If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABA Journal)   Hurt yourself while breaking into someone's home? Feel free to sue as much as you want. Judge boinks your ex-wife while presiding over your child support case and you want to sue? Denied   (abajournal.com) divider line 58
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

11624 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jul 2014 at 4:15 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-27 12:54:01 PM  
Fornication Under Consent of Judge is not that snappy.
 
2014-07-27 01:56:24 PM  
This certainly won't set anyone off.
 
2014-07-27 04:18:17 PM  
Forget it Jake, it's Family Court.
 
2014-07-27 04:20:02 PM  
Paging Sweeney Todd, you have a call...
 
2014-07-27 04:20:20 PM  
Qualified immunity, like if you deliver mail to that judge's house and all of his mail gets lost, install his alarm system and his house gets burgled, or serve him food and he happens to fall ill.

/totallynotalawyer
 
2014-07-27 04:20:52 PM  
Appearance of Corruption much?
 
2014-07-27 04:21:01 PM  
Family court is so farked up everywhere. ..
 
2014-07-27 04:21:22 PM  
Thats funny, like you would expect judges to piss in their own pool.
 
2014-07-27 04:21:53 PM  
HAHAHAHAHA
 
2014-07-27 04:22:07 PM  
Understandable--if judges could be sued for bad decisions there would be no end of lawsuits.

The problem is there is no adequate system for dealing with misconduct.
 
2014-07-27 04:24:51 PM  
Why does the internet have to be the part of the checks and balances of the judicial system? These things only ever get fixed when it goes viral.
 
2014-07-27 04:29:49 PM  
You'd think the case would at least be reassigned and reviewed... Maybe it was.  I just skimmed over the article.
 
2014-07-27 04:30:01 PM  
Judicial immunity would seem to cover him, however distasteful that is. There were two gems from the Detroit Free Press article, though.

Sklar represents the child's father, Robert King, who is fighting for the right to sue McCree, alleging he denied him access to a fair and impartial judge: McCree was having an affair with his child's mother, sexted her from the bench and gave her thousands of dollars.

That right there is bullshiat.

"Casual readers of this opinion ... may erroneously conclude that ... we are somehow endorsing Judge McCree's conduct or going out of our way to protect one of our own," U.S. 6th Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole wrote in Monday's opinion, adding "We do nothing of the sort."

Cole went on to credit the Michigan Supreme Court for - as he put it - rendering "the best justice possible" in the McCree case: It removed him from the bench in March and suspended him without pay for six years, just in case he is re-elected to office this fall.


I suspect that's as good as he's going to get.
 
2014-07-27 04:32:38 PM  

RoyBatty: Forget it Jake, it's Family Court.


Beatrix4: Family court is so farked up everywhere. ..


Title IV-D funding needs to be cut off.  But that will never happen...
 
2014-07-27 04:35:18 PM  
I had a few classes with Wade McCree while in undergrad and was in a couple study groups with him.

He was a total douche then and I really wasn't surprised to find him in the middle of this CF.

His father was a great man (WM Sr) who would he quite disappointed that he made his son a junior, thus thoroughly trashing his good name.
 
2014-07-27 04:36:22 PM  

RINO: Judicial immunity would seem to cover him, however distasteful that is. There were two gems from the Detroit Free Press article, though.

Sklar represents the child's father, Robert King, who is fighting for the right to sue McCree, alleging he denied him access to a fair and impartial judge: McCree was having an affair with his child's mother, sexted her from the bench and gave her thousands of dollars.

That right there is bullshiat.

"Casual readers of this opinion ... may erroneously conclude that ... we are somehow endorsing Judge McCree's conduct or going out of our way to protect one of our own," U.S. 6th Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole wrote in Monday's opinion, adding "We do nothing of the sort."

Cole went on to credit the Michigan Supreme Court for - as he put it - rendering "the best justice possible" in the McCree case: It removed him from the bench in March and suspended him without pay for six years, just in case he is re-elected to office this fall.

I suspect that's as good as he's going to get.


And the best part is that the woman got pregnant and from what the judge said, was claiming to him that the baby was his and trying to blackmail him. Apparently the baby wasn't his because there isn't anything about the judge being sued for child support.
 
2014-07-27 04:41:49 PM  
Ha!

Could have been worse. Could have been the guy's lawyer.


