|
Why Judge Beaty should recuse himself
|
|
Topic Started: Mar 19 2011, 01:05 PM (3,754 Views)
|
|
Quasimodo
|
Mar 30 2011, 03:14 PM
Post #76
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,127
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Quote:
-
http://www.scjc.state.ny.us/Determinations/L/lenney.htm
Respondent [judge] has engaged in a persistent and pervasive pattern of neglect of his judicial and administrative duties...
Nowhere was this more evident than in the Ferrari v. Barone case, a claim for $325 in damages. It took respondent two years and nine months to get the case on his trial calendar. It took four months for him to render a decision. It took more than two years and a Commission investigation before respondent issued a flawed transcript of judgment. Despite a written request and his knowledge of the Commission's interest in the case, respondent did not correct the judgment in the next seven months. The result of these continued delays was that in six years before respondent's court, the plaintiff was unable to collect on this small claim.
Such egregious neglect and repeated disregard of statutory requirements constitute serious misconduct and impair public confidence in the proper administration of justice. Matter of Cooley v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, 53 NY2d 64 (1981); Matter of Petrie v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, 54 NY2d 807 (1981).
Respondent's misconduct is compounded by his failure after he knew of the Commission's inquiry to conclude the Ferrari v. Barone case, which had initiated the investigation. Matter of Sims v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, 61 NY2d 349, 357 (1984).
By reason of the foregoing, the Commission determines that the appropriate sanction is removal.
|
|
|
| |
|
Quasimodo
|
Mar 30 2011, 03:16 PM
Post #77
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,127
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Quote:
-
http://www.scjc.state.ny.us/Determinations/S/scolton.htm
In the Matter of the Proceeding Pursuant to Section 44, subdivision 4, of the Judiciary Law in Relation to BRUCE S. SCOLTON, a Justice of the Harmony Town Court, Chautauqua County.
(snip)
The respondent, Bruce S. Scolton, a Justice of the Harmony Town Court, Chautauqua County, was served with a Formal Written Complaint dated January 24, 2007, containing one charge. The Formal Written Complaint alleged that respondent failed to dispose of six small claims cases in a timely manner. Respondent filed a Verified Answer dated February 13, 2007.
(snip)
9. Both as an attorney and a judge, respondent is aware of the prejudice to the parties that may result when proceedings are delayed without good cause. Respondent commits himself to insuring that such delays do not recur.
(snip)
The ethical standards require every judge to dispose of court matters “promptly, efficiently and fairly,” and further provide that “the judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s other activities” (Rules, §§100.3[7], 100.3[A]). In five cases, respondent delayed from four to ten months in scheduling a hearing, and in a sixth case respondent never scheduled a hearing for more than two years, at which point the claimant, not surprisingly, declined to pursue the matter further. The delays respondent permitted amounted to an inexcusable neglect of his duties as a judge (Rules, §100.3[c][1]).
In addition, in two of the cases respondent delayed inexcusably in rendering a timely decision. In Gavin v. Present, respondent issued a decision 23 months after holding a hearing, and in Reale v. Nelson, he issued a decision 33 months after the hearing. Significantly, both decisions were rendered shortly after respondent had been contacted by the Commission, which was investigating the alleged delays.
(snip)
We view such delays as serious misconduct because of the adverse consequences on individual litigants, who are deprived of the opportunity to have their claims heard in a timely manner, and on public confidence in the administration of justice. Our decision in this case and in Matter of Robichaud (decision issued today) should not be interpreted to suggest that delays can never rise to a level warranting removal. We will not hesitate to impose sanctions in such cases to ensure that the public is protected from the deleterious effects of unwarranted delays.
(snip)
|
|
|
| |
|
Quasimodo
|
Mar 30 2011, 03:21 PM
Post #78
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,127
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
From plaintiffs' motion in JUNE 2008
- Quote:
-
The Plaintiffs in this case are the three innocent young men who were arrested, indicted, and publicly vilified on false charges of rape, first-degree sexual assault, and kidnapping in the Duke Lacrosse Case in 2006. Although this case has been pending for more than eight months,
discovery has yet to begin because the City of Durham and other Defendants have refused to confer with Plaintiffs as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
These Defendants effectively have granted themselves an indefinite stay of discovery in contravention of Rule 26(f)’s express requirement that parties confer and commence discovery “as soon as practicable” after a complaint is filed.
Defendants have made no showing that conferring with Plaintiffs is not “practicable,” nor can they satisfy the heavy burden necessary to justify a stay of discovery. Their refusal to permit discovery risks the loss of critical evidence as memories fade and witnesses relocate. Their refusal also will improperly and unnecessarily prolong this proceeding in violation of the policies of the Federal and Local Rules
THAT WAS NEARLY THREE YEARS AGO!
There is NOTHING complex about deciding the SINGLE, SIMPLE question of whether or not the plaintiffs have alleged adequate grounds for their cases to proceed to the next step, discovery.
There never has been anything complex about this--this must be one of the most SIMPLE cases brought before the bench--Nifong's is even ripe for summary judgment, since NO QUESTIONS of FACT or LAW are involved.
Don't the plaintiffs deserve better than this, and doesn't Justice require something BETTER than this?
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|