Superior Court then applied a new interpretation of procedural law to find that appellant "waived" every issue on appeal, allowing it to AFFIRM the lower court without reaching the merits of the case. Five of six issues argue a deprivation of Constitutional rights. The sixth issue is the standard "abuse of discretion" argument for domestic relations support orders.

Judge Morris Sandstead
District Court Judge, 20th Judicial District
Boulder, Colorado

Reports from litigants indicate Judge Sandstead is biased, arrogant, yells at litigant-parents in court, fails to pay attention, confuses the identities of witnesses – generally a family court burnout case.

Try reading:
Judicial Conduct and Ethics, by Jeffrey M. Shaman  Steven Lubet  James J. Alfini. Hardcover, 2nd ed., 637pp. Publ.: LEXIS Law. "Readable for laymen, footnoted for attorneys. Step by step description of judicial function and dysfunction. The litmus test is easy -- if you have a hunch the judges are inappropriate, they probably are. When judges err on even one case, the citizens 'just must do what must be done.'" Library reference: KF 8779.S47 1990.
Order from the CCJ Bookstore 
Judicial Conduct & Ethics

An impeachment inquiry was attempted in 1998 in the Colorado House of Representatives against Judge Post, but the House ignored the citizen-father's Petition. The intended inquiry concerned extensive violations of father's constitutional and statutory rights in a post-decree "custody" and visitation action. The affidavit supporting the Petition for Impeachment submitted to the State House listed almost 20 discrete violations of U.S. and State Constitutional protections and numerous flagrant violations of statutory law. Needless to say, the children in the case before Judge Post continue to suffer from the legacy of her brand of "justice."
The father will try again in the 2000 Session of the Legislature. Judge Post's flagrant violations of the Constitutions of both the U.S. and Colorado, and statutory law, should disqualify her from ever practicing law in the United States, let alone sitting in "judgment" of an innocent father and his children.

"Judge Bollman ignored the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, free speech and privacy and all local rules and California law in his mad dash to bow before this power elite attorney, a phenomenon prevalent in San Diego courts. He later admitted that he acted knowingly acted unlawfully and commented that if the father didn't like it he should do something about it (finally, a court order the father could happily comply with). Judge Tobin had specifically retained jurisdiction over this case but that was swept aside and little things like due process and equal protection weren't given even lip service."

Judge Hunter on fathers:

"You have never seen a bigger pain in the ass than the father who wants to get involved; he can be repulsive. He wants to meet the kid after school at three o'clock, take the kid out to dinner during the week, have the kid on his own birthday, talk to the kid on the phone every evening, go to every open school night, take the kid away for a whole weekend so they can be alone together. This type of father is pathological."

Quoted in "The Fathers Also Rise," New York Magazine, November 18, 1985.
 (Thanks to "We The People" --  http://www.wevote.com/pages/families.html)

Judge Stern executed on an illegal contempt order entered by a prior, incompetent judge, and threw a father of two children in jail for an alleged credit card debt to a former wife incurred while the couple was still married. Colorado law establishes unequivocally that imprisonment for contract debt is illegal. Judge Stern yelled at the self-represented father in court, insulted him, and had him hand-cuffed in front of his wife and led away, all for a credit card debt which he had ALREADY PAID. Judge Stern represents state justice run amok.

The judges' contempt for both fathers and constitutional rights was openly expressed by New Jersey municipal court judge Richard Russell. Speaking to his colleagues during a training seminar in 1994, he said:

"Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, 'See ya around' . . . "We don't have to worry about their rights."

Email: or