/nah, take that back. With the lawyer, you have a big chance of losing your case through weak representation.
//with the judge, you are guaranteed to lose the case
///could have been worse. Could have been the divorce case.
 
2014-07-27 04:43:00 PM  
I bet the ex wife could charge the judge with rape.

But I'm guessing the decisions went her way.

Maybe the judge has judicial immunity, but he should be able to sue the government for failing to provide him due process, a guaranty under law.
 
2014-07-27 04:43:01 PM  
Is it my imagination or is the 6th circuit court the one that ALWAYS shows up in these stories of shiatty, terrible rulings?

I mean I haven't kept a formal count, it just seems like every time there's a completely batshiat ruling or clear corruption of the system it's the 6th showing up.
 
2014-07-27 04:48:09 PM  
TFA reminds me of a play by Bertolt Brecht "The Caucasian Chalk Circle", written prior to the rise of Nazi rule in Germany. The collapse of The Weimar Republic was in full swing.

Ludovica, a voluptuous wench
An Innkeeper, pleading his son's case in family court
Azdak, the judge

Azdak: I receive (sighing, the Innkeeper hands him a bribe). Good, now the formalities are disposed of.
Azdak: Take off your veil, Ludovoca. You please the Court. Tell me how it [sex] happened.

she does so

Azdak: Ludovica, come with me to the stable so the Court can investigate the scene of the crime.
 
2014-07-27 04:49:11 PM  
Damn, cops are gonna have to step it up to beat that shiat.
 
2014-07-27 04:49:32 PM  
This is why heroic men rise up and turn all the bullshiat that has removed hope from them into lifeless biomass before giving themselves total freedom and a pardon.

America has created an environment ripe for true horrors.
 
2014-07-27 04:50:42 PM  
You don't try a man with the laws you want - you try him with the laws you got. The 6th Circuit did so, though it appears they did so to help further establish precedence more than anything.

The opinion is actually pretty approachable, as far as such things go. There's even some background tying into Lincoln's assassination, among other tidbits.
 
2014-07-27 04:54:51 PM  
I would expect a judge to pass the case to someone else when there's a conflict of interest like that. Seems like that ought to be a law if it isn't already.

Did the guy end up getting screwed on child support payments and visitation rights? I would be screaming for a retrial too if that's the case.
 
2014-07-27 04:56:36 PM  
At the very least, the Judge's actions should constitute a conflict of interest and result in a new trial.

In a criminal proceeding, sleeping with a suspect by the judge would result in a mistrial and a censuring of the judge himself.

I always understood that any personal interaction with a judge presiding over someone's case was basically illegal, because this would be on the same level as a bribe to influence the judges decision. Other judges, caught in similar positions, have been disbarred, some prosecuted and many lost their law licenses.

A friend of mine was involved in a lawsuit with the local county over being injured on the job. He promptly faced a mass of 'dirty tricks' including being forced to move to another city during the case, having to use county selected physicians and use a lawyer not of the county or city.

A couple of years into the case, which had been dragging on, he discovered the presiding judge was planning to take a job with the legal firm representing the county. So, it was in her interest to rule for them and against him. He told his lawyers, who promptly forced the judge off the case, declared a mistrial and everything started all over again.

So, while he won that battle, he got set back a couple of years as the new judge had to go through everything again, and since my friend was unemployed due to the injury, on disability, he was rapidly running out of money to pursue the lawsuit.

The old judge moved happily on to her high paying, new career with no censure. Had my friend had gobs of money laying about, he could have filed a criminal action -- but even his lawyers told him it would take a lot of money to do so.

The County supplied surgeon who had 'repaired' his injury denied any wrong doing when a second surgery failed to stop the chronic pain. Then he refused to do further operations. My friend had reached the point where he was begging to have his foot amputated to stop the pain. An independent surgeon examined him, found mistakes and could help him, but he had to be approved by the county -- which was in no hurry to do so nor to pay for a third surgery.

The lawsuit was still ongoing at the 10 year mark when I lost contact with him. By then, he was under psychiatric care, his lawyers told him it would cost even more money to force the county into paying for the second surgeon and he was being forced to drive over 200 miles a couple of times a month back here to attend legal meeting called by the defendants -- many of which were mysteriously cancelled about the time he arrived.

I calculated that the county had spent more money defending themselves than they would have if they had settled and provided medical care.

I hate the freaking legal system, which is biased towards the wealthy.
 
2014-07-27 04:59:21 PM  

Loren: Understandable--if judges could be sued for bad decisions there would be no end of lawsuits.

The problem is there is no adequate system for dealing with misconduct.


I say let the people sue them.  If the judge or prosecution screws you over with misconduct, they should be liable, criminally if necessary.
 
2014-07-27 05:06:40 PM  
ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com

Trying to figure out what these people look like and found this.

I have judicial immunity if it turns out that he "hads to have it" was not how it's written in transcripts.
 
2014-07-27 05:07:00 PM  

MechaPyx: I would expect a judge to pass the case to someone else when there's a conflict of interest like that. Seems like that ought to be a law if it isn't already.

Did the guy end up getting screwed on child support payments and visitation rights? I would be screaming for a retrial too if that's the case.


The guy claims that the judge made him pay very high child support payments and made him wear a tether to please the mother.
 
2014-07-27 05:30:35 PM  

Loren: Understandable--if judges could be sued for bad decisions there would be no end of lawsuits.

The problem is there is no adequate system for dealing with misconduct.


I once googled my Auntie's name just to find out what she'd been up to lately. She's a district court judge.

Front page entry was a lawsuit from someone she'd sent up for armed robbery after he'd waived a jury trial. To say I'm not a lawyer is putting it mildly, but even minus my bias I knew that the suit had no merit. His grounds for his claim that she'd trampled his civil liberties boiled down to "She didn't rule in my favor."

Auntie must be plagued with nuisance lawsuits like that. I pity that guy's lawyer. But Auntie would also be the first to insist that defendants should have a recourse against crooked judges. She could probably offer this guy a few suggestions.
 
2014-07-27 05:36:11 PM  
so....the judge tried the case pro boner?
I am so sorry.
 
2014-07-27 05:36:44 PM  

Antimatter: Loren: Understandable--if judges could be sued for bad decisions there would be no end of lawsuits.

The problem is there is no adequate system for dealing with misconduct.

I say let the people sue them. If the judge or prosecution screws you over with misconduct, they should be liable, criminally if necessary.


The problem is that they would be sued misconduct or no.
 
2014-07-27 05:40:06 PM  

MechaPyx: I would expect a judge to pass the case to someone else when there's a conflict of interest like that. Seems like that ought to be a law if it isn't already.

Did the guy end up getting screwed on child support payments and visitation rights? I would be screaming for a retrial too if that's the case.


Is that question rhetorical? Of course he did its family court where having a vagina trumps things like fairness justice and actual law
 
2014-07-27 05:47:08 PM  
Now this is what guns are for.
 
2014-07-27 05:52:25 PM  
If the judge were a female... I smell a movie script here.
 
2014-07-27 05:54:04 PM  
That's how immunity works.  It's not always perfect, it's just better than not having it.
 
2014-07-27 06:00:47 PM  

Ex-Texan: If the judge were a female... I smell a movie script here.


Good point.  Write the script for Lifetime or TNT.
 
2014-07-27 06:09:51 PM  
O.o Thats farked up.

3 things should happen in this case.

1. the judge should be tossed from the bench and disbarred.

2. All ruling he made in the case of the woman he slept with and her ex husband should be tossed and a another judge hear hear the issue.

3. the wife of the judge should divorce his ass.
 
2014-07-27 06:14:15 PM  

Loren: Understandable--if judges could be sued for bad decisions there would be no end of lawsuits.

The problem is there is no adequate system for dealing with misconduct.


Sure there is.  It's called hanging.  I recommend it's use in this case
 
2014-07-27 06:28:23 PM  

Beatrix4: Family court is so farked up everywhere. ..


Preaching to the choir.

My eldest sister is paying child support for her kids in Norway (automatic deduction, courtesy of the State of Florida). Her fat pig of an ex-husband is living on the largess of the Norwegian social system, plus my sister's $900 payment every month. She hasn't had a paycheck over $400 in 12 years. This was made possible by a Mormon bishop/judge in Arizona who believes women are responsible for their kids. She committed a sin by filing for divorce.

My cousins and I have frequent revenge fantasy talks about going to Norway and taking this piece of shiat out of the gene pool. But then we come to our senses and realize that his heart attack is going to be way more painful.
 
2014-07-27 06:33:54 PM  

GDubDub: Maybe the judge has judicial immunity, but he should be able to sue the government for failing to provide him due process, a guaranty under law.


Immunity shouldn't be absolute. If it's bad enough for you to be fired and have your law license pulled, it's bad enough to open you to a lawsuit.
 
2014-07-27 06:36:22 PM  
A job that comes with immunity against laws, wide latitude for abuse, and almost no enforcement of ethical boundaries attracts people who want to do things requiring immunity against laws, wide latitude for abuse, and almost no enforcement of ethical boundaries?

Huh. Isn't that funny.
 
2014-07-27 06:44:09 PM  

TheBigJerk: Is it my imagination or is the 6th circuit court the one that ALWAYS shows up in these stories of shiatty, terrible rulings?

I mean I haven't kept a formal count, it just seems like every time there's a completely batshiat ruling or clear corruption of the system it's the 6th showing up.


Well, it's mostly made up of Judges from Detroit and the shiatty parts of Ohio, so it's not surprising.
 
2014-07-27 06:52:32 PM  
"Personal bias alone of a judge-when not serving in a judicial function-does not create a due-process violation."

I'm baffled at that. I agree with the above statement, without any context. However, wasn't the guy suing because it was clear that the judge, while serving in a judicial function, exhibited clear bias?
 
2014-07-27 07:04:45 PM  

Lsherm: TheBigJerk: Is it my imagination or is the 6th circuit court the one that ALWAYS shows up in these stories of shiatty, terrible rulings?

I mean I haven't kept a formal count, it just seems like every time there's a completely batshiat ruling or clear corruption of the system it's the 6th showing up.

Well, it's mostly made up of Judges from Detroit and the shiatty parts of Ohio, so it's not surprising.


The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is composed of 10 Republican appointees, and 5 Democratic appointees.
 
2014-07-27 07:17:24 PM  

Loren: Understandable--if judges could be sued for bad decisions there would be no end of lawsuits.



Which is the intent of immunity.  Sometimes judges will make bad decision based on faulty evidence.  However, judicial misconduct should never be protected by immunity.  The judge knew what he was doing was not acceptable, so he doesn't have any farking defense for his behavior.  Unfortunately, other judges get to decide, and they're all thinking, "damn, why didn't I think of boinking that hotty?"  There's a definite conflict of interest when any group is given the power to police themselves.
 
2014-07-27 07:26:38 PM  

Emposter: That's how immunity works.  It's not always perfect, it's just better than not having it.


We would be better off without qualified immunity, unless the scope of immunity is narrowed considerably.
 
2014-07-27 07:33:47 PM  

Loren: Understandable--if judges could be sued for bad decisions there would be no end of lawsuits.

The problem is there is no adequate system for dealing with misconduct.


I agree in principle. At the same time, I have no problem with a "you're boinking one of the parties while presiding over their case" exception. It seems to me like the kind of exception that can be held to a narrowly defined set of circumstances, obviating the risk of opening the floodgates.

What mortifies me almost more than the failure to allow the plaintiff's suit to proceed is the notion that suspending this guy from the bench for a few years amounts to the "best possible kind of justice." It is inconceivable that this creature should ever occupy any position of public trust whatsoever, much less return to the bench.

The "best possible kind of justice" here is drowning this asshole in a judgment so big it consigns him to a lifetime of poverty, with absolutely 100% of his future income beyond bare sustenance on white rice, water, a cardboard box, and a milk jug to piss in garnished and handed over to his victim. But we can't do that because of brainless application of a poorly conceived doctrine that literally lets judges get away with the worst kind of bad faith behavior imaginable.
 
2014-07-27 07:36:01 PM  
Well he's a judge and he's probably got friends in high places, as well as financial backing. Plus they as judges know every little teensy loophole in the laws and are more than capable of tossing those long unpronounceable words (to alot of people) of legal jargon at everyone so that whatever they say sounds legit even if its bullshiat.
 
2014-07-27 07:40:08 PM  
Judge John Deed?
 
2014-07-27 08:43:44 PM  
so how many days until we're all reading that this guy shot the judge and repeatedly sodomized the corpse ? I say 3. oh wait, this did NOT occur in Florida, much to my suprise, so scratch the sodomizing.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